Honey Honey

Even Dummett's dad didn't think he was good enough in the early days to be fair. Might be fake news but I have heard stories that he used to be critical of him when sitting in the stands. In the early days many people wanted him to be centre back, which he was at youth level. I also don't think any fan thought he was good enough. Even now I'd keep him but he isn't top half and looks out of his depth on occasion.

Keegan actually resigned several times at Newcastle he was talked out of most or given promises.

We couldn't hang on to away leads basically. We did lose to Man Utd twice after amassing the lead which swung it somewhat. We blew a lead at Man City to draw 3-3, then we lost away at West Ham and Arsenal. The lead was down to nothing by the end of March then came 2 famous fixtures. Liverpool beat us 4-3 at Anfield after we led 2-1 and 3-2 with Collymore scoring the winner at the death. A couple of weeks later we went to Blackburn, we were 1-0 up then with 3 minutes to go, a Geordie lad called Graham Fenton scored twice for Blackburn. Fans never forgave him and whenever he was seen back in Newcastle he would receive abuse on the street for fucking his home town team over. After that we won a few games but Man Utd just wouldn't falter, that's when Keegan cracked with 2 games to go and had his love it if we beat them rant.

What is that picture of because it isn't 96. I'm guessing it might be 97 when Dalglish was Newcastle manager?

Looks like you've put your foot in it there MUFC

The government would fall within 48 hours of fumbling into no deal whilst it also can't get no deal through by design. I'm not sure all of the fuss is warranted. Some have said since day one that we should be prepping for no deal as a negotiation strategy. The largely remain establishment killed it within the first 2 months after the referendum. It has been resurrected by the remain mindset government to get the ERG to vote through May's deal. The ERG have no idea how little power their views have.

Yellow vests in Britain is at the moment largely far right sort of stuff. A fashion for the Tommy Robinson street protesters who have a history of taking to the streets anyway. It's a long way off becoming more but never say never.

It is more than just internal party conflict. David Cameron promised the referendum to the public in order to win votes and was also seeking a means to end the immigration headache he was receiving at the polls. Cameron remember couldn't even win the 2010 election outright. Socially liberal conservatism did not have reach as most social liberals didn't get their values from private schools and posh universities where Tory economics is patched onto social liberalism.

That is just facts of what procedural positions we no longer partake in, there are also procedural positions and competencies parliament would take on, be it domestically or in international bodies. How do you weigh up the difference between the two sides without making assumptions about their potential economic cost or benefit or bringing your own societal values into the weighting? You have to. We all do and that is what the debate has contained for years. That is why it is so polarizing, there is no right or wrong answer. That's politics in general. I also don't quite understand mentioning the WTO as a comparison in the grand scheme of your argument either when you are calling for a referendum on whether or not we should actually start FTA negotiations. After weighing everything up if you think we are better off in then that is fine but don't pretend there is nothing to be weighed up and without assumption and values.

The future is uncertain by definition. There can be no facts of the future in the present so it is wrong to expect anything other than why something is ambiguous. It has been too laborious for me to bother doing here for the last 2 years but if you extend your news sources you'll find it anyway. What I am refuting is the whole way you are extending certainty beyond its limit, loading everything with the kind of hyperbole you would call fabrication when it's attributed to a position you oppose. You ask for facts but the very statement that this is the biggest error in the countries history requires subjective quantification against historical events, how do you get facts out of that? I personally consider that time one million men were slaughtered and many more wounded for a difficult to justify stalemate war to be worse than leaving a political union, that's my opinion it is not a fact. Things were said in the campaign that did not come to fruition. In other words, the same as every election we've ever had an ever will have until we have regulation. But let's have another before that regulation? In the current situation you had your first chance to express your changed opinion in 2017 when you voted for Corbyn over the lib dems. The people's vote is snidey as it is full of supporters pretending their whole raison d'etre is nothing to do with remaining having fucked up the general election.

The reason I can't get behind your facts argument is that although I can accept new facts may have changed your personal judgment, your posts are repeatedly and predominately filled with assumptions, predictions and emotion. Facts are often lacking or sometimes flimsy and posited in a manner that wrongly denies ambiguity over a matter. I'll give you an example. Earlier you said Norway doesn't want us in the EEA having read an article by a backbench pro-EU MP, however she directly contradicted the Norweigen Prime Minister's opinion on the matter. There is major ambiguity at play in Brexit and people must still choose based on predictive assumptions and personal values. That will show in any 2nd referendum. You can append facts to the whole or start your position from them but ultimately there is so much ambiguity that as soon as your entire position is under the microscope facts no longer suffice. You are still to give significant weight to things that aren't facts or things which aren't set in stone, largely adopted from those spouted by people you trust or which confirms a bias. There are still positives and negatives to be weighed up according to values. By and large the people's vote support appears to be driven by panic from assumptions or the loss of identity from certain held values. It's really snidey at heart but might address the consitutional deadlock within the establishment. The far right can't get through FPTP and the returning voters who abandoned or refused to take up politics under Blair would go back to never voting again.

Maybe for the status quo neo-liberals on the left. Yet when backed into needing to make a choice there are situations in which they will vote for Corbyn even if it gives him power. Whether certain actions can get through when he is in power is something else. Are you aware that the "UK's biggest mistake ever" comes across as both ludicrous and condescending to swathes of people? It deligitimises the main point of your own argument given that the intent is to win people over. The Corbyn dilemma is that he has to distance himself from people like you whilst simultaneously holding your support. It's a juggling act in which eventually he's probably going to drop the ball.

"Worst" is quite subjective and depends on your own measurements and preferences. It is probably the weakest government in practice, but then it's a hung parliament on a confidence and supply ticket so on paper it always was the weakest anyway. I don't understand what is astounding about Labour not being ahead? They achieved their highest vote % for a long time by fudging the main issue of the day at GE2017 and avoiding their own day of reckoning. Which Blairite policies do you have in mind that would entice someone away from the Tory party without having a knock on effect of their own current vote? It's easy to pin everything on Corbyn and absolve oneself of blame. Reality out there is that the Labour party is riddled by association with war criminals, hasbeen politicians and condescending attitudes to leave from its grassroots chattering class who are for the Corbyn cause a political loss in an opinion diverse country. Whilst Corbyn tries to channel hatred towards exploitation by businesses and the super rich, the grassroots chattering class and the Blairites are busy stripping potential voters of their sense of agency and their right to an observation. Corbyn's power is precariously balanced as the creeping people's vote risks knocking him off the fence and exposing fault lines in support.

Just watching BBC News and Jacob Rees Mogg looks an awful lot like Hitler in this lighting

Artful dodger was talking about German politics role in economics not the decision making process of minor market rules and regs. The concept of German financial dominance and control is primarily a left wing idea centred around the arguments and observations of left wing economists. Most right wing city economists support the present flavour of Germany's politics. Indeed George Osbourne used to love it. The financial reich is a term from left wing circles.

Looks good

A lot of car finance is backed by the car industry themselves so that's not smart. I'm not sure what basis there is for assuming the EU or industry within it is ok with no deal. Strategically it would risk increasing the UK's pivot to other markets. I would argue that the EU has shown it's strong desire to prevent this. In any FTA trade offs on specific aspects of the market must be made. The unique position for Britain is that we are potentially taking away market competitiveness and advantage for some EU firms. This is fairly unprecedented in trade negotiations and why there is a genuine risk of a worse deal than EFTA.

There have been plenty of warnings against no deal from German industry. There was one the other week from the BDI. It is completely economically illiterate to assume if the price of a BMW goes up substantially then the number of sales won't fall. Some consumers will move to alternatives particularly as the British car market is driven by credit creation and is one of the biggest bubbles in the economy, unless you have evidence that credit supply would increase with the increased price?

Absolutely it is a core element, but the key is that it is interlocked with the wider package. May's deal bombed among political leave because in part it has assumed that immigration is a singular matter. It fundamentally considers leave in accordance with a caricature. It may have been a singular matter to non politically active voters, as in folk who barely follow everday events. The remain commentariat really honed in on those singular issue voters post ref. Caricturing leave as a buffoon from Barnsley for example. The heart of the domestic issue is that the UK is trying to leave the EU by referendum and not by political party. A second referendum that stops this Brexit and forces the next election into party splits could be a solution of some sorts. There may like in Denmark in the early 90s be a few days of violent riots.

Spin is part of all elections. It's disingenuous to deligitimise one election for spin and not all of the others. Why does it matter so virulently to some now? Simple, historically under Labour and the Conservatives life doesn't immediately change for most that much. You bemoan the spin but get on with it in the knowledge that you'll survive. Without that past reference of security and with the assumption that everything is going to hell in a hand basket because of Brexit it is suddenly the be all and end all. It's brought to the forefront on an assumption due to the lack of historical reference.

Read my post again. It says "Immigration was part of a wider package" and why that appears the case. I don't think you understood the post at all. You just doubled down instead of tackling the points raised in it.

So it's not based on any objective accountability it's just your own subjective outset. Sounds like an unhealthy way to run democratic accountability.

On that I think Fairy's point is broadly in the right ball park. A reasonably strong argument can now be made that May and Robbins deal has landed poorly because they like you mistakenly exaggerate, misconstrue and misunderstand the role of immigration. As of last week the deal was polling at just 17% approval among leave voters even though it will bring about the end of open borders. It has a higher approval rating among those who voted remain. Its loudest opposition are the political groups you would consider the most irked by immigration. Immigration was part of a wider package which included the courts and trade in the lingo and probably has other intangible elements surrounding national narrative attached too. Who from the original leave side is it that is in power that you're going to hold politically accountable and who is it from the leave side who supports this Brexit? Michael Gove? We've had over 2 years of all of the main leave factions and leaders repeatedly complaining, whining and making unmet demands. Theresa May might not get the WA through because of Brexiteer backbenchers meaning it will only go through if original remain voters put it through. This sums up what has always been wrong with the situation. Brexit by referendum and not by political party. Swathes of establishment implementing what they don't like or understand out of principle toward a narrative concept of democracy. But we are going to let them off and solely blame anyone who campaigned to leave in the first place?

2 dead and 600 injured in on going protests in Paris against rise in fuel tax.

His contract is up at the end of the season and I expect he will part ways then. He's probably only hanging around still for the reason he joined. He's addicted to football and wants to settle down in England.