Rayvin

Needless foul and booking by Colback... he gets one of those every game.

What in fuck was Haidara doing with a shot from there...

Anita and Colback worked against Man Utd and Southampton tbf. Just not really a solution for when you actually want to win the game.

Fair play, it does look like this game might well prove you right...

Ah well. I don't think we're really at WHam's level this season... I think a slow crawl to 14th is on the cards.

I still think they've played well... who is it that people think we're sidelining for them? Could have Sissoko in the middle and Aarons playing I guess, but they've really not been bad.

Not a bad line up, and some decent options on the bench. Not sure how much longer de Jong is going to put up with a subs role though...

...Shit, I knew it.

I am hugely encouraged by your optimism, actually. Fair enough. A win it is.

Not confident really, but I think this is the first game where, should we lose, it'll raise some concerns for me about the direction the season is heading in.

Is that the best they've got? Seriously? How can they criticise him for his attempts to reconcile ME conflict when the Tories are supporting the genocidal Israel?

I accept your surrender

Sounds like something that would happen to us under Pardew.

In truth I just read it in the min-by-min in the Guardian. He weakened his midfield with a couple of subs and lost total control of the game. Even so, Leicester probably deserve a bit of credit here, it wasn't all Tim.

You wanted evidence that his views are feasible. I just gave you it. I assume he now has your vote?

Krugman also won a Nobel prize for Economics. Do you see what utter balls you're talking here? I agree on the wider point about Corbyn not being electable. But the reason for that is because most people are brainwashed into thinking that his views on the economy, despite being endorsed by some of the leading economics thinkers in the whole fucking world, are completely ridiculous. Do you see how your view on this economic policy being unfeasible and idealistic is now wrong? Or do you consider yourself the intellectual equal of the above academics? Key point - I'm not saying you have to think that his view is right, as there are counter arguments, but his view sure as shit isn't idealistic nonsense.

I'm not saying he has found a winning formula... I don't expect him to win. What I hope, is that he'll force the debate leftwards, which will have a higher positive impact than anything that I believe the other three could have done. And no, a debate has not 'raged' since 2007 - not in the media anyway. The media has churned out a narrative since 2007 that many ignorant British people have swallowed whole. The fact of the matter is, I'm yet to see anyone provide a convincing economic argument for why withholding spending in a recession is considered a good way of sorting out the country's finances. There is, on the other hand, a wealth of information available on why this is not a good idea. Anyway, at the very least you have indeed answered my point - you're saying you don't believe in Keynesian economics because someone highly educated hasn't come along and told you that it works. I think you probably actually mean that the paper you read hasn't told you that it works, as many Professors of Economics have in fact spoken out in favour of it: Among academic economists, an important distinction of relevance to the resurgence is between economists who have a prominent presence in mainstream political and popular debate, and those who do not. A marked shift towards Keynesian thinking took place among prominent economists (2008). Some such as Paul Krugman, James Galbraith and Brad Delong were already Keynesians, but in 2008 began to get considerably more attention for their advocacy of Keynesian policy. Others such as Richard Posner and Martin Feldstein, had previously been associated with anti-Keynesian thinking, yet by 2009 publicly converted to Keynesian economics with considerable impact on other economists.[5][105] Posner's 2009 book, A Failure of Capitalism, was not so much an endorsement ofprogressive government policies but a critique of laissez-faire capitalism and its ideologues.[106] Paul Krugman - Economist from Princeton and London School of Economics James Galbraith - Texas University (studied at both Yale and Harvard) Brad Delong - University of California, Berkeley. Richard Posner - University of Chicago (and a judge for the US Court of Appeals) Martin Feldstein - Harvard University. So these guys all support it and the last two actually converted to it as soon as 2008 hit. These are the guys, to be clear, who support Corbyn's thinking on the economy. Are these guys smart enough for you CT? Or would you rather trust Osborne (history degree) and some hacks who write for the Daily Mail?

Sherwood Rare that you'll see a managerial decision cost his team a 2-0 lead for an eventual 3-2 defeat with about 15 mins left to play. Pillock.

How am I dodging the point - your point is, his MPs don't back him. My response was, this is because they feel Labour has no political traction with which to make that point, and that to stand any chance of winning, they have to fight the battle along the Tory lines. That's my response to your point. Is this clear? If so, then the rest of my previous point still stands. I await your response.

Absolutely no arguments there. But sometimes it's good to have it out on these points It's shored up my belief in my own views.

Fair enough - I'm perhaps given to idealism as you say. For me though, this felt like a victory - and I support his policies because they're workable, because I understand the theories behind them, and because they're fair.

His MPs are shit scared of the RW media - I'm not obsessing about them, they are an actual, highly influential factor in the way in which people vote. Where does all of the information that informs people's votes come from? The media. Which newspaper has the highest readership in the country? The Mail. Which individual owns the largest proportion of UK media outlets? Murdoch. Who do these two factors support in elections? The Tories. There, I've addressed your concern. I'm still waiting on the robust criticism on Keynesian economics by the way. You said you'd vote for him if his ideas were feasible - Keynesian economics proves they are. Unless feasible in this sense means 'once everyone else has decided what's right and I've read it in the papers' - which I suspect it does. That's not going to happen because of the above bit about the RW media. See how this works?

I didn't say socialist, I said progressive... and it's not actually about the government that's in power, it's about the issues on which power is won. And we've wasted a lot of time over the last five years with Labour trying desperately to look convincing to people who are worried about pretty right wing concerns. I have a bit more confidence than that. I don't know if I count as young anymore, I probably don't (29), but I and so many other people in my social circles were utterly dismayed with the what the Labour party had become. So dismayed that I considered wasting my vote on the Greens this time out. The other thing is that the young will vote if there's a chance to attack the establishment - and this is the best chance they'll get in a generation.

He's right, though. The Labour you wanted to win looks nothing like anything many of the young people in this country would consider voting for.