jimsleftfoot

1 hour ago, NewBlue said:

 

Really? I'd say the standard shield template with animal is painfully generic in new designs, or at least that's the impression I get. Everton resisted a similar design to us fairly recently.

 

Our badge is not very objectionable because there's really not much to it.

Can't disagree as per basic template, but the owl on our badge (old and new) has always had personality, rather than say just being an owl symbol.

The new badge in particular, whether it is likeable is one thing but it does stand out. As 4-4-2 mentions, its definitely giving evils!!

As much I prefer the old badge, the new badge is better than most. Badges tend to be boring and if anything it's quirky.

3 hours ago, NewBlue said:

 

Cracking up at the promotion bonus from a club which hasn't gone up for 25 years. A grand a year without promotion.

 

Must say though, what I saw of Rowe when he was at Droylsden, I'd have never thought he'd make it at league level. Then again I never thought he'd be scoring so many even at Fylde's level. Not too disappointed we've been knocked back.

I've seen him play for Fylde a few times, he's got an amazing shot and decent skills but lacks movement. There's a good chance he'd struggle at League 1 level.

Previously, Fylde's owner said they would turn down £500k for him, so I think we've fallen a bit short.

We are by and far the best at being strong and stable, no boom or bust for us thanks!!

http://www.latetacklemagazine.com/features/1646/oldham-and-ipswich-are-quite-happy-where-they-are-thanks/

11 minutes ago, HarryBosch said:

 

The £100k floor should be better than the £72k cap, however, it's more complicated than that

 

Can we all agree that, at least where residential care is concerned, this is all better than the existing policy that, I think, Labour brought in? 

It's more progressive as taxes go. But its pretty harsh to those with a bit of wealth, doesn't say a lot about saving Vs spending. Also you get taxed on in home care which will ramp the bills up.

For me, depends on whether there is a cap.

5 minutes ago, HarryBosch said:

 

The £100k is a floor.

 

£72k was/is the cap (but only for certain parts of the care) which, I think, no reference to keeping or removing was made in the manifesto..

 

May is now saying there will be a cap, and that there was always going to be ("nothing has changed") but not what it will be and not whether the £72k was going to go or not go....

 

Either way, this still looks advantageous for the families of working class pensioners but - provided you believe this was a "U-turn" - maybe not so advantageous for people actually needing social care as far less money will be raised. 

 

If you do believe there wasn't going to be a cap Labour and the media have given the familes of wealthy/wealthier pensioners a bonus and reduced the amount that will be raised (via this method) to actually be spent on social care....

£72k cap was proposed as part of the Social Care act and was due to be enacted in 2016, delayed until 2020. It was also part of their 2015 manifesto.

No mention of this or any cap within current manifesto, though the £100k floor was.

They are now saying that there was going to be a cap, not sure what it is.

George Osborne has called it a U-Turn.

On 18/05/2017 at 1:47 PM, HarryBosch said:

I think Labour's biggest problem is that very few people recognise this miserable existence they're going to rescue us all from...

 

 

It's extremely apparent in the centre of Manchester. The amount of homeless people on the streets has increased significantly in the last few years. I'm not talking about second hand figures either, it's clearly visible.

My sister in law works in Social Housing. Its not a particularly nice job to work in given the lack of such housing available. 

Although I seem to be ok I know some colleagues who are facing redundancy on the back of Brexit and the Tories nonsensical policy of reducing student immigration (you want to trade with the world, let's stop a very good income stream and then pretend that immigration has been cut, when they would have gone home anyway). 

On 18/05/2017 at 2:44 PM, HarryBosch said:

 

I thought I'd read they were pledging an extra £4bn for education?

 

 

Do you know that they are changing the funding formula for Schools and many will lose out as a result (often in the North strangely enough). My wife's school is looking to cut staff as a result. 

I'm not sure on the details exactly but I have a strong feeling the 'extra' money is actually filling a whole they had already created so will not be extra at all. In fact I've just read an article that suggests in real terms, it could actually be a reduction (and with a 4 year old and 4 month old, affects me again).

35 minutes ago, frizzell54 said:

 

Since when did any government deliver what was promised and since when did any government not 'muck it up'?  

In fairness, you don't get to be one of the richest coutries in the world by mucking up. 

Though perhaps that's more a plus for the Tories than Labour.

Sweden are an example of where it can work, but whether Sweden can work for the UK is another question entirely.

Im not Jez's biggest fan, but his policies are progressive and it sends a message that we want the government to be less Tory at least.

On 13/05/2017 at 1:39 PM, kowenicki said:

 

Policies that aren't deliverable. When you can't win, you can promise and pick populist policies that aren't properly costed and would, in fact, bankrupt the nation. The pension plans alone are insanely expensive. 

 

Extra holidays, tuition fees, hospital parking. Of course people like that. Just promise to give everyone a grand too and have done with it, the bribery would be complete. 

 

 

What if if they don't muck it up, what if they work out what they can deliver and deliver that? It seems a hell a lot better than the alternative. The Tories are increasing borrowing yet are reducing investment, particularly in non-Tory areas. 

its voting for someone who could damage the economy Vs someone who is already damaging my local economy. 

2 hours ago, Crusoe said:

 

That doesn't follow. There could be lots of reasons we haven't been nuked. The deterrent effect of having our own nuclear weapons is only one possibility.

I agree there here could be lots of reasons. Doesn't matter, that is the one intention and it has been successful. 

Arguably Ireland doesn't need nukes as GB, US and France all have them.

3 hours ago, singe said:

 

For me, our nuclear deterent does not seem to have done much deterring.
ISIS certaintly are not scarred, because they know we are almost certaintly never going to use it on a whole area.
I don't think wars are played out at sea much, it seems bombing is the way to go.
Also we need to spend more combatting the couple of attacker strikes like the Westminster attacks.

At the moment, we are not even beholden to the least worst, it's to Russia's newest subserviant nation....

It's primarily supposed to be a deterrent against other nuclear nations being able to nuke us i.e. if you fire a missile at us, we're taking you down with us. Therefore it's had a 100% success rate up to now.

1 hour ago, blueatheart said:

And some have brand new iPhones, Sky TV, fags in their pockets and beer in their fridges.

 

In my mind, this is in part down to the want it now = need it now. People drink and smoke too much and are left without enough money to put food on the table. People have heating on with the windows open and leave electrical devices on all day. It is symptomatic of the culture we live in. Its why people are struggling with the NHS, they have the slightest issue and need to be seen by A&E, NOW! I've been there and I've seen it. I've got a cold, I can't get into the GP, I'll go to A&E. There are issues with the healthservice and there are genuine people who need food banks but a hell of a lot comes down to the culture of this country now.

 

 

 

I agree, it has a lot to do with our culture. For example, making credit more freely available inevitably results in some people getting into more debt?

22 hours ago, Magister said:

I voted remain and I agree with you that PR would probably have delivered remain. However that begs a very interesting hypothetical question. Would PR therefore have given priority to the views of the 48% over those of the 52% in much the same way as it is argued that FPTP favours a minority

21 hours ago, leeslover said:

I'm not sure about that. Depending on what system but with a transferable vote a lot of people might have given 1st preference to UKIP if the Labour or Tory candidates were for Remain, it would have exerted a lot of pressure on the mainstream parties

Yes i'd agree with LL. UKIP would get a larger vote (though perhaps also would have been found out) and that could have caused many mainstream MP's to back Brexit. There is a chance we could have been in a similar situation but whether a government would have wanted to be held accountable for taking us out, well...... they would have given us a referendum probably. So perhaps not remain after all!!

On the other hand our political system may have been pretty different under PR (depending on the point PR had been granted).

On 01/05/2017 at 9:33 AM, Magister said:

And all the proportional representative champions are now moaning a bucketful that referendum results are not a representation of the electorates views either

I prefer PR to FPTP and would have been more than happy for the decision whether to remain or leave, to be made by an elected government (under PR) based on their manifesto promises.

I'm fairly sure the result would have been remain.

After pondering this for many years, i'm now of the view that owners should not be punished for investing in clubs. It only serves to keep the already rich clubs where they are. Like with anything, there are cons but that's life.

On 25/04/2017 at 10:24 AM, Magister said:

Would you now like to address the question......why has the NHS under Labour Administraion in Wales performed so badly in comparison to the NHS elsewhere in the UK under different administrations

Can you demonstrate how the NHS in England is doing much better? There is an argument to say that the Tories have been quick to point out the failings in Wales, but there are plenty of examples in England of similar. Pennine Acute Trust for example? At the end of the day, the Welsh NHS is subject to Tory cuts just as much as any English NHS Trust.

I’d love for the Tories not to be in power, but that aint going to happen. Best case, I’m hoping that as May campaigned to stay in, that she’s been stringing the brexiters along to reduce their momentum. If this was intended, then well done, UKIP don’t look like much of a force and they may struggle to mobilise in the six weeks or so.

She’s respected the referendum in that article 50 has been invoked. Hopefully she will stick a few things in her manifesto to suggest a more softer Brexit, if people don’t like it they can vote against them.

As for Jez, it makes me laugh that people are sorry for someone who wants to be the leader of our Country. The fact that he cannot bring his party together and has never been able to get on the right side of the media is not an excuse, it’s a terminal failure. Though perhaps his intention was never to govern, merely to change the Labour party.

As for me, i'm voting specifically for my local Labour MP Andrew Gwynne (son of John the commentator) as I think he's pretty good locally and nationally.

2 hours ago, oafc_lover said:

 

It says one of the first. I bet we're the first to only have it on 3 sides though 

I'd say the opposite. I'm pretty sure most PL clubs only had on 3 sides until recently, as it's primarily for the TV cameras.

Valkommen Adam!!!

For people with kids, would you stop them attending the only Wembley appearance in the last 23 years?

Don't you think that it could be used as a great marketing tool to get the next generation on the band wagon? Create hope, get them/keep them hooked?

In my view the point has been proved somewhat already and given that the B Teams failed and didn't get near the final, I'd have my cake and eat it.

I'd argue that not going does more damage to your own club in terms of gate receipts anyway.... easy decision.

I remember Taylor going in at Port Vale and conceding a pen but further back Darren Beckford vs Wolves? and he kept a clean sheet. I posted a pic of him in the keeper kit on twatter not long ago..

I remember we got a penalty against Wolves and everyone wanted Beckford to take it, but Sharp wouldn't let him. On loan Gerry Creaney stepped up... and missed.

I watched fight club around 2000 and I liked the bit where he makes reference to 'I am Jack's...' at various point (I'm jack's Medulla Oblongata, I'm jack's colon, I am jack's inflamed sense of rejection) and used that as the basis of my username for JKL (and now OWTB)...

I'm Jim's Left Foot.

In hindsight, I should have gone for Jimseverincreasingsenseofdespair

Absolute terrible news mate, sorry to hear. I wish you and your family all the best!!

Having clicked through the link, I'm pretty sure it's not. Still think it's bollocks though. Corney has 140k sitting in his personal bank account? And he does bank transfers in the bank? Nah.

It would be easier to satisfy and security checks in person.