Rayvin

He's in a pretty diverse fucking team as well. How will his comments go down with his colleagues? Absolute knacker. Who was he being knob to? Do we know yet?

It's just that he fights the man, really. Forces their shit into the spotlight. As a character I'd broadly agree, but as a pain in the arse to governments everywhere, he should be praised.

Oh ffs. Why on earth would any footballer do something like that in this day and age.

I think it's too late for Sanders to be of any use, he's being seen as a sell-out now. The framework I meant was Neoliberalism, just trying to mix it up a bit I think if Trump loses badly, the GOP might manage to do what you've proposed. But if he doesn't, if it's close, then this is going to rumble on unresolved. What we really need is someone on the left to come along with policies that speak past identity politics (which the left has found itself ridiculously hamstrung with) and just talks about improving things for people of all genders, races and creeds - someone rational, credible, and with left wing values. That person, I think, would obliterate the centre and the right. Instead though, we're getting a total idiot, and a dyed in the wool Neoliberal, the former who can see the perverseness of the system and who is capitalising on it with a load of standard right wing xenophobia and bigotry, and the latter who either can't see it's failings or who just doesn't care. Either way, it'll be Clinton, so we'll get to see if I'm right or wrong one way or another.

So your view is that she'll put in charge a progressive Justice, and will tax the wealthy more - and that this will stem the tide of populism. Fair enough... not convinced I have to say Thinking about it, I'm not sure what she could possibly do within the framework she adheres to.

Does that not sound like all the same nonsense we normally get, and which makes absolutely no difference though? Is it just that I'm too jaded to see the benefit here? Will those things be enough to bring the Trump backers back from the brink?

Nice

Can't wait for the Mail's take on that

That reminds, me, I made this graph measuring attendance against success the other day. Just thought it was worth setting out here...

Yeah I thought it lacked for tables as well. Maybe a space issue.

Yep, good analysis. Makes sense. I gathered from the comments in that article that this kind of thing is done quite a bit in US sport. Interesting to see it applied to the PL.

Let's be honest, who here hasn't wondered that from time to time?

Shit like this is exactly why Brexit caught the establishment cold. Bet they wish Toblerone had come out with this bombshell the day before the referendum...

Thought HF might appreciate this How the PL table would look if you took into consideration, and scored appropriately for, which teams have played harder opposition and which teams had goals that were against the run of play and therefore not justified: https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2016/nov/08/premier-league-table-liverpool-top-burnley-west-ham Burnley move up to 6th, West Ham would be bottom.

He does indeed I've just finished it. Well worth the listen, and interesting to hear about the more systemic problems facing American voters. Agree with his stance on tactical voting as well.

It's not looking like power is going to have much of a choice at this rate. They'd have to start changing democratic structures wouldn't they? If they can't control through the MSM, which is certainly losing its influence, then how else can they keep people from voting against them?

Fully agree on the toxic implications of the word socialism in the US. That's really unfortunate. However, they do now seem to have cultural marxism taking root, and that's a fascinating development. Almost a re-brand. Obviously that's an identity politics term, but still, it's taken hold, even in the US. The whole reason Neoliberalism is so successful is because it spans the globe though, so yes, I can see your point about countries existing in isolation. They govern the world through trade agreements, international governmental bodies and organisations like the IMF and World Bank. This prevents against any single country derailing the process. However, they seem to have failed citizens in so many countries at once, that these international organisations are beginning to lose their clout. The UK (and let's be honest, we must be one of the most reliable, most predictable and least reactionary countries from a Neoliberal perspective) delivered a blow earlier this year that by all accounts, they totally didn't expect. Now the US is on the brink. France, the Netherlands, Austria, etc are all in the grip of a rise in the hard right. But similarly, people moved to the left - Labour is the biggest political party in Europe and as much as you may think they're totally off the radar as far as the British public go, it's demonstrable proof that more and more people are looking for change. I would suggest that the more we support the left, the better for all of us.

If all of that is true, then you agree with my view on Neoliberalism. You're just not using the label. I can't really see a way forward either, with the exception of technological regression which is obviously totally undesirable. When you talk about globalism and the loss of heavy manufacturing, you're talking about things that occurred due to Neoliberalism. Same for wealth inequality. Even a violent solution wouldn't be a solution... I don't think, anyway. But to be fair, I don't think it'll come to violence - we're a way from that yet. I think the establishment will lose (not because I want it to, but because the demographics aren't stacked in its favour anymore when you take identity politics out of it). The bigger vision, if there is one, needs to be a lurch back to the left, towards socialism, to reign in the excesses of the Neoliberals. I think there's a happy medium somewhere but we're way too far away from it at the moment. The centre moved too far right, and needs to be hauled back. Hence, as much as you don't like him, Corbyn (or someone with his politics) is the much better alternative. It's going to be people like him or Trump (indirectly, and probably through unifying the left and the centre once more) that steer us back. It won't come from the 'centre'.

Thanks, I'll give it a listen over lunch.

Two viewpoints I entirely agree with. HF's view actually being fully identical to my own in terms of the perils of the establishment continuing to ignore populist anger.

On a slightly different note, for those of you who don't think like me, what do we expect the outcome of a Hillary election will be? I guess this is aimed at Gloom and Renton; how do you think she will bring about the progressive change that will satisfy the apparently quite large number of people in the States who have had enough of the system?