Sir Ralph

Great deal. I don’t understand why so cheap for top assist provider in the champ last season

Agreed

True - forgot about him. On that basis maybe the Lens guy isn’t needed. It does appear that Still might see Fraser as more of a central midfielder particularly with age?

BBD needs to go regardless. Suppose it depends how Still wants to play. If you want 'proper' wingers to supply the forwards I dont think Armstrong is that. I suspect he will change formation over the season but we will only have two out and out wingers - Fellows and Robinson - so I could understand getting one more to cover absences

If they do sign him it seems like he would be a back up winger behind Robinson and Fellows possibly? If he has a good work rate you can understand why Still would want him with the high pressing game but at a lesser cost.

On the face of it, great business. If it all happens, you would have to conclude that Spors and the Board have done well. Whether those players succeed or not, time will tell, but at the current time you would say well done.

I acknowledge the Tories have u-turned and made some bad decisions in power. Like we both said, all politicians do u-turn unfortunately. Are you seriously taking the line that in one year of Government, the Tories u-turned more than this Government in its first year though? Really? I'm happy to be proven wrong by the way. Every Labour U-turn after Starmer reverses welfare cuts | The Independent

I agree with your point about politicians generally. You can call out Farage for U-turning (if that's what he has done). I haven't read his most recent policies or the feedback on the policies so cant say if that is what he has done. The point being is that there are lots of defenders of the current Government on here, who will happily point out the issues of other politicians. In terms of u-turning Starmer and Cabinet are top dogs and worst offenders, so criticising other politicians (which you can obviously do) needs to be seen in this context. As the saying goes, first take the plank out of your own eye and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from anothers. I'll look forward to your critique of the current Government's next u-turn on this basis.

@sadoldgit assume the confusion is you don’t understand the point?

“The Art of U Turning - My Life as a Prime Minister.” The new book by me, Sir Kier Starmer, due to be released next week (or maybe the week after, or maybe next year or maybe I won’t release it….crap what should I do)

Firstly this is obviously incredibly sad. It’s strange that is your first comment on this issue - what Trump would say! It seems a bit obsessional in the context. This was what appears to be a mentally unstable person who is trans with anti Trump, anti semitic and Free Palestine words written on his weapons among other similar slogans. The police has confirmed it’s an anti Catholic hate crime. However, I suspect if this was a straight white red neck who had walked into a Mosque with pro Trump and IDF comments written everywhere and killed 20 kids you would have something to say about them and why they did it and how appalling it was (which it most definitely would be for clarity). In such an instance their background and motivation for undertaking that action would be absolutely relevant in your eyes (and mine also). Therefore it’s not rationale for this persons background and motivation to not be commented on or of relevance as that would apply double standards. Whatever Trump says is relatively immaterial to the issue as a whole. The fact that 20 kids have been killed is incredibly sad and the motive and background of the killer are relevant, however. Maybe start there…

Its missing the key point in the discussion - the legally or technical correct definition doesn't make any material difference to the issue or how you solve it, in my opinion.

Appreciate the sensible response. There could be a degree of the use of language to make political points but I think that is a relatively minor consideration in relation to this issue as a whole. I think we may disagree on this point. In terms of the 1 in 10, I appreciate that this wont be 100% accurate, but was there anything in the assessment I put forward which suggests the calculation is wrong - I think that was the point? Happy to be wrong but this was a genuine assessment at trying to understand the net increase relative to those off boats.

I don’t believe some are genuine asylum seekers anyway and are economic migrants as they are moving for economic benefit. I know you will say that is determined when their claim is heard but, regardless of legal definition, I think the use of this terminology would be generous to some to the detriment of genuine asylum seekers. I think we all know what we are talking about - let’s say they arrived on small boats so we are clear. The point I was actually highlighting is that I calculated 1 in 10 of people from net population growth arrived on small boats. I assume you think this number should be significantly reduced and people should be dissuaded from entering the UK via boats across the Channel? If so we agree on the key point regardless of any definition. I’m also not conned so don’t worry about me.

If Still is starting to get his high press going then he’s ideal for it

This lasted long 🤣

Agree Taylor looks solid and gets up the pitch

Absolute garbage. To be fair Downs has worked hard and made some decent plays. BBD has no discernible attribute

BBD can’t press - get rid

What I find worrying about the SR approach is that they have sold players and have now sold Dibling and will probably sell Fernandes. They now have one week to get the replacement players in, particularly attacking players, but clubs know we will be getting desperate and have money with little time. Extra money we negotiated over the past couple of weeks through the dibling and any Fernandes deal could well be spent getting mugged off by the clubs we want to buy off. If the deals for new players start to go south we will be getting even more desperate. It’s not a good place to be. I thought the saying was that good clubs get their business done early.

Hi yes I agree the latter. see article from bbc which confirms the crossing numbers in last year https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8e1xkwd74wo.amp If it’s 1 in 10 net migration as boat people to me that’s concerning, particularly as like you say the figure is probably higher. This is becoming part of the make up of the country.

I was referring to people coming from small boats (which is the issue being discussed) of which there are 50k rather than getting hung up on the definition within any legal technicality. Most people refer to people on small boats as illegal.

The 50k illegal asylum seekers are those arriving on small boats. There isn’t dispute about those figures. The Tories mismanaged and many issues emanate from them but politically Labour will need to do something radical otherwise they will be tarred with the same brush. You can’t judge the current government on its performance for a couple of years. It’s one thing politicians saying they will deal with it but statistics have contradicted this and many people (for good reason) don’t trust politicians generally. The Conservatives now attacking the current government is hypocritical and I believe most rationale people can see that. This is a complex issue and I hope the current government to improve the system but the legal framework makes it difficult. Without more radical change it will continue to be a political issue which is why Reform has a lot of traction with the electorate. My opinion of the reasons it’s become more prominent is the ongoing cumulative impact over the years, people getting annoyed about the ongoing expenditure in a climate where we are asking people to be taxed more (but government spending is being exhausted elsewhere), and the re-election of Trump. The latter has meant that the dialogue around these matters is no longer seen as taboo and people feel more freely to voice their views.

I calculated a net decrease from births and deaths of 16k. There was a net migration increase of 430k (I dont think your figures included leavers from the UK), which leaves a net growth from births and deaths and net migration of circa 415k, which is how I arrived at circa 1 in 10. Do you agree with this? I do agree that this also isnt helpful (but obviously a discourse that needs to be had and addressed robustly) because we need net legal migration to increase. The lack of net legal migration is, I imagine, linked to the Brexit issues.

Does anyone know the total proportion of population growth from illegal asylum seekers in 2024 - I calculated 11% - 1 in 10?