World Cup 2018 & 2022 bids

Oh well im sure people who are struggling for water will be pleased to have a fecking massive football stadium near them

My Children are starving and I have malaria, but my quality of life is now so much better I have a 50,000 seater football stadium on the patch of land I used to herd my goats, which were crushed under the stadium when Qatari airforces dropped it on us.

:lol::lol::lol:
 
it is best for england to get it when the team is actually contenders. it would be fecking embarrassing for a squad that is built up by the press to be world beaters to get shit on in their own backyard.

Well it's 8 years away, who knows? England were contenders for the 2002 WC with a lot saying the winner of them v Brazil would win the tournament.
 
No I get it...under the table payments. But if the most amount of money to be made for FIFA was in the UK, would Blatter let a few million for each deny FIFA that?

Because Blatter is 74 and these were the last World Cups he was going to have a say in, so it was his chance to cash in, too.

Why do you think we had this farce of choosing two tournaments at the same time to begin with?
 
No I get it...under the table payments. But if the most amount of money to be made for FIFA was in the UK, would Blatter let a few million for each deny FIFA that?

I can understand individuals thinking about their own bank balances...but Blatter is all about the power and monetary might of FIFA, and it's commercial partners.

Would they jeopardize all that?

I just think, people the members hated England(terrible reasoning, but I just think that's what it is...they think the English are bastards, arrogant, dim witted, thugs...etc etc)

Because while enjoyment is subjective, there can be no doubts, England would have hosted a top notch WC, with packed stadiums, and a great atmosphere. So why the loss? I don't think it's just money....I think it's politics.

Blatter probably won't be around by the time Fifa sees all those millions rolling in come 18 or 22, hence he doesn't really care, does he?

Even if the members did hate England, Spain & Portugal would have made much more sense.
 
Why? Not that I disagree entirely but who exactly are FIFA responsible to? No one but themselves, really. It's idealistic to want that but impossible to achieve, I think.

Clarity on the process, what's the point of having technical merit as a criteria when it appears to be completely ignored? If I run a bid process for work, I'm clear on the scoring criteria for bidders. I won't encourage suppliers to invest time and money in the bid process if there are overriding issues that won't give them a fair assessment of their response.
 
I think a good interpretation of the awarding of these two WCs (Russia and Qatar) is that Sepp and FIFA are trying to make sport influence politics and hoping that Football can raise countries up in both economic and democratic terms.

I just rather have a good WC for once. Wouldn't most football fans. That's what FIFA are there to deliver.

Both of these should be attempted. As I've said the intent on Blatters part (at face value, since I wouldn't trust that man as far as I could slap him) are incredibly commendable....However only one of these is being pandered to right now.

Since 2002, 5 of the 6 WCs have/will have been held in countries who either didn't have the best conditions/infrastructure for the fans/players, or aren't part of the major footballing landscape in regards to who will be competing in said tournaments...5 of the 6!!...4 of those 6 had both!..That's what the problem is. 3 of the 6 should be what they're aiming for with regard to either IMO.
 
I'm not going to look through 50 pages but some concerns of mine.

1) How can a nation the size of Qatar hold enough stadia to stage a massive event, and how will it accomodate an influx of 100000+ tourists needing lodging and travel accomodations?

2) The heat. Holy hell. 110-130 °F for a typical match day. Will players have to take IVs at half-time?

I smell bribes, granted I'm sure it happens every vote.
 
Why? Just because you and a bunch on English people fink its unfair does not make it wrong. Qatar is one of the fastest economies in the world, is cash rich and submitted and genuinely unique and futuristic vision of the what can be achieved. I think its a wonderful and brave decision.

Have you notuiced how the "jingoistic English contingent" are complaining much more about Qatar than Russia?

Did it ever occur to you that people just genuinely think Qatar was a disgraceful decision?

Just take a look at the technical reports... they say it all really.

Next take into account the country's absolute lack of footballing heritage, and the fact it's basically a microstate and doesn't even have multiple cities to bring diversity and flavour.

Finally take a look at how easily they walked the vote, having magically secured half the votes from the start, despite all of the above.

And then tell me they didn't buy it.

If Sepp was all about taking the World Cup to new places, Australia was the only option.
 
Clarity on the process, what's the point of having technical merit as a criteria when it appears to be completely ignored? If I run a bid process for work, I'm clear on the scoring criteria for bidders. I won't encourage suppliers to invest time and money in the bid process if there are overriding issues that won't give them a fair assessment of their response.

Exactly, why bother with any planning or whatever, just pay Blatter & his cronnies.
 
Both of these should be attempted. As I've said the intent on Blatters part (at face value, since I wouldn't trust that man as far as I could slap him) are incredibly commendable....However only one of these is being pandered to right now.

Since 2002 5 of the 6 WCs have been held in countries who either didn't have the best conditions/infrastructure for the fans/players, or aren't part of the major footballing landscape in regards to who will be competing in said tournaments...5 of the 6!!...That's what the problem is. 3 of the 6 should be what they're aiming for IMO.

I agree, Use every other one to help a country. But also every country that gets it will benefit, Whether or not they have potential CL final winners in thier country or not. Its ridiculous.
 
Clarity on the process, what's the point of having technical merit as a criteria when it appears to be completely ignored? If I run a bid process for work, I'm clear on the scoring criteria for bidders. I won't encourage suppliers to invest time and money in the bid process if there are overriding issues that won't give them a fair assessment of their response.

FIFA is a lot different than any business. If you acted like they did, you wouldn't have any bidders. It's almost like a criminal enterprise in that their MO is manipulate, dominate and control, which is a fairly succinct description of the World CUp bid process if I do say so myself.
 
Here's the point (IMO)..

Firstly the notion that FIFA is a hugely corrupt and agenda driven organisation (but that's really a given) but mainly the overbearing feeling that the actual base aspects of football and World Cups (the quality of football, the teams actually in it, the fans actually going, the players actually playing etc) are no longer taken into consideration when deciding the who hosts the football World Cup. Which is silly. All those saying "yeah but it's nice they're given a chance' probably aren't fecking going..and certainly aren't fecking playing in it. The World Cup isn't a charity drive, it's a football tournament but Blatter (at face value at least) seems to be trying deliberately to give it to countries who don't seem suitable as a sort of incentive to get football really big there...

And I've got no problem with that philosophy. In essence it's great and I love the fact the WC went to Africa last time, and I think it should definitely go to countries who wouldn't normally see top class football...but in moderation. Not every year. It's disregarding the core of football and the core of the fanbases to be political. And that's without even touching on the idea that a country shouldn't use the WC as an incentive to clean up/modernise their act once they've got it. They should do that AS an incentive to get the WC.

In an ideal world that would indeed be the case, but the corruption you mentioned will stop that from happening, so why are the vast majority not just accepting this as a potential springboard for Qatar, as has been mentioned before Japan were exactly the same.

Lets look at the last 4 decided hosts and see what their merits have been..

South Africa - First WC in Africa. Little WC history in the country itself (comparatively) but a deserving one for the continent as a whole. Practically it didn't initially meet criteria though. Little infrastrucure to begin with and concerns over safety, weather, altitude, travel etc. It ended up not being a great WC but it was worthy and in the end a success for the country itself.

Brazil - Deserving on historical merit. Easily. Same concerns over safety, travel etc though, but because of it's long and rich history with football deserves its chance.

Russia - Again, deserving on history, concerns over it's readiness, once again an infrastructure to be build from scratch and travel headache's for fans.

Qatar - First WC in the ME. History wise non-existent. Weather and accomodation demands, and AGAIN has to build everything from scratch.

So in the last 4 WCs, none have gone to a country with both deserving history and suitable infrastructure.. They haven't given much consideration to the base swell of support (and talent) from the main countries likely to be competing in it. and not to the country best suited to do it. They've all been political in one way or another and this is the problem.I'm fine with 2, even 3 of these. but 4? No. Not as a fan who will try and go to all of them, and not as a football fan who wants to see the best tournament possible.

Absolutely, there shouldn't be 4 political handouts given in a row, but we all know that Darth Blatter wants to win the Nobel peace prize, you damn well know if both Korea's offer to co host all rules will be thrown out of the window and they'll get it.

I'm all for the idea, but slip in a country with an already concrete infrastructure in between why don't you. Japan was a good idea, and it followed France and preceeded Germany. Even just one of those now would be a God send. Instead we have 4 consecutive WCs that will likely provide some headache's in some aspects. This is the problem.

Again agreed, a rotation of developed followed by developing one after the other would be a great way to run it that would draw less criticism, but as i say this is Sepp we are talking about.

Qatar is not a footballing nation by any stretch of the imagination, nor is it really a "developing nation"..It's the 2nd wealthest place on earth per capita FFS! If you wanted to give a World Cup to a nation that's never had it try Holland, a country who's players fans and people have contributed to it richly for decades and never hosted it..If you wanted to give it to the ME, why not wait until one of the more prominent Arab states with a proper footballing history came up with a bid? Sammskys melodramatic attempts to paint Qatar as a sort of Billy Elliot/Oliver Twist figure are laughable, a bit misguided and missing the point. They have done little to deserve the most prestigious tournament in the world....Apparently now the world's biggest football tournament deserves to be hosted by anyone who can afford to do it, or hasn't done it before, rather than the places best suited for the best football, best experience for the fans and best conditions for the players, or by those who would do all this AND have a rich history with the sport and competition.....It's not a travelling circus, it's a football tournament.

Yes they have all of the money to correct infrastructure before the tournament, and no football pedigree as it stands, but that stems from there being no real history of the game, heck just look at USA since 1994, there is a huge change, another example slightly closer to home would probably be English Cricket since the Ashes win in 2005, the interest has increased vastly since then.

Russia, whilst deserving in through it's history has also sort of won it not by virtue of being the best place to have it, but by virtue of it being "deserving" sort of forgetting that the reason Eastern Europe hasn't hosted one before isn't because of some darstadly Western conspiracy, but because it's infrastructure and racial tollerance has been well below the standards required for years...It should have to sort these out and deserve it on merit before it's given it surely? Instead of some kind of fast track...

Again absolutely, but unfortunately this is not the perfect footballing world run by the angelic organisation that is required, it is Sepp Blatter's FIFA

Again, sorry to sound a bit like a top white, but are you going to try and go to all these? Is sammsky? Probably not. I am, and while I love the travelling and the new horizon broadening that goes with it (and I take deep offence at anyone trying to pain me or anyone else as jingoistic for this) I'd like the best place for a good WC somewhere in there as well ...especially since they only roll round every 4 years.

Who knows, by then I may be earning enough to be able to afford going to see the World Cup, even if not a staunch follower of international football seeing the worlds best in such a (cliché alert) carnival of the beautiful game then I would absoluetly do so.

/rant....Off to put the kettle on.

Have a beer, you earned it with the amount of effort you put into that.
 
Have you notuiced how the "jingoistic English contingent" are complaining much more about Qatar than Russia?

Did it ever occur to you that people just genuinely think Qatar was a disgraceful decision?

Just take a look at the technical reports... they say it all really.

Next take into account the country's absolute lack of footballing heritage, and the fact it's basically a microstate and doesn't even have multiple cities to bring diversity and flavour.

Finally take a look at how easily they walked the vote, having magically secured half the votes from the start, despite all of the above.

And then tell me they didn't buy it.

If Sepp was all about taking the World Cup to new places, Australia was the only option.

Exactly! Qatar really is just a farcical decision...
 
I smell bribes, granted I'm sure it happens every vote.

Yep, it's just that the Russians and Arabs (even more so) are taking it to a new level. We used to have Blackburn and Fulham, now we have Chelsea and City.

Probably amounted to no more than some designer handbags up until recently... it seems the England delegation didn't know things had moved on from this.
 
Both of these should be attempted. As I've said the intent on Blatters part (at face value, since I wouldn't trust that man as far as I could slap him) are incredibly commendable....However only one of these is being pandered to right now.

Since 2002, 5 of the 6 WCs have/will have been held in countries who either didn't have the best conditions/infrastructure for the fans/players, or aren't part of the major footballing landscape in regards to who will be competing in said tournaments...5 of the 6!!...That's what the problem is. 3 of the 6 should be what they're aiming for IMO.

Yep, wasn't that the plan a few years back; one time Europe, the next somewhere else, back to Europe, etc.?
 
The problem is as it's been for a long time now; major tournaments are more about growing the football 'brand' than the spectacle of the competition itself. It's about selling to emerging markets, it's about developing new target audiences and demographics and opening up revenue streams previously untouched by the game. It used to be that the game was the show and everything else was a consequence. Now it's about something else, something that's pretty intangible to the average supporter. And if a game of football happens to break out then so much the better from FIFA's point of view.
 
Both of these should be attempted. As I've said the intent on Blatters part (at face value, since I wouldn't trust that man as far as I could slap him) are incredibly commendable....However only one of these is being pandered to right now.

Since 2002 5 of the 6 WCs have been held in countries who either didn't have the best conditions/infrastructure for the fans/players, or aren't part of the major footballing landscape in regards to who will be competing in said tournaments...5 of the 6!!...That's what the problem is. 3 of the 6 should be what they're aiming for IMO.

But none of the contenders who were up for 2022 fulfilled your magic (and I must add, rather selfish) criteria so you were against them all?

Then if you look at the last 3 European WCs then we have Italy, France and Germany - really England should have done one of those and we missed the boat in 2006 specifically.
Do you not think it makes sense that a new European country should get to do it after the last 3 were countries doing it for the 2nd time around?
 
In an ideal world that would indeed be the case, but the corruption you mentioned will stop that from happening, so why are the vast majority not just accepting this as a potential springboard for Qatar, as has been mentioned before Japan were exactly the same.

Japan were not exactly the same, they were very close to qualifying for the WC, unlike Qatar who has never got close.

The summer averages about 30c, not ideal, but hardly a major problem.

The have excellent infrastructure, this is basically the country that gave the world bullet trains.

They also had the 2nd biggest economy in the world.

It's safe, no stupid laws against alcohol, homosexuals or women in too little cloth.
 
This. Why did Fifa even bother with all those reports and shit if they're just going to completely ignore them?

Next time they should just auction the hosting rights on the open market.

Spot on because that's basically what's been done every vote, just with illegal bribes instead of just telling FIFA, "Here's a $1 billion check to you guys and we'll now sell the televising rights, etc."
 
In an ideal world that would indeed be the case, but the corruption you mentioned will stop that from happening, so why are the vast majority not just accepting this as a potential springboard for Qatar, as has been mentioned before Japan were exactly the same.

Don't agree that Japan and Qatar are comparable. Japan were a good choice at the time. Just off the back of France it was time to experiment again (after USA) and Japan not only had an excellent technical bid, far less of a safey risk, far more diversity for tourism, far less heat (though it was hot) and far more historical merit (in terms of players, plus you could make a case for Korea having great historical legacy - even if it was north!!) . They were actually one of the only bids out of that lot that was low risk. You knew the Japs would sort it out...Though I'm sure Qatar will too.



Absolutely, there shouldn't be 4 political handouts given in a row, but we all know that Darth Blatter wants to win the Nobel peace prize, you damn well know if both Korea's offer to co host all rules will be thrown out of the window and they'll get it.

Well yes...but it's still worth ranting about..


Have a beer, you earned it with the amount of effort you put into that.

Oh alright then....I'll modify it into an article so I can milk it a bit!!
 
I think the hilarity in all this is, the Russian delegates screwing England.

They obviously voted for Holland/Belgium to ensure England got knocked out in the 1st round, and then in the next round went back to voting for their nation...:lol:

Not exactly cheating, but very very cheeky.
 
If Germany 2006 didn't do it for you then what hope do FIFA have?

That said I do think their politicking is a bit ridiculous, but that's what happens to insular organizations that are beyond public scrutiny.
We've had much better WCs in the past, they've not been particularly good for a while now.

The problem I have with all this political stuff is that it's not a role FIFA should be involved with. It's a professional football tournament for the fans and the players. It should be held in the best place possible for the fans and the the players.

If they want to have a voting procedure which takes into account various risk and revenue factors combined with a presentation then fine. But what's the point if those factors aren't really relevant and actually their final decision on who hosts the WC is is based on other factors completely apart from those stated.

Football is slowly but surely being ruined by FIFA.
 
Clarity on the process, what's the point of having technical merit as a criteria when it appears to be completely ignored? If I run a bid process for work, I'm clear on the scoring criteria for bidders. I won't encourage suppliers to invest time and money in the bid process if there are overriding issues that won't give them a fair assessment of their response.

Exactly. England had a very good technical bid and was low risk on most of the criteria and managed 2 votes.

Imagine if the british public voted in the next general election according to Fifa's methods.
The two main parties that have the experience and potential to run the country most effectively are Labour and Conservative. Therefore we should all go out and vote for the Green Party.
 
Heh. When this thread is all said and done there is only one thing that can happen; we wait and see. Everyone said South Africa would be a disaster. Hell, for all intents and purposes a few short months before WC2010 it looked like it would be yet somehow, like Nani turning his season and career around in 2009-10, they pulled it off.

I'd like to think that this forum could be a little more forward thinking and a little less reactionary but methinks I doth expect too much sometimes.

At last, a open minded voice of reason. There is so much embarrassing bile on this thread and most of it comes across as imperialist xenophobia.

Whether you like FIFA or not, FIFA is an independent organisation and can use whatever rules it chooses to award its assets to a country it wants to. FIFA is under no obligation whatsoever to hold itself accountable to laws an practices of any nation .... Whether you agree or disagree with that is irrelevant. Its that misplaced arrogance that has cost England the opportunity to host these games.

Lets be clear, England wanted to host the tournament ... FIFA did not need them to enter the bidding race or even ask them. It was England's choice. They wanted something from an organisation they have no control or rights over. Even if FIFA is corrupt, that is there choice, they do not have to abide by the standards that supposedly they have fallen foul of.

Even if they are corrupt, lets not get on our high horses about it. This country is accused of far more serious and ghastly actions of illegality in recent years including illegal wars, arms deals and financial wrong doings. So its abit rich to cry wolf.

Russia & Qatar will both put on amazing tournaments, there is no doubt of that. England would have also have been an excellent host .... but it is the approach that bidding team and its media took that FIFA, an independent nation neutral body, has taken serious exception to. And if I was a member of FIFA, I would have too. Imagine that .... being called a wanker by somebody and then that same person asking if they can borrow car. Its just not going to happen.
 
We've had much better WCs in the past, they've not been particularly good for a while now.

The problem I have with all this political stuff is that it's not a role FIFA should be involved with. It's a professional football tournament for the fans and the players. It should be held in the best place possible for the fans and the the players.

If they want to have a voting procedure which takes into account various risk and revenue factors combined with a presentation then fine. But what's the point if those factors aren't really relevant and actually their final decision on who hosts the WC is is based on other factors completely apart from those stated.

It's the appearance of transparency, not at all believable but there you go.

Football is slowly but surely being ruined by FIFA.

To be fair that's been happening since Havelange
 
I think the hilarity in all this is, the Russian delegates screwing England.

They obviously voted for Holland/Belgium to ensure England got knocked out in the 1st round, and then in the next round went back to voting for their nation...:lol:

Not exactly cheating, but very very cheeky.

Don't think it was Russian delegates so much as Jack Warner and the CONCACAF bloc. I think in the first round, England and Japan voted for England, while Belgium and the CONCACAF trio voted for Holland/Belgium. In round two, after being eliminated, England voted for Holland/Belgium, and CONCACAF voted for Russia.
 
Don't think it was Russian delegates so much as Jack Warner and the CONCACAF bloc. I think in the first round, England and Japan voted for England, while Belgium and the CONCACAF trio voted for Holland/Belgium. In round two, after being eliminated, England voted for Holland/Belgium, and CONCACAF voted for Russia.

As crooked as they come.
 
Exactly. England had a very good technical bid and was low risk on most of the criteria and managed 2 votes.

Imagine if the british public voted in the next general election according to Fifa's methods.
The two main parties that have the experience and potential to run the country most effectively are Labour and Conservative. Therefore we should all go out and vote for the Green Party.

Bill: FIFA is not a democratic institution and so does not have to abide by such restrictions. FIFA owns the rights to this tournament and its within his rights to decide whoever he wants to award it to using whatever reasons it decides. Thats just the way it is. The English FA does not have to belong to FIFA if it does not want to.

This is the point that our bidding team misread.
 
another example slightly closer to home would probably be English Cricket since the Ashes win in 2005, the interest has increased vastly since then.

Worst comparison ever.:lol:

You do know that England invented cricket and have consistently been amongst the top three or four countries in the world in terms of both playing and watching for the sports entire history, right?

You do know that Ian Botham won Sports Personality of the year in 1981, David Steele in 1975 and Jim Laker in 1956 (Gooch came 3rd in 1990, in case you're wondering about the gap)?

How about the fact that prior to the year 2000, 4 of the top 10 all-time test run scorers were English (only an indication of the mountain of player stats you could find to show how integral England are to the history of cricket)?

Do you know which country hosts the stadium internationally accepted as the "home of cricket"? Have a guess.:smirk:
 
Whether you like FIFA or not, FIFA is an independent organisation and can use whatever rules it chooses to award its assets to a country it wants to. FIFA is under no obligation whatsoever to hold itself accountable to laws an practices of any nation .... Whether you agree or disagree with that is irrelevant. Its that misplaced arrogance that has cost England the opportunity to host these games.

Tbf, FIFA is the sum of its parts, and those parts being the nations, nations like England.

I'm not going to go into the rights or wrongs of this decision, but FIFA definitely are accountable to the member nations, and should be.
 
But none of the contenders who were up for 2022 fulfilled your magic (and I must add, rather selfish) criteria so you were against them all?

How is it selfish to want the World Cup to focus more attention on the countries that are competiting in it or have grand history in it rather than whomever can stump up the decent money?

I think it's more selfish to want to buy your way in without earning it in any capacity. Do you think the ashes should be held in Dubai? or Wimbledon in Flushing Meadows? (bad example that one)

Also I think Oz an the US both had much better, more deserving bids

Do you not think it makes sense that a new European country should get to do it after the last 3 were countries doing it for the 2nd time around?

I don't have much problem with Russia, It's more the straw that broke the camel's back.. but I agree with people saying the whole point of the bidding process is futile if you're just going to give it to someone because "it's their time"...and again the idea that WCs should be used as a fast track/lazy way to clean up your problems...The reason Eastern Europe haven't hosted one before isn't because of some horrible western conspiracy, it's because it's lacked the requirements, safetly and racial tollerence to do so for years.

Again, the World Cup isn't solely a political charity drive. It's a football tournament. The agenda should be 50/50 at most and probably more like 65/35...Right now it's 80/20 political.
 
Russia & Qatar will both put on amazing tournaments, there is no doubt of that. England would have also have been an excellent host .... but it is the approach that bidding team and its media took that FIFA, an independent nation neutral body, has taken serious exception to. And if I was a member of FIFA, I would have too. Imagine that .... being called a wanker by somebody and then that same person asking if they can borrow car. Its just not going to happen.

There is a lot of doubt over Qatar, even if they aircondition the stadia, how do you propose hundreds of thousands of fans travelling around in 50c heat?
 
Why? Just because you and a bunch on English people fink its unfair does not make it wrong. Qatar is one of the fastest economies in the world, is cash rich and submitted and genuinely unique and futuristic vision of the what can be achieved. I think its a wonderful and brave decision.

I also think Russia is as good a choice as England, so patriotism aside, it feels like a good decision. Why should western Europe be the epicentre of football?

It's no so wonderful if you're a gay football fan, is it? Or if you're a woman who isn't keen on the idea of having to cover herself up in the heat.
 
Tbf, FIFA is the sum of its parts, and those parts being the nations, nations like England.

I'm not going to go into the rights or wrongs of this decision, but FIFA definitely are accountable to the member nations, and should be.

I'm going to contend that FIFA are only slightly responsible to the football associations which the nations belong to...and only just at that.
 
Bill: FIFA is not a democratic institution and so does not have to abide by such restrictions. FIFA owns the rights to this tournament and its within his rights to decide whoever he wants to award it to using whatever reasons it decides. Thats just the way it is. The English FA does not have to belong to FIFA if it does not want to.

This is the point that our bidding team misread.

I think you slightly misunderstood. England performed incredibly well on the criteria set out for the bid. This criteria is supposedly used to count towards the validity of the bid and should therefore be worthy of gaining some votes.

If Fifa ignore their own criteria then what's the point of the bidding process?
 
But none of the contenders who were up for 2022 fulfilled your magic (and I must add, rather selfish) criteria so you were against them all?

But that is a product of the bidding system. If they went along Mockney's lines then appropriate countries would be in the running.

I think a bit more guidance either way would help. If FIFA said from the start "it doesn't matter how good your bid is, we want to give it to a new country this time" then Spain and England could save a lot of time and money...
 
Exactly. England had a very good technical bid and was low risk on most of the criteria and managed 2 votes.

Imagine if the british public voted in the next general election according to Fifa's methods.

The two main parties that have the experience and potential to run the country most effectively are Labour and Conservative. Therefore we should all go out and vote for the Green Party.

If FIFA elected our government they'd put the Monster Raving Loony Party in office citing they want someone who has never seen the inside of No.10 to get the chance to do so and expand politics into new areas it has never before been in.
 
First of all....lets all laugh at:

images


Since winning the election, this is the first time he's really stepped up and shown his face and got behind something infront of the whole public...he thought he'd be in the papers getting all the positive press - and we don't get it.

Congratulations to Russia and Qatar.