Search results

Just a comment that we hired someone because of her opinion not Robins. Ive seen this sort of thing play out in organisations with new brooms and it never ends well. I wouldn’t be surprised to see this be Robins last season and personally I trust Robins who has actually achieved things in the...

Hes the figurehead for the club. By your logic we shouldn’t have complained why Orange Ken was on the bench because technically he was in charge and not Slade or whoever it was.

If she’s the one appointing staff over Robins: yes.

I think you’re confusing responsibility and actually doing the work. Robins doesn’t wash the kit. That’s the kit man. But if the kit washing keeps getting fucked up and Robins doesn’t do anything about it that’ on Robins as manager. Have any of you been in a management position before? Can’t...

“a say” Kids in a school have a say in which teachers are hired, but they don’t make any decisions. That’s on the head. This isn’t some crazy idea that management requires a manager to have responsibility. Someone has to be in charge. If it’s her then fair enough but she should be doing the...

Ultimately there’s one person in charge. If she says yes and Robins says no, who wins out? Whoever that is is in charge and should shoulder the responsibility.

And if they have three and lose their job, what? Suck one back up for a bit? Pushing kids into poverty as some punishment for their parents moral failings just costs more in crime and healthcare and everything else later on. It’s cutting off your nose to spite your face.

It’s nothing to do with her being a woman. The point is Robins will get the sack if we do badly, so he should be top dog as the buck stops with him. If she’s making decisions above Robins then if they don’t work out I expect her and not Robins to be sacked.

I mean this is true. The importance is the first Kings Speech of the govt being voted against. If you don’t support the platform for govt you got elected on then why you’re in the party is a fair question. And the vote would have had zero impact. It was a nuisance amendment designed to do what...

The response has generally been “give us a minute to figure out how to pay for it and we’ll drop it” from day one. The SNP and the Left know this and are using it as a wedge, Starmer is acting ridiculously and using this as some kind of loyalty marker.

He’s there for the tech industry and no doubt comes with hundreds of millions of dollars so I can’t see him changing.

That’s the bit I want to reply to yeah. The idea that it’s related to vote share or whatever is silly. Electorally the two child limit is a popular policy sadly. You’re confusing your wishes with the electorate.

You guys are really going to have to get past the number of votes thing. It’s really silly.

even me 🤣

Think the King Speech is a touch different Clint

What? Voting down SNP amendments?

I look forward to the Robberts Out posts when we go through a rough patch.

He had to suspend them for voting against the Kings Speech, but the way the whole thing has been handled has been a shambles. It really should have been accounted for from the start. It wasn’t exactly an unknown policy.

Said it before. He needs to learn the difference between governing and campaigning. Can’t do this for four years.

Genuinely the best one yet