It does make me laugh when pro-Remain posters paste a link to a Guardian article about Brexit as an objective source.
It's like me linking to the Express.
But are the Guardian and the Express comparable apart from their political position?
The Express lives in a reality all of its own. The way they put clickbait headlines about BBC News up every day just so they can grab traffic off anyone who searches for “BBC News” is just about the most pathetic thing I have seen a news outlet do - and there is some stiff competition
Mr. NorthWales, would such a vote be tabled and binding?
I am not an expert in Parliamentary procedure but without action we most certainly would no deal.
And just two days to take the action in the biggest crisis since WW2
I have always said that Brexit would go with a whimper rather than a bang. Its hard to get too excited on a lovely spring day when there is a big horse race and some interesting football. Leicester could leapfrog to 7th place if we win away at poor old Huddersfield. I expect it will be a while before we see them again in the PL.
I am in the Smoke on Friday for a meeting, was planning to pop to Parliament Square to see the circus in the evening. I expect an extension though. Tusk will have his way and 29/3/20 will be the new Brexit day.
I may not be popular but my family oppose the grand national on the grounds of the number of horses killed, often in agony, all for excitement. It is barbaric.
I hope you enjoy your football and let us hope by friday something tangeable will have happened with brexit
I take your point on horses dying, but am fairly utilitarian on these things. We kill thousands of animals each day to satisfy our whims and fancies. A horse race or a bacon butty? At least the horse gets a decent life first.
It does make me laugh when pro-Remain posters paste a link to a Guardian article about Brexit as an objective source.
It's like me linking to the Express.
It inspires a little titter from me when Brexiteers characterise what is essentially a list of quotes from world media as subjective Remain propaganda.
At least we've not reached the stage where linking to those quotes is considered traitorous. Probably.
I may not be popular but my family oppose the grand national on the grounds of the number of horses killed, often in agony, all for excitement. It is barbaric.
I agree. It's a fucking disgrace. Getting plastered and racing horses to death isn't a great day out.
Its yet another of those 'hard to justify/explain' to the aliens when they ask just wtf we are doing with the noble creatures.
It is blindingly obvious that the only way May could ever have got Labour to support any Brexit proposal she put before parliament is if Labour could demonstrate that they had battled for and achieved concessions from the Tories.
For 6 months May has failed to engage in that process and now, at the 11th hour, she hints at compromise but it turns out to be a sham.
She deserves the humiliation of having to Revoke, resign and go down in history as the worst PM of our lifetimes. If this leads to a Brucie Bonus of the splintering of the Tory Party then at least she will have a Legacy.
Elsewhere, it is a lovely spring morning , the lambs are frolicking in the fields and the coffee tastes good.
On Worst PM of our lifetime I really can't make up my mind whether that accolade should go to the incumbent, or her predecessor. I note he appears to have gone into hiding again, but to point to another longer-term consequence of his blithe recklessness, there is also this in the news this morning:
Tiger Roll is the same price as a No Deal exit in 2019 and the double pays around 25/1. The two events are unrelated (at least on the face of it) so the bet should be accepted.
Dr. Foxy, an interesting comparison. That said, food is required for us to live (and, although there are exceptions such as the giant tortoises of the Galapagos, generally it's a fantastically successful evolutionary accident for a species to be tasty for humans).
Tiger Roll is the same price as a No Deal exit in 2019 and the double pays around 25/1. The two events are unrelated (at least on the face of it) so the bet should be accepted.
Good article David. And it all stems back to the disastrous GE2017.
As I think I've said many a time, I knew in my gut then it was all over. I've spent the last two years trying to deny it.
It's the hope that kills you. I can deal with despair.
This week May gave Corbyn a level of legitimacy he could only have dreamed of a year or two ago. How can the Tories warn that his Premiership would be a disaster when she invited him in to make the biggest decision in recent history?
Dominic Grieve is the man to blame for the whole mess, if it's true it were he who secured MPs having the final say on the deal. Had May's deal needed no ratification from the House, this would have all been over long ago
She didn't give him anything, that argument is one of the silliest of this week. He is backed by millions in the country and already a viable PM as a result whatever the government did. Recognising parliamentary arithmetic and making an appeal to him in the national Intetest was a sign of weakness and desperation but didn't add any legitimacy to him. Its simple fact that nothing has a majority and working together might.
Of all May's bad actions offering to just talk with the man because her position is weak is not one of them and I find it hilarious so many in her party found that action the final straw. It is so undeniably a partisan justification. The one time she at least attempts, to some small degree, to be non partisan, and she's condemned
How can Tories portray him at the next GE as a dangerous communist who would ruin the country, when they’ve invited him into Downing St to decide the nations future?
It does make me laugh when pro-Remain posters paste a link to a Guardian article about Brexit as an objective source.
It's like me linking to the Express.
It inspires a little titter from me when Brexiteers characterise what is essentially a list of quotes from world media as subjective Remain propaganda.
At least we've not reached the stage where linking to those quotes is considered traitorous. Probably.
You are easily amused.
The quotations will be selective and/or requested. All newspapers do this.
Mr. NorthWales, would such a vote be tabled and binding?
I am not an expert in Parliamentary procedure but without action we most certainly would no deal.
And just two days to take the action in the biggest crisis since WW2
I have always said that Brexit would go with a whimper rather than a bang. Its hard to get too excited on a lovely spring day when there is a big horse race and some interesting football. Leicester could leapfrog to 7th place if we win away at poor old Huddersfield. I expect it will be a while before we see them again in the PL.
I am in the Smoke on Friday for a meeting, was planning to pop to Parliament Square to see the circus in the evening. I expect an extension though. Tusk will have his way and 29/3/20 will be the new Brexit day.
I may not be popular but my family oppose the grand national on the grounds of the number of horses killed, often in agony, all for excitement. It is barbaric.
I hope you enjoy your football and let us hope by friday something tangeable will have happened with brexit
G, very very few injuries nowadays, they have reduced all the hard fences to make it a lot easier. Horses get killed just like people regardless, we had some breakout not far from here last week and all got killed on the motorway. National is as safe as they can make it.
I see Zehut have gone from nowhere to 6% in the polls for Israel's election on Tuesday largely because of their platform of legalising marijuana. Take note, ChUK/TIG. There is your electoral power up.
Dr. Foxy, an interesting comparison. That said, food is required for us to live (and, although there are exceptions such as the giant tortoises of the Galapagos, generally it's a fantastically successful evolutionary accident for a species to be tasty for humans).
No one is obliged to eat meat to live, it is purely a choice for pleasure.
Good article David. And it all stems back to the disastrous GE2017.
As I think I've said many a time, I knew in my gut then it was all over. I've spent the last two years trying to deny it.
It's the hope that kills you. I can deal with despair.
The Will of the People was to deny Strong and Stable her platform for government in an election that she called on her main policy of Brexit.
May then forshadowed Brexit herself, by constantly promising to go, yet never actually doing it.
I wouldn't put it like that. I'd say the election replicated the divisions of the referendum.
One of her big mistakes was to assume the country would rally behind given that decision had already been made.
That's a good point, and I was surprised that there wasn't an immediate shift in opinion behind Brexit after the referendum. So I would have made the same mistake. I wonder if this is such a visceral issue that it will take a generation for a consensus to emerge.
The problem was with the Government response to the vote. I voted remain along with 16 million others, and was deeply worried about the likely consequences of the referendum's outcome. Absolutely nothing I heard from the Government acknowledged those concerns, or provided any kind of reassurance.
Mr. NorthWales, would such a vote be tabled and binding?
I am not an expert in Parliamentary procedure but without action we most certainly would no deal.
And just two days to take the action in the biggest crisis since WW2
I have always said that Brexit would go with a whimper rather than a bang. Its hard to get too excited on a lovely spring day when there is a big horse race and some interesting football. Leicester could leapfrog to 7th place if we win away at poor old Huddersfield. I expect it will be a while before we see them again in the PL.
I am in the Smoke on Friday for a meeting, was planning to pop to Parliament Square to see the circus in the evening. I expect an extension though. Tusk will have his way and 29/3/20 will be the new Brexit day.
I may not be popular but my family oppose the grand national on the grounds of the number of horses killed, often in agony, all for excitement. It is barbaric.
I hope you enjoy your football and let us hope by friday something tangeable will have happened with brexit
In general, racehorses have excellent lives.
My family are not anti racing at all. Just the Grand National and similar jump races that maim and kill horses. We should treasure our horses, indeed all animals
I may not be popular but my family oppose the grand national on the grounds of the number of horses killed, often in agony, all for excitement. It is barbaric.
I agree. It's a fucking disgrace. Getting plastered and racing horses to death isn't a great day out.
I disagree, it is a great day out and the horses have a great life , pampered does not come in to it.
Mr. NorthWales, would such a vote be tabled and binding?
I am not an expert in Parliamentary procedure but without action we most certainly would no deal.
And just two days to take the action in the biggest crisis since WW2
I have always said that Brexit would go with a whimper rather than a bang. Its hard to get too excited on a lovely spring day when there is a big horse race and some interesting football. Leicester could leapfrog to 7th place if we win away at poor old Huddersfield. I expect it will be a while before we see them again in the PL.
I am in the Smoke on Friday for a meeting, was planning to pop to Parliament Square to see the circus in the evening. I expect an extension though. Tusk will have his way and 29/3/20 will be the new Brexit day.
I may not be popular but my family oppose the grand national on the grounds of the number of horses killed, often in agony, all for excitement. It is barbaric.
I hope you enjoy your football and let us hope by friday something tangeable will have happened with brexit
You clearly don’t know much about horses or horse racing.
Good article David. And it all stems back to the disastrous GE2017.
As I think I've said many a time, I knew in my gut then it was all over. I've spent the last two years trying to deny it.
It's the hope that kills you. I can deal with despair.
This week May gave Corbyn a level of legitimacy he could only have dreamed of a year or two ago. How can the Tories warn that his Premiership would be a disaster when she invited him in to make the biggest decision in recent history?
Dominic Grieve is the man to blame for the whole mess, if it's true it were he who secured MPs having the final say on the deal. Had May's deal needed no ratification from the House, this would have all been over long ago
She didn't give him anything, that argument is one of the silliest of this week. He is backed by millions in the country and already a viable PM as a result whatever the government did. Recognising parliamentary arithmetic and making an appeal to him in the national Intetest was a sign of weakness and desperation but didn't add any legitimacy to him. Its simple fact that nothing has a majority and working together might.
Of all May's bad actions offering to just talk with the man because her position is weak is not one of them and I find it hilarious so many in her party found that action the final straw. It is so undeniably a partisan justification. The one time she at least attempts, to some small degree, to be non partisan, and she's condemned
How can Tories portray him at the next GE as a dangerous communist who would ruin the country, when they’ve invited him into Downing St to decide the nations future?
I dont know or care how they'll do that. But it doesn't mean they've legitimized him. He's already legitimate and given the Tory split wipes out their ability to pass anything Brexit related, he's essential in fact. Inviting him for talks was sensible and recognising the situation before them and the only thing I can criticise about it is I doubt how sincere the sides are.
But being open to seeing what the other side say when it is the only way to pass something I find impossible to criticise. Itd be like walking out of a meeting because a former member of your party was present.
It does make me laugh when pro-Remain posters paste a link to a Guardian article about Brexit as an objective source.
It's like me linking to the Express.
It inspires a little titter from me when Brexiteers characterise what is essentially a list of quotes from world media as subjective Remain propaganda.
At least we've not reached the stage where linking to those quotes is considered traitorous. Probably.
You are easily amused.
The quotations will be selective and/or requested. All newspapers do this.
The Mail will do it the other way round.
Am in interested in your list of quotes from foreign media praising Brexit, I am sure it would be fascinating reading
Good article David. And it all stems back to the disastrous GE2017.
As I think I've said many a time, I knew in my gut then it was all over. I've spent the last two years trying to deny it.
It's the hope that kills you. I can deal with despair.
This week May gave Corbyn a level of legitimacy he could only have dreamed of a year or two ago. How can the Tories warn that his Premiership would be a disaster when she invited him in to make the biggest decision in recent history?
Dominic Grieve is the man to blame for the whole mess, if it's true it were he who secured MPs having the final say on the deal. Had May's deal needed no ratification from the House, this would have all been over long ago
She didn't give him anything, that argument is one of the silliest of this week. He is backed by millions in the country and already a viable PM as a result whatever the government did. Recognising parliamentary arithmetic and making an appeal to him in the national Intetest was a sign of weakness and desperation but didn't add any legitimacy to him. Its simple fact that nothing has a majority and working together might.
Of all May's bad actions offering to just talk with the man because her position is weak is not one of them and I find it hilarious so many in her party found that action the final straw. It is so undeniably a partisan justification. The one time she at least attempts, to some small degree, to be non partisan, and she's condemned
And, her party could make it unnecessary to talk to Corbyn by passing the WA.
The two most dishonest arguments lately have been:-
1. The ERG argument that the PM is failing to deliver Brexit, when so many of them have voted against it, 2. The Remain argument that Parliamentary deadlock makes a second referendum/revoke essential, when they've worked their hardest to create that deadlock.
Question before I nip off, an old question - does anyone enjoy horse racing without having bet on it?
* After time alert
I was at Cheltenham watching the Queen Mother Chase in 2016. The people behind me, including those that didn't back him cheered Sprinter Sacre home and it was a very emotional victory, beyond the betting.* I had £50 E/W on him, but even if I didn't I'd have loved him to win
I've not backed him but Don Poli winning this year's national would be very emotional as a massive comeback story. He is 175 on the spreads, and Bet365 150-1 Each Way (5 places) is good value right now according to my spreadsheet.
It does make me laugh when pro-Remain posters paste a link to a Guardian article about Brexit as an objective source.
It's like me linking to the Express.
It inspires a little titter from me when Brexiteers characterise what is essentially a list of quotes from world media as subjective Remain propaganda.
At least we've not reached the stage where linking to those quotes is considered traitorous. Probably.
You are easily amused.
The quotations will be selective and/or requested. All newspapers do this.
The Mail will do it the other way round.
'It does make me laugh' v. 'a little titter', I think I can judge who's the most easily amused (though coupled with piss boiling choler in one case).
Mr. NorthWales, would such a vote be tabled and binding?
I am not an expert in Parliamentary procedure but without action we most certainly would no deal.
And just two days to take the action in the biggest crisis since WW2
I have always said that Brexit would go with a whimper rather than a bang. Its hard to get too excited on a lovely spring day when there is a big horse race and some interesting football. Leicester could leapfrog to 7th place if we win away at poor old Huddersfield. I expect it will be a while before we see them again in the PL.
I am in the Smoke on Friday for a meeting, was planning to pop to Parliament Square to see the circus in the evening. I expect an extension though. Tusk will have his way and 29/3/20 will be the new Brexit day.
I may not be popular but my family oppose the grand national on the grounds of the number of horses killed, often in agony, all for excitement. It is barbaric.
I hope you enjoy your football and let us hope by friday something tangeable will have happened with brexit
In general, racehorses have excellent lives.
My family are not anti racing at all. Just the Grand National and similar jump races that maim and kill horses. We should treasure our horses, indeed all animals
On the basis of your last sentence you should be a vegan then.
Racehorses are extremely well cared for and looked after. Welfare is taken extremely seriously. The National does not “kill or maim horses”, and such incidents remain a rare event.
Thanks for the article, David, which is a decent summation of where we are. The irony is for all everyone's talk of "taking back control", the impotence of the Commons has been illustrated in the past few weeks. The core is the EU deals with the UK Government not the UK Parliament and the extent to which ANY PM is mandated by Parliament to follow courses of action is to me quite unclear.
In any case, as I've said repeatedly, the Commons voting down No Deal or making it "illegal" is akin to trying to legislate against rain. IF we do not have a WA in place and IF we can't get an extension from the EU, we leave next Friday evening.
I think there's a growing constituency for that - for the LEAVE supporter, No Deal looks the only way to leave at all currently. Extensions look and feel like attempts to thwart the process so have to be resisted. I agree most LEAVE supporters would have baulked at No Deal a few months ago but as the options have narrowed it looks the only clear way to ensure their choice is enacted.
The second group swinging to No Deal are those fed up with the whole thing. The "let's get it over with" Party are unfocused but popular. They contain both LEAVE and REMAIN supporters who simply feel the Government has other things it should be doing and are tired of the constant coverage of what seems to them to be a simple thing. Most would have been happy to see the WA passed.
Limiting the options polarises opinions - we all know this. On the other side, revocation has emerged as an option. Cancel it all, scrap it all, end it all - it sounds so easy but it would be political suicide for May and the Conservatives so it won't happen.
With the WA unable to clear the Commons, it's therefore down to May and the EU - Parliament is irrelevant now and may as well have packed up for Easter yesterday. I was puzzled by the 30/6 extension which made no sense but I presume it was a desperate attempt to hold the Cabinet together. Tusk, who has been more of a friend to the UK in this than many realise, has thrown a potential lifeline but plenty in the EU seemingly also want this over with.
I can't with certainty say that this time next week we will still be in the EU and that's astonishing and a measure of failure in and of itself.
Dr. Foxy, humans are designed to eat both meat and fruit/vegetables. We're omnivorous by nature. If people choose to eschew meat, that's fair enough, but I'd strongly repudiate any suggestion eating meat is immoral.
It does make me laugh when pro-Remain posters paste a link to a Guardian article about Brexit as an objective source.
It's like me linking to the Express.
It inspires a little titter from me when Brexiteers characterise what is essentially a list of quotes from world media as subjective Remain propaganda.
At least we've not reached the stage where linking to those quotes is considered traitorous. Probably.
You are easily amused.
The quotations will be selective and/or requested. All newspapers do this.
The Mail will do it the other way round.
'It does make me laugh' v. 'a little titter', I think I can judge who's the most easily amused (though coupled with piss boiling choler in one case).
And, in your case, using secretarian language to describe Unionists in Scotland.
I think we can all judge who’s in no place to pull up another on rhetoric.
Mr. NorthWales, would such a vote be tabled and binding?
I am not an expert in Parliamentary procedure but without action we most certainly would no deal.
And just two days to take the action in the biggest crisis since WW2
I have always said that Brexit would go with a whimper rather than a bang. Its hard to get too excited on a lovely spring day when there is a big horse race and some interesting football. Leicester could leapfrog to 7th place if we win away at poor old Huddersfield. I expect it will be a while before we see them again in the PL.
I am in the Smoke on Friday for a meeting, was planning to pop to Parliament Square to see the circus in the evening. I expect an extension though. Tusk will have his way and 29/3/20 will be the new Brexit day.
I may not be popular but my family oppose the grand national on the grounds of the number of horses killed, often in agony, all for excitement. It is barbaric.
I hope you enjoy your football and let us hope by friday something tangeable will have happened with brexit
You clearly don’t know much about horses or horse racing.
We know sufficient to see noble horses maimed or dying for human's pleasure as unacceptable
Horses can race without putting their lives in danger
Dr. Foxy, humans are designed to eat both meat and fruit/vegetables. We're omnivorous by nature. If people choose to eschew meat, that's fair enough, but I'd strongly repudiate any suggestion eating meat is immoral.
Yes, Brexit is melting away, but Cooper/Letwin is overstated in the lead.
If May accepts the extension proposed in response to her request by the EU, Cooper/Letwin falls, I think, as it's written as a bill for a one-off circumstance that will already have transpired? For sure, it propelled May into action quickly, in the space given to her by the Tory Lords' filibuster, but she was going to have to ask for an extension anyway, given that government has clearly come out against a no deal exit. And this latter appears to have followed briefings on its practical and political consequences - particularly of direct rule in NI - and these briefings would have been received regardless of the views of backbench MPs.
I don't sense the Tories have yet reconciled themselves to the EU elections - Zadahi was on the radio just now describing even holding the elections as a suicide note for the Tory party (but had no other resolution to propose other than AV between the indicative options).
Cooper/Letwin has set an interesting precedent and sped things along a little (if sped is ever the right word for where we are), that's all. No deal was never something the government could ever have worked for - hence none of the Leaver Cabinet members have resigned over it.
I agree the Cooper Letwin Bill has been overstated in importance . May was always going to ask for an extension . There is one thing to add though . A group of cross bench peers have put down an amendment to the bill, if that’s carried in the HOL it comes back to MPs. In a nutshell if the EU refuse an extension May has to ask MPs if they agree to no deal , if they say no then the government has to revoke Article 50 .
Whether this has any chance of getting through the Commons I’m doubtful but it might flush out how many at this stage are willing to go for that.
I’m pretty sure the Commons has to approve the amendment (or the Lords withdraw it) or the bill falls, to all intents and purposes.
The Parliament Act does allow for the Commons to triumph in a game of ping-pong.. but not in the timescales we’re talking about here.
In any case, hasn’t May already carried out the unamended Bill’s intent? I suspect the will of the Commons may not stretch to tieing their hands on a Revoke/No deal vote.
It does look very short for a GN fav. Nevertheless I think it is going to win. But unlike my closely argued and knowledge backed political insights (which everyone has no doubt clocked) this one is strictly 'in the waters'.
On the basis of your last sentence you should be a vegan then.
Racehorses are extremely well cared for and looked after. Welfare is taken extremely seriously. The National does not “kill or maim horses”, and such incidents remain a rare event.
A measure of that is or should be the number of those being pulled up as against those falling.
Jockeys, who are both superb horsemen and trained athletes, know when the horse has done its bit and it's time to call it a day. Ruby Walsh knew FAUGHEEN wasn't right on Thursday and pulled him out of the race. Even in the Foxhunters where the riders are amateur, a number called it a day before the last two.
Yet it is a sport with risk - it would be impossible to remove the risk without destroying the sport as we saw yesterday. I sincerely hope every horse in every race (not just the National) comes back safe and sound.
Dr. Foxy, humans are designed to eat both meat and fruit/vegetables. We're omnivorous by nature. If people choose to eschew meat, that's fair enough, but I'd strongly repudiate any suggestion eating meat is immoral.
Dr. Foxy, an interesting comparison. That said, food is required for us to live (and, although there are exceptions such as the giant tortoises of the Galapagos, generally it's a fantastically successful evolutionary accident for a species to be tasty for humans).
No one is obliged to eat meat to live, it is purely a choice for pleasure.
No, it’s the other way round. The sheer diversity and offerings of modern food supply chains offer people a credible choice to adopt a vegan or vegetarian diet, whilst maintaining the intake of all necessary nutrients.
Without it everyone would all be back to eating meat in a jiffy on an omnivorous diet, just as we’ve evolved to do.
It does make me laugh when pro-Remain posters paste a link to a Guardian article about Brexit as an objective source.
It's like me linking to the Express.
It inspires a little titter from me when Brexiteers characterise what is essentially a list of quotes from world media as subjective Remain propaganda.
At least we've not reached the stage where linking to those quotes is considered traitorous. Probably.
You are easily amused.
The quotations will be selective and/or requested. All newspapers do this.
The Mail will do it the other way round.
'It does make me laugh' v. 'a little titter', I think I can judge who's the most easily amused (though coupled with piss boiling choler in one case).
And, in your case, using secretarian language to describe Unionists in Scotland.
I think we can all judge who’s in no place to pull up another on rhetoric.
And unable to mount even a desultory defence, he's off on a tangent again.
I think I asked you to provide examples of this sectarian language previously and you diasappeared pretty sharpish. Have another go, why don't you?
Dr. Foxy, humans are designed to eat both meat and fruit/vegetables. We're omnivorous by nature. If people choose to eschew meat, that's fair enough, but I'd strongly repudiate any suggestion eating meat is immoral.
Eating meat is a choice, we are not constrained by our biology.
I am not suggesting that it is immoral, though others might, but it is immoral to not consider the implications for animal welfare, and the health of the planet from excessive meat consumption.
It does make me laugh when pro-Remain posters paste a link to a Guardian article about Brexit as an objective source.
It's like me linking to the Express.
It inspires a little titter from me when Brexiteers characterise what is essentially a list of quotes from world media as subjective Remain propaganda.
At least we've not reached the stage where linking to those quotes is considered traitorous. Probably.
You are easily amused.
The quotations will be selective and/or requested. All newspapers do this.
The Mail will do it the other way round.
'It does make me laugh' v. 'a little titter', I think I can judge who's the most easily amused (though coupled with piss boiling choler in one case).
And, in your case, using secretarian language to describe Unionists in Scotland.
I think we can all judge who’s in no place to pull up another on rhetoric.
And unable to mount even a desultory defence, he's off on a tangent again.
I think I asked you to provide examples of this sectarian language previously and you diasappeared pretty sharpish. Have another go, why don't you?
Do you deny you use the word “loyalist” every time you refer to Scottish Unionists?
I can so understand this. When my little 'un was really little, I've had to change my son on tarmac outside (*), in his pram, on the boot of my car (*), at places that nominally had baby-changing facilities - in the ladies, but not the mens'. In one place, a staff member stood guard so I could go into the ladies to change him.
The most egregious one was a play centre where the men's lavatories didn't have changing facilities, and I had to change him on the floor outside.
We want more men to look after their children - and that means giving them the facilities to do so.
(*) With mat.
Why wouldn’t you just go it to use it? You do t need someone to guard the door.
Good article David. And it all stems back to the disastrous GE2017.
As I think I've said many a time, I knew in my gut then it was all over. I've spent the last two years trying to deny it.
It's the hope that kills you. I can deal with despair.
This week May gave Corbyn a level of legitimacy he could only have dreamed of a year or two ago. How can the Tories warn that his Premiership would be a disaster when she invited him in to make the biggest decision in recent history?
Dominic Grieve is the man to blame for the whole mess, if it's true it were he who secured MPs having the final say on the deal. Had May's deal needed no ratification from the House, this would have all been over long ago
She didn't give him anything, that argument is one of the silliest of this week. He is backed by millions in the country and already a viable PM as a result whatever the government did. Recognising parliamentary arithmetic and making an appeal to him in the national Intetest was a sign of weakness and desperation but didn't add any legitimacy to him. Its simple fact that nothing has a majority and working together might.
Of all May's bad actions offering to just talk with the man because her position is weak is not one of them and I find it hilarious so many in her party found that action the final straw. It is so undeniably a partisan justification. The one time she at least attempts, to some small degree, to be non partisan, and she's condemned
How can Tories portray him at the next GE as a dangerous communist who would ruin the country, when they’ve invited him into Downing St to decide the nations future?
I dont know or care how they'll do that. But it doesn't mean they've legitimized him. He's already legitimate and given the Tory split wipes out their ability to pass anything Brexit related, he's essential in fact. Inviting him for talks was sensible and recognising the situation before them and the only thing I can criticise about it is I doubt how sincere the sides are.
But being open to seeing what the other side say when it is the only way to pass something I find impossible to criticise. Itd be like walking out of a meeting because a former member of your party was present.
Corbyn was dead right to not accept Umunna being there if it was supposed to be about leaders of parties getting together.
Mr. Ace, evolution. I wasn't referring to a Creationist principle.
Meat is delicious. If you want to go without for health, religious, or ethical reasons then that's entirely your business. My diet, however, is another matter.
On the basis of your last sentence you should be a vegan then.
Racehorses are extremely well cared for and looked after. Welfare is taken extremely seriously. The National does not “kill or maim horses”, and such incidents remain a rare event.
A measure of that is or should be the number of those being pulled up as against those falling.
Jockeys, who are both superb horsemen and trained athletes, know when the horse has done its bit and it's time to call it a day. Ruby Walsh knew FAUGHEEN wasn't right on Thursday and pulled him out of the race. Even in the Foxhunters where the riders are amateur, a number called it a day before the last two.
Yet it is a sport with risk - it would be impossible to remove the risk without destroying the sport as we saw yesterday. I sincerely hope every horse in every race (not just the National) comes back safe and sound.
Indeed. All sport carries risk. As does all of life.
Some just adopt absurd sentimentality when it comes to animals as a way of externalising their own feelings which they struggle to manage with respect to their fellow human beings.
On the basis of your last sentence you should be a vegan then.
Racehorses are extremely well cared for and looked after. Welfare is taken extremely seriously. The National does not “kill or maim horses”, and such incidents remain a rare event.
A measure of that is or should be the number of those being pulled up as against those falling.
Jockeys, who are both superb horsemen and trained athletes, know when the horse has done its bit and it's time to call it a day. Ruby Walsh knew FAUGHEEN wasn't right on Thursday and pulled him out of the race. Even in the Foxhunters where the riders are amateur, a number called it a day before the last two.
Yet it is a sport with risk - it would be impossible to remove the risk without destroying the sport as we saw yesterday. I sincerely hope every horse in every race (not just the National) comes back safe and sound.
As an aside, if you want to buy a horse, racehorses that failed to make the grade are a good choice, as they're cheap, and very well socialised..
Dr. Foxy, excessive consumption of anything is bad for you.
I have some sympathy with a vegetarian perspective (although not technically required by it, Buddhism was the only religion I ever gave serious thought to adopting). The desire to control the behaviour of others or to hector those with the temerity to disagree is an unpleasant side of a vocal minority, though. And nothing persuades me less than a combination of emotional blackmail and authoritarian arrogance. The concept my diet should be determined by strangers high on their own holiness is not an impressive one.
Mr. Royale, I hope this wasn't your intention but that does read a little as an implied criticism of Mr. NorthWales, who is nothing if not civilised.
Dr. Foxy, humans are designed to eat both meat and fruit/vegetables. We're omnivorous by nature. If people choose to eschew meat, that's fair enough, but I'd strongly repudiate any suggestion eating meat is immoral.
Eating meat is a choice, we are not constrained by our biology.
I am not suggesting that it is immoral, though others might, but it is immoral to not consider the implications for animal welfare, and the health of the planet from excessive meat consumption.
I’d say the morality, such as it is, is one of overpopulating the planet.
Dr. Foxy, excessive consumption of anything is bad for you.
I have some sympathy with a vegetarian perspective (although not technically required by it, Buddhism was the only religion I ever gave serious thought to adopting). The desire to control the behaviour of others or to hector those with the temerity to disagree is an unpleasant side of a vocal minority, though. And nothing persuades me less than a combination of emotional blackmail and authoritarian arrogance. The concept my diet should be determined by strangers high on their own holiness is not an impressive one.
Mr. Royale, I hope this wasn't your intention but that does read a little as an implied criticism of Mr. NorthWales, who is nothing if not civilised.
Dogmatic animal rights rants grate my goat.
I expect better of someone of Mr. NorthWales’s intelligence.
Dr. Foxy, humans are designed to eat both meat and fruit/vegetables. We're omnivorous by nature. If people choose to eschew meat, that's fair enough, but I'd strongly repudiate any suggestion eating meat is immoral.
Who "designed" humans? Meat is murder.
Genuine question, do you actually believe the shit you write on here?
Mr. Royale, I don't have especially strong views on horse racing, but it's entirely possible to disagree with someone without suggesting their opinion doesn't merely differ but that they're wrong for holding it. Reasonable people can, and do, reach differing conclusions when presented with the same arguments and evidence.
Mr. Royale, I don't have especially strong views on horse racing, but it's entirely possible to disagree with someone without suggesting their opinion doesn't merely differ but that they're wrong for holding it. Reasonable people can, and do, reach differing conclusions when presented with the same arguments and evidence.
It’s not evidence based and nor is the conclusion reasonable. That’s the problem. I didn’t and don’t expect someone like him to be an animal rights moron.
Anyway, I’m off. We have guests today and I have plenty of better things to do than engage in tedious arguments on here.
Thanks for the article, David, which is a decent summation of where we are. The irony is for all everyone's talk of "taking back control", the impotence of the Commons has been illustrated in the past few weeks. The core is the EU deals with the UK Government not the UK Parliament and the extent to which ANY PM is mandated by Parliament to follow courses of action is to me quite unclear.
In any case, as I've said repeatedly, the Commons voting down No Deal or making it "illegal" is akin to trying to legislate against rain. IF we do not have a WA in place and IF we can't get an extension from the EU, we leave next Friday evening.
I think there's a growing constituency for that - for the LEAVE supporter, No Deal looks the only way to leave at all currently. Extensions look and feel like attempts to thwart the process so have to be resisted. I agree most LEAVE supporters would have baulked at No Deal a few months ago but as the options have narrowed it looks the only clear way to ensure their choice is enacted.
The second group swinging to No Deal are those fed up with the whole thing. The "let's get it over with" Party are unfocused but popular. They contain both LEAVE and REMAIN supporters who simply feel the Government has other things it should be doing and are tired of the constant coverage of what seems to them to be a simple thing. Most would have been happy to see the WA passed.
Limiting the options polarises opinions - we all know this. On the other side, revocation has emerged as an option. Cancel it all, scrap it all, end it all - it sounds so easy but it would be political suicide for May and the Conservatives so it won't happen.
With the WA unable to clear the Commons, it's therefore down to May and the EU - Parliament is irrelevant now and may as well have packed up for Easter yesterday. I was puzzled by the 30/6 extension which made no sense but I presume it was a desperate attempt to hold the Cabinet together. Tusk, who has been more of a friend to the UK in this than many realise, has thrown a potential lifeline but plenty in the EU seemingly also want this over with.
I can't with certainty say that this time next week we will still be in the EU and that's astonishing and a measure of failure in and of itself.
I'd actually now argue those in the EU who want this over and done with are being more of a friend to the UK than Mr Tusk with his interminable flextension.
Thanks for the article, David, which is a decent summation of where we are. The irony is for all everyone's talk of "taking back control", the impotence of the Commons has been illustrated in the past few weeks. The core is the EU deals with the UK Government not the UK Parliament and the extent to which ANY PM is mandated by Parliament to follow courses of action is to me quite unclear.
In any case, as I've said repeatedly, the Commons voting down No Deal or making it "illegal" is akin to trying to legislate against rain. IF we do not have a WA in place and IF we can't get an extension from the EU, we leave next Friday evening.
I think there's a growing constituency for that - for the LEAVE supporter, No Deal looks the only way to leave at all currently. Extensions look and feel like attempts to thwart the process so have to be resisted. I agree most LEAVE supporters would have baulked at No Deal a few months ago but as the options have narrowed it looks the only clear way to ensure their choice is enacted.
The second group swinging to No Deal are those fed up with the whole thing. The "let's get it over with" Party are unfocused but popular. They contain both LEAVE and REMAIN supporters who simply feel the Government has other things it should be doing and are tired of the constant coverage of what seems to them to be a simple thing. Most would have been happy to see the WA passed.
Limiting the options polarises opinions - we all know this. On the other side, revocation has emerged as an option. Cancel it all, scrap it all, end it all - it sounds so easy but it would be political suicide for May and the Conservatives so it won't happen.
With the WA unable to clear the Commons, it's therefore down to May and the EU - Parliament is irrelevant now and may as well have packed up for Easter yesterday. I was puzzled by the 30/6 extension which made no sense but I presume it was a desperate attempt to hold the Cabinet together. Tusk, who has been more of a friend to the UK in this than many realise, has thrown a potential lifeline but plenty in the EU seemingly also want this over with.
I can't with certainty say that this time next week we will still be in the EU and that's astonishing and a measure of failure in and of itself.
I'd actually now argue those in the EU who want this over and done with are being more of a friend to the UK than Mr Tusk with his interminable flextension.
You think May is wrong to think No Deal would lead to the break up of the UK?
Dr. Foxy, humans are designed to eat both meat and fruit/vegetables. We're omnivorous by nature. If people choose to eschew meat, that's fair enough, but I'd strongly repudiate any suggestion eating meat is immoral.
Thanks for the article, David, which is a decent summation of where we are. The irony is for all everyone's talk of "taking back control", the impotence of the Commons has been illustrated in the past few weeks. The core is the EU deals with the UK Government not the UK Parliament and the extent to which ANY PM is mandated by Parliament to follow courses of action is to me quite unclear.
In any case, as I've said repeatedly, the Commons voting down No Deal or making it "illegal" is akin to trying to legislate against rain. IF we do not have a WA in place and IF we can't get an extension from the EU, we leave next Friday evening.
I think there's a growing constituency for that - for the LEAVE supporter, No Deal looks the only way to leave at all currently. Extensions look and feel like attempts to thwart the process so have to be resisted. I agree most LEAVE supporters would have baulked at No Deal a few months ago but as the options have narrowed it looks the only clear way to ensure their choice is enacted.
The second group swinging to No Deal are those fed up with the whole thing. The "let's get it over with" Party are unfocused but popular. They contain both LEAVE and REMAIN supporters who simply feel the Government has other things it should be doing and are tired of the constant coverage of what seems to them to be a simple thing. Most would have been happy to see the WA passed.
Limiting the options polarises opinions - we all know this. On the other side, revocation has emerged as an option. Cancel it all, scrap it all, end it all - it sounds so easy but it would be political suicide for May and the Conservatives so it won't happen.
With the WA unable to clear the Commons, it's therefore down to May and the EU - Parliament is irrelevant now and may as well have packed up for Easter yesterday. I was puzzled by the 30/6 extension which made no sense but I presume it was a desperate attempt to hold the Cabinet together. Tusk, who has been more of a friend to the UK in this than many realise, has thrown a potential lifeline but plenty in the EU seemingly also want this over with.
I can't with certainty say that this time next week we will still be in the EU and that's astonishing and a measure of failure in and of itself.
I'd actually now argue those in the EU who want this over and done with are being more of a friend to the UK than Mr Tusk with his interminable flextension.
No Donald Tusk is the realist. People who want it over and done with are simply not taking into account the fact that this issue is still hotly contested and until a consensus emerges it will continue to disrupt the EU quite badly while completely wrecking any kind of progress on anything political in the UK.
Dr. Foxy, humans are designed to eat both meat and fruit/vegetables. We're omnivorous by nature. If people choose to eschew meat, that's fair enough, but I'd strongly repudiate any suggestion eating meat is immoral.
Eating meat is a choice, we are not constrained by our biology.
I am not suggesting that it is immoral, though others might, but it is immoral to not consider the implications for animal welfare, and the health of the planet from excessive meat consumption.
I’d say the morality, such as it is, is one of overpopulating the planet.
Overpopulation is one factor, but the impact of any individual varies tremendously by environmental footprint. It is very possible for one individual in a developed country to have more adverse environmental damage than a whole african village.
I ocassionally eat meat (though haven't since before Lent) and do enjoy it, and have made 2 overseas flights in the last year. I am aware of the contribution to planetary damage from each though. I try to live simply and tread lightly on the earth. I have no interest in compelling others to do likewise.
It does make me laugh when pro-Remain posters paste a link to a Guardian article about Brexit as an objective source.
It's like me linking to the Express.
I want to remain now but I find the self pitying obsession with foreign reporting on Brexit to be wearying and unconvincing, not least since it usually comes from a place assuming most of the country shares in delusions of hard right perceptions of our place in the world and the horror of that not being true.
I think that the focus on foreign reporting is driven in part, at least, by how some on the Brexit side seem to believe the UK is viewed in the world: as a powerful force that everyone casts envious eyes at. For what it's worth, the views of the foreign press pretty much reflect what I have seen and heard on my travels - though clearly others on here have seen and heard differently.
One thing that does stand out for me - because it is such a unique reaction amidst the general hilarity and perplexity - is how Swedes I speak to view it all. Almost all those I speak to (and I speak to quite a few for work) are genuinely upset by it. They really do hold the UK in high regard, have huge affection for us and just hate what is happening. It's actually quite moving.
It does make me laugh when pro-Remain posters paste a link to a Guardian article about Brexit as an objective source.
It's like me linking to the Express.
It inspires a little titter from me when Brexiteers characterise what is essentially a list of quotes from world media as subjective Remain propaganda.
At least we've not reached the stage where linking to those quotes is considered traitorous. Probably.
You are easily amused.
The quotations will be selective and/or requested. All newspapers do this.
The Mail will do it the other way round.
'It does make me laugh' v. 'a little titter', I think I can judge who's the most easily amused (though coupled with piss boiling choler in one case).
And, in your case, using secretarian language to describe Unionists in Scotland.
I think we can all judge who’s in no place to pull up another on rhetoric.
And unable to mount even a desultory defence, he's off on a tangent again.
I think I asked you to provide examples of this sectarian language previously and you diasappeared pretty sharpish. Have another go, why don't you?
Do you deny you use the word “loyalist” every time you refer to Scottish Unionists?
I see you do it on here several times a month.
Heres a wee list of Scottish Unionists who are happy, nay proud, to be described as Loyalists or Loyal. You should be showing more solidarity to your people, Ruth wouldn't make that rooky error.
Dr. Foxy, humans are designed to eat both meat and fruit/vegetables. We're omnivorous by nature. If people choose to eschew meat, that's fair enough, but I'd strongly repudiate any suggestion eating meat is immoral.
Who "designed" humans? Meat is murder.
Genuine question, do you actually believe the shit you write on here?
What an excellent article Mr Herdson - one of the best I can remember on PB, and there have been many good ones. Well-reasoned, and very clearly set out.
Whether the projections are right of course, only time will tell.
Mr. Royale, I don't have especially strong views on horse racing, but it's entirely possible to disagree with someone without suggesting their opinion doesn't merely differ but that they're wrong for holding it. Reasonable people can, and do, reach differing conclusions when presented with the same arguments and evidence.
It’s not evidence based and nor is the conclusion reasonable. That’s the problem. I didn’t and don’t expect someone like him to be an animal rights moron.
Anyway, I’m off. We have guests today and I have plenty of better things to do than engage in tedious arguments on here.
Mr. Royale, I don't have especially strong views on horse racing, but it's entirely possible to disagree with someone without suggesting their opinion doesn't merely differ but that they're wrong for holding it. Reasonable people can, and do, reach differing conclusions when presented with the same arguments and evidence.
It’s not evidence based and nor is the conclusion reasonable. That’s the problem. I didn’t and don’t expect someone like him to be an animal rights moron.
Anyway, I’m off. We have guests today and I have plenty of better things to do than engage in tedious arguments on here.
It does make me laugh when pro-Remain posters paste a link to a Guardian article about Brexit as an objective source.
It's like me linking to the Express.
I want to remain now but I find the self pitying obsession with foreign reporting on Brexit to be wearying and unconvincing, not least since it usually comes from a place assuming most of the country shares in delusions of hard right perceptions of our place in the world and the horror of that not being true.
I think that the focus on foreign reporting is driven in part, at least, by how some on the Brexit side seem to believe the UK is viewed in the world: as a powerful force that everyone casts envious eyes at. For what it's worth, the views of the foreign press pretty much reflect what I have seen and heard on my travels - though clearly others on here have seen and heard differently.
One thing that does stand out for me - because it is such a unique reaction amidst the general hilarity and perplexity - is how Swedes I speak to view it all. Almost all those I speak to (and I speak to quite a few for work) are genuinely upset by it. They really do hold the UK in high regard, have huge affection for us and just hate what is happening. It's actually quite moving.
In Germany I listen to Deutschlandfunk a lot which is the closest to Radio 4 that we have. There is a journalist based in London Friedbert Maurer who gives exelent reports and interiview about brexit. In particular he is very good at giving a brief summary of the latest situation including problems, stumbling blocks etc. He assumes his listeners are intelligent but do not know much about Brexit. But he is an exception, much of the Brexit coverage here is superficial and starts from the view point "only sadists want to leave the EU".
In general it does semm to me that both politicians and journalists othere than Herr Maurer think that the probability of No Deal Brexit next week is very high, where as in the UK the consensus opinion in the UK (If such a thing can exist concerning Brexit!) is that the chance of imminent No Deal is unlikely.
What an excellent article Mr Herdson - one of the best I can remember on PB, and there have been many good ones. Well-reasoned, and very clearly set out.
Whether the projections are right of course, only time will tell.
Thanks!
Let me echo that, and thanks too to Stodge for an excellent comment.
Take away the impossible and all that remains is No Deal, Revoke or her deal.
Though it's not impossible, Revoke would be, to me, quite astonishing: the negation of the largest popular vote in UK history and sure political suicide for the Tory party and politicians. With the UK backed into the EU the popular clamour to get out and/or disrupt the EU project would rise to unbearable levels. Realising that makes it anathema not only to our (sensible) politicians but also to the (sensible) Europeans. So I think unless it is kicked yet again into the long grass, either the May-deal or No-deal will be decided next week.
On the basis of your last sentence you should be a vegan then.
Racehorses are extremely well cared for and looked after. Welfare is taken extremely seriously. The National does not “kill or maim horses”, and such incidents remain a rare event.
A measure of that is or should be the number of those being pulled up as against those falling.
Jockeys, who are both superb horsemen and trained athletes, know when the horse has done its bit and it's time to call it a day. Ruby Walsh knew FAUGHEEN wasn't right on Thursday and pulled him out of the race. Even in the Foxhunters where the riders are amateur, a number called it a day before the last two.
Yet it is a sport with risk - it would be impossible to remove the risk without destroying the sport as we saw yesterday. I sincerely hope every horse in every race (not just the National) comes back safe and sound.
As an aside, if you want to buy a horse, racehorses that failed to make the grade are a good choice, as they're cheap, and very well socialised..
Personally the one absolute constant I've taken from the last 2 & 1/2 years is that when someone says x* has been killed because of y, they will be proved wrong in short order. Of course something has to happen at some point with (hopefully metaphorical) deaths along the way, but I'm not sure if we've reached that point.
*x = Brexit, soft Brexit, hard Brexit, People's Vote, CU, FoM, May, May's deal, Corbyn, Tory Party, Labour party, Farage, UKIP, the Union, Scottish Indy etc. SLab could be the exception that proves the rule, mind, though they were pretty corpse like in the first place.
Personally the one absolute constant I've taken from the last 2 & 1/2 years is that when someone says x* has been killed because of y, they will be proved wrong in short order. Of course something has to happen at some point with (hopefully metaphorical) deaths along the way, but I'm not sure if we've reached that point.
*x = Brexit, soft Brexit, hard Brexit, People's Vote, CU, FoM, May, May's deal, Corbyn, Tory Party, Labour party, Farage, UKIP, the Union, Scottish Indy etc. SLab could be the exception that proves the rule, mind, though they were pretty corpse like in the first place.
On topic, I don't think TMay would have crashed out when she could have extended, so it doesn't really matter what Cooper-Letwin do, although they've closed off one real but unlikely pathway to No Deal.
Brexit is on life support because the government, MPs, business, unions and the civil service and the rest of the EU never wanted to do it, and it was only happening because the voters wanted to do it, but faced with a specific thing the voters now don't want to do it either. It's only still a thing because of inertia, and it's safer for everybody to let it just grind slowly to a halt rather than throwing themselves in front of it.
On topic, I don't think TMay would have crashed out when she could have extended, so it doesn't really matter what Cooper-Letwin do, although they've closed off one real but unlikely pathway to No Deal.
Brexit is on life support because the government, MPs, business, unions and the civil service and the rest of the EU never wanted to do it, and it was only happening because the voters wanted to do it, but faced with a specific thing the voters now don't want to do it either. It's only still a thing because of inertia, and it's safer for everybody to let it just grind slowly to a halt rather than throwing themselves in front of it.
Please tell me you’re not coming to the conclusion that “voters now don’t want to do it either” because of the view of people on opinion poll panels?
Mr. NorthWales, would such a vote be tabled and binding?
I am not an expert in Parliamentary procedure but without action we most certainly would no deal.
And just two days to take the action in the biggest crisis since WW2
I have always said that Brexit would go with a whimper rather than a bang. Its hard to get too excited on a lovely spring day when there is a big horse race and some interesting football. Leicester could leapfrog to 7th place if we win away at poor old Huddersfield. I expect it will be a while before we see them again in the PL.
I am in the Smoke on Friday for a meeting, was planning to pop to Parliament Square to see the circus in the evening. I expect an extension though. Tusk will have his way and 29/3/20 will be the new Brexit day.
I may not be popular but my family oppose the grand national on the grounds of the number of horses killed, often in agony, all for excitement. It is barbaric.
I hope you enjoy your football and let us hope by friday something tangeable will have happened with brexit
I take your point on horses dying, but am fairly utilitarian on these things. We kill thousands of animals each day to satisfy our whims and fancies. A horse race or a bacon butty? At least the horse gets a decent life first.
+1, really, though I'd ban the use of the whip except where safety is involved. The National is pretty grim, though, for the reasons BigG says.
I think if we revoke, the polls will swing sharply to "out" as the betrayal narrative will be very strong. If we leave with no deal then there will likely be a majority who would have preferred to remain.
What an excellent article Mr Herdson - one of the best I can remember on PB, and there have been many good ones. Well-reasoned, and very clearly set out.
Whether the projections are right of course, only time will tell.
Thanks!
Let me echo that, and thanks too to Stodge for an excellent comment.
Take away the impossible and all that remains is No Deal, Revoke or her deal.
Though it's not impossible, Revoke would be, to me, quite astonishing: the negation of the largest popular vote in UK history and sure political suicide for the Tory party and politicians. With the UK backed into the EU the popular clamour to get out and/or disrupt the EU project would rise to unbearable levels. Realising that makes it anathema not only to our (sensible) politicians but also to the (sensible) Europeans. So I think unless it is kicked yet again into the long grass, either the May-deal or No-deal will be decided next week.
I agree that Revoke is highly unlikely to happen, but I don't see it killing the Tories off if it did. One major lesson of the Newport West election, surely, is that the majority of people are just not that politically engaged. The Conservative party no longer exists as a meaningful single entity, but it continues to lead most polls and its vote held up pretty well on Thursday. FPTP invites people to vote against the worst option - and for many voters that will remain the Labour party (and vice versa, of course).
It does make me laugh when pro-Remain posters paste a link to a Guardian article about Brexit as an objective source.
It's like me linking to the Express.
It inspires a little titter from me when Brexiteers characterise what is essentially a list of quotes from world media as subjective Remain propaganda.
At least we've not reached the stage where linking to those quotes is considered traitorous. Probably.
Um, unless it's all the quotes on the subject, from all the world media, ever, then of course subjective is what it is. What do you think it is?
On the basis of your last sentence you should be a vegan then.
Racehorses are extremely well cared for and looked after. Welfare is taken extremely seriously. The National does not “kill or maim horses”, and such incidents remain a rare event.
A measure of that is or should be the number of those being pulled up as against those falling.
Jockeys, who are both superb horsemen and trained athletes, know when the horse has done its bit and it's time to call it a day. Ruby Walsh knew FAUGHEEN wasn't right on Thursday and pulled him out of the race. Even in the Foxhunters where the riders are amateur, a number called it a day before the last two.
Yet it is a sport with risk - it would be impossible to remove the risk without destroying the sport as we saw yesterday. I sincerely hope every horse in every race (not just the National) comes back safe and sound.
As an aside, if you want to buy a horse, racehorses that failed to make the grade are a good choice, as they're cheap, and very well socialised..
May has been terrible in everything she has touched since calling her election in 2017. She needs removing from office today.
That being said, Cooper Letwin and all those who voted for it are guilty of serious treachery against the country. Are they in the pay of the EU? Why else would they be committing the UK to £Bn's of expenditure into the future?
If the thing passes, the EU will say, if you want that extension its £20, 40, 50bn a year, or whatever they choose.
A plague on all of them in parliament.
It is a more egregious sin to want to plunge your country into at the very least economic chaos.
Special place in hell and all that.
According to your previous thoughts Toppo all we have to do to keep economic chaos away is to reduce interest rates by 0.25%.
Thanks for the article, David, which is a decent summation of where we are. The irony is for all everyone's talk of "taking back control", the impotence of the Commons has been illustrated in the past few weeks. The core is the EU deals with the UK Government not the UK Parliament and the extent to which ANY PM is mandated by Parliament to follow courses of action is to me quite unclear.
In any case, as I've said repeatedly, the Commons voting down No Deal or making it "illegal" is akin to trying to legislate against rain. IF we do not have a WA in place and IF we can't get an extension from the EU, we leave next Friday evening.
I think there's a growing constituency for that - for the LEAVE supporter, No Deal looks the only way to leave at all currently. Extensions look and feel like attempts to thwart the process so have to be resisted. I agree most LEAVE supporters would have baulked at No Deal a few months ago but as the options have narrowed it looks the only clear way to ensure their choice is enacted.
The second group swinging to No Deal are those fed up with the whole thing. The "let's get it over with" Party are unfocused but popular. They contain both LEAVE and REMAIN supporters who simply feel the Government has other things it should be doing and are tired of the constant coverage of what seems to them to be a simple thing. Most would have been happy to see the WA passed.
Limiting the options polarises opinions - we all know this. On the other side, revocation has emerged as an option. Cancel it all, scrap it all, end it all - it sounds so easy but it would be political suicide for May and the Conservatives so it won't happen.
With the WA unable to clear the Commons, it's therefore down to May and the EU - Parliament is irrelevant now and may as well have packed up for Easter yesterday. I was puzzled by the 30/6 extension which made no sense but I presume it was a desperate attempt to hold the Cabinet together. Tusk, who has been more of a friend to the UK in this than many realise, has thrown a potential lifeline but plenty in the EU seemingly also want this over with.
I can't with certainty say that this time next week we will still be in the EU and that's astonishing and a measure of failure in and of itself.
I'd actually now argue those in the EU who want this over and done with are being more of a friend to the UK than Mr Tusk with his interminable flextension.
You think May is wrong to think No Deal would lead to the break up of the UK?
The Scottish separatists will look to break up the UK regardless of what we do. Even if we remain they'll say let not put our future in the hand of English Nationalists again and we can only ensure that by leaving..
I expect better of someone of Mr. NorthWales’s intelligence.
People who label disussions on animal rights as "Dogmatic animal rights rants" angers my goat (i would not let anyone grate her).
Sadly I have learnt not to expect better from Mr Royale
Nonsense, grated goat is delicious, and anyone who says otherwise is a libtard gaylord poncyboots.
Surely the correct idiom is "get my goat", not 'grate' or 'anger' (the latter espescially as goat is slang for anger, so anger my goat = anger my anger).
As an aside on the Grand National, even though I'm a racing fan, I don't worship the race or Cheltenham the way so many do. I much prefer Royal Ascot and the flat these days.
I'd make two points about the race and how the changes have affected it - first, it's a better race in terms of horse quality than it used to be. The Gold Cup fourth is carrying top weight, the bottom weight is a former Scottish National winner. The no-hopers who used to get into the race 20 or 30 years ago are gone.
So you have better horses and better riders. At the same time, however, the fences have been made "easier". The impact is to make the race akin to the Scottish or Welsh National but with different jumps. It's a quality long distance handicap chase. The corollary of that is better horses over easier fences go quicker and speed kills. Horses travelling at speed are more at risk than the plodder who just stops so I'd argue the changes have made the race more of a risk to the horse than otherwise.
A keen horse racing fan I know told me the same a few years ago.
On topic, I don't think TMay would have crashed out when she could have extended, so it doesn't really matter what Cooper-Letwin do, although they've closed off one real but unlikely pathway to No Deal.
Brexit is on life support because the government, MPs, business, unions and the civil service and the rest of the EU never wanted to do it, and it was only happening because the voters wanted to do it, but faced with a specific thing the voters now don't want to do it either. It's only still a thing because of inertia, and it's safer for everybody to let it just grind slowly to a halt rather than throwing themselves in front of it.
Please tell me you’re not coming to the conclusion that “voters now don’t want to do it either” because of the view of people on opinion poll panels?
Yes, opinion polls are a good way to poll opinion.
There are other good ways like having a national referendum, and there's a good argument that if you think opinion has changed you should have one of those rather than just revoking based on polling and the general vibe, but the evidence as it currently stands is that the voters would rather remain than do any specific brexit.
In any case, as I've said repeatedly, the Commons voting down No Deal or making it "illegal" is akin to trying to legislate against rain. IF we do not have a WA in place and IF we can't get an extension from the EU, we leave next Friday evening.
I think there's a growing constituency for that - for the LEAVE supporter, No Deal looks the only way to leave at all currently. Extensions look and feel like attempts to thwart the process so have to be resisted. I agree most LEAVE supporters would have baulked at No Deal a few months ago but as the options have narrowed it looks the only clear way to ensure their choice is enacted.
The second group swinging to No Deal are those fed up with the whole thing. The "let's get it over with" Party are unfocused but popular. They contain both LEAVE and REMAIN supporters who simply feel the Government has other things it should be doing and are tired of the constant coverage of what seems to them to be a simple thing. Most would have been happy to see the WA passed.
Limiting the options polarises opinions - we all know this. On the other side, revocation has emerged as an option. Cancel it all, scrap it all, end it all - it sounds so easy but it would be political suicide for May and the Conservatives so it won't happen.
With the WA unable to clear the Commons, it's therefore down to May and the EU - Parliament is irrelevant now and may as well have packed up for Easter yesterday. I was puzzled by the 30/6 extension which made no sense but I presume it was a desperate attempt to hold the Cabinet together. Tusk, who has been more of a friend to the UK in this than many realise, has thrown a potential lifeline but plenty in the EU seemingly also want this over with.
I can't with certainty say that this time next week we will still be in the EU and that's astonishing and a measure of failure in and of itself.
I'd actually now argue those in the EU who want this over and done with are being more of a friend to the UK than Mr Tusk with his interminable flextension.
No Donald Tusk is the realist. People who want it over and done with are simply not taking into account the fact that this issue is still hotly contested and until a consensus emerges it will continue to disrupt the EU quite badly while completely wrecking any kind of progress on anything political in the UK.
The best way to get the first stage over and done with is by accepting the WA. That is more likely if the EU say no more.
I think if we revoke, the polls will swing sharply to "out" as the betrayal narrative will be very strong. If we leave with no deal then there will likely be a majority who would have preferred to remain.
And if we leave with WDA+CU the issue fades and attention focuses on other issues.
What an excellent article Mr Herdson - one of the best I can remember on PB, and there have been many good ones. Well-reasoned, and very clearly set out.
Whether the projections are right of course, only time will tell.
Thanks!
Let me echo that, and thanks too to Stodge for an excellent comment.
Take away the impossible and all that remains is No Deal, Revoke or her deal.
Though it's not impossible, Revoke would be, to me, quite astonishing: the negation of the largest popular vote in UK history and sure political suicide for the Tory party and politicians. With the UK backed into the EU the popular clamour to get out and/or disrupt the EU project would rise to unbearable levels. Realising that makes it anathema not only to our (sensible) politicians but also to the (sensible) Europeans. So I think unless it is kicked yet again into the long grass, either the May-deal or No-deal will be decided next week.
I agree that Revoke is highly unlikely to happen, but I don't see it killing the Tories off if it did. One major lesson of the Newport West election, surely, is that the majority of people are just not that politically engaged. The Conservative party no longer exists as a meaningful single entity, but it continues to lead most polls and its vote held up pretty well on Thursday. FPTP invites people to vote against the worst option - and for many voters that will remain the Labour party (and vice versa, of course).
Yes, Labour and Tory probably only still exist because of tribal hatred of the other from people indoctrinated as children. If there are no chance of the other winning power, millions of people wouldn’t vote for ‘their’ Party
The best way to get the first stage over and done with is by accepting the WA. That is more likely if the EU say no more.
The problem with getting the first stage over and done is that after the first stage you have the second stage, which is the part where the British will have to suck up all the unpopular concessions...
On topic, I don't think TMay would have crashed out when she could have extended, so it doesn't really matter what Cooper-Letwin do, although they've closed off one real but unlikely pathway to No Deal.
Brexit is on life support because the government, MPs, business, unions and the civil service and the rest of the EU never wanted to do it, and it was only happening because the voters wanted to do it, but faced with a specific thing the voters now don't want to do it either. It's only still a thing because of inertia, and it's safer for everybody to let it just grind slowly to a halt rather than throwing themselves in front of it.
Please tell me you’re not coming to the conclusion that “voters now don’t want to do it either” because of the view of people on opinion poll panels?
Yes, opinion polls are a good way to poll opinion.
There are other good ways like having a national referendum, and there's a good argument that if you think opinion has changed you should have one of those rather than just revoking based on polling and the general vibe, but the evidence as it currently stands is that the voters would rather remain than do any specific brexit.
They’re a good way of polling the opinion of people who are over engaged in politics.
The article also mentions America has Trump, Brazil Bolsonaro etc. If Article 50 is revoked as looks increasingly possible I would expect we would follow them and Italy with Salvini etc with a surge for a right-wing populist like Boris or Farage
Dr. Foxy, humans are designed to eat both meat and fruit/vegetables. We're omnivorous by nature. If people choose to eschew meat, that's fair enough, but I'd strongly repudiate any suggestion eating meat is immoral.
Eating meat is a choice, we are not constrained by our biology.
I am not suggesting that it is immoral, though others might, but it is immoral to not consider the implications for animal welfare, and the health of the planet from excessive meat consumption.
I’d say the morality, such as it is, is one of overpopulating the planet.
Yes. Climate change is being driven by the increasing world population.
"the Prime Minister and her advisers have pursued an approach that will now be used in university courses on international relations as a textbook case of how not to negotiate."
What an excellent article Mr Herdson - one of the best I can remember on PB, and there have been many good ones. Well-reasoned, and very clearly set out.
Whether the projections are right of course, only time will tell.
Thanks!
Let me echo that, and thanks too to Stodge for an excellent comment.
Take away the impossible and all that remains is No Deal, Revoke or her deal.
Though it's not impossible, Revoke would be, to me, quite astonishing: the negation of the largest popular vote in UK history and sure political suicide for the Tory party and politicians. With the UK backed into the EU the popular clamour to get out and/or disrupt the EU project would rise to unbearable levels. Realising that makes it anathema not only to our (sensible) politicians but also to the (sensible) Europeans. So I think unless it is kicked yet again into the long grass, either the May-deal or No-deal will be decided next week.
I agree that Revoke is highly unlikely to happen, but I don't see it killing the Tories off if it did. One major lesson of the Newport West election, surely, is that the majority of people are just not that politically engaged. The Conservative party no longer exists as a meaningful single entity, but it continues to lead most polls and its vote held up pretty well on Thursday. FPTP invites people to vote against the worst option - and for many voters that will remain the Labour party (and vice versa, of course).
Yes, Labour and Tory probably only still exist because of tribal hatred of the other from people indoctrinated as children. If there are no chance of the other winning power, millions of people wouldn’t vote for ‘their’ Party
I think it's a lot more than tribal hatred and indoctrination. Labour got a lot of votes from people in 2017 who wanted to stop the kind of Brexit May was proposing at that time, or who wanted to stop the Dementia tax or whatever. Likewise, the Tories got a lot of votes because a lot of voters wanted to stop Corbyn. That's not tribal, it's rational, issues-based decision-making. The problem is the voting system. if you want serious change that has to go. While it remains the Tory and Labour hegemony is baked in.
The article also mentions America has Trump, Brazil Bolsonaro etc. If Article 50 is revoked as looks increasingly possible I would expect we would follow them and Italy with Salvini etc with a surge for a right-wing populist like Boris or Farage
I really think Boris is done. I don't know why JRM is supporting him - I suppose it just suits him for the time being not to stick his head above the parapet.
As an aside on the Grand National, even though I'm a racing fan, I don't worship the race or Cheltenham the way so many do. I much prefer Royal Ascot and the flat these days.
I'd make two points about the race and how the changes have affected it - first, it's a better race in terms of horse quality than it used to be. The Gold Cup fourth is carrying top weight, the bottom weight is a former Scottish National winner. The no-hopers who used to get into the race 20 or 30 years ago are gone.
So you have better horses and better riders. At the same time, however, the fences have been made "easier". The impact is to make the race akin to the Scottish or Welsh National but with different jumps. It's a quality long distance handicap chase. The corollary of that is better horses over easier fences go quicker and speed kills. Horses travelling at speed are more at risk than the plodder who just stops so I'd argue the changes have made the race more of a risk to the horse than otherwise.
A keen horse racing fan I know told me the same a few years ago.
Many years ago I read a comment from a gambler to the effect that if horses were meant to jump they'd have legs like kangaroos.
I think if we revoke, the polls will swing sharply to "out" as the betrayal narrative will be very strong. If we leave with no deal then there will likely be a majority who would have preferred to remain.
And if we leave with WDA+CU the issue fades and attention focuses on other issues.
On the basis of your last sentence you should be a vegan then.
Racehorses are extremely well cared for and looked after. Welfare is taken extremely seriously. The National does not “kill or maim horses”, and such incidents remain a rare event.
A measure of that is or should be the number of those being pulled up as against those falling.
Jockeys, who are both superb horsemen and trained athletes, know when the horse has done its bit and it's time to call it a day. Ruby Walsh knew FAUGHEEN wasn't right on Thursday and pulled him out of the race. Even in the Foxhunters where the riders are amateur, a number called it a day before the last two.
Yet it is a sport with risk - it would be impossible to remove the risk without destroying the sport as we saw yesterday. I sincerely hope every horse in every race (not just the National) comes back safe and sound.
As an aside, if you want to buy a horse, racehorses that failed to make the grade are a good choice, as they're cheap, and very well socialised..
If only they had better feet.
They have these "hooves" things. They're horses.
[Ah, my coat... ]
The hoof is the hard exterior. The whole thing is a foot.
Comments
At least we've not reached the stage where linking to those quotes is considered traitorous. Probably.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-47819952
Not a tip, I'm just pointing this out.
Way too short.
I think I would if I personally knew and cared for the horse, such that it winning wasn’t about the money.
The quotations will be selective and/or requested. All newspapers do this.
The Mail will do it the other way round.
National is as safe as they can make it.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections/EXT-INTERACTIVE-netanyahu-vs-gantz-your-comprehensive-guide-to-2019-israel-election-1.7086971
It's a pity there are no betting opportunities that I can find.
I don’t think the Guardian is much more serious. At best, somewhere between the Telegraph and the Mail.
But being open to seeing what the other side say when it is the only way to pass something I find impossible to criticise. Itd be like walking out of a meeting because a former member of your party was present.
The two most dishonest arguments lately have been:-
1. The ERG argument that the PM is failing to deliver Brexit, when so many of them have voted against it,
2. The Remain argument that Parliamentary deadlock makes a second referendum/revoke essential, when they've worked their hardest to create that deadlock.
I was at Cheltenham watching the Queen Mother Chase in 2016. The people behind me, including those that didn't back him cheered Sprinter Sacre home and it was a very emotional victory, beyond the betting.* I had £50 E/W on him, but even if I didn't I'd have loved him to win
I've not backed him but Don Poli winning this year's national would be very emotional as a massive comeback story. He is 175 on the spreads, and Bet365 150-1 Each Way (5 places) is good value right now according to my spreadsheet.
Racehorses are extremely well cared for and looked after. Welfare is taken extremely seriously. The National does not “kill or maim horses”, and such incidents remain a rare event.
Thanks for the article, David, which is a decent summation of where we are. The irony is for all everyone's talk of "taking back control", the impotence of the Commons has been illustrated in the past few weeks. The core is the EU deals with the UK Government not the UK Parliament and the extent to which ANY PM is mandated by Parliament to follow courses of action is to me quite unclear.
In any case, as I've said repeatedly, the Commons voting down No Deal or making it "illegal" is akin to trying to legislate against rain. IF we do not have a WA in place and IF we can't get an extension from the EU, we leave next Friday evening.
I think there's a growing constituency for that - for the LEAVE supporter, No Deal looks the only way to leave at all currently. Extensions look and feel like attempts to thwart the process so have to be resisted. I agree most LEAVE supporters would have baulked at No Deal a few months ago but as the options have narrowed it looks the only clear way to ensure their choice is enacted.
The second group swinging to No Deal are those fed up with the whole thing. The "let's get it over with" Party are unfocused but popular. They contain both LEAVE and REMAIN supporters who simply feel the Government has other things it should be doing and are tired of the constant coverage of what seems to them to be a simple thing. Most would have been happy to see the WA passed.
Limiting the options polarises opinions - we all know this. On the other side, revocation has emerged as an option. Cancel it all, scrap it all, end it all - it sounds so easy but it would be political suicide for May and the Conservatives so it won't happen.
With the WA unable to clear the Commons, it's therefore down to May and the EU - Parliament is irrelevant now and may as well have packed up for Easter yesterday. I was puzzled by the 30/6 extension which made no sense but I presume it was a desperate attempt to hold the Cabinet together. Tusk, who has been more of a friend to the UK in this than many realise, has thrown a potential lifeline but plenty in the EU seemingly also want this over with.
I can't with certainty say that this time next week we will still be in the EU and that's astonishing and a measure of failure in and of itself.
I think we can all judge who’s in no place to pull up another on rhetoric.
Horses can race without putting their lives in danger
The Parliament Act does allow for the Commons to triumph in a game of ping-pong.. but not in the timescales we’re talking about here.
https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/lords/lrds-consideration-of-amendments/
In any case, hasn’t May already carried out the unamended Bill’s intent? I suspect the will of the Commons may not stretch to tieing their hands on a Revoke/No deal vote.
Jockeys, who are both superb horsemen and trained athletes, know when the horse has done its bit and it's time to call it a day. Ruby Walsh knew FAUGHEEN wasn't right on Thursday and pulled him out of the race. Even in the Foxhunters where the riders are amateur, a number called it a day before the last two.
Yet it is a sport with risk - it would be impossible to remove the risk without destroying the sport as we saw yesterday. I sincerely hope every horse in every race (not just the National) comes back safe and sound.
Without it everyone would all be back to eating meat in a jiffy on an omnivorous diet, just as we’ve evolved to do.
I think I asked you to provide examples of this sectarian language previously and you diasappeared pretty sharpish. Have another go, why don't you?
I am not suggesting that it is immoral, though others might, but it is immoral to not consider the implications for animal welfare, and the health of the planet from excessive meat consumption.
I see you do it on here several times a month.
Meat is delicious. If you want to go without for health, religious, or ethical reasons then that's entirely your business. My diet, however, is another matter.
Some just adopt absurd sentimentality when it comes to animals as a way of externalising their own feelings which they struggle to manage with respect to their fellow human beings.
It’s a very British thing.
I have some sympathy with a vegetarian perspective (although not technically required by it, Buddhism was the only religion I ever gave serious thought to adopting). The desire to control the behaviour of others or to hector those with the temerity to disagree is an unpleasant side of a vocal minority, though. And nothing persuades me less than a combination of emotional blackmail and authoritarian arrogance. The concept my diet should be determined by strangers high on their own holiness is not an impressive one.
Mr. Royale, I hope this wasn't your intention but that does read a little as an implied criticism of Mr. NorthWales, who is nothing if not civilised.
I expect better of someone of Mr. NorthWales’s intelligence.
Anyway, I’m off. We have guests today and I have plenty of better things to do than engage in tedious arguments on here.
I ocassionally eat meat (though haven't since before Lent) and do enjoy it, and have made 2 overseas flights in the last year. I am aware of the contribution to planetary damage from each though. I try to live simply and tread lightly on the earth. I have no interest in compelling others to do likewise.
One thing that does stand out for me - because it is such a unique reaction amidst the general hilarity and perplexity - is how Swedes I speak to view it all. Almost all those I speak to (and I speak to quite a few for work) are genuinely upset by it. They really do hold the UK in high regard, have huge affection for us and just hate what is happening. It's actually quite moving.
Airdrie Argyle Accordion Band / Argyle Loyalists.
Lesmahagow Loyalists FB, Scotland.
Newmains Loyalist FB, Lanarkshire, Scotland.
Townhead Young Defenders Loyalist FB.
West End Loyalists FB, Glasgow.
Harthill Loyalists Flute Band
Loyal Orange Institution of Scotland
Loyal Orange Lodge, Larkhall
Whether the projections are right of course, only time will tell.
Thanks!
You never know what filling you're going to get in your Brexit sandwich with PB!
In general it does semm to me that both politicians and journalists othere than Herr Maurer think that the probability of No Deal Brexit next week is very high, where as in the UK the consensus opinion in the UK (If such a thing can exist concerning Brexit!) is that the chance of imminent No Deal is unlikely.
Take away the impossible and all that remains is No Deal, Revoke or her deal.
Though it's not impossible, Revoke would be, to me, quite astonishing: the negation of the largest popular vote in UK history and sure political suicide for the Tory party and politicians. With the UK backed into the EU the popular clamour to get out and/or disrupt the EU project would rise to unbearable levels. Realising that makes it anathema not only to our (sensible) politicians but also to the (sensible) Europeans. So I think unless it is kicked yet again into the long grass, either the May-deal or No-deal will be decided next week.
Sadly I have learnt not to expect better from Mr Royale
A week ago DH was predicting the exact opposite:
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/03/30/no-deal-remains-imminent-and-likely/
Brexit is on life support because the government, MPs, business, unions and the civil service and the rest of the EU never wanted to do it, and it was only happening because the voters wanted to do it, but faced with a specific thing the voters now don't want to do it either. It's only still a thing because of inertia, and it's safer for everybody to let it just grind slowly to a halt rather than throwing themselves in front of it.
If we leave with no deal then there will likely be a majority who would have preferred to remain.
[Ah, my coat...
There are other good ways like having a national referendum, and there's a good argument that if you think opinion has changed you should have one of those rather than just revoking based on polling and the general vibe, but the evidence as it currently stands is that the voters would rather remain than do any specific brexit.
Goodwin in the Telegraph