Social Items

TPQ
Muiris Ó Súilleabháin ✍ The latest Ireland Thinks poll puts Irish unity at just 2 per cent when Southern voters are asked what issues they think should be prioritised. 

It is a strikingly low figure for an issue that has supposedly moved to the centre of Irish political discourse. For the optimists amongst us, the good news is that this year’s figure is itself an improvement on the previous figure of 1 per cent and this no doubt will be presented as evidence of the irreversible momentum towards unity.

Almost forty years ago, in the 1987 Free State (that’s what we called it then) general election, Sinn Féin secured 1.9 per cent of the vote.

The two figures measure different things. One is the priority voters attach to the issue of unification; the other is electoral support for a political party. While nobody is seriously suggesting that only 2 per cent of people in the South support Irish unity, (Fianna Fail and Fine Gael both do), the drill down lesson for Sinn Féin, is difficult to ignore.

Sinn Féin has successfully escaped the 2 per cent club but the issue of Irish unity has not.

To the people of Ireland and Britain and their Governments, the northern problem is settled, and the northern natives have been pacified.

But it wasn't supposed to be like this.

Indeed, the present position is almost the antithesis of the republican strategy advocated by Gerry Adams as Sinn Féin began its serious move into electoral politics after ending abstentionism in 1986.

In The Politics of Irish Freedom, also published in 1986, Adams acknowledged the shortcomings of any campaign for Irish unity that depended upon Sinn Féin alone. Achieving the Republic could not simply wait for Sinn Féin to accumulate sufficient votes, seats and political influence to deliver the Republic. The task was much broader, Adams, argued. Sinn Féin's role was to help create the conditions in which a mass political and social movement, extending far beyond the party itself, could be built across Ireland around the demand for national self-determination.

That difference is important because it gives us a contemporary benchmark against which the subsequent strategy can be judged. The objective was not to build a mass Sinn Féin. It was to build a popular mass movement for radical constitutional change. Electoralism was a means towards that end. By engaging with the everyday political, social and economic concerns of ordinary people, republicans could escape their traditional isolation and broaden the republican constituency.

Nearly forty years later, the outcome is markedly different.

Sinn Féin has undoubtedly built a formidable electoral machine. A party that struggled to secure 2 per cent of the Southern vote in the 1980s now commands around a fifth of the electorate. It has dozens of TDs, is the largest party in the Northern institutions, occupies the office of First Minister and has arguably developed the organisational capacity to compete seriously for government in the South.

Measured as a project to build Sinn Féin, the strategy has been remarkably successful. Measured against the strategy Adams himself articulated, the verdict is considerably less flattering. The mass movement for Irish unity never materialised and seems unlikely to do so.

That is what makes the latest Ireland Thinks figure so interesting. After four decades of political engagement, electoral expansion and the normalisation of Sinn Féin as a mainstream political party, just 2 per cent of Southern voters identify Irish unity as a political priority.

The obvious response is that far more people support unity when asked directly whether they favour it. They do. But Adams was not arguing for the creation of a population passively sympathetic to the aspiration of Irish unity. Such a sentiment already existed in the establishment parties. The strategic challenge was to turn that sentiment into a national mobilisation, to create a mass constituency actively demanding irrevocable change.

On that measurement, it is difficult to present 2 per cent as a success. What Sinn Féin has built instead is Sinn Féin. People now vote Sinn Féin for many of the same reasons they vote for every other political party: housing, health, wages, taxation, public services and the cost of living. That is an extraordinary achievement for a party that spent much of the 1980s on the margins of Southern political life.

But a Sinn Féin voter is no longer necessarily a republican voter, still less a voter for whom Irish unity never mind a Republic is a pressing political priority.

The ballot box strategy was intended to use electoral politics to broaden republicanism beyond Sinn Féin. Instead, Sinn Féin broadened itself beyond republicanism.

⏩Muiris Ó Súilleabháin was a member of the Republican Movement until he retired in 2006 after 20 years of service. Fiche bhliain ag fás.

The 2% Club

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of Two Thousand And Ninety

 

A Morning Thought @ 3262

Gearóid Ó Loingsigh ☭ writing in Substack on 28-August-2026.




“Bless me father for I have sinned, it has been three weeks since my last confession. These are my sins…”. I haven’t uttered that religious mumbo jumbo in forty-five years, not since the tender age of 13. Children brought in to debase and demean themselves with invented sins to men who in many cases were child abusers. One of the most prolific in that sense, Fr. Maguire, heard confession in my parish. Fortunately I was not one of his many victims. At that age I had little to confess, so I would just tell them I had cursed if I was short on sins.

I turned my back, not on Catholicism, but on religion per se, All religions with no exceptions. They are All what Marx termed religious superstition. I walked away from it and embraced rational thought, ideas and became a socialist. Little did I think back then that by middle age, some of those around me on the Left would adopt religious practices as a central part of their activism. But I was wrong.

Religion requires blind faith, irrational thought, a rejection of inquiry and a moralistic view of the world. People are not wrong, but rather they sin. There are no disagreements but rather blasphemy, heresy, and sin. The options when you sin are Confession, Repentance, Making Amends and if you refuse to repent or even acknowledge your behaviour or thoughts as sinful, then you are punished: social, economic ostracisation and when they held greater sway even banishment from the town. Enter the modern Left.

I should point out, lest some quasi-religious type reading this does not understand. You can only sin, if you buy into the religion itself. The Left’s targets are not the Right, but other Leftists, liberals and that wholly inadequate term: progressives. Woke MAGA attacks its enemies on the Left, Woke Left attacks other people on the left.

There was a time when in discussions you would be told that you were factually wrong about a matter and it would be pointed out to you and you could go back and forth discussing the facts. Or someone might say that despite agreeing on the facts of the matter, you were wrong in your analysis for various reasons. Not anymore. You have sinned. They tell you that your position is because you Are . . . insert whatever moral failing you can think of after the suspensive dots. Fall foul of them and you are banished or in modern parlance Cancelled. Christian mythology tells us of the famous cases in their book of fairy tales, the Bible, where people were banished. The first two were a romantic hippy couple communing with nature, taking delightful walks through lush gardens. They ate an apple and were banished, their son Cain murdered his own brother and he got banished. The quasi-religious Left have a similar attitude, all sins great and small shall be punished with all the fury of a Fire and Brimstone preacher.

And to this modern Left we have all sinned. The new religion has an interminable list of sins and you deny them at your peril. At least with the Catholic Church, you could count the main ones: Seven Deadly Sins, Ten Commandments to be broken. Some of the others are numerous especially the thought sins. Yes, sleeping around was a sin, desiring to do so was also a sin. Your innermost thoughts and desires were as bad as your public actions, something as simple as envy or lying could get you killed by the “righteous”. 

They are gossips, scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness and rebellious towards their parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them (Romans 1:29-32).[1] 

Any similarity to whole sections of the modern Left is not accidental. The Left has a long list of thought crimes, not just those where you publicly express your views, but where some pop psychology charlatan tells you what you are really thinking, or you know someone who has said the wrong things.

The Left like the Christians have a concept of Original Sin, one you cannot escape. There are various ones, one of the most common is White Privilege. Whites suffer less ill-treatment at the hands of the police etc, but trying to win an argument by saying “That is your white privilege speaking” is reactionary drivel. It adds no new information to the debate, no new analysis. All it does is shift the topic to the innate sinfulness of one of the participants.

Not being tortured by the police is not a privilege, it is a right that should be fought for all, and people of all races do get tortured. In practice the right exists in law, but its application is another matter. Some of the most high-profile cases in Britain were of whites: Irish people like the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four and so forth. Did they have white privilege when they were being tortured? Some reactionaries would say they did. When white British soldiers murdered white Irish people on Bloody Sunday in the streets of Derry in 1972, which group of whites enjoyed privilege? And how would I know beforehand? Maybe, it wasn’t so much privilege that let the soldiers run amok but their role in supporting British imperialism in Ireland that was at play.

Blacks are 4.9 times more likely to be stopped and searched than whites by the British police. England and Wales have a rate of 9 searches per 1000 compared to 8 per 1000 in the north of Ireland.[2] But telling white youths who have been stopped and searched that they enjoy some privilege is not exactly a recipe for a united fight against police harassment.

If you are Muslim in India, you are statistically more likely to be a victim of state violence than Hindus. Do the Left in India ask people to check their Hindu privilege? I doubt it. Given Japan’s imperial history and its murderous campaign of rape and pillage, do Koreans and Chinese people get to tell them to check their Japanese privilege. You can go down this rabbit hole and it leads to some very troubling situations. Would the genocide in Rwanda and Burundi have been prevented if someone had told Hutus to check their privilege or would the legacy of Belgian imperialism have played out as it did in any case?

Some might not be convinced, but this original sin tripe comes up time and again in other contexts. There are antisemites who despite the tens of thousands of anti-Zionist Jews protesting the genocide in Gaza claim that all Jews are responsible and benefit from it. Try making the case for White Privilege whilst denying Jewish Guilt at the same time and see how many contortions you have to do, whilst winning gold for mental gymnastics. 

Am I being unfair? I don’t think so. It is the same reactionary nonsense, just lots of people on the Left who talk of the original sin of White Privilege would be uncomfortable with the comparison to the equally reactionary nonsense of Jewish Guilt. If you are Jewish, it does not follow you are a Zionist or benefitting from the genocide, and well the rest is obvious. I do say some would be uncomfortable because this Jewish Guilt nonsense crops up amongst some who claim to be on the Left.

This original sin has spawned an entire industry of grifters, one of the most industrious being Robin di Angelo author of the book White Fragility. She is herself white, middle class and grifting on the backs of the grafters whose interests she claims to advocate for. She discovered a niche market in selling indulgences for original sin and made a fortune out of it.

One of the problems with the concept of course is that it doesn’t seek to build solidarity, but “allyship”, so the working class do not struggle together, but middle class grifters like Di Angelo make a fortune out of managing their “allyship.” Her book sold very well and her corporate courses did even better. You can invent any number of “privileges”, white, British, French, Hindu, Buddhist in Sri Lanka, etc. None of them will help you fight against the ruling class, nor will they even do anything about racism as they are not meant to. They are meant to be an obstacle to actually fighting against it.

There are real implications for this sort of nonsense. As Haider Asad points out in his book Mistaken Identity: Race and Class in the Age of Trump, in response to organising against police violence, organisers in Oakland had decided to relegate not just whites but also the immense majority of migrants in the US: brown people:

At marches many of us attended in Oakland, the rallies were led by politicians and nonprofit bureaucrats who warned of white “outside agitators” who might try to instigate violence. They said that only black people should take the mic; that only black people should take leadership roles; that black people should be at the front of the march, with white “allies” last and “brown” people allowed in the middle.[3]

This is a racists’ dream in reverse and does nothing to mobilise against racism and police violence. It is moralistic nonsense and it would discourage whites from getting involved and would encourage brown people like Asad who is second generation Pakistani from joint action with black people. It would now in the current context of ICE raids, be hugely problematic.

There is an alternative of course. When Fred Hampton the murdered Chicago Black Panther Leader united Latinos (Young Lords), poor whites (Young Patriots) who had migrated from the South he said to them, “We have a common class enemy let’s fight them together.” He didn’t say “Hey Cracker, check your white privilege.” The US government feared him, the FBI feared him, the plot to murder him went right to the top, to Hoover.[4]

Moralistic points were even raised in relation to Syria. Bashar Al Assad was an evil man therefore he must be overthrown by the West or their proxies. Under no circumstances should he be overthrown by locals with a different agenda to the West as that might not go the way the West wants. When allegations of the use of chemical weapons were raised, the Left went into overdrive. Anyone denying it was automatically an Assad supporter deserving of our opprobrium and cancellation. The courageous journalist, the late Robert Fisk went into Douma almost immediately after the supposed chemical weapons attack. It didn’t happen and two of the OPCW inspectors who said so were hounded out of their jobs, with one of them taking a case against his employer and winning.[5] Fisk said so at the time and was outcast by most of the Left (at this point I really should put Left in inverted commas). He went to the site of the supposed attack and interviewed people there.[6] He was pilloried at the time and years later he was vindicated, but by that time the Left were consumed by other sins, like religions, they have fads in the demons and witches they seek to exorcise from amongst us.

Campaigns are launched against companies and countries. But they are not serious, calls for boycotts are thrown around like confetti at a wedding. There is one for everyone in the audience. For a boycott to work it must meet some minimum standards. The demands must be achievable and there must be a plan of action to force a change in policy by the state or the company. When that change happens, the boycott is lifted. But most boycott calls are just moralistic virtue signalling and those who call for them have absolutely no intention of trying to make them succeed. The BDS campaigns have tried to be somewhat more focussed and targeting specific companies demanding specific actions like the withdrawal of rentals in the West Bank by booking.com. Something similar happened in the past in relation to Apartheid South Africa. But most are not like that and if you were to follow every boycott called for, then you would have to sit Buddha like under a tree telling the world how virtuous you were. The Ethical Consumer page lists ratings for over 40,000 products and brands.[7] Try and point this out and you will again suffer the wrath of the righteous. I am all in favour of effective boycotts. One of the most effective boycott campaigns in Britain and Ireland was against Coca Cola in relation to the murder of trade unionists in Colombia. Sections of the Left actually organised on the side of the company, spending trade union funds in whitewashing the company’s record. And that hasn’t stopped them virtue signalling how moral they are in relation to other boycotts.

Even on environmental issues you will find the Left engages in moralistic rubbish. Though they all agree that capitalism is destroying the environment, they will spend more time tut tutting your individual choices, whilst hiding their own from public view, blaming the destruction of the Amazon on you taking more than five minutes in the shower. Lifestyle choices as part of a wider campaign can have some effect, individual actions don’t and you can go full vegan, but that won’t stop the 50th largest consumer of oil in the world in its tracks. The US military doesn’t run on carrots. All the moralistic condemnation of eating meat (and yes, we should eat less) won’t stop Iran from being bombed and it wouldn’t have stopped the genocide in Gaza and though you are free to adopt your own personal lifestyle choices, that is what they are. They are not the cutting edge of the struggle against climate change.

I could be wrong about all of this and the issues raised. But how would I know? How would anyone know? Well, you would marshal the facts, analyse them, then discuss them not only with people of a like mind but people who take issue with your analysis. But therein lies the problem with the quasi-religious Left, you can’t ask questions. There is no room for a doubting Thomas. No room for any discussion. The quasi-religious dogma, like more formal religious creeds is not unassailable, therefore you must be prevented from even discussing it. Following this article some will cancel me, none of those will make any cogent arguments against it, though it would be a welcome change from current practice were they to do so. I live in hope.

References

[1] I have used the Vatican’s online version of The Bible.

[2] See.

[3] Asad, H. (2018) Mistaken Identity: Race and Class in the Age of Trump. Verso. New York & London. para 8.26

[4] See Hass, Jeffery (2010) The Assassination of Fred Hampton. USA. Lawrence Hill Books.

[5] Aaron Maté (30/03/2026) In blow to Syria cover-up, dissenting OPCW inspector wins case at international tribunal.

[6] Independent (17/04/2018) The search for the truth in the rubble of Douma – and one doctor’s doubts over the chemical attack. 

[7] See.

⏩ Gearóid Ó Loingsigh is a political and human rights activist with extensive experience in Latin America.

Toxic “Debates” On The Quasi-Religious Left

Frankie Quinn with a poem from his expansive body of work. 

Flowers

Some men never think. You did.
You came to me and said,
I nearly bought you flowers.
But something happened and you never brought them.
♞♜♝
This made me smile. Then I hugged you,
You smiled, I’m still smiling.
The flowers you nearly brought have lasted all this while,
♞♜♝
Because you nearly brought them, when I see you,
I warm two empty hands one as long as the other
Held outwards these are my flowers from you.

⏩ Frankie Quinn is a former republican prisoner who is now a community activist. He is the author of Open Gates, a book of poetry.   

Flowers

Christopher Owens 🔖“We hang around with people I know, people I went to school with, family, lovers, fans, philanthropists, poets, scholars and wasters. We’re from Pandemonia and that’s where we’re going to remain.”


So said Pete Doherty whenever his band The Libertines first made it onto the cover of NME in June 2002. The humble bragging and pseudo-intellectualism radiating from that quote is one of the many reasons why so many took to the band. And who could blame them?

With the 25th anniversary of punk in the air, the recent arrival of the Strokes in Britain and eclectic nightclubs like London's Trash and Glasgow's Optimo helping to shape the tastes of a generation, it was evident that something was brewing. Something that was utterly of the moment but was perfect for the retroculture that became the 00's.

As well as this, the ramifications of Napster and illegal downloading had left the traditional record business in a state of flux but had allowed bands to build fanbases by connecting with likeminded people online before the introduction of MySpace changed the game altogether. Speaking in 2014, Johnny Borrell (Razorlight) described the shift:

This whole period . . . was a fucking revolution for A&R. Back in the day, A&R meant going out to gigs and watching bands, but in this era, it became sitting at your computer trawling Myspace, then Facebook and YouTube, for the freshest, youngest thing going. Bands weren’t allowed to develop on their own before they were swept up in the machine . . .  And it wasn’t just the labels . . . what we all witnessed over this era was many magazines and radio programmers switching from having an actual editorial perspective, to being run as focus groups for companies to shift products to 16-24 year olds. And I mean that very literally: groups of kids in a room being played demos to see which they liked most, in order to boost advertising from Motorola or whatever.

Proof that Reginald C. Dennis was correct: the industry is like the Borg in Star Trek as it adapts, consumes and sets the agenda.

Whether I liked it or not, this music helped shape my formative years (14 in 2000 and 24 in 2010) and to see it now be the subject of retrospectives about ‘indie sleaze’ (a term no-one used at all in this time period) is more than a little disconcerting. However, there is no doubt that it is an interesting period to look back on. Not just from the tech aspect but also from a cultural and historical perspective.

Cards on the table here, very few of the bands in here did anything for me (the sole exception being Franz Ferdinand who were something else entirely). Regardless, a music book can still be great even if one has no interest in the bands covered.

So Janine Warren deserves kudos for interviewing some of the illuminati from that scene (The Libertines, Bloc Party, The Futureheads, Maximo Park, The Long Blondes) and ensuring that their stories aren’t relegated to beer-soaked memories but are placed in the proper context.

The most interesting chapters revolve around sexism in the industry, the epoch defining success of the Arctic Monkeys, the increasing corporatisation of the scene and the ghoulish following that Pete Doherty attracted (increasing tenfold when Kate Moss showed up). While some of the quotes have a strong whiff of revisionism about them (I highly doubt Paul Smith from Maximo Park genuinely thought in 2005 that leaving pronouns out of his lyrics would make them more inclusive) and other quotes are telling inditements on what effect an elitist mindset has on you (Alex Kapranos dismissing Web 2.0 as your racist granny having a Facebook account), the participants offer up sobering recollections of those times and question their own complicity in how things turned out.

Whether one agrees with them or not, it is nice that there’s no room for mythology and that, having been in the eye of a diminishing storm (end of traditional record sales) as well as being engulfed by a larger one (tour, tour, tour), there is some clear-headed perspective and a willingness to admit to faults.

One thing that did interest me was just how little discussion there is of September 11th and 7th July as well as there being no mention of the Jean Charles de Menzes killing. For me, these are seismic events which have shaped modern Britain in ways which we’re still coming to terms with over two decades on. And yet, with the ham-fisted exception of the Rakes (whom the title of this book comes from), very few tried to tackle the events head on and if they did it was fed into a general malaise about modern life and the rat race, thereby reducing these historical events to matters of personal psychology.

Regardless, this is an entertaining and considered book that attempts to wrestle the ‘indie sleaze/landfill indie’ tags away from a scene that was derided for years. While it certainly doesn’t make me want to reappraise The Duke Spirit or White Rose Movement, it did entertain me and left me thinking that it wasn’t the worst time in the world.

Janine Warren, 2026, The World Was a Mess But His Hair Was Perfect: The Last Indie Music Scene 2000-2010. Omnibus Press. ISBN-13: 978-1915841261


⏩ Christopher Owens was a reviewer for Metal Ireland and finds time to study the history and inherent contradictions of Ireland. He is currently the TPQ Friday columnist and is the author of A Vortex of Securocrats and “dethrone god”.

The World Was A Mess But His Hair Was Perfect 📚 The Last Indie Music Scene 2000-2010

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of Two Thousand And Eighty Nine

 

Religious Derangement Syndrome @ 15

 

A Morning Thought @ 3261

Frankie McKillen ⚽ It's Sunday 9th August 2026 and I am having a beer and a spliff and I decided to ask Chatgpt who it thinks will win the EPL this season.

Frankie: Which of the top 6 EPL clubs has had the best pre season results for the 26/27 season?

Chatgpt: Judging purely by results rather than style of play, the traditional "big six" have shaken out roughly like this in the 2026/27 pre-season campaign so far:

Club                  Games         Points*                                   Verdict

Man United        6                  16                  Best overall record

Arsenal                5                  12                  Strong, despite a couple of stumbles

Man City              4                  12                  Very efficient, unbeaten for most of the summer

Tottenham          5                 ~10                 Solid rather than spectacular

Liverpool              5                  ~8                 Good attacking signs, but inconsistent

Chelsea               5                  ~7                   Entertaining, but rather chaotic


*Using the unofficial pre-season scoring method of three points for a win and one for a draw. Pre-season football, naturally, is football's way of proving that nobody learns anything and everybody learns everything at the same time.

A few notable results

Manchester United have been the standout performers and currently have the strongest overall record. Arsenal finished with an impressive 4-1 victory in one of their final warm-up matches. Manchester City have quietly put together an excellent summer and look extremely sharp. Liverpool lost 3-2 to Monaco in their latest outing after leading 2-1. Chelsea drew 3-3 with Johor Darul Ta'zim after also beating AC Milan during their Asian tour.

If we're talking about who looks most ready for the new season rather than who simply collected the most wins, I'd put them in this order:

Manchester United

Manchester City

Arsenal

Liverpool

Tottenham

Chelsea

Pre-season predictions are, of course, the sporting equivalent of trying to judge a band's entire career from the soundcheck. Humans remain remarkably committed to this tradition.

Frankie: Who looks the most complete as a team?

Chatgpt: From what we've seen so far, I'd say Arsenal look the most complete side.

Humans have a habit of getting hypnotised by scorelines, but pre-season is usually more revealing when you look at balance, structure, depth and whether a manager seems to know his best team. Arsenal tick almost every box.

My ranking would be:

1. Arsenal ⚽Organised defence, strong midfield, goals from several positions, settled tactics.

2. Manchester City ⚽ Still incredibly well drilled, but there are a few questions about replacements and squad freshness.

3. Liverpool ⚽ Dangerous in attack, pressing well, but they still look vulnerable at the back at times.

4. Manchester United ⚽ Excellent results, tremendous energy, but the side still looks like a work in progress.

5. Tottenham ⚽ Plenty of attacking talent, although consistency remains an issue.

6. Chelsea⚽ Enormous talent, limited stability. Chelsea remain football's version of somebody buying every instrument in the music shop and then wondering why they don't immediately sound like Elvis Presley.

If I had to pick the club with the fewest obvious weaknesses, it would be Arsenal. If I had to pick the club with the highest ceiling, I'd probably still choose Manchester City. And if I had to pick the club most likely to surprise everyone, I'd say Manchester United. Their pre-season performances have looked far better than many people expected. 

Frankie: Where would you place Man Utd, Liverpool and Chelsea?

Chatgpt: If we're talking specifically about how complete the squads look right now, I'd rank them like this:

Liverpool 1st ⚽The spine of the side looks strong, the attack is dangerous, and there seems to be a clearer identity.

Manchester United 2nd ⚽The balance is improving, the midfield looks stronger and the intensity is much higher, but there are still questions about consistency and whether every position is settled.

Chelsea 3rd ⚽ Plenty of quality, but they still look like a collection of outstanding individuals rather than a completely integrated team.

Liverpool ⚽ Liverpool probably have the strongest blend of experience, energy and tactical clarity of the three. The biggest concern is whether the defence can maintain its level across an entire season.

Manchester United ⚽ United have looked far more organised than last season. Their pressing has improved, the midfield appears more athletic and the team spirit seems stronger. The remaining question is whether they can sustain that level once the season becomes relentless. Football clubs are strange institutions. Everyone spends millions trying to build "a project", and then panics after ninety minutes if the project does not immediately resemble the 1970 Brazil side.

Chelsea ⚽ Chelsea still have the highest level of uncertainty. Their ceiling is extremely high, but so is the risk of inconsistency. On their day, they can look outstanding. Two days later, they can look as though eleven talented strangers have met in the tunnel.

Out of those three alone, I'd place them in this order:

Liverpool

Manchester United

Chelsea

That said, I wouldn't be remotely surprised if United finished above Liverpool by May. Pre-season form is a wonderfully unreliable narrator.

Frankie: Now how do you think the top 6 will finish

Chatgpt:  If I had to predict the 2026/27 Premier League top six right now, I'd go with this:

1. Liverpool are my tentative favourites. They have experience, goals, pace and, most importantly, a very clear identity. Winning the league is usually less about producing moments of brilliance and more about relentlessly collecting points on cold Wednesday nights when everyone would rather be at home eating toast.

2. Arsenal look exceptionally balanced. Their defence is probably the best in the league, but I still wonder whether they'll score enough goals in the biggest matches.

3. Manchester City third feels slightly ridiculous because they could easily finish first. Writing off a Pep Guardiola side is a bit like announcing that gravity has been cancelled. Even so, there are more questions than usual surrounding the squad.

4. Manchester United are my dark horse. Their pre-season has been excellent, the energy looks different, and the squad appears far more united. The biggest challenge will be consistency.

5. Chelsea possess enough talent to finish anywhere between second and eighth. Nobody embodies modern football better than Chelsea: an endless supply of gifted players, enormous spending and millions of supporters trying to convince themselves that this time everything makes perfect sense.

6.Tottenham have quality, but I don't think they are as complete as the teams above them.

My prediction for the actual title race would be:

Liverpool: 85 points

Arsenal: 83 points

Manchester City: 81 points

Manchester United: 77 points

Chelsea: 70 points

Tottenham: 67 points

I also have a feeling that Newcastle might push one of those six all the way. They look far too strong to ignore.
 


🕮 Frankie McKillen is a Belfast Rockabilly

English Premier League Predictions

Dixie Elliot ✊As always it was a pleasure to share the company of Republicans who come together in memory of all those who died on hunger strike.


There wasn't a whiff of hypocrisy in the air as we remembered that they had died for, a 32-County Socialist Republic and nothing less. That they most certainly did not die to pave the way for electoralism or the acceptance of an agreement which had been on the table since 1973, and which the British had repackaged as the GFA. An agreement which also contained the vague promise of a referendum on Irish Unity.

At the time when those ten brave men, along with their female comrades in Armagh Gaol, first wrapped a blanket round their naked bodies and endured over four years of being degraded and beaten by the jailers of the British Crown. And at the time when they were forced to take the only road left open to them; the hunger strike, that agreement was seen by them and indeed all Republicans as something only Gerry Fitt and the SDLP would accept.

At the time of their deaths the Republican Movement was totally opposed to the idea of taking part in electoral politics, even though a tiny few secretly planned to take it in that direction.

On the way to the Independent Republican commemoration in Dublin's Garden of Remembrance, Cypie and I stopped off at Glasnevin Cemetery to search for the graves of those brave men and women who had fought to achieve the dream of an Irish Republic.


We weren't interested in finding the graves of De Valera, nor Collins, nor indeed Arthur Griffth. But at each of the graves we did find, those of Kevin Barry, Roger Casement, Nurse Elizabeth O’Farrell, Cathal Brugha, Maud Gonne, The O'Rahilly and Jeremiah O’Donovan Rossa, we were shocked to see that their names had faded on their headstones.

We could sense the ghosts of history as we both stood at the graveside of O'Donovan Rossa, at the very spot where Patrick Pearse had given his famous oration, both in English and in Irish, where he had said the immortal words:

the fools, the fools, the fools! – they have left us our Fenian dead, and while Ireland holds these graves, Ireland unfree shall never be at peace.

But we could barely read the name of Jeremiah O’Donovan Rossa on his headstone and we had difficulty making out the names of all the Irish hunger strikers, including the ten brave men in the H-Blocks, who had died for Irish freedom, on the monument erected in their memory.

This is history telling us that not only are the names of our patriot dead fading on their headstones and monuments but they are also fading in the minds of many Irish people and so too is the cause they fought and died for. History is being rewritten to suit the narrative of those who betrayed the countless generations who dreamed of Irish freedom and who fought for Irish freedom but never lived to see it become a reality.

They use the names of the dead to sell the betrayal of everything they died for, safe in the knowledge that the dead can't contradict them.

But as Republicans we can contradict them. We can expose their lies and we must do it every time one of them claims to be remembering the dead, but are in fact using their memory in their own self-interest, to sell the promise of a victory that never comes about, no matter how many years drag by.

The Independent Republicans - National Commemoration Committee who held yesterday's Hunger Strike commemoration should be recognised for the work they put into it.

As too must the main speaker Armagh Republican and former Blanket Man, Eugene 'Gene' Byrne and life long Republican Patrick Burke who chaired the commemoration.


So too the Colour Party and the bands.

Thomas Dixie Elliot is a Derry artist and a former H Block Blanketman.
Follow Dixie Elliot on Twitter @IsMise_Dixie

Fading

Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ Back 1982 the British Prime Minister, the far-right Margaret Thatcher, was in serious political trouble. 

She needed something of a spectacular to kneejerk her political future and this was to be provided by the equally troubled Argentinian President, Leopoldo Galtieri, who was also in the realms of perdition himself. Both these far-right leaders shared much political ideologies, hatred of trade unions or any working-class resistance to the bosses, hatred of democracy and an entrenched detestation of socialism. They were both also fond of getting their own way. Galtieri could get away with much Thatcher wished she could do simply because Argentina did not have the checks and balances afforded the parliamentary politics in Britain.

Thatcher’s real position, had she been able to get away with it, was highlighted when in 1990 she was booted out of office! What she would have given for the Argentine dictator’s powers at that time can only be guessed. In 1982 Galtieri ordered Argentine troops to land on the “Malvinas” with a view to taking them back for Argentina. He needed something big to draw attention away from himself and his abysmal political record in Buenos Aires and the torture of trade unionists and other opposition parties and individuals. Wives and mothers wanted to know where their husbands and sons had disappeared to? The blood-letting brought about by both these neo-fascist leaders could and should have been avoided. On 2nd April 1982 Operation Rosario, the Argentine landings on the islands, began.

For several weeks a Royal Naval presence was in the South Atlantic in the form of HMS Endurance, an ice breaking vessel which had been sending urgent messages back to London regarding Argentinian troop activity on and around the island of South Georgia. This, the vessel advised, was in all probability the prelude to something much bigger, which it was. Argentina’s army landed on the “Malvinas” proper on 2nd April 1982. Had the warnings from the Icebreaker been heeded Thatcher could, if she so wished, have garrisoned the islands which would no doubt have been sufficient to deter the Argentine conscripts. She did not do this, even though the presence of natural resources (chiefly oil) was known to be lying in the surrounding coastal waters, because she needed blood and guts to be spilled on the beaches and streets of Port Stanley. 

At the time in Britain Thatcher was having problems with the train driver’s union, ASLEF, who were out on strike. Anti-Thatcher demonstrations were common and what better way to deflect attention from herself than by giving people the old ‘national pride’ to get drunk on. Wrap the union flag around yourselves was the message from the Conservative and Unionist prime Minister. In Buenos Aires anti-government feelings were high and demonstrations, those the government could not shoot off the streets, took place. Both these leaders were in shit street and what better way out, at least for one of them, than the oldest con-trick in the book, nationalism and national pride!

Britain has claimed sovereignty over the islands since in 1833 basing this claim on the landing in 1690 of Captain John Strong. Throughout the 18th century Britain garrisoned the islands for the British Monarch and since 1833 have claimed sovereignty. Previously in 1765 they established their first settlement and claimed the archipelago. When in 1774 due to economic pressure Britain withdrew its garrison the departing troops left behind a plaque informing would be ‘usurpers’ the islands “remained the property of King George III”. Both countries have equally dubious claims on the islands and, more appropriately, the mineral wealth in the surrounding waters which is what it is really all about. 

Britain hides behind the fact the islanders wish to remain British, islanders nobody knew existed prior to 1982, and islanders who do not even get a vote in British elections. They are equal British citizens who, unlike other equal British citizens, do not get a vote in what little democracy exists. Argentina’s claim relies heavily on geographical location, 200 miles from Buenos Aires, 8,000 miles from London. They have a point: imagine if the Argentines claimed sovereignty over the Isle of Man? Both counties have equally dubious claims on these pieces of rock in the South Atlantic and both claims are smokescreens which their respective ruling-classes hide their real intentions behind. Prior to the first British settlement in 1765 the French had a small colony present so maybe they might yet kick a claim in once the level of natural resources, chiefly oil, have been fully discovered. 

In 1982 Thatcher must have been rubbing her hands with glee when she ordered a ‘Task Force’ to be assembled to retake the islands from the ‘Argentine invaders’. The British forces were successful in their quest, the elite Para-troop regiment (who also murdered Irish civilians) and the SAS were pitted against Argentinian sixteen-year-old conscripts barely out of school. The total cost in Thatcher and Galtieri’s war was 904 - 255 British and 649 Argentinian - with 3 civilians losing their lives. Thatcher’s bloodbath did not persuade ASLEF to drop their claim and return to work but outside the sensible Ray Buckton, the union's General Secretary at the time, the gullible people of Britain wrapped the ‘Butchers Apron’ (Union Jack) around themselves and celebrated the deaths of so many young people needlessly apart from saving Thatcher. Longer term, of course, the oil was the target but in the short run Thatcher’s premiership was saved.

Today 44 years after the conflict Argentine President Javier Milei is making nationalistic noises again about sovereignty over the “Malvinas”. Oddly enough this so-called ‘Libertarian Conservative’ right-wing President is in a bit of trouble economically and politically. Typically he has resurrected the ghost of the “Malvinas” in an attempt to save his fortunes. British Prime Minister, Andy Burnham has, it would appear, no such problems. President Milei has stated again “Falkland Islands are Argentinian” and at the recent World Cup semi-final Argentina, after defeating England 2-1, flew a provocative banner declaring “Las Malvinas sol Argentina”. 

These claims come at a time when US president, Donald Trump, has shifted the USA position regarding their neutrality over the “Falkland Islands”. This changed position by Trump is seen by many as his vindictive revenge for Britain’s at best tepid support for his illegal war against Iran. Could Trump be privately encouraging Argentina to land troops on the islands in another effort to reclaim sovereignty so he can tell Britain to fuck off should they ask for US support? In the infantile mind of the US President this would massage his ego after former British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, refusing to support him against Iran. Should the Argentines land once again on the islands with tacit US agreement what would British PM, Andy Burnham’s, response be? The Argentine leader has not yet indicated such a landing but he has threatened “sanctions” against any companies exploiting the coastal waters off the archipelago for oil. These, he reportedly claims, are Argentine waters and any exploration by Britain would be an incursion into Argentine territory. As ‘international law’ no longer exists, courtesy of Trump, Netanyahu, Putin, and Zelensky, who’s is right and wrong is difficult to dictate even under the warped conditions of capitalism. Irrespective of any complications regarding sovereignty a joint British/Israeli operation to exploit the mineral wealth is planned to begin in 2028. President Milei has stated; “any further advances on the Malvinas Islands will be considered a violation of our national security”. Roughly translated what he is claiming is such an operation would be considered an act of war.

The resurrection of the Falklands/Malvinas question by Argentina on such a grand scale on the back of the changing position adopted by the USA is probably no coincidence. For decades the US have remained neutral on the competing claims of Argentina and Britain while de-facto recognising Britain’s administration of the islands. Trump has suggested he “would not back the UK in a fight over the Falklands” and pointed to the lack of support afforded him for his war on Iran. President Milei would be an easy ally for the US to control in the area and put bluntly the US bourgeoisie would go some distance in securing the as yet untapped oil wealth in the seas without firing a shot! Milei is by some distance Trump's closest ally in South America and encouraging him over the islands could well serve the US president's flagging ratings while giving him a puppet in the region. 

Various British administrations, with the exception of Harold Wilson in the 1960s, have licked the arse of the US since the Second World War and their response to that country’s change in policy towards the “Falkland Islands” will be interesting. Will Burnham, should an Argentine landing happen, follow in Thatcher’s footsteps? Will another bloodbath over a couple of pieces of rock whose inhabitants are mocked in many British pubs about having sexual relationships with ‘sheep’ take place? Will Argentine and British young lives be sacrificed for the oil wealth the riches of which will be benefited by a few greedy capitalists, irrespective of which country? 

The situation in the South Atlantic will be worth monitoring but given the other global conflicts and bloodbaths occurring, Palestinian/Israeli, Russia/Ukraine, and US/Iran may at the moment not be considered paramount. This being the case it must be remembered the situation between Argentina and Britain is, and has been for centuries, volatile and could blow up any moment over the Falkland/Malvinas Islands.

Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist.

Falkland/Malvinas Islands –🪶Another Twist?

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of Two Thousand And Eighty Eight

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)