hypochondriac

Given the amount of times this year we have played quite well with possession and had chances only to lose because we get knackered and can't sustain the mindless possession football, I'd take a defensive, negative, battling point over that any day.

All you ever want from your team is to give everything and to set themselves up to give themselves the best chance of points. We did that 100% today and so we can be proud of them for one week at least. Let's hope the ones who stay can take that same sort of mindset into next year.

Playing like that you'd like to think we would have got a lot closer to Ipswich. Would have still gone down of course but it would have been a lot closer.

Martin would have despised today and would have preferred to have lost playing his style which sort of tells you where a large part of the problem was at the start of the season.

I wonder how long it will be before we take any points from city again? Potentially a very long time.

Bore off mate. The season has been horrible so it's healthy to celebrate the small wins and the positives. A battling point to prevent us from entering the history books is something worth celebrating under the circumstances. If you can't do that then you're better off wallowing in misery in private.

I think I can speak for all saints fans when I say I much prefer this sort of bitter, sore loser type reaction to the pats on the head from Pep about what a brave team we are as we crash to a defeat.

Congrats a great achievement. I like a run but not on that scale.

Proud of that performance. Well done Rusk and the players.

Which is why we also need to reduce numbers of legal migration as well. We need to take more of a medium to long term view, increase wages for jobs that Brits 'won't do', massively increase training for important jobs that we need, incentivise greater integration by largely removing public spending on translators and only allow people to live here if they are contributing financially with employment that we actually need. Labour are doing some of the right things in my opinion by trying to slash waste in the NHS but people need to feel that things are improving, that health outcomes are better, that they are more likely to get a doctors or dentists appointment and that every single public service isn't over stretched and at breaking point. A big part of that is due to levels of immigration and that's before we start talking about low trust societies and cultural damage by the levels creating enclaves.

I could get behind that. Optically housing them around the country in hotels is a disaster. Far better off investing in a large and secure dormitory type building and processed as quickly as possible. The important thing is to remove as much of the incentive as possible to come here so it reduces the numbers of people making the journey.

I could get behind that. Optically housing them around the country in hotels is a disaster. Far better off investing in a large and secure dormitory type building and processed as quickly as possible. The important thing is to remove as much of the incentive as possible to come here so it reduces the numbers of people making the journey.

Personally I quite liked the idea of tents. If that's impractical then old army barracks or a secure location like a refugee camp would be preferable to hotels around the country.

Either that or they can personally house one and avoid any sort of related tax.

I'd say we could do a lot more to make it less desirable to come here for a start. That doesn't mean allowing people to die due to easily treatable medical conditions but it does mean spending less generally to house them and give them all handouts. Unfortunately there's just too many people coming here and it's deeply unfair to expect the taxpayer to pay for all this.

I know it won't happen but I'd have Ings on a free, if only because I'd be confident he'd score against the skates.

I don't agree that it's policies first and personalities selling them. Elections are a popularity contest and elections ns have been decided on personalities including all the people I just outlined.

Of course policies will contribute to the public mood and be a factor in election. The idea that the personalities of the politicians aren't also significant factors is a pretty silly thing to say. You don't think that Boris, Nigel, Obama, Trump, Blair, Bill Clinton to name a random few haven't had the success they have had because they appeal and are popular with a decisive number of the electorate? Similarly Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, Brown, Miliband, Corbyn failed at least in part because they lacked widespread appeal and didn't have personal qualities that enough of the electorate were looking for. Like I said, elections in the main are popularity contests, it just depends what the electorate is looking for at the time.

Hard to disagree. Bringing down numbers hugely, growing the economy in a meaningful way per capita will be huge factors like you say. Some of these trade deals might be a good start but if they result in waves of more migrants it's not going to touch the sides.

Possibly but I think if they'd had a Boris Johnson type leader they wouldn't have fared very well. His personality reflotheir politics and was a factor in their win for me.

Highlights once again how intolerable it is to live next to a nation who harbour extremist death cults who routinely want to murder you.

Must be a real challenge for you too. There's no Jews on either side.

Starmer won because the Tories were wildly unpopular but also because he exudes managerial competence and people wanted predictability and someone steady after the Tory disaster. Not bollocks at all.

Every single election in my lifetime has been decided based on personalities.

Whereas if you hate people better off than you and want to give people a taste of their own medicine you can hold all the luxury beliefs you like and vote Labour.