Rayvin

I'm interested to see, over the course of several games I suppose, how much Howe has improved versus his time at Bournemouth - sounds like he's spent the last year or so really researching and working on his own style, exploring new ideas etc. The iteration of Howe that we see could be quite different to what was on show in the past. I really hope we get this fucking win though, would do everyone the world of good.

This where the fuck did that even come from? To my knowledge he's not an expert on cricket or racism so why is he even there? I think his argument is that racism should be dealt with on an individual to individual basis and not structurally which would fit his overall worldview of hyperindividualism. I'm not clear on exactly what about tackling structural racism he doesn't agree with, or why it would pit one group against another. Surely it would only do that if one of the groups was out and out racist.. Either way, it was amusing. He needs to go back to his YouTube lectures really.

Whether Shelvey is our most valuable player or not (he isn't) wasn't the starting point for this particular topic though - it was the idea that under Ashley we hadn't been run down, and that the players are better than they're showing. So on point 1, we were told that £95m net spend in the past 3 years proves that it wasn't run down. Nevermind that £40m of that was spent on Joelinton, or that we're not given any comparative context for our competitors - this number alone proves that Ashley looked after the club. We were 12th in terms of net spend over the past 5 years as far as I can see, with the only teams below us being the carousel of promoted teams. 16th if Joelinton is ignored. I don't think that's great really. The other point was that the players are better than they're showing. Yeah I'd agree with that, plenty of us have said that themselves - it's why we wanted rid of Bruce. But that doesn't mean that these players are capable of taking us on to the next level. It means they're probably good enough to scrape us past relegation season on season, with progressively diminishing returns as they get older. But broadly speaking, I'll agree with that point. Whether Shelvey is a good player or not compared to everyone else we had doesn't make him a good player in general. It just means he's another indicator of where we were under Ashley.

As I implied but I suppose didn't outright say earlier, if he comes within touching distance of looking like he could win come the next GE, I'll revise my opinion on this. If Labour look dead in the water then my vote is better spent making a point.

With all the hysteria about the morality of my choice to vote Green (along with all the other closet Tories), it's getting a little hard to tell the difference between serious and joking

Yeah I think so too. Unenviable position really, but that's the reality of what he's aiming for.

Sorry like, but have you just drawn a serious conclusion about me from a discussion I'm having with ewerk about the prospect of marrying him to get back into the single market?

I mean my approach would more be along the lines of "this fuck up is due to Brexit, this loss of earnings is due to Brexit, this failure of recovery is due to Brexit, your cost of living is skyrocketing due to Brexit", etc. It would mean that when he does eventually start doing that, which he will because it's the truth, he'll seem more credible. Either way though, my role in this is to build pressure for things to move in that direction. You're talking as if I'm trying to win him an election - I'm not. I just want the issue dealt with - it's his job to win the election, not my job to do him favours.

I mean if I'm getting back into the single market they can have my vote all day long tbh.

If it helps at all, I'm prepared to accept the heavy judgement that you and Gemmill (and frankly, anyone else) both think that Starmer getting lucky with a government crisis he had no hand in developing, and which he finally managed to land a blow with on about his 500th fucking try, means he's fucking certain to win the next election as long as I vote for him. I accept that you think I am naive for not believing this. It's tough to hear this, but somehow, I'll live.

That is close to tempting tbh.

Like fuck man He's misrepresented what I said and then run off into the hills with it.

You can have my vote if you recognise that being honest with people and working towards a restoration of a normal relationship with the EU is the only way forward for our country, and that this groundwork should start happening now so that you have credibility with the public when they eventually twig later on - or even as they twig right now, as they have started to do. You may have my vote if you are open and transparent about your intentions to play a longer term game with it, and ask me to be patient while you work towards this. You may not have my vote if you campaign for election as leader on the basis of doing 1 and 2, and then decide to abandon both entirely once in power. This tells me that my concerns do not matter to you, and I cannot trust you to work towards them. It tells me that you have a 'power at any cost' mentality, and that the only way I can engage with you, is by representing a cost. I do not recognise that opening the Brexit debate will cost them the election, I merely said that it wouldn't win them it. Those are two very different things. In my version, they're losing either way.

You came up with some arbitrary bullshit about the morality of my choice so I casually threw it back at you. I agree, they're not going to win the election by reopening the Brexit debate (despite the significant recent shifts in this opinion). But I remain convinced that this country is on the road to nowhere until that happens, and that it's not going to happen if the people who believe this don't make themselves visible in an electoral sense. The sooner we get to that point, the better. I remain unconvinced that they're going to win the election either way fwiw - we're all getting very excited about the last two weeks, but the Tories were utterly untouchable prior to that and once they dispense with Johnson, which they will, they'll get a boost. Starmer winning one trick doesn't mean he's got this all worked out. As I said earlier though, I'm prepared to be convinced of this if he starts actually getting somewhere.

I'd argue that no matter what Labour do while in power and out of the EU, it's not going to have as significant an impact on the lives of the less fortunate as rejoining the EU would in terms of the economic prosperity of this country. And moreover, I'd suggest that not taking a stand on this point is as bad as someone who votes Tory. It might even be worse.

Like I said, I'd take anything that puts FoM back on the table really. That doesn't change the fact that I need to commit to the position though. EDIT - As for the EU, whether they take us back or not matters less to me than the party I vote for at least trying to make it happen.

These points right here are really the end of the argument IMO. How does the "playtime = ability" argument deal with Joelinton?

I'd accept anything that restores freedom of movement. So I can leave more easily It's not about whether or not I know better than them, it's not my job to win them the election. It's about being an active part of their thinking - they will either group me under "this bloke wants back in the EU but he'll vote Labour anyway so his first loyalty is to the party, meaning we can assume we'll get his vote no matter what" or they will have me under "this bloke wants back in the EU and was prepared to leave the party over it, that's a vote lost that we would otherwise have". Which of those two positions is more likely to get me what I want? Myself and my issue are only relevant in their thinking if I'm being weighed up against their gains by going the other way - the only way I can diminish the appeal of the gammon appeasement is by sitting on the other side to them. And frankly it's a pretty lost cause based on how things seem to be, but I'm sticking to it because the right thing for this country is to grow the fuck up, admit we were wrong, and REJOIN THE FUCKING EU.

The PR point is fair but I'd need to be really convinced before I put a secondary issue ahead of a primary one.

I agree that Labour are the best bet for it to happen, but only if they believe there are votes in it. I am useless to my cause by throwing my vote at Labour and trusting them to just get it done anyway when they've already broken that particular trust in the short time Starmer has been in charge. So my choice is to be taken for granted by a party that is pandering to gammons, or to stand to the side and stick to what I believe is the single most important political issue this country has to deal with, which is rejoining the EU. It's not an easy choice, and I'm very aware that if I'm representative of a decent number of people (which I suspect I am given the numbers involved in moves towards the Greens and LDs) that it could mean bringing about another Tory government, but if we elect a Labour one that isn't interested in the issue then I'm no further forward than I would be under the Tories. If Labour come to understand that there is a serious vote winning proposition in rejoining the EU, they may pivot to it quicker than they would if I just throw in with the gammons and vote for them anyway. It's a long game, I'll grant you. And I'm under no real illusions that my vote is completely insignificant and this so called 'pressure' will likely not amount to much. But then I've never cast a vote in my entire life that actually mattered anyway (other than, ironically, the EU one) so I mean, what difference does it really make anyway?

As I've made clear before, I'm presently a single issue voter. That issue isn't nuclear power (I agree with your stance on that incidentally). The Greens aren't going to win power though so what their other positions are don't really matter to me. It's a wasted vote insofar as attempting to remove the Tories, it's not a wasted vote in terms of pressuring Labour.

Well he certainly won you over. I'm sticking with the greens for now but if he continues to improve on the run in to the GE at least it'll give me a difficult choice.

Where has this version of Starmer been until now?

I mean that article basically reinforces what was quite clear throughout but which some of us have struggled to see. They're not football people and we shouldn't expect them to be able to work well in this industry until they have more experienced football related management staff in place. Sounds like we had a series of problems throughout the recruitment process that were down to the boards naivety, although it's good to see them owning that. It'll all be fine but we need that DoF role filled and more broadly, we need more experienced people making key decisions.

Well this has been special The two standout moments I can remember for Shelvey for this season are being subbed on against Spurs and being sent off again within 10 minutes for two separate bookings, and floating a harmless free kick into the box for an easy opposition clear instead of shooting against a team that had an outfield player in net with 1 minute left to play in a game we needed to win. Clearly a player of absolute quality. "We played him so he must be good". FFS. We hired Bruce and kept him for 2 seasons man. And he was anything but good.