Rayvin

Be interesting to see that actually. He's on something like £300k/week isn't he? Hard to imagine him stepping down to around £100k/week (which I suspect is at the upper limits of what Everton could afford) but it'd be a refreshing statement if he did.

Hell of a paycut to go back to Everton...

Aye, Rooney being off to China in the summer effectively ends his chance.

If he continues this kind of form, Real Madrid will just come in and buy him away. Don't think we've too much to worry about in this day and age.

Based on quality maybe, but circulation is another matter...

Ahhh yes. That makes total sense actually. Fair enough.

who is he asking to do his well wishing there?

I agree 100% about this being ideological. Sorry to hear of the continuing frustration and difficulty. At least your partner has you to fight her corner.

Trust in the media has been on a consistently downward trend for years. They're in trouble. Trump is a liar but to be honest, I've seen the media shit stir and mislead so much over Trump and indeed before him that I'm not prepared to trust them either. I'm just going to do my own research wherever possible.

Which bit? The bit about them being on the ropes? Trust in them is at an all time low, people are getting news from other (less reliable) sources, and the US presidency has taken a strong line on them.

I just meant in terms of their ideologies. And also dwindling circulations. Have to say mind, I'm surprised the daily mail was kept out...

I think he wants the press to acquiesce rather than to ban them outright. Which isn't really better of course but I don't see how he could get anywhere near outright banning the press. He won't get them to acquiesce either. The media do appear to be on the ropes these days though.

What did the BBC do?

Nigel Farage is speaking at CPAC at the moment. Live on Youtube for anyone who fancies throwing up.

It does. But I'm not sure why we're so keen to avoid talking about all those new voters. They swung the thing. Cameron's gamble as you've set it out there actually would have worked had they not been involved. Corbyn's Labour along with the Lib Dems and Greens would have been enough to take it the right way. Either way, the upshot as Renton noted, is that Labour are paying the price for it.

Well in that case I agree with it more given how the Tories split went, but everyone appears to have accepted that this looks about right for them...? EDIT - (on your edit) as ever, I find myself frustrated that no one can prove anything to me. I just get told that I'm talking rubbish and that the reasons are self-evident. If comparing percentages isn't as comprehensive as I'd think, what metric would be?

I moved into the numbers because Alex compared Labour's performance to the SNP, which I don't think holds up as an argument in this case given how Scotland voted. I'll check out the podcast I guess...

I thought he was out for six matches??

He is anti-establishment but as I've covered before, Brexit became the anti-establishment 'movement'. Whether or not Corbyn could have been is now irrelevant, the chance was missed and Brexit was the thing people lashed out with.

My figures come from the BBC, from Lord Ashgate's polling... that's straight from the most 'reliable sources' surely. In what way are they questionable? Because it looks like they're just inconvenient. A small swing of 6% (for Labour) would have brought us equal. Is that a small swing? I don't think it is. And that's just equal. To be as 'convincing' as the out vote, it would have needed to be 13%. On Copeland we agree. He has to go and I'm sure he will soon. Then Labour can collapse into nothing with some grace. Just to put it concisely - My contention is that no other leader would have gotten Labour to a 75:25 pro Remain vote, based on the evidence across the other parties, that would have been needed to reverse this result. I don't even think they'd have managed 70:30. And further, that the 2.8 million people who 'turned' the result against Remain, were voting due to the political failures of those who had come before.

I also want to stress - I know Corbyn has to go, and that his movement simply hasn't worked. But to suggest that we're here on the cusp of leaving the EU because of him is just delusional - it ignores the whole reason we're in this mess, the whole reason Corbyn was even elected, and the whole reason that Trump was just elected in the US. This is not something specific to the UK. People are pissed, the centre has failed to provide answers or solutions, and is being torn apart. The harder we ignore this and bury our heads in the sand, the longer it's going to continue. Can I ask honestly - what do you think is going to happen when Corbyn goes? We elect a new leader and then what? We go back to the way things were? The centre left re-organises and suddenly is able to offer a compelling vision that it previously couldn't? I think you're counting on the hope that people get tired of resisting the status quo and just settle back down again and choose the least bad option.

A swing of that proportion would have taken Labour to 70% - or increased the proportion amongst the other parties to ridiculous levels. And on that, why aren't the other party leaders any less culpable? I would counter that your desperation to condemn him is ridiculous and as far as I can see, entirely unsubstantiated. Yes his performances were weak - but it doesn't appear that it made any difference. The numbers just don't add up, we were shot down not because the people who should have voted Remain didn't - but because the people who were severely pissed off with the system voted Leave. I can't fully explain where the 3.8m people voting UKIP came from, but it seems fair to suggest they're made up of both ex-Tories and ex-Labour. The 2.8m who had never voted before had been failed by the entire establishment. This is why I say that this was an anti-establishment movement. That 2.8m took us out of Europe. Why the fuck had they been left behind? Whose fault was that? In one year, what could any Labour party leader have done? Especially since they were all parroting austerity. I suspect the UKIP voters are anti-establishment too given what they were coming out with about experts and so on.

Just some further observations because I'm having a quiet afternoon: 1. 96% of UKIP voters voted for Brexit. That's 3,726,000 people. They were lost by Labour before Corbyn - without them, Remain would have won in a landslide. 2. An extra 3m people voted in the referendum who didn't vote at all last time. We don't know which way they voted, but I suspect they were 'disaffected'. We have established that Corbyn failed to motivate the young, considered to be Remainers, to vote. So this 3m can't be made up of young people (unless he actually did motivate the young). But then this group has to be made up of another demographic - one that by most measures, I would think, would vote Leave. Disaffected, financially struggling, 'my vote doesn't mean anything' kinds of people. Corbyn stood no more chance with these people than any other Labour leader would have - Miliband couldn't get them out for the 2015 election, why would Corbyn fare any better at bringing them onside in the Brexit vote? 3. Number of people brought forward by each party to the Remain side, based on how people voted in the GE: Labour 5.9m people Tories 4.8m people Lib Dems 1.7m people SNP 1m people By my reckoning, to bring the result to an absolute 50:50, Labour would have needed 70% instead of 63% (the same as the Lib Dems achieved) of their voters to go for Remain. Far outstripping the performance of the SNP. To actually win it, they would need to hit at least 71%, and to reverse the result altogether, they'd need to be at 76%. Taking them past the Greens. The failure of Labour with Brexit happened long before Corbyn was on the scene. Unless you're someone who thinks that Labour, with its working class roots, should be out performing the Lib Dems and equalling the Greens, in a vote such as this. Corbyn achieved about what he should have, if you can say he had an impact at all. He managed about what the SNP did. EDIT - this piece of analysis suggests that the 'new voters' went to Brexit for the most part. Again, how are the votes of the previously disaffected Corbyn's fault? Between them and UKIP, that's over 6m votes. The slope of the fit line implies that a one-vote increase in turnout almost equals a one-vote increase in the "leave" vote. In other words, the net impact of the 2.8 million extra votes was entirely to the benefit of the Brexiters. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-04/the-2-8-million-non-voters-who-delivered-brexit

Scotland voted to stay in the EU with a split of 62:38. Labour voters went 63:37. EDIT - just to go like for like, 36% of SNP voters went for Brexit. http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/