It is indeed. Must be very difficult decision to make on being public about a terminal illness - last year we lost a few who had given no inkling that they were not long for this earth (Alan Rickman, Victoria Wood).
I think we have an unhealthy obsession with privacy of our wellbeing. Based on no facts at all I feel the stress of illness is lessened and generally the recovery is aided by sharing our troubles.
Secrecy and privacy are over rated and come with many negative side effects and unintended consequences.
There’s a difference between sharing with friends and family and sharing with the world
But that should be an entirely personal decision and one we should support and certainly not criticise. We are far too sensitive about the whole subject of end of life which is rather strange considering it is the one thing that unites us all. The attitude in this country is extremely unhealthy and akin to the way we once viewed the other end of the process - childbirth - where women went into confinement for the duration.
A more open attitude to death, to its prelude and to its consequences would, I feel, do a great deal to help the mental well being of both individuals and society as a whole.
My family are beginning to ask me what arrangements I would like for my funeral, now I’m (just) in my ninth decade. And who should they contact and so on.
This video busts many myths about the Democrats losing the south for a generation in 1968. "The switch" was much slower then people think. I wonder if the class gap narrowing for the bases of Labour and Tories will also be as protracted or will things go back to normal after Brexit? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiprVX4os2Y
No great understanding of what drove the referendum result there then.....
Immigration ?
For many. But I presume the point was that the public showed they were willing to take some economic hit in order to Brexit, since it was made very clear there would be some (granted, some will just not have believed that), therefore putting only economics first is not automatically as popular as she thinks.
The question is how much cost for Brexit is too much. I don't regard any price to be worth paying.
The public absolutely did not show willingness to take an economic hit for Brexit. They were willing to get an extra £350 million a week for the NHS thanks to the "Brexit dividend". The Germans would sell us their cars and in any case who cares about declining Europe when you can be "Global Britain". To say otherwise was "Project Fear"
You do the public a disservice. I said some would have disbelieved warnings of economic hits. But if you are going to tell me that everything remain said about economic hits was ignored, then I would say you are insulting a large proportion of the British public, as well as saying the remain campaign was completely useless, which is improbable. People heard both sides. They heard there would be an economic hit. Are you telling me 17 million people did not believe there would be any hit? I find that very hard to believe.
Sorry, I should have said the LEAVE voting public acted in the belief that Brexit would at least result in no economic damage. About 90% in opinion polls at the time IIRC. Most thought that Brexit would actually boost the economy. They substantially still thought the same a few months ago, when I last looked, in the face of evidence to the contrary.
For Remainers, the reverse was true. They almost all believed there would be an economic hit.
Leavers were probably substantially correct, as they were disproportionally retired or on other forms of government income. In personal terms as opposed to national ones they are substantially protected. Obviously some, such as the Sunderland autoworkers are more likely to be personally affected, but they are a smaller proportion of the Leave vote.
Part of the reason why Trump is able to tear up the Iran deal is he has a GOP Congress behind him in control of both the House and Senate.
If the Democrats gain control of Congress in November and particularly the Senate which has a role in ratifying overseas Treaties Trump may be forced to think again.
Interestingly US public opinion seems to be behind keeping the Iran deal. One CNN poll earlier this month found 69% of Americans wanted to keep the Iran deal but 51% of Republicans were opposed
No great understanding of what drove the referendum result there then.....
Immigration ?
For many. But I presume the point was that the public showed they were willing to take some economic hit in order to Brexit, since it was made very clear there would be some (granted, some will just not have believed that), therefore putting only economics first is not automatically as popular as she thinks.
The question is how much cost for Brexit is too much. I don't regard any price to be worth paying.
The public absolutely did not show willingness to take an economic hit for Brexit. They were willing to get an extra £350 million a week for the NHS thanks to the "Brexit dividend". The Germans would sell us their cars and in any case who cares about declining Europe when you can be "Global Britain". To say otherwise was "Project Fear"
You do the public a disservice. I said some would have disbelieved warnings of economic hits. But if you are going to tell me that everything remain said about economic hits was ignored, then I would say you are insulting a large proportion of the British public, as well as saying the remain campaign was completely useless, which is improbable. People heard both sides. They heard there would be an economic hit. Are you telling me 17 million people did not believe there would be any hit? I find that very hard to believe.
Sorry, I should have said the LEAVE voting public acted in the belief that Brexit would at least result in no economic damage. About 90% in opinion polls at the time IIRC. Most thought that Brexit would actually boost the economy. They substantially still thought the same a few months ago, when I last looked, in the face of evidence to the contrary.
For Remainers, the reverse was true. They almost all believed there would be an economic hit.
I think that many Leavers acknowledged the possibility of some short term disruption on Brexit but were quite sanguine about its scale. They were right to be so. Both sides have massively overstated the impact of Brexit for good or ill. Our economy will be influenced by many more important factors over the next 20 years. What we do to regain energy independence will be one of them.
This is a pitch to hard Leavers restating the red lines May set out in her Lancaster House speech end which she substantially gave away last December.
If she says, "You can trust me to deliver.", clearly that group doesn't trust her to deliver.
There's nothing here for Remainers or the small but important group of pragmatic Leavers. Nor is there any message for the European Union that she is supposedly negotiating with, beyond the impression that she is completely unreliable.
Strikes me that May could have just written "nothing has changed" on her Facebook page and saved us all the trouble of reading the rest of the cake and unicorns nonsense.
Yup. The takeaway is that, whatever their beliefs about Brexit, no-one believes a word Theresa May says.
In particular, our E27 negotiators seem to no longer believe her. A fairly fundamental flaw in the negotiations.
Part of the reason why Trump is able to tear up the Iran deal is he has a GOP Congress behind him in control of both the House and Senate.
If the Democrats gain control of Congress in November and particularly the Senate which has a role in ratifying overseas Treaties Trump may be forced to think again.
Interestingly US public opinion seems to be behind keeping the Iran deal
It's interesting. Public opinion is very fickle. When the Iran deal was being negotiated it was very unpopular.
Part of the reason why Trump is able to tear up the Iran deal is he has a GOP Congress behind him in control of both the House and Senate.
If the Democrats gain control of Congress in November and particularly the Senate which has a role in ratifying overseas Treaties Trump may be forced to think again.
Interestingly US public opinion seems to be behind keeping the Iran deal
It's interesting. Public opinion is very fickle. When the Iran deal was being negotiated it was very unpopular.
My guess is that the vast majority of Americans simply have no interest in becoming embroiled in further ME conflict. Given that there is no longer the strategic imperative of oil this makes complete sense.
Part of the reason why Trump is able to tear up the Iran deal is he has a GOP Congress behind him in control of both the House and Senate.
If the Democrats gain control of Congress in November and particularly the Senate which has a role in ratifying overseas Treaties Trump may be forced to think again.
Interestingly US public opinion seems to be behind keeping the Iran deal
It's interesting. Public opinion is very fickle. When the Iran deal was being negotiated it was very unpopular.
I suppose that even in the USA, no one is keen on further mid East wars.
Good piece. The massive increase in US oil production with fracking has indeed changed their interests in the ME. This week we had a judicial review on the part of Ineos in the Court of Session challenging the Scottish government’s ban on fracking which might politely be described as Luddite.
Not so much “Luddite” as “non existent” - bit like the “EU advice” they spent thousands on legal fees trying to conceal didn’t exist.
Petrochemical firm Ineos said it was "astonished" to hear that the Scottish government had not banned fracking.
The statement was made outside the Court of Session where the company has been challenging the moratorium in Scotland on the controversial practice.
Ineos and Reach CSG claim ministers acted illegally in announcing the block in October 2017.
Government lawyers told the court a ban was not in place and that a final position had yet to be adopted.
From the Cook Political report (strongly recommend a read)
"Last fall, when Election Day was a year out, President Trump’s job-approval-rating averages seemed mired in the high 30s, with Republicans behind on the generic congressional ballot test by as much as a dozen points.
Over the past 90 days, the president’s approval ratings have ticked up to the low-to-mid 40s... This is the first time in Trump’s presidency that his Gallup approval rating of 42 percent has reached a comparabl[y poor] level to any president in modern times.
In the generic-ballot test, the GOP is now typically behind by mid-to-high single digits. As with Trump’s approval rating, Republicans are still in an alarming position on that front, but better than they were."
Am loathe to talk about Eurovision - some people get very animated by it - but it is fun to watch with friends and how everyone has a different view. I liked Albania, Austria and the UK - fair play to Surie who didn't flinch amidst the nonsense. I see there is a bit of a groundswell of support for her to have another go next year in Jerusalem where hopefully security will be a bit tighter.
Good piece. The massive increase in US oil production with fracking has indeed changed their interests in the ME. This week we had a judicial review on the part of Ineos in the Court of Session challenging the Scottish government’s ban on fracking which might politely be described as Luddite.
Not so much “Luddite” as “non existent” - bit like the “EU advice” they spent thousands on legal fees trying to conceal didn’t exist.
Petrochemical firm Ineos said it was "astonished" to hear that the Scottish government had not banned fracking.
The statement was made outside the Court of Session where the company has been challenging the moratorium in Scotland on the controversial practice.
Ineos and Reach CSG claim ministers acted illegally in announcing the block in October 2017.
Government lawyers told the court a ban was not in place and that a final position had yet to be adopted.
Good piece. The massive increase in US oil production with fracking has indeed changed their interests in the ME. This week we had a judicial review on the part of Ineos in the Court of Session challenging the Scottish government’s ban on fracking which might politely be described as Luddite.
Not so much “Luddite” as “non existent” - bit like the “EU advice” they spent thousands on legal fees trying to conceal didn’t exist.
Petrochemical firm Ineos said it was "astonished" to hear that the Scottish government had not banned fracking.
The statement was made outside the Court of Session where the company has been challenging the moratorium in Scotland on the controversial practice.
Ineos and Reach CSG claim ministers acted illegally in announcing the block in October 2017.
Government lawyers told the court a ban was not in place and that a final position had yet to be adopted.
I am friends with some of the counsel on each side. The Scottish government’s hostility to fracking was palpable. They claimed that it was not economically viable, that Ineos had already bought ships to bring gas from the US and that no one wanted to do it anyway. They are playing politics with the largest industrial site in Scotland. It’s a disgrace and strategically stupid.
Part of the reason why Trump is able to tear up the Iran deal is he has a GOP Congress behind him in control of both the House and Senate.
If the Democrats gain control of Congress in November and particularly the Senate which has a role in ratifying overseas Treaties Trump may be forced to think again.
Interestingly US public opinion seems to be behind keeping the Iran deal
It's interesting. Public opinion is very fickle. When the Iran deal was being negotiated it was very unpopular.
Currently almost any policy associated with Trump is toxic for a majority of Americans
There's nothing here for Remainers or the small but important group of pragmatic Leavers. Nor is there any message for the European Union that she is supposedly negotiating with, beyond the impression that she is completely unreliable.
Her own personal red line is that she will not be the one to say it cannot work. She will pile the pressure on Johnson, Gove, Davis, Fox, Baker, Braverman, Leadsom, et al, until one of them cracks and admits that "the Brexit people voted for" doesn't exist.
There's nothing here for Remainers or the small but important group of pragmatic Leavers. Nor is there any message for the European Union that she is supposedly negotiating with, beyond the impression that she is completely unreliable.
Her own personal red line is that she will not be the one to say it cannot work. She will pile the pressure on Johnson, Gove, Davis, Fox, Baker, Braverman, Leadsom, et al, until one of them cracks and admits that "the Brexit people voted for" doesn't exist.
Why would any of them do that? Why not just keep up the pretence so they can say it would have worked, but she bollocksed it up?
Good piece. The massive increase in US oil production with fracking has indeed changed their interests in the ME. This week we had a judicial review on the part of Ineos in the Court of Session challenging the Scottish government’s ban on fracking which might politely be described as Luddite.
Not so much “Luddite” as “non existent” - bit like the “EU advice” they spent thousands on legal fees trying to conceal didn’t exist.
Petrochemical firm Ineos said it was "astonished" to hear that the Scottish government had not banned fracking.
The statement was made outside the Court of Session where the company has been challenging the moratorium in Scotland on the controversial practice.
Ineos and Reach CSG claim ministers acted illegally in announcing the block in October 2017.
Government lawyers told the court a ban was not in place and that a final position had yet to be adopted.
I am friends with some of the counsel on each side. The Scottish government’s hostility to fracking was palpable. They claimed that it was not economically viable, that Ineos had already bought ships to bring gas from the US and that no one wanted to do it anyway. They are playing politics with the largest industrial site in Scotland. It’s a disgrace and strategically stupid.
Though people are free to vote against their economic interest, as we have seen multiple times in recent years.
There's nothing here for Remainers or the small but important group of pragmatic Leavers. Nor is there any message for the European Union that she is supposedly negotiating with, beyond the impression that she is completely unreliable.
Her own personal red line is that she will not be the one to say it cannot work. She will pile the pressure on Johnson, Gove, Davis, Fox, Baker, Braverman, Leadsom, et al, until one of them cracks and admits that "the Brexit people voted for" doesn't exist.
Why would any of them do that? Why not just keep up the pretence so they can say it would have worked, but she bollocksed it up?
As long as they're talking in the past tense about it, it amounts to the same thing with some face-saving.
There's nothing here for Remainers or the small but important group of pragmatic Leavers. Nor is there any message for the European Union that she is supposedly negotiating with, beyond the impression that she is completely unreliable.
Her own personal red line is that she will not be the one to say it cannot work. She will pile the pressure on Johnson, Gove, Davis, Fox, Baker, Braverman, Leadsom, et al, until one of them cracks and admits that "the Brexit people voted for" doesn't exist.
Good piece. The massive increase in US oil production with fracking has indeed changed their interests in the ME. This week we had a judicial review on the part of Ineos in the Court of Session challenging the Scottish government’s ban on fracking which might politely be described as Luddite.
Not so much “Luddite” as “non existent” - bit like the “EU advice” they spent thousands on legal fees trying to conceal didn’t exist.
Petrochemical firm Ineos said it was "astonished" to hear that the Scottish government had not banned fracking.
The statement was made outside the Court of Session where the company has been challenging the moratorium in Scotland on the controversial practice.
Ineos and Reach CSG claim ministers acted illegally in announcing the block in October 2017.
Government lawyers told the court a ban was not in place and that a final position had yet to be adopted.
That would be the Ineos whose owner is now the richest man in the UK?
Yes -- and perhaps £21 billion will be enough to compensate for any adverse seismic activity should things go pear-shaped so this will not be the old story of nationalising the risk but privatising the profits.
There's nothing here for Remainers or the small but important group of pragmatic Leavers. Nor is there any message for the European Union that she is supposedly negotiating with, beyond the impression that she is completely unreliable.
Her own personal red line is that she will not be the one to say it cannot work. She will pile the pressure on Johnson, Gove, Davis, Fox, Baker, Braverman, Leadsom, et al, until one of them cracks and admits that "the Brexit people voted for" doesn't exist.
Why would any of them do that? Why not just keep up the pretence so they can say it would have worked, but she bollocksed it up?
As long as they're talking in the past tense about it, it amounts to the same thing with some face-saving.
This ongoing pretense from pro-EU ideologues that the Gove--Davis position isn't feasible is ridiculous. There are more than a hundred countries in the world who have no freedom of movement, no single market and no customs union with anyone else. Some, like Singapore and Canada, are highly successful.
To be fair they aren't calling for a 'Soft' Brexit just opposing 'Hard' Brexit. As much as establishment people bemoan populists for focusing on what they are against not what they are FOR, the same 'moderates' seem to be doing the same thing themselves.
How do you like your Brexit?
Hard? Soft? Fast? Slow?
Or how about hard and fast or hard and slow?
The trouble now is that even someone like me is losing interest.
I think she may be attempting to appeal directly to voters (or at least Constituency Chairmen) to try to put pressure on the more recalcitrant MPs on either side of the debate. And now Labours said they’ll vote against any deal....
I think she knows there can be no deal this Parliament for her interpretation of the referendum result.
An October or February election looks inevitable. In fact, the Tories possible loss of power will itself be pressure on the Tory party to back her.
She was probably right that she needed a working majority for her type of Brexit, but the GE did not deliver one and if, a big if, polls are correct, it wouldn't with a new one either, for anyone. So what benefit to the nation for a GE? Labour are also split on the issue do if they gained power there's no clear direction, and certainly not if there needs to be a coalition.
May doesn't seem to have the votes for what she wants to do. Nor, it woukd seem, do her ERG opponents. Unless she finds something labour can back and consensus is reached, which is not likely, we're in stalemate. And unless labour switch to remain, I don't know how that stalemate is overcome.
Labour is gradually moving to "a Single Market" through salami sliced announcements. Corbyn, of course, would be the last person to publicly do so "reluctantly". Just like his conversion to "a Customs Union".
The single market means free movement and Corbyn will not back that without potentially gifting Labour Leave voters to the Tories or seeing them stay at home at the next general election or losing control of his economic policy to the ECJ
No great understanding of what drove the referendum result there then.....
Immigration ?
For many. But I presume the point was that the public showed they were willing to take some economic hit in order to Brexit, since it was made very clear there would be some (granted, some will just not have believed that), therefore putting only economics first is not automatically as popular as she thinks.
The question is how much cost for Brexit is too much. I don't regard any price to be worth paying.
The public absolutely did not show willingness to take an economic hit for Brexit. They were willing to get an extra £350 million a week for the NHS thanks to the "Brexit dividend". The Germans would sell us their cars and in any case who cares about declining Europe when you can be "Global Britain". To say otherwise was "Project Fear"
You do the public a disservice. I said some would have disbelieved warnings of economic hits. But if you are going to tell me that everything remain said about economic hits was ignored, then I would say you are insulting a large proportion of the British public, as well as saying the remain campaign was completely useless, which is improbable. People heard both sides. They heard there would be an economic hit. Are you telling me 17 million people did not believe there would be any hit? I find that very hard to believe.
Sorry, I should have said the LEAVE voting public acted in the belief that Brexit would at least result in no economic damage. About 90% in opinion polls at the time IIRC. Most thought that Brexit would actually boost the economy. They substantially still thought the same a few months ago, when I last looked, in the face of evidence to the contrary.
For Remainers, the reverse was true. They almost all believed there would be an economic hit.
Leavers were probably substantially correct, as they were disproportionally retired or on other forms of government income. In personal terms as opposed to national ones they are substantially protected. Obviously some, such as the Sunderland autoworkers are more likely to be personally affected, but they are a smaller proportion of the Leave vote.
LOL. This from someone who works in the public sector and is entirely funded by taxpayer's money.
There are plenty of us who do not have that benefit and protection and who voted for Brexit because it was the right thing to do irrespective of what effect it might have on our personal finances
Part of the reason why Trump is able to tear up the Iran deal is he has a GOP Congress behind him in control of both the House and Senate.
If the Democrats gain control of Congress in November and particularly the Senate which has a role in ratifying overseas Treaties Trump may be forced to think again.
Interestingly US public opinion seems to be behind keeping the Iran deal. One CNN poll earlier this month found 69% of Americans wanted to keep the Iran deal but 51% of Republicans were opposed
One problem with tearing up deals in Trump's cavalier fashion is that one day he or the United States generally may want to make another one, in Korea, say.
Good piece. The massive increase in US oil production with fracking has indeed changed their interests in the ME. This week we had a judicial review on the part of Ineos in the Court of Session challenging the Scottish government’s ban on fracking which might politely be described as Luddite.
Not so much “Luddite” as “non existent” - bit like the “EU advice” they spent thousands on legal fees trying to conceal didn’t exist.
Petrochemical firm Ineos said it was "astonished" to hear that the Scottish government had not banned fracking.
The statement was made outside the Court of Session where the company has been challenging the moratorium in Scotland on the controversial practice.
Ineos and Reach CSG claim ministers acted illegally in announcing the block in October 2017.
Government lawyers told the court a ban was not in place and that a final position had yet to be adopted.
I am friends with some of the counsel on each side. The Scottish government’s hostility to fracking was palpable. They claimed that it was not economically viable, that Ineos had already bought ships to bring gas from the US and that no one wanted to do it anyway. They are playing politics with the largest industrial site in Scotland. It’s a disgrace and strategically stupid.
Though people are free to vote against their economic interest, as we have seen multiple times in recent years.
There's nothing here for Remainers or the small but important group of pragmatic Leavers. Nor is there any message for the European Union that she is supposedly negotiating with, beyond the impression that she is completely unreliable.
Her own personal red line is that she will not be the one to say it cannot work. She will pile the pressure on Johnson, Gove, Davis, Fox, Baker, Braverman, Leadsom, et al, until one of them cracks and admits that "the Brexit people voted for" doesn't exist.
Why would any of them do that? Why not just keep up the pretence so they can say it would have worked, but she bollocksed it up?
As long as they're talking in the past tense about it, it amounts to the same thing with some face-saving.
This ongoing pretense from pro-EU ideologues that the Gove--Davis position isn't feasible is ridiculous. There are more than a hundred countries in the world who have no freedom of movement, no single market and no customs union with anyone else. Some, like Singapore and Canada, are highly successful.
How many of them are guaranteeing that part of their territory have no infrastructure or checks on a land border with the EU?
I think she may be attempting to appeal directly to voters (or at least Constituency Chairmen) to try to put pressure on the more recalcitrant MPs on either side of the debate. And now Labours said they’ll vote against any deal....
I think she knows there can be no deal this Parliament for her interpretation of the referendum result.
An October or February election looks inevitable. In fact, the Tories possible loss of power will itself be pressure on the Tory party to back her.
On the current Survation Gold Standard poll even an early general election would see May stay in power with virtually no change from the last general election result
Am loathe to talk about Eurovision - some people get very animated by it - but it is fun to watch with friends and how everyone has a different view. I liked Albania, Austria and the UK - fair play to Surie who didn't flinch amidst the nonsense. I see there is a bit of a groundswell of support for her to have another go next year in Jerusalem where hopefully security will be a bit tighter.
It has got too self-referential; with every act and every commentator relentlessly sending it up, there's no serious core to parody, so none of the attempted self-parody works.
Has it ever produced one decent song? The only ones I can think of are Puppet on a String ("I hated it from the very first oompah to the final bang on the big bass drum. I was instinctively repelled by its sexist drivel and cuckoo-clock tune" - Sandie Shaw) and Waterloo which did its job of launching Abba but is a toe-curling embarrassment.
No great understanding of what drove the referendum result there then.....
Immigration ?
The question is how much cost for Brexit is too much. I don't regard any price to be worth paying.
The public absolutely did not show willingness to take an economic hit for Brexit. They were willing to get an extra £350 million a week for the NHS thanks to the "Brexit dividend". The Germans would sell us their cars and in any case who cares about declining Europe when you can be "Global Britain". To say otherwise was "Project Fear"
You do the public a disservice. I said some would have disbelieved warnings of economic hits. But if you are going to tell me that everything remain said about economic hits was ignored, then I would say you are insulting a large proportion of the British public, as well as saying the remain campaign was completely useless, which is improbable. People heard both sides. They heard there would be an economic hit. Are you telling me 17 million people did not believe there would be any hit? I find that very hard to believe.
Sorry, I should have said the LEAVE voting public acted in the belief that Brexit would at least result in no economic damage. About 90% in opinion polls at the time IIRC. Most thought that Brexit would actually boost the economy. They substantially still thought the same a few months ago, when I last looked, in the face of evidence to the contrary.
For Remainers, the reverse was true. They almost all believed there would be an economic hit.
I think that many Leavers acknowledged the possibility of some short term disruption on Brexit but were quite sanguine about its scale. They were right to be so. Both sides have massively overstated the impact of Brexit for good or ill. Our economy will be influenced by many more important factors over the next 20 years. What we do to regain energy independence will be one of them.
The economic impact of Brexit is likely to be mild in both the medium and the long term. So what matters are the social and political issues of immigration and federal union. Remainers know they are on the wrong side of public opinion by large margins on both of those, so don't want the conversation going back to them.
There's nothing here for Remainers or the small but important group of pragmatic Leavers. Nor is there any message for the European Union that she is supposedly negotiating with, beyond the impression that she is completely unreliable.
Her own personal red line is that she will not be the one to say it cannot work. She will pile the pressure on Johnson, Gove, Davis, Fox, Baker, Braverman, Leadsom, et al, until one of them cracks and admits that "the Brexit people voted for" doesn't exist.
Why would any of them do that? Why not just keep up the pretence so they can say it would have worked, but she bollocksed it up?
As long as they're talking in the past tense about it, it amounts to the same thing with some face-saving.
This ongoing pretense from pro-EU ideologues that the Gove--Davis position isn't feasible is ridiculous. There are more than a hundred countries in the world who have no freedom of movement, no single market and no customs union with anyone else. Some, like Singapore and Canada, are highly successful.
How many of them are guaranteeing that part of their territory have no infrastructure or checks on a land border with the EU?
It is indeed. Must be very difficult decision to make on being public about a terminal illness - last year we lost a few who had given no inkling that they were not long for this earth (Alan Rickman, Victoria Wood).
I think we have an unhealthy obsession with privacy of our wellbeing. Based on no facts at all I feel the stress of illness is lessened and generally the recovery is aided by sharing our troubles.
Secrecy and privacy are over rated and come with many negative side effects and unintended consequences.
There’s a difference between sharing with friends and family and sharing with the world
But that should be an entirely personal decision and one we should support and certainly not criticise. We are far too sensitive about the whole subject of end of life which is rather strange considering it is the one thing that unites us all. The attitude in this country is extremely unhealthy and akin to the way we once viewed the other end of the process - childbirth - where women went into confinement for the duration.
A more open attitude to death, to its prelude and to its consequences would, I feel, do a great deal to help the mental well being of both individuals and society as a whole.
Very true and well written.
For many people , they never see death , as it is all conducted by professionals .
In contrast to previous times , when there was much more family involvement.
LOL. This from someone who works in the public sector and is entirely funded by taxpayer's money.
There are plenty of us who do not have that benefit and protection and who voted for Brexit because it was the right thing to do irrespective of what effect it might have on our personal finances
I loved that farmer on radio 4 who, on being hectored about voting Leave being likely to cost him money, said "That's not really the point - if I wanted to be rich I wouldn't have been a farmer in the first place".
Good piece. The massive increase in US oil production with fracking has indeed changed their interests in the ME. This week we had a judicial review on the part of Ineos in the Court of Session challenging the Scottish government’s ban on fracking which might politely be described as Luddite.
Not so much “Luddite” as “non existent” - bit like the “EU advice” they spent thousands on legal fees trying to conceal didn’t exist.
Petrochemical firm Ineos said it was "astonished" to hear that the Scottish government had not banned fracking.
The statement was made outside the Court of Session where the company has been challenging the moratorium in Scotland on the controversial practice.
Ineos and Reach CSG claim ministers acted illegally in announcing the block in October 2017.
Government lawyers told the court a ban was not in place and that a final position had yet to be adopted.
I am friends with some of the counsel on each side. The Scottish government’s hostility to fracking was palpable. They claimed that it was not economically viable, that Ineos had already bought ships to bring gas from the US and that no one wanted to do it anyway. They are playing politics with the largest industrial site in Scotland. It’s a disgrace and strategically stupid.
Though people are free to vote against their economic interest, as we have seen multiple times in recent years.
I think she may be attempting to appeal directly to voters (or at least Constituency Chairmen) to try to put pressure on the more recalcitrant MPs on either side of the debate. And now Labours said they’ll vote against any deal....
I think she knows there can be no deal this Parliament for her interpretation of the referendum result.
An October or February election looks inevitable. In fact, the Tories possible loss of power will itself be pressure on the Tory party to back her.
On the current Survation Gold Standard poll even an early general election would see May stay in power with virtually no change from the last general election result
Good piece. The massive increase in US oil production with fracking has indeed changed their interests in the ME. This week we had a judicial review on the part of Ineos in the Court of Session challenging the Scottish government’s ban on fracking which might politely be described as Luddite.
Not so much “Luddite” as “non existent” - bit like the “EU advice” they spent thousands on legal fees trying to conceal didn’t exist.
Petrochemical firm Ineos said it was "astonished" to hear that the Scottish government had not banned fracking.
The statement was made outside the Court of Session where the company has been challenging the moratorium in Scotland on the controversial practice.
Ineos and Reach CSG claim ministers acted illegally in announcing the block in October 2017.
Government lawyers told the court a ban was not in place and that a final position had yet to be adopted.
I am friends with some of the counsel on each side. The Scottish government’s hostility to fracking was palpable. They claimed that it was not economically viable, that Ineos had already bought ships to bring gas from the US and that no one wanted to do it anyway. They are playing politics with the largest industrial site in Scotland. It’s a disgrace and strategically stupid.
Though people are free to vote against their economic interest, as we have seen multiple times in recent years...
Indeed they are - but the governments the elect ought at least to be honest about what they are doing.
There's nothing here for Remainers or the small but important group of pragmatic Leavers. Nor is there any message for the European Union that she is supposedly negotiating with, beyond the impression that she is completely unreliable.
Her own personal red line is that she will not be the one to say it cannot work. She will pile the pressure on Johnson, Gove, Davis, Fox, Baker, Braverman, Leadsom, et al, until one of them cracks and admits that "the Brexit people voted for" doesn't exist.
Why would any of them do that? Why not just keep up the pretence so they can say it would have worked, but she bollocksed it up?
As long as they're talking in the past tense about it, it amounts to the same thing with some face-saving.
This ongoing pretense from pro-EU ideologues that the Gove--Davis position isn't feasible is ridiculous. There are more than a hundred countries in the world who have no freedom of movement, no single market and no customs union with anyone else. Some, like Singapore and Canada, are highly successful.
How many of them are guaranteeing that part of their territory have no infrastructure or checks on a land border with the EU?
Good piece. The massive increase in US oil production with fracking has indeed changed their interests in the ME. This week we had a judicial review on the part of Ineos in the Court of Session challenging the Scottish government’s ban on fracking which might politely be described as Luddite.
Not so much “Luddite” as “non existent” - bit like the “EU advice” they spent thousands on legal fees trying to conceal didn’t exist.
Petrochemical firm Ineos said it was "astonished" to hear that the Scottish government had not banned fracking.
The statement was made outside the Court of Session where the company has been challenging the moratorium in Scotland on the controversial practice.
Ineos and Reach CSG claim ministers acted illegally in announcing the block in October 2017.
Government lawyers told the court a ban was not in place and that a final position had yet to be adopted.
I am friends with some of the counsel on each side. The Scottish government’s hostility to fracking was palpable. They claimed that it was not economically viable, that Ineos had already bought ships to bring gas from the US and that no one wanted to do it anyway. They are playing politics with the largest industrial site in Scotland. It’s a disgrace and strategically stupid.
Though people are free to vote against their economic interest, as we have seen multiple times in recent years.
It is indeed. Must be very difficult decision to make on being public about a terminal illness - last year we lost a few who had given no inkling that they were not long for this earth (Alan Rickman, Victoria Wood).
I think we have an unhealthy obsession with privacy of our wellbeing. Based on no facts at all I feel the stress of illness is lessened and generally the recovery is aided by sharing our troubles.
Secrecy and privacy are over rated and come with many negative side effects and unintended consequences.
There’s a difference between sharing with friends and family and sharing with the world
But that should be an entirely personal decision and one we should support and certainly not criticise. We are far too sensitive about the whole subject of end of life which is rather strange considering it is the one thing that unites us all. The attitude in this country is extremely unhealthy and akin to the way we once viewed the other end of the process - childbirth - where women went into confinement for the duration.
A more open attitude to death, to its prelude and to its consequences would, I feel, do a great deal to help the mental well being of both individuals and society as a whole.
Very true and well written.
For many people , they never see death , as it is all conducted by professionals .
In contrast to previous times , when there was much more family involvement.
Death has become something which happens predominantly to the old.
In earlier generations there would have been many more deaths throughout the average lifestyle and people would have become more used to dealing with it.
No great understanding of what drove the referendum result there then.....
The question is how much cost for Brexit is too much. I don't regard any price to be worth paying.
The public absolutely did not show willingness to take an economic hit for Brexit. They were willing to get an extra £350 million a week for the NHS thanks to the "Brexit dividend". The Germans would sell us their cars and in any case who cares about declining Europe when you can be "Global Britain". To say otherwise was "Project Fear"
You do the public a disservice. I said some would have disbelieved warnings of economic hits. But if you are going to tell me that everything remain said about economic hits was ignored, then I would say you are insulting a large proportion of the British public, as well as saying the remain campaign was completely useless, which is improbable. People heard both sides. They heard there would be an economic hit. Are you telling me 17 million people did not believe there would be any hit? I find that very hard to believe.
Sorry, I should have said the LEAVE voting public acted in the belief that Brexit would at least result in no economic damage. About 90% in opinion polls at the time IIRC. Most thought that Brexit would actually boost the economy. They substantially still thought the same a few months ago, when I last looked, in the face of evidence to the contrary.
For Remainers, the reverse was true. They almost all believed there would be an economic hit.
A lot depends on your definitions of 'hit', and 'damage to the economy'. Consider Surby's 0.3% hit earlier on this thread. Let's assume that this is accompanied by a reduction of net migration by 200,000 p.a. (I'm not arguing about cause and effect, but taking a reduction which seems consistent with many leaver's and remainer's forecasts). The UK GDP might be 0.3% less, but the GDP per person would be unchanged. (65 million * 0.3% = 195 thousand) The distribution of the GDP might change, but no one has argued about this.
So, remainer's could argue the country's GDP has taken a 'hit', while leavers argue that the population of the country have suffered no harm, hence no 'hit'. Indeed, they could argue the reduced stress on public transport, housing, etc would improve the people's quality of life.
No great understanding of what drove the referendum result there then.....
Immigration ?
For many. But I presume the point was that the public showed they were willing to take some economic hit in order to Brexit, since it was made very clear there would be some (granted, some will just not have believed that), therefore putting only economics first is not automatically as popular as she thinks.
The question is how much cost for Brexit is too much. I don't regard any price to be worth paying.
The public absolutely did not show willingness to take an economic hit for Brexit. They were willing to get an extra £350 million a week for the NHS thanks to the "Brexit dividend". The Germans would sell us their cars and in any case who cares about declining Europe when you can be "Global Britain". To say otherwise was "Project Fear"
You do the public a disservice. I said e.
Sorry, I should have
For Remainers, the reverse was true. They almost all believed there would be an economic hit.
Leavers were probably substantially correct, as they were disproportionally retired or on other forms of government income. In personal terms as opposed to national ones they are substantially protected. Obviously some, such as the Sunderland autoworkers are more likely to be personally affected, but they are a smaller proportion of the Leave vote.
LOL. This from someone who works in the public sector and is entirely funded by taxpayer's money.
There are plenty of us who do not have that benefit and protection and who voted for Brexit because it was the right thing to do irrespective of what effect it might have on our personal finances
I have some private income too, from my private and medico-legal work, but those are also protected from the economic effects of Brexit. It is why I am fairly sanguine about it, like most in service industries.The economic effects will only be indirect on me. The closest that I have come to being impacted is my brothers job being moved to the Netherlands, but he took redundancy instead.
Indeed the effect of restricting immigration and thereby increasing demands on British doctors is giving me a good financial boost.
No great understanding of what drove the referendum result there then.....
Immigration ?
For many. But I presume the point was that the public showed they were willing to take some economic hit in order to Brexit, since it was made very clear there would be some (granted, some will just not have believed that), therefore putting only economics first is not automatically as popular as she thinks.
The question is how much cost for Brexit is too much. I don't regard any price to be worth paying.
The public absolutely did not show willingness to take an economic hit for Brexit. They were willing to get an extra £350 million a week for the NHS thanks to the "Brexit dividend". The Germans would sell us their cars and in any case who cares about declining Europe when you can be "Global Britain". To say otherwise was "Project Fear"
You do the public a disservice. I said some would have disbelieved warnings of economic hits. But if you are going to tell me that everything remain said about economic hits was ignored, then I would say you are insulting a large proportion of the British public, as well as saying the remain campaign was completely useless, which is improbable. People heard both sides. They heard there would be an economic hit. Are you telling me 17 million people did not believe there would be any hit? I find that very hard to believe.
Sorry, I should have said the LEAVE voting public acted in the belief that Brexit would at least result in no economic damage. About 90% in opinion polls at the time IIRC. Most thought that Brexit would actually boost the economy. They substantially still thought the same a few months ago, when I last looked, in the face of evidence to the contrary.
For Remainers, the reverse was true. They almost all believed there would be an economic hit.
I think that many Leavers acknowledged the possibility of some short term disruption on Brexit but were quite sanguine about its scale. They were right to be so. Both sides have massively overstated the impact of Brexit for good or ill. Our economy will be influenced by many more important factors over the next 20 years. What we do to regain energy independence will be one of them.
Disruption is not a bad thing when you have an economic system which is not working for an increasing proportion of the people.
To be fair they aren't calling for a 'Soft' Brexit just opposing 'Hard' Brexit. As much as establishment people bemoan populists for focusing on what they are against not what they are FOR, the same 'moderates' seem to be doing the same thing themselves.
How do you like your Brexit?
Hard? Soft? Fast? Slow?
Or how about hard and fast or hard and slow?
The trouble now is that even someone like me is losing interest.
How about a workable Brexit? There isn't a Brexit that doesn't leave the UK in a worse position than it was before, but a damage limited Brexit is possible. I can see that would not be an interesting Brexit to any Leaver or Remainer, but we are where we are.
"The time for the two-year-long British fudge is coming to an end."
"There is a high level of engagement between Dublin and London at present, despite the poor relationship between the Taoiseach and prime minister Theresa May, especially with Philip Hammond and David Lidington, who are regarded by Irish Ministers as the “grown-ups”. "
There's nothing here for Remainers or the small but important group of pragmatic Leavers. Nor is there any message for the European Union that she is supposedly negotiating with, beyond the impression that she is completely unreliable.
Her own personal red line is that she will not be the one to say it cannot work. She will pile the pressure on Johnson, Gove, Davis, Fox, Baker, Braverman, Leadsom, et al, until one of them cracks and admits that "the Brexit people voted for" doesn't exist.
Why would any of them do that? Why not just keep up the pretence so they can say it would have worked, but she bollocksed it up?
As long as they're talking in the past tense about it, it amounts to the same thing with some face-saving.
This ongoing pretense from pro-EU ideologues that the Gove--Davis position isn't feasible is ridiculous. There are more than a hundred countries in the world who have no freedom of movement, no single market and no customs union with anyone else. Some, like Singapore and Canada, are highly successful.
How many of them are guaranteeing that part of their territory have no infrastructure or checks on a land border with the EU?
"The time for the two-year-long British fudge is coming to an end."
"There is a high level of engagement between Dublin and London at present, despite the poor relationship between the Taoiseach and prime minister Theresa May, especially with Philip Hammond and David Lidington, who are regarded by Irish Ministers as the “grown-ups”. "
"The time for the two-year-long British fudge is coming to an end."
"There is a high level of engagement between Dublin and London at present, despite the poor relationship between the Taoiseach and prime minister Theresa May, especially with Philip Hammond and David Lidington, who are regarded by Irish Ministers as the “grown-ups”. "
"The time for the two-year-long British fudge is coming to an end."
"There is a high level of engagement between Dublin and London at present, despite the poor relationship between the Taoiseach and prime minister Theresa May, especially with Philip Hammond and David Lidington, who are regarded by Irish Ministers as the “grown-ups”. "
Good piece. The massive increase in US oil production with fracking has indeed changed their interests in the ME. This week we had a judicial review on the part of Ineos in the Court of Session challenging the Scottish government’s ban on fracking which might politely be described as Luddite.
Not so much “Luddite” as “non existent” - bit like the “EU advice” they spent thousands on legal fees trying to conceal didn’t exist.
Petrochemical firm Ineos said it was "astonished" to hear that the Scottish government had not banned fracking.
The statement was made outside the Court of Session where the company has been challenging the moratorium in Scotland on the controversial practice.
Ineos and Reach CSG claim ministers acted illegally in announcing the block in October 2017.
Government lawyers told the court a ban was not in place and that a final position had yet to be adopted.
I am friends with some of the counsel on each side. The Scottish government’s hostility to fracking was palpable. They claimed that it was not economically viable, that Ineos had already bought ships to bring gas from the US and that no one wanted to do it anyway. They are playing politics with the largest industrial site in Scotland. It’s a disgrace and strategically stupid.
Though people are free to vote against their economic interest, as we have seen multiple times in recent years.
Pro-frackers need to convince the public first, and they seem not to be winning that one.
Until the people affected personally gain financially they will have no reason to support fracking.
Silly people. Surely they should be convinced by the farsighted way that UK governments have harvested and nurtured offshore oil resources over 50 years.
Ratifying the Maastricht Treaty was in the 1992 Tory manifesto wasn’t it?
Didn’t stop IDS rebelling.
Staying in the ERM was in the 1992 Tory manifesto wasn't it ?
IIRC there was a qualifier in there saying membership for as long as it was in the UK’s economic interests.
It's mainly mentioned as a warning that being in the ERM won't protect us from a Labour government.
Membership of the ERM is now central to our counter-inflation discipline. But the ERM is not a magic wand. It would not protect Labour; it would merely expose the folly of Labour policies. Some Labour politicians know that all too well - others simply don't. They - and some of the unions - would put irresistible spending pressure on a Labour government.
Has Corbyn said anything about Tessie Jowell yet? Not seen anything. May's tribute seemed particularly genuine. I always had the impression that she was holding back when Tessie's husband had his local difficulty. I think they genuinely liked each other.
Has Corbyn said anything about Tessie Jowell yet? Not seen anything. May's tribute seemed particularly genuine. I always had the impression that she was holding back when Tessie's husband had his local difficulty. I think they genuinely liked each other.
Presumably Schrodingers homeless, similtaneously sleeping rough and occupying homes. The Lithuanian in the story was sleeping rough, but employed too.
I expect there's enough poor immigrants to fill up both the rough-sleeping and beds in sheds categories.
And 'employed' can also mean many things including Big Issue selling, 16 hours a week tax credit claiming, zero hours exploited labour or the sort of construction job reported here:
Paragraph 4. ...I will ensure that we take back control of our borders. The public want their own Government to decide on the number of people coming into Britain from across the European Union and that is what we are going to do....
Paragraph 12. ...I am clear that any deal with the EU must protect our precious union and also honour the agreements that were reached in the historic Northern Irish peace process. This means there can be no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland...
You can do 4 ("Government to decide on the number of people coming into Britain from across the European Union") or you can do 12 ("there can be no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland") but you can't do both.
Theresa May. Cannot make a hard decision to save her life.
Has Corbyn said anything about Tessie Jowell yet? Not seen anything. May's tribute seemed particularly genuine. I always had the impression that she was holding back when Tessie's husband had his local difficulty. I think they genuinely liked each other.
Ratifying the Maastricht Treaty was in the 1992 Tory manifesto wasn’t it?
Didn’t stop IDS rebelling.
Staying in the ERM was in the 1992 Tory manifesto wasn't it ?
IIRC there was a qualifier in there saying membership for as long as it was in the UK’s economic interests.
Yet it was the unwilling ERM ejection followed by the exposure that the associated project fear had been a pack of lies (interest rates falling rapidly instead of being increased etc) which was a major factor in the Maastricht arguments.
Not to forget Denmark's No vote being responded to with an order to have another referendum to get the required answer.
I think she may be attempting to appeal directly to voters (or at least Constituency Chairmen) to try to put pressure on the more recalcitrant MPs on either side of the debate. And now Labours said they’ll vote against any deal....
I think she knows there can be no deal this Parliament for her interpretation of the referendum result.
An October or February election looks inevitable. In fact, the Tories possible loss of power will itself be pressure on the Tory party to back her.
Parliament now needs to be sitting for an early election to be called. Not much opportunity to call an election in September really.
Paragraph 4. ...I will ensure that we take back control of our borders. The public want their own Government to decide on the number of people coming into Britain from across the European Union and that is what we are going to do....
Paragraph 12. ...I am clear that any deal with the EU must protect our precious union and also honour the agreements that were reached in the historic Northern Irish peace process. This means there can be no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland...
You can do 4 ("Government to decide on the number of people coming into Britain from across the European Union") or you can do 12 ("there can be no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland") but you can't do both.
Theresa May. Cannot make a hard decision to save her life.
Actually those are not incompatible. Customs is about goods, and the CTA is about people, so perfectly possible for these to be combined. What is proving less possible is for the open border to the EU to be combined with leaving the CU. It looks to me the DUP get to choose between hard border, and a General election.
Good piece. The massive increase in US oil production with fracking has indeed changed their interests in the ME. This week we had a judicial review on the part of Ineos in the Court of Session challenging the Scottish government’s ban on fracking which might politely be described as Luddite.
Not so much “Luddite” as “non existent” - bit like the “EU advice” they spent thousands on legal fees trying to conceal didn’t exist.
Petrochemical firm Ineos said it was "astonished" to hear that the Scottish government had not banned fracking.
The statement was made outside the Court of Session where the company has been challenging the moratorium in Scotland on the controversial practice.
Ineos and Reach CSG claim ministers acted illegally in announcing the block in October 2017.
Government lawyers told the court a ban was not in place and that a final position had yet to be adopted.
"The time for the two-year-long British fudge is coming to an end."
"There is a high level of engagement between Dublin and London at present, despite the poor relationship between the Taoiseach and prime minister Theresa May, especially with Philip Hammond and David Lidington, who are regarded by Irish Ministers as the “grown-ups”. "
It is indeed. Must be very difficult decision to make on being public about a terminal illness - last year we lost a few who had given no inkling that they were not long for this earth (Alan Rickman, Victoria Wood).
I think we have an unhealthy obsession with privacy of our wellbeing. Based on no facts at all I feel the stress of illness is lessened and generally the recovery is aided by sharing our troubles.
Secrecy and privacy are over rated and come with many negative side effects and unintended consequences.
There’s a difference between sharing with friends and family and sharing with the world
But that should be an entirely personal decision and one we should support and certainly not criticise. We are far too sensitive about the whole subject of end of life which is rather strange considering it is the one thing that unites us all. The attitude in this country is extremely unhealthy and akin to the way we once viewed the other end of the process - childbirth - where women went into confinement for the duration.
A more open attitude to death, to its prelude and to its consequences would, I feel, do a great deal to help the mental well being of both individuals and society as a whole.
Yes, but @philiph was implicitly criticising Victoria Wood and Alan Rickman who chose not to share with the world that they were dying.
I have no idea whether either of them shared that with their family and friends. I hope they did, but it's entirely their choice.
"The time for the two-year-long British fudge is coming to an end."
"There is a high level of engagement between Dublin and London at present, despite the poor relationship between the Taoiseach and prime minister Theresa May, especially with Philip Hammond and David Lidington, who are regarded by Irish Ministers as the “grown-ups”. "
I think the Minister doth overegg his pudding a little.
Well, he is Deputy TD and responsible for the Irish governments Brexit position, and closely aligned with Barnier, so perhaps carries some weight in these things:
"The time for the two-year-long British fudge is coming to an end."
"There is a high level of engagement between Dublin and London at present, despite the poor relationship between the Taoiseach and prime minister Theresa May, especially with Philip Hammond and David Lidington, who are regarded by Irish Ministers as the “grown-ups”. "
I think the Minister doth overegg his pudding a little. I don't think the agreement is anything like as precise as claimed.
And there is still the small matter that the Irish government had previously been negotiating along those lines.
If this does go pear-shaped, no one is going to be more royally buggered - outside the UK - than the Irish - and we have some levers (our own currency) they don't....
Am loathe to talk about Eurovision - some people get very animated by it - but it is fun to watch with friends and how everyone has a different view. I liked Albania, Austria and the UK - fair play to Surie who didn't flinch amidst the nonsense. I see there is a bit of a groundswell of support for her to have another go next year in Jerusalem where hopefully security will be a bit tighter.
It has got too self-referential; with every act and every commentator relentlessly sending it up, there's no serious core to parody, so none of the attempted self-parody works.
Has it ever produced one decent song? The only ones I can think of are Puppet on a String ("I hated it from the very first oompah to the final bang on the big bass drum. I was instinctively repelled by its sexist drivel and cuckoo-clock tune" - Sandie Shaw) and Waterloo which did its job of launching Abba but is a toe-curling embarrassment.
Gerrard out demo outside Ibrox by the end of the day?
'12:52 GOAL Hibernian 3-0 Rangers
Jamie Maclaren
It's a rout!'
I would have thought that Rangers needed a more experienced manager to regain their former glories. It is a lot to ask of a rookie, even one with a strong playing record.
Gerrard out demo outside Ibrox by the end of the day?
'12:52 GOAL Hibernian 3-0 Rangers
Jamie Maclaren
It's a rout!'
I would have thought that Rangers needed a more experienced manager to regain their former glories. It is a lot to ask of a rookie, even one with a strong playing record.
I think she may be attempting to appeal directly to voters (or at least Constituency Chairmen) to try to put pressure on the more recalcitrant MPs on either side of the debate. And now Labours said they’ll vote against any deal....
I think she knows there can be no deal this Parliament for her interpretation of the referendum result.
An October or February election looks inevitable. In fact, the Tories possible loss of power will itself be pressure on the Tory party to back her.
On the current Survation Gold Standard poll even an early general election would see May stay in power with virtually no change from the last general election result
Wait until you see her manifesto though...
Corbyn made virtually zero net gains at all from the Tories in GE 2017 compared to GE 2015 even after the publication of the Tory manifesto and the disastrous dementia tax which has now been dumped anyway, virtually all his gains came from squeezing LD, Green, SNP and UKIP voters and there is little more room for him to squeeze there.
I repeat, a general election now would solve nothing and produce virtually the same result as the last one and still leave May in power but short of a working majority.
Good piece. The massive increase in US oil production with fracking has indeed changed their interests in the ME. This week we had a judicial review on the part of Ineos in the Court of Session challenging the Scottish government’s ban on fracking which might politely be described as Luddite.
Not so much “Luddite” as “non existent” - bit like the “EU advice” they spent thousands on legal fees trying to conceal didn’t exist.
Petrochemical firm Ineos said it was "astonished" to hear that the Scottish government had not banned fracking.
The statement was made outside the Court of Session where the company has been challenging the moratorium in Scotland on the controversial practice.
Ineos and Reach CSG claim ministers acted illegally in announcing the block in October 2017.
Government lawyers told the court a ban was not in place and that a final position had yet to be adopted.
The Scottish government’s hostility to fracking was palpable.
Is that just to keep the Greens onside, or is it deeper than that?
I don't have any inside knowledge on their motivations but I have no doubt that they think it is politically popular and they are probably right. Just as with GM our media and anti science obsessives seem to completely dominate public discussion and attitudes. The hostility to scientific progress in this country and much of the west that does not involve a mobile phone or a tablet is concerning.
Am loathe to talk about Eurovision - some people get very animated by it - but it is fun to watch with friends and how everyone has a different view. I liked Albania, Austria and the UK - fair play to Surie who didn't flinch amidst the nonsense. I see there is a bit of a groundswell of support for her to have another go next year in Jerusalem where hopefully security will be a bit tighter.
It has got too self-referential; with every act and every commentator relentlessly sending it up, there's no serious core to parody, so none of the attempted self-parody works.
Has it ever produced one decent song? The only ones I can think of are Puppet on a String ("I hated it from the very first oompah to the final bang on the big bass drum. I was instinctively repelled by its sexist drivel and cuckoo-clock tune" - Sandie Shaw) and Waterloo which did its job of launching Abba but is a toe-curling embarrassment.
"The time for the two-year-long British fudge is coming to an end."
"There is a high level of engagement between Dublin and London at present, despite the poor relationship between the Taoiseach and prime minister Theresa May, especially with Philip Hammond and David Lidington, who are regarded by Irish Ministers as the “grown-ups”. "
I think the Minister doth overegg his pudding a little. I don't think the agreement is anything like as precise as claimed.
And there is still the small matter that the Irish government had previously been negotiating along those lines.
The draft treaty is the agreement in concrete legal terms. The UK government could challenge the wording but in fact it rejects in principle this part of its previous agreement.
"The time for the two-year-long British fudge is coming to an end."
"There is a high level of engagement between Dublin and London at present, despite the poor relationship between the Taoiseach and prime minister Theresa May, especially with Philip Hammond and David Lidington, who are regarded by Irish Ministers as the “grown-ups”. "
I think the Minister doth overegg his pudding a little.
Well, he is Deputy TD and responsible for the Irish governments Brexit position, and closely aligned with Barnier, so perhaps carries some weight in these things:
I think she may be attempting to appeal directly to voters (or at least Constituency Chairmen) to try to put pressure on the more recalcitrant MPs on either side of the debate. And now Labours said they’ll vote against any deal....
I think she knows there can be no deal this Parliament for her interpretation of the referendum result.
An October or February election looks inevitable. In fact, the Tories possible loss of power will itself be pressure on the Tory party to back her.
On the current Survation Gold Standard poll even an early general election would see May stay in power with virtually no change from the last general election result
Wait until you see her manifesto though...
Corbyn made virtually zero net gains at all from the Tories in GE 2017 compared to GE 2015 even after the publication of the Tory manifesto and the disastrous dementia tax which had now been dumped anyway, virtually all his gains from squeezing LD, Green, SNP and UKIP voters.
I repeat, a general election now would solve nothing and produce virtually the same result as the last one and still leave May in power but short of a working majority.
Labour made a net gain of 22 seats from the Tories in 2017 compared with 2015.
I think she may be attempting to appeal directly to voters (or at least Constituency Chairmen) to try to put pressure on the more recalcitrant MPs on either side of the debate. And now Labours said they’ll vote against any deal....
I think she knows there can be no deal this Parliament for her interpretation of the referendum result.
An October or February election looks inevitable. In fact, the Tories possible loss of power will itself be pressure on the Tory party to back her.
On the current Survation Gold Standard poll even an early general election would see May stay in power with virtually no change from the last general election result
Wait until you see her manifesto though...
Corbyn made virtually zero net gains at all from the Tories in GE 2017 compared to GE 2015 even after the publication of the Tory manifesto and the disastrous dementia tax which had now been dumped anyway, virtually all his gains from squeezing LD, Green, SNP and UKIP voters.
I repeat, a general election now would solve nothing and produce virtually the same result as the last one and still leave May in power but short of a working majority.
Labour made a net gain of 22 seats from the Tories in 2017 compared with 2015.
In seats NOT in voters, those gains came almost entirely from getting more minor party and non voters voting Labour and there will be little more room to do that next time.
Corbyn made virtually no net gains at all in terms of Tory voters switching to Labour and he has to do that to become PM next time
"The time for the two-year-long British fudge is coming to an end."
"There is a high level of engagement between Dublin and London at present, despite the poor relationship between the Taoiseach and prime minister Theresa May, especially with Philip Hammond and David Lidington, who are regarded by Irish Ministers as the “grown-ups”. "
I think the Minister doth overegg his pudding a little.
Well, he is Deputy TD and responsible for the Irish governments Brexit position, and closely aligned with Barnier, so perhaps carries some weight in these things:
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiprVX4os2Y
If the Democrats gain control of Congress in November and particularly the Senate which has a role in ratifying overseas Treaties Trump may be forced to think again.
Interestingly US public opinion seems to be behind keeping the Iran deal. One CNN poll earlier this month found 69% of Americans wanted to keep the Iran deal but 51% of Republicans were opposed
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/08/politics/poll-iran-agreement/index.html
Petrochemical firm Ineos said it was "astonished" to hear that the Scottish government had not banned fracking.
The statement was made outside the Court of Session where the company has been challenging the moratorium in Scotland on the controversial practice.
Ineos and Reach CSG claim ministers acted illegally in announcing the block in October 2017.
Government lawyers told the court a ban was not in place and that a final position had yet to be adopted.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-44072425
"Last fall, when Election Day was a year out, President Trump’s job-approval-rating averages seemed mired in the high 30s, with Republicans behind on the generic congressional ballot test by as much as a dozen points.
Over the past 90 days, the president’s approval ratings have ticked up to the low-to-mid 40s... This is the first time in Trump’s presidency that his Gallup approval rating of 42 percent has reached a comparabl[y poor] level to any president in modern times.
In the generic-ballot test, the GOP is now typically behind by mid-to-high single digits. As with Trump’s approval rating, Republicans are still in an alarming position on that front, but better than they were."
https://www.cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/glimmers-hope-gop
https://news.sky.com/story/david-miliband-joins-nick-clegg-and-nicky-morgan-in-call-for-soft-brexit-11370115
Pro-frackers need to respect the will of the people: https://stv.tv/news/politics/1386125-nine-in-ten-scots-support-fracking-ban-poll-suggests/
How do you like your Brexit?
Hard?
Soft?
Fast?
Slow?
Or how about hard and fast or hard and slow?
The trouble now is that even someone like me is losing interest.
There are plenty of us who do not have that benefit and protection and who voted for Brexit because it was the right thing to do irrespective of what effect it might have on our personal finances
Has it ever produced one decent song? The only ones I can think of are Puppet on a String ("I hated it from the very first oompah to the final bang on the big bass drum. I was instinctively repelled by its sexist drivel and cuckoo-clock tune" - Sandie Shaw) and Waterloo which did its job of launching Abba but is a toe-curling embarrassment.
For many people , they never see death , as it is all conducted by professionals .
In contrast to previous times , when there was much more family involvement.
http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/do-you-think-scotland-should-or-should-not-start-extracting-shale-gas#line
Pro-frackers need to convince the public first, and they seem not to be winning that one.
We must keep plugging away.
In earlier generations there would have been many more deaths throughout the average lifestyle and people would have become more used to dealing with it.
So, remainer's could argue the country's GDP has taken a 'hit', while leavers argue that the population of the country have suffered no harm, hence no 'hit'. Indeed, they could argue the reduced stress on public transport, housing, etc would improve the people's quality of life.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44093868
Indeed the effect of restricting immigration and thereby increasing demands on British doctors is giving me a good financial boost.
"The time for the two-year-long British fudge is coming to an end."
"There is a high level of engagement between Dublin and London at present, despite the poor relationship between the Taoiseach and prime minister Theresa May, especially with Philip Hammond and David Lidington, who are regarded by Irish Ministers as the “grown-ups”. "
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/cervical-cancer-scandal-convulses-government-1.3492011
Didn’t stop IDS rebelling.
https://twitter.com/MarrShow/status/995583244379684864?s=19
May does appear to lack empathy though or at least be unable or unwilling to show it.
Membership of the ERM is now central to our counter-inflation discipline. But the ERM is not a magic wand. It would not protect Labour; it would merely expose the folly of Labour policies. Some Labour politicians know that all too well - others simply don't. They - and some of the unions - would put irresistible spending pressure on a Labour government.
http://www.conservativemanifesto.com/1992/1992-conservative-manifesto.shtml
I’m not convinced that’s something to be defending.
And 'employed' can also mean many things including Big Issue selling, 16 hours a week tax credit claiming, zero hours exploited labour or the sort of construction job reported here:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/08/slaves-working-in-uk-construction-and-car-washes-report-finds
Paragraph 4. ...I will ensure that we take back control of our borders. The public want their own Government to decide on the number of people coming into Britain from across the European Union and that is what we are going to do....
Paragraph 12. ...I am clear that any deal with the EU must protect our precious union and also honour the agreements that were reached in the historic Northern Irish peace process. This means there can be no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland...
You can do 4 ("Government to decide on the number of people coming into Britain from across the European Union") or you can do 12 ("there can be no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland") but you can't do both.
Theresa May. Cannot make a hard decision to save her life.
Not to forget Denmark's No vote being responded to with an order to have another referendum to get the required answer.
And there is still the small matter that the Irish government had previously been negotiating along those lines.
I have no idea whether either of them shared that with their family and friends. I hope they did, but it's entirely their choice.
https://twitter.com/simoncoveney/status/995277104030928896?s=19
Edit: I see Jimmy Nicholl is interim manager. Phew for Stevie G.
'12:52
GOAL Hibernian 3-0 Rangers
Jamie Maclaren
It's a rout!'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ew43u2gS0Y
Love, Shine a Light
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZtZkPN2mI8
I repeat, a general election now would solve nothing and produce virtually the same result as the last one and still leave May in power but short of a working majority.
We're flying the flag
All over the world
Flying the flag for you!
Corbyn made virtually no net gains at all in terms of Tory voters switching to Labour and he has to do that to become PM next time