pink_triangle
-
Posts
18,203 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by pink_triangle
-
-
3 hours ago, thetime said:
There's no getting away from the fact he has only won 1 title. Even throughout his managerial career he has only won 3 over a 23 year career and 1 champions league. I'm sure Klopp would of liked 5 titles at 74 points, rather than 1 at 90 points.
That's a poor return, for people to claim he is an all time great manager. That should be for the likes of paisley, fergie, capello, mourinho etc etc. The greats win titles, year in year out. They find a way to conquer new challenges and rise to it.
One manager that is underrated is Ancelotti, now that guy is an all time great.
Although for balance he has never had the top wage budget. I don’t even know if he was ever top 3 in England.
-
21 hours ago, Neil said:
what you gonna do when the money runs out? - revert to Wrexham's normal.
Wrexhams normal when I was a teenager was a mid table league one side. A dodgy owner took over and tried to destroy the club and we took nearly 20 years to recover. We are now back to where we were before the leech arrived.When the money runs out im hoping we have all 4 sides of the ground open, a new training ground , a decent youth setup and a new generation of fans. When I grew up all the kids (apart from weirdos like me) supported Liverpool, Man U and Everton, the kids are now supporting Wrexham. Not sure how long the ride will last, so just going to enjoy it.
-
1
-
-
After watching Wrexham for 35 years and seeing 2 promotions, that has doubled to 4 in the space of 2 seasons. No better feeling for a lower league football fan, looking forward to league 1.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Joey Peeps said:
Starmer says to change it back! Labour really are courting the gammon community as much as possible aren't they.
Is this a gammon thing?? If they changed the colours of the Welsh flag I would be disappointed.
-
12 hours ago, steviewevie said:
Looks like someone trying to get likes, retweets and attention. He would be happy if labour were in opposition forever if they said everything he agreed with. That’s fine for a privileged guardian journalist.
-
It’s a problem with the system that doesnt allow candidate replacement. However this may be good for labour, they may have lost anyway and can now say it was because they didn’t have a candidate. I’m sure Rochdale will come back in the next election.
-
6 minutes ago, steviewevie said:
unless it's Reform who have no MPs at moment...
Probably just call themselves independent reform mp.
-
1 hour ago, Ozanne said:
Sadly not, constituents can only force a by-election via a recall petition in very specific circumstances such as a suspension of more than 10 days. Switching parties isn’t one of those reasons. It’s pretty silly.
If changing parties caused a by-election the MP would just unofficially switch and vote with the new party, it would make no practical difference.
-
44 minutes ago, steviewevie said:
I don't know...if you're in a party then really you're expected to vote with that party, right?
It's why it's a bit unfair to judge MPs by their voting record, they might not actually be voting for things they agree with all the time.
The reality is most of these won the seat because of their rosette and not individual talent. I suspect if everyone voted the way they wanted nothing would get done. If you want to vote how you choose stand as an independent and see how far you get.
-
48 minutes ago, steviewevie said:
ok...but when he is supposed to be representing all members, not in opposition to them...and 80 of them want him gone.
And if you step back and look at what happened...SNP had their opposition day, they only get 3 a year...which yes you could accuse them of playing party politics with the Gaza situation, but also it is an important global issue that resonates here, and it is their right to do what they want with this opposition day whether it's point scoring or not...and then Hoyle who was a Labour MP, allowed the Labour amendment so basically making it Labour's opposition day.
Now this was apparently because he wanted to give all sides a go for such an important issue which is nonsense really...but also he was concerned for MPs safety which isn't nonsense but does give in to those who are posing threats, and maybe just makes things worse? Or he wanted to save Starmer a big problem with loads of his MPs voting for the SNP motion.
So, he apologised, and told SNP he would give them their debate/vote on Gaza....and then suddenly said actually he wouldn't. It is kind of wtf.
I know he went eventually, but what was the tipping point for Bercow? Must have been way more than 80.
-
4 minutes ago, steviewevie said:
well they had their own opposition day, so they aren't nothing...and Hoyle is supposed to represent all members. Anyway, vote for him to go as reached 80 now so it isn't just SNP MPs.
From memory no government ministers and no MPs from the opposition. If it stays this way Hoyle will be fine. I don’t think a coalition with SNP working with right wing Tory’s will be enough.
-
7 hours ago, LJS said:
Kind of the "English" parliament to oblige.
Maybe if the SNP prioritised being productive instead of setting traps for labour the situation could have been avoided, but knowing what sells at home they chose to play politics.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, steviewevie said:
yeah, but he might just quit.
I think your overestimating the influence of the SNP.
-
41 minutes ago, steviewevie said:
they don't have the power to get rid of him, but can he carry on when one the parties, the 3rd opposition want him gone...are they always going to be bringing this up and undermining him? I don't know, maybe he will stay and ride it out, just can't see it.
I think if the government and opposition are happy for him to stay in position, he stays in position. I doubt the SNP politicians are really that bothered, they just want something to scream about at home.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, steviewevie said:
Well ok...but also don't think the SNP are going to let this go so not sure how long Hoyle can carry on if one party has lost confidence in him.
SNP want to be able to write on their leaflets that the English parliament is rigged against them. I honestly don’t believe they have the power to get rid of a speaker.
-
2 hours ago, steviewevie said:
Hoyle says no to another Gaza ceasefire debate thing and Stephen Flynn says get tae f**k.
I dont have a clue where he stands in terms of parliamentary protocol, but if it’s just about SNP playing political games with no chance of influencing the situation, this seems sensible.
-
7 hours ago, Neil said:
not happy with one disaster......
The SNP says it will push for another Commons debate on Gaza following the chaotic vote on the conflict on Wednesday.
It doesn’t seem the best use of parliamentary time. I think we know where the parties stand and also know it won’t have any impact on government policy or the conflict instead. It also looks like it won’t be as easy for the SNP to make political capital out of the conflict which was their main purpose last week.
-
1 minute ago, steviewevie said:
yeah, SNP definitely playing party politics...but then they have a right to be pissed off that their opposition day was effectively taken away from them. Whole thing is sh*tty really.
So is it contentious to say the SNP were using this tragic situation to try and gain political advantage?
-
5 hours ago, LJS said:
Alternatively, they put forward a motion that is entirely consistent with what they have been saying for months. If that caused problems for Labour, I would suggest Labour's indefensible position had a lot to do with that.
The sulking does not look good and I believe they would be better concentrating on the fact that they finally forced Labour into a position where they had to do the right thing and support a ceasefire.
So what's worse your contentious allegation of the SNP using "the deaths of people for their political advantage" or Labour's postion of condoning the deaths of these people?
The motion could have been worded differently and still consistent with what they had been saying . Your not naive enough to think this wording just comes by random.
The sulking to me shows where the priorities are. They are working with the right wingers because the speaker wouldn’t let them get one over their main rivals. Maybe they think it will look good on their election material if they can say they forced out the English speaker.
I don’t think it is contentious to say the bill was aimed at causing difficulty for labour, that has been the view of every single political commentator I have heard. I think only the SNP have stated this is not the case! At the end of the day politicians play politics, I know in the past you say SNP didn’t, but when the kool aid wore off a bit I think you reversed that review.
In terms of whose view is better/worse then that has to be discussed in the perspective that neither view has made any difference to governmental policy or what actually happens in terms of their being a ceasefire. At least labour are thinking ahead to a time where they may have some influence, I think SNP accept they have no influence so can say what they want.
-
3 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:
Conversations maybe but what if the conversation was as is being reported which is 'do as we say or we withdraw support for you as speaker' - surely you can't think that is okay
Even Hoyle is admitting he made a mistake.
I think a lot more goes on behind closed doors than we realise. I suspect you have people lobbying the speaker all the time, it’s just you don’t hear about it.
I have very little sympathy for the SNP MPs as they were attempting to use this tragic situation to their political advantage. Of course there is the argument that if the SNP want to use the deaths of people for their political advantage that’s their right under the democratic system they have in place.
-
1 hour ago, steviewevie said:
I remember a few years ago thinking Truss was just a bland, run of the mill generic Tory, at what stage did she go batshit crazy?
-
8 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:
True to an extent but on the other hand parliamentary convention was broken and it looks very dodgy. Labour have got away with one and if they have put pressure on the speaker then that's outrageous no?
This is politics and the speaker is elected by politicians. I think it would be naive to think conversations don’t go on behind closed doors.
-
The SNP had the chance to speak to labour and put together a wording that both sides could support. Instead they chose to put together a bill to try and pit themselves against Tory’s and labour, giving them something to put on their election material and trying to cause problem for their main rival. They are now sulking because their political game didn’t pay off and it’s hard to have sympathy.
-
20 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:
There is always a non party political response available but the main parties just play games so much that they seem to have forgotten how to negotiate and compromise and instead the default is ridicule and belittle
There are non political game responses , but in this case I’m not sure what was available once SNP had intentionally set the wording to cause issues for labour.
However as I have said previously for all the political drama yesterday will likely make no impact on Israel/Hamas or the average voter in this country.
Football 2023/24
in Discussions
Posted
FA cup replays scrapped. The big clubs get their own way to the detriment of the smaller again