Honey Honey

I saw a stat today that made me think of your comment. 132 players have been signed by Premier League clubs for over £20m since Newcastle spent £16m on Michael Owen. I saw another that also calculated that Newcastle's most expensive signing under Mike Ashey is in inflation terms the equivalent of spending £115,000 on a player in 1996, the year we bought Shearer for £15m. The whole record signing stuff is disingenuous anyway. If we break it it wouldn't negate the decline, we'd have to buy someone for at least £40m for it to be anywhere near the equivalent of signing Michael Owen for £16m when we did.

Boris Johnson would have faced a similar problem though, the majority of the Tory party voted remain, there are various differing remain and leave factions within the party. The outrage towards him from Tory party members/MP's who were remain was and still is palpable. The name Boris Johnson triggers some the way that the word Mozambique triggered Johnny English. How can power be maintained and stabilised in light of that? An election wouldn't rid this problem. It is not utterly pointless to try and pull amenable people back and convince them of something else. You say good faith but it's about good quality. Not only is the equivalence you gave a bit weak, but throwing "remainers" in there was utterly pointless and tone deaf. You are not arguing to convince those we have to pull away or keep away from Jacob Rees Mogg, you are just trying to go around the choir getting high fives.

You must piss like a horse

It wasn't possible for May to do that without facing down the majority of her own MP's and probably losing. There's no consensus for no deal and that is very important. We are not a dictatorship. It is the nature of the makeup of parliament that is the stalemate and the weakening position. Hitchins was right from the start, Brexit by referendum rather than by general election can't be done well due to our specific parliamentary system.

I'm not sure I'd call anything proving people wrong. They have to win detractors over and no they won't do it moving further away. As I've said before there is no parliamentary or electoral consensus for that type of leave. Jacob Rees Mogg has no power. Boris Johnson has no power. If those supporters were here I'd be telling them of that flaw in their argument, but they're not, I can only talk here to what we have here. Historically only 2-7% of the active electorate are those irredeemable types based on party support. 52% voted to leave. I don't know how many Brexiteers and what variety you know if you even know any at all but the bogeyman view of many is problematic. I have witnessed (and it is confirmed to exist widely by other research) that post referendum swing voters started moving toward harder Brexit concepts. It looks as if this is the result of threat and stigma. Those are completely false analogies though. You can't compare surgery and mechanics to economics and political philosophy. That only one of all the economic models was able to correctly forecast what would happen after the vote so far reiterates where the sentiment comes from. Economics is known as the humpty dumpty of the sciences for a good reason. If you listen to the various factions within leave you will find virtually unanimous opposition to the way the government has handled it. Some of them will say because of the remain establishment just like you say it's all because of leave. Tedious new tribes. There is no consensus in parliament for no deal. It's not even the position of the remain heavy cabinet. If there's no deal based on this current point in time then it's not because of what the government want. Unless they change their tune (highly unlikely) it will simply be because the government couldn't come to an agreement with the EU. Blame whoever you want for that, deluded demands, Blair backed EU attempts to topple May, whatever your tribe tells you to blame go with that.

There is such a thing as a badly executed argument. The whole purpose is to change someone's mind. Case and point how my argument here was so brash as to render you sarcy and defensive. Perhaps if I was more tactful I could enter a proper discussion with you to try and change your mind instead. This sort of stuff is precisely the cause of post Brexit hardening of leave factions. The more certain people were told they were uneducated racist duped morons the further they got from the centre.

Because my full point is about pulling people back from his grasp. Even you've now added "stagnant" and "bleak" to a subjective implication. Can't you see what is wrong? That is your language, the interpretation you want to enforce on it all instead of you know, getting a journalist to ask him properly and not a shoddy journalist who thinks getting a powerless backbench MP to resign in 1 year is actually a good use of a question. Adding a subjective implication is not a good move. Especially an ecomomic one like that given the context of economic bollocks from those associated with remain, it strengthens his hand and is tone deaf to those who may be amenable to him. Quality political arguments are about winning people over. This thread is more about getting upvotes from inside the bubble.

Nothing to do with my point at all. Although perhaps indicitive of why my point exists in the first place. You can't hear anyone else for your own screaming.

Jacob Rees-Mogg said we might not see the economic benefits for 50 years. He never said anything about having to suffer for 50 years. How can we pull people back from Jacob Rees Mogg when you are not even listening properly to what your opponent is saying. The quality of public argument isn't good enough.

We are not asking for his money, we are asking where our money is. The latest furore is that in the public eye backed by football finance experts and Rafa is that money promised to us is missing, unaccounted for. We are asking why when revenue is at an all time high are we scraping the barrell in the transfer market and are sell to buy.

There's no evidence available. The last accounts released were 2016/17 and they were bizarre and littered with confusing financial hocus pocus. No football finance expert could make sense of it, something is afoot, we just don't know what. Our revenue is at an all time high. £126m in tv money alone. So where are the funds? Will we ever get to know? Transparency is the starting point. It's jumping the gun to say cash reserves are being taken out.

Jacob Rees Mogg and Boris Johnson can't get their approach (which is slightly different to one another) through the commons or the lords anyway. They get great traction publicly by spouting their view in order to gain leverage behind closed doors but they have reached their limit in reality. Parliament is having to find compromise on grounds of its own composition. That's a fairly normal practice of democracy maintaining social order, if not the cornerstone of it. Parliament is playing the games that parliament always has in order to reach an end result. It is fairly organic. MP's test the boundaries of their power among one another, they suss each other out, they manipulate each other, try to bring them down or under their spell. Theresa May hasn't been able to find compromise as a leader. It is probably the result of both her character and the immense stubborness of some MP's which can also be seen in the public too. I've heard from the ITK's I drink with around Whitehall that internally in the conservative party they are all mourning the loss of their hero David Cameron, that May can't work a room which makes for a flat atmosphere and an inability to unite.

The Remain campaign on the whole was nothing like what you portrayed. It was heavily fuelled by a gross exaggeration of the danger and the shouting of over the top economic forecasts. That is what made the news. There was also a leaflet from the government through the door of every household in the country with assertions designed to worry. The bus was exposed before the referendum and by leave figures after it. Despite that the polls didn't move. The crazy economic forecasts were exposed. Despite that the polls didn't move. That is because this was a referendum about values and the slogans are largely noise. Research of both gen pop and graduate students, highly intelligent and educated people (I know some people are obssesed with those labels as approval of opinion), show that once people have identified a side they feel they belong to they will judge what they say to be true and repeat it if it is a topic they have no prior knowledge to know any better about. When the topic is ambigious and there is no right answer they will give a more favourable rating to a policy if it has their sides name attached to it and a more negative rating if it has their opponents name on it. You will see immigrant haters suddenly portray themselves as democracy lovers for example. Or you will often see those who are anti-Farage suddenly become worried about the current formation of the economy but then vote for John McDonnell 6 months later. The core of politics has never been about reason, the trick is to find out what people really value and appeal from there.

Probably all a necessary process for May. My Tory contacts have been saying that a very willing purge is going on. May will face a vote of no confidence but the numbers won't be there to actually depose her. The end result being Tory backbench rebels are left with no choice but to accept May's deal. This Tory collision has been brewing for a couple of months and must meet its end, at least in producing a workable result.

Surely the whole point is to normalise coming forward? To remove the fear and shame abuse victims feel that makes them try to bury it. If people are coming forward because of the protests and social movement then is that not evidence that it is in fact starting to normalise things?

This should be how throw ins are always taken

Because the club was for sale I think. He thought us staying up would get him £400m, he was wrong. Takeover has gone dead. Third attempt to sell the club, third failure. No urgency to sell the club, happy to sit on it and wait, that is what rich people do with assets, cashing in is neither here nor there to them unless they think someone is paying them over the odds.

They put season tickets down 10% when we went down and froze prices for the first year back up. They've just increased season ticket prices 20%. You could say fair enough if they went back up 10%, but 20% is taking an extra 10% at a time that tv revenue is at an all time high and probably millions more than the year we went down because we missed the first £100m minimum year by getting relegated.

Season ticket prices up £100 Absolute disgrace

Early polls are showing about 75% have voted against the proposed change. The government and the banks were against it and led your classic fear campaign that status quo supporters always do.

I think that is a pretty good explanation. When people panic and you get bank runs with everyone trying to withdraw their money at once like at northern rock the bank goes bust setting contagion across other banks. The proposals would mean the Swiss central bank would be the only power capable of creating money, rather than private profit seeking banks who tend to use it to drive speculative assets (property, shares) which gives them faster and bigger banker bonuses. Investing in industry and the productive economy has a really slow rate of return, a higher risk and a lower reward, which is why banks do so little of it. But the swiss vote is not so much about that, it is more about protection from the speculative bankers that brought the world to its knees through the interconnectivity of all electronic money. It is a combination of keeping ordinary folks money safe and altering the behaviour of the banking system.

Economics was part of my degree as well and this wasn't covered. 97% of the population and almost all politicians did not know where money came from around 5 years ago. How many do now probably depends on who follows the field, I bet plenty of MP's don't. The Vollgeld Initiative the Swiss are voting on will end private banks ability to loan money out that isn't 100% backed by depositers who willingly provided their money to be loaned out, aka savers. At the moment when you deposit £100 into your bank account the bank only has to keep a fraction of this in reserve for when you ask for it back. The rest they can loan out to someone else. They don't move money directly but for hypothetical scenario lets say they do. Let's say they take £90 of your £100 to give to Mr A to buy a house. Mr A transfers that money to Mr B in exchange for the house. Mr B now has £90 in his bank account. You still have £100 in your bank account. Money is created out of nothing. Mr B's bank then lends £81 of his £90 to Mrs C to buy a car. Mrs C transfers that £81 to Mr D to buy the car. Mr D has £81, Mr B has £90 and you have £100. None of this is real money. It's a giant ponzi scheme. When a bank makes so many bad loans that they become insolvent the whole system is at risk of collapse. Until eventually a bank is "bailed out" by more debt, kicking the can down the road to prevent complete social collapse.

I know posters in this part of the forum prefer to post as if they are intelligentsia versions of The Sun so this news might not matter to anyone, but tomorrow the Swiss vote in a referendum on ending fractural reserve banking and potentially setting in motion a dramatic change of the economic world as we know it by nationalising credit creation.

I like seeing clips of his passion and smile, keeps the fond memories of him.