Rayvin

I've struggled to follow this a bit but.. is the argument here that the offside ruling is to blame because a player ran into a goalpost, on the basis that had the whistle gone, that never would have happened? Surely the same thing would have happened if he was onside as well, meaning that the offside call is fairly irrelevant. What am I missing?

Principles are principles Although I never used Twitter anyway so it's hardly been a sacrifice for me.

It does feel low but I can see the arguments otherwise. I still feel a bit badly for Longstaff but this is absolutely going to be the right move for him too. Can someone give me a steer on which of our main midfielders Miley is cover for? I'm just wondering where the sale of Longstaff leaves us short.

Can those links not be ported into one of the thread unroller sites and distributed via those? I appreciate it still ultimately needs someone to click it but after that the clicks go to the middleman site unless I'm interpreting it incorrectly. I tend to use them whenever I have to view a twitter thread these days since you can't view those without an account, but it seems to work for just solitary tweets as well.

Today in PMQs: Farage We at Reform, a party that is alive and kicking, very much enjoyed your speech on Monday, you seem to be learning a very great deal from us. Could I encourage you please to go further, as a matter of national security? Over the weekend, an illegal immigrant from Iran, who we believe came by boat, was arrested in the north of England on serious charges of terrorism. Since the speech on Monday, 1,000 young, undocumented young males have crossed the English Channel. Does the prime minister agree, now is the time to declare the situation in the English Channel as a national security emergency? Starmer The situation is serious, the last government lost control of the borders. The [border security, asylum and immigration) bill is the first bill to give terrorism-like powers to law enforcement, precisely so that we can get in before the crimes are committed, before people get to this country. This is the most far-reaching provision ever for law enforcement to defend and secure our borders, and that’s why it is extraordinary that he, of all people, voted against it. This is going to be the dialogue for the next 4 years I suspect.

Maybe I'm misremembering what he was responsible for then. I thought he was pretty much the man behind most of our first team buys. If he wasn't, then yes my view of him changes quite a bit.

I don't agree. Immigration is a great example. Most people who want immigration to go down understand only one side of that issue. They do not understand for instance that social care will be decimated, that pensions will be threatened, that certain sectors will struggle with impacts felt throughout the economy. Most of them don't even understand that immigration is a net positive on the economy. People sort of drift through life thinking that governments make these choices out of some Marxist agenda, whereas in reality the choice to permit immigration is a response to an economic need. I am yet to see an anti immigration voter properly contend with both sides of that issue, and thats what I mean when I say people don't understand these issues as fully as they'd need to in order to make an informed decision. I debate with the fuckers day in, day out. I can see it.

Am I alone in thinking that for all he's a bastard, he was actually pretty good?

The media and dirty money is in charge more like. The electorate for the most part doesn't understand any single issue well enough to place an informed vote against it because they only get their information from one side.

Ah that makes sense now. But it's interesting this point about papering over the cracks - what does Labour expect is going to be different now, that they'll enact changes quick enough that they can fill the cracks before they need papering over?

I see we're running Rivers of Blood comparisons today. One thing that I'm not following mind, Starmer keeps claiming that the Tories were running an open border experiment - obviously they weren't in reality, but what is he basically pointing to? What specifically did the Tories do which enabled immigration to spiral?

I was wondering if he doesn't thrive as well with Barnes as he does with Gordon, but if he is injured in some form then thats a better scenario. A few people are saying his head is turned but he looks angry enough when he misses that im not sure it would impact his game even if it was true.

Was looking back at some of my posts from nearer Brexit, a much angrier time for me I think me of 4 years ago was right on this though: Ignore the EU focus of that because really you could say the same about any issue. If we fall into line with an ever more right leaning Labour party, we will never realise anything we want to see happen. Starmer has proven that in his first year in power.

Having now reviewed this immigration stuff in more detail, I'm back to despairing. It's fact free bollocks that just endorses Reform talking points. Guardian comment section is full of people declaring they will abandon Labour, and I know that's just the Guardian, but let's be real, a lot of us read it. A lot of left of centre people read it. I wonder if there's something to be said for the Tories in all this. They believe most of the same things but weren't competent enough to get any of it done. Labour on the other hand...

It's not like it even hurt Chelsea, they were better without him. In the end he's a bellend, playing for a bellend club, whose suspension will only sadden bellends. That's all that really matters.

I mean tbh I'm not at all convinced Labour is ready to be having this conversation though. It feels to me, and has felt to me since Miliband, that Labour needs some sort of actual vision to be taking the country toward. I get that pragmatism is important but I don't think it can exist just on its own. We need to be going somewhere, and with Labour it's really poorly defined. It's all reactive stuff. Whether it's Starmer, Rayner, whoever... I just don't see who in the party has the first fucking idea where to take the country. There is leadership but no vision.

Fuck sake mate, I'm sorry. Fucking shit news. You'll likely not forget her at least, she seemed to have some real personality to her.

Huh.. you all really think that's likely? Who would step into the breach? I don't think the issue is just Starmer at all, I think it's a party wide malaise.

Corbyn was challenged by the Blairites though, and Starmer is from their fold. He's since purged the party of the moderate left so we won't see any sort of challenge this term IMO. The immigration thing I don't have as much of an issue with tbh - I mean it's a nonsense issue in reality but it is a substantive issue in terms of narrative. More communication about what they're doing to tackle it isn't a bad thing - even if I saw very little detail about what all of this speech actually means in reality.

This but also Arteta blames the ref/ball/weather/planetary alignment and then proclaims Arsenal to be the best team in the league, for all time.

He's not even good enough to warrant this level of fuss.

Mind you, if we beat them a fourth time this season I genuinely think it might break Arteta. We might watch a man completely come apart in real time.

I mean I know, but at the same time I just thought it might be interesting to review the permutations I always back us against Arsenal but at the same time, we shouldn't panic if we lose.

Pressure is off on this one to some extent with the way the table is set. As long as we avoid a bad loss, we'll still be in a solid enough position on final day. Not that I'd want it to go to final day. If we lose to Arsenal and everyone else wins their games, we're still 5th at minimum thanks to GD. If we win it, we're over the line. I guess a draw might help us against Chelsea in the end.

They probably will be, final game of the season at home presumably. Doesn't change the fact that they're not exactly a superb team though.