Honey Honey

I believe it is estimated to have cost the Conservative party about 20-30 seats in 2017. Can't remember more detail than that I'm afraid.

Following this advice Though will stay up to see who wins the race between Newcastle and Sunderland that happens every election

Get the popcorn out. We are less than an hour away from the exit poll and only a few hours from seeing if there are any constituency earthquakes across England.

The pavement isn't the same in the 2 photos. In the alleged two left feet photo it's either photoshopped or her foot is swollen. She is diabetic after all.

There was a yougov poll of British Indians showing a big drop in support for Labour and a small drop in support for Tories with increase in support for Lib Dems. No real switch to Tory other than among Brexit voters. Post election polling is usually better measurement as you can ask people what they did not want they will do. The latter always leads to enough "undecided" to change outcomes significantly.

If this is a symptom of something wrong it should be met with empathy and concern, not ridicule. Member of Parliament is just a job.

Work in Research. No direct connection to politics. Do you just mean quantified coverage or is something out there measuring positive effect?

Actually Rochdale was a Lib Dem constituency between 2005 and 2010. Labour only beat the Lib Dems by 2% in 2010 then went on to barnstorm in 2015 and 2017. Rochdale also had Lib Dem Cyril Smith as MP in the 80s. The common UKIP used excuse that they can't penetrate Rochdale because of some rabid Labour loyalty does not look true. A common trait of political losers is to externalise. To strip the voter of their agency. How could they possibly not vote for our morally superior position? There must be something wrong with them! They must be thick and brainwashed. It's never that the package that you're offering simply wasn't good enough to encapsulate a broad enough spectrum to win the most votes. Once you position your politics as right versus wrong you're on a path to deluding yourself in defeat. We are going to see this on speed tomorrow regardless of who wins.

With low attendances and 10000 empty seats against Southampton the club have announced their new strategy to fill the ground. They are going to give away free season tickets to a limited number of people nominated by current season ticket holders on a first come first served basis. They haven't said how many, in case it doesn't work. It's an interesting and slightly funny idea. Unable to swallow his pride under media pressure, Adolf Charnley refuses to directly engage with those who quit.

It was a good decision by the BBC. They got the Prime Minister on the box and grilled him about terrorism and criminal justice after 9 years of Tory rule. Worth having. Normalisation has already occurred. We are well past the becoming normalised stage. Many who don't trust Johnson will go out and vote for him because of the opposition/Brexit.

I doubt he will ever get a better offer than Arsenal personally, though I doubt they'd want him either. He's never going to be Liverpool, Man City or Man Utd. Arsenal or Chelsea is his ceiling for life now. That means it is all about timing. If Arsenal came in and he didn't take it, in all probability by the time Arsenal became available again he probably wouldn't be flavour of the month.

40 points as well. Safe for another year.

The trick to avoiding VAR is to stay out of the oppositions final third. We haven't been shafted yet 14 games in so I don't know what all the fuss is about.

1. The narrow margin in modelling repeatedly shows in probability estimates that the election is not resolved. An average of 16% show up in polling as undecided. Enough to swing many marginal seats. As undecided make up their mind and show up in polls conservative proportionate overall vote share moves up and down in polling. A few weeks back modelling was estimating a Conservative majority at only a 30-40% probability. 2. The idea that all those voting Conservative are rabid immovable Johnson voters is hyperbolic, short cut generalising and likely an attention bias issue. 3. The little people being tricked into voting for something, aside from being condescending and stripping people of their agency, is a line trotted out by all parties in the UK since voting began. It was even an argument used by those who opposed suffrage expansions. The everyone is bias and brain washed but me line is the common fall back position of all those who lose in democracy, a good means to avert introspection. After all introspection is a threat to the ego, just look at Blairites after the results of introspection post 2015 Milliband loss. 4. "A rich media with no incentive to hold the government to account" seems to miss conceptualise the UK media environment but probably most importantly the mechanisms of holding a government to account. The daily readership of the Mail, Sun and Express is only about 2.5 million, probably for gossip. Most people don't invest the time of day to follow politics intently. Governments and political parties run various research methods to sound board policies and weight the data, all for the event that people come to know about it in order to judge favourability. 5. The idea that the US trade leak would finish a government 5 or 10 years ago is odd. Cameron secured a majority 5 years ago despite supporting TTIP, CETA, austerity, the lansley bill etc, do you actually think a bit of suspicion from a US trade conversation would have brought him down? 6. The things you call lies beyond any dispute are awash with ambiguity. They are not as black and white as you read them out to be. For example the idea that NHS isn't for sale is not something that can be met with a true or false response for a reader to make sound judgment. It requires accompanying depth with points that need to be weighted against one another. When something ambiguous is narrowed down to black and white the speaker cheapens the argument and debate. It forces people to pick a side and you will likely lose if the ambiguity makes your emotion look ridiculously over the top. I campaigned against the Lansley Bill and I voted for Jeremy Corbyn to become leader of the Labour party around the same time as he was the most serious about that and austerity at the time. At least back then we had hard proof what was going on. To campaign that more will happen is a political argument based on suspicion, that is an easy win for those accused. It will also normalise the lansley bill by making the NHS about hypothetical ideas and suspicion, making the status quo attached to the argument that it is not for sale. 7. You say the country has gone, but in the words of the Smith's "has the world changed or have I changed?"

Presumably your anti-Corbyn rhetoric over the years was the result of digesting the Sun as well?

When you look at the team on paper surely it's going how you'd expect?

Deep down it's exciting in a funny way. Still, I won't be there. I think the team will actually do well, at least for this year. Rafa's defence plus new attack has some potential.

Doesn't mean much but I always found it a bit gutting that his last memory of the club was relegation and Ashley destruction. Meanwhile, the boycott seems to only be 7-8k which isn't really enough. Maybe some season ticket holders will boycott the Arsenal game only. Unfortunately the away end at Hibs was reasonable size all things considered. Should have been close to 0. A sign that the boycott is only a twitter bubble.

Where? Is this a revision on what they were saying last year? Is it a misinterpretation of Paul Johnson's April 2018 article in the Times "Costs of leaving customs union will inevitably outweigh the benefits"? Within which Johnson notes that consumer prices could fall by 1% if zero tariffs are applied, a figure he is quoting from his own organisations published research. Then there is the more recent November 2018 IFS report that leaving the customs union and reducing tariffs to zero would lower the price of household goods by 0.7-1.2%. The report ends to say that these reductions may be offset and lead to consumer price rises if there is regulatory diversion. https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/12854 A lot of patliamentary arithmetic required to get there yet.

I'm not arguing for no deal. I'm simply questioning the detail behind certain claims.

You don't agree tariffs at WTO level you agree the maximum tariff, an upper bound, members can play as they wish within that bound. It says in that 2017 report on the first page: "Theoretically, the UK could drop all tariffs to zero" Indeed earlier this year the previous government released their temporary tariff structure in the event of no deal. 83% of EU products would be tariff free, the result of which is that tariffs that currently exist would be removed on something like a third of goods from non-EU/non-FTA countries. The 17%, the exporters, including the import to export is where business restructuring would likely occur in a volatile and recessionary manner.

Under WTO rules you can set your own tariffs and quotas on imports. The key rule is that what you do for one country you must do for all.

I feel like you're becoming a politician who wont give straight answers or detail to simple questions which do have answers. Padding everything out with spin and bluster. What specific bilateral agreement is required to produce and import? Can you produce and import without one? What are the financial differentials showing the levels at which identification documentation is defined by yourself as costing "a fortune"? Is their a difference by import size? Are passports sent directly to citizens from source or via UK office? Does the UK government currently procure from markets outside of the customs union? If so what are the costs and implications? Would said costs and implications make passport importing more expensive than domestic production? If so what are the financial differentials of it? Does the civil service have the ability to remove cost associated with government procurement that might otherwise be an expense to a private enterprise? Did the civil service consider no deal when signing these procurement contracts?

Doesn't answer the question at all.

What agreement is required to enable an import of this product to not be turned away at the border and why is it not unilateral?