The NHS will bet getting more than the bus-advertised £350m per week by the end of the parliament*, paid in no small part by EU-derived membership savings.
Hogan Lovells has suspended a partner after he was caught using his work computer to look at porn.
The partner, who works in Hogan Lovell's London office, did not fall foul of his IT department. Instead he was dobbed in by a lawyer working for another firm across the street.
On Monday morning a lawyer with Irwin Mitchell, whose London office is separated from Hogan Lovells by a narrow lane, looked out of their window and straight into the partner's office. Sources told RollOnFriday that the Irwin Mitchell lawyer was shocked to see the Hogan Lovells partner watching porn at his desk, with his back to the window.
The IM lawyer filmed the absorbed partner on a mobile phone, sources told RollOnFriday, and sent the footage to Hogan Lovells lawyers. It then made its way to the firm's HR. The partner has now been suspended.
Mind you, a friend of mine who used to work for HMCTS (better not say where) once had to suspend half her staff for sharing dick picks on their work PCs.
Clearly the HL partner is an idiot
Am I the only person who’s a little uncomfortable with the behaviour of the IM lawyer?
No, you're not. Watching porn is not illegal (child porn excepted). It's a matter of workplace discipline, which should be of concern only to the man's employer.
If I had a seat facing the window where when I looked up from my screen I saw the porn being viewed I suspect I would be a bit perturbed....
While I agree, I have to say my concern in this case was different. If the Irwin Mitchell lawyer could see porn on the Hogan Lovells' partner's screen, what confidential information might he also have been able to see?
Depends on the strength of the binoculars he was using
The Fixed Term Parliament Act is an indictment of government by essay crisis. How can something so fundamental have been drafted so poorly?
I disagree. The requirement for a substantive VONC actually returns power to the Commons from the executive by stopping the government from forcing through a measure that would not otherwise have the support of the House by threatening MPs’ jobs by an early election. Where the FPTA is dangerously flawed is its failure to provide for loss of supply.
The NHS will bet getting more than the bus-advertised £350m per week by the end of the parliament*, paid in no small part by EU-derived membership savings.
Only if you're Andrew Adonis (or in 40 years!). If remainers throw their toys out the pram it doesn't make it any more likely. Remember this is Jo Johnson rather than Boris.
The NHS will bet getting more than the bus-advertised £350m per week by the end of the parliament*, paid in no small part by EU-derived membership savings.
Brexit is already costing us £500m per week
Pure conjecture.
The public sector deficit has shrunk pretty much in line with pre-referendum predictions.
Be careful for what you wish. If Leave wins again, even by one vote, basically that means no deal, with all the consequences. on which you and I broadly agree.
This is the part of the Brexiter "you were beaten by the slogan on a bus" comment that is so lacking awareness. It is more that Brexiters believed the slogan on the bus.
The NHS will be getting more than the bus-advertised £350m per week by the end of the parliament*, paid in no small part by EU-derived membership savings. The wider economic impact is a matter of conjecture, but I note the highest quarterly growth figures since 2016 were announced today.
*And perhaps more startlingly, NHS spending will have grown from 23% of government spending in 2000/01 to 38% by the end of the parliament.
Soon the government will be a health and social care service, with a few other things funded alongside.
and it will still be accused of privatising it to bring in an american style health system.
Only if you're Andrew Adonis (or in 40 years!). If remainers throw their toys out the pram it doesn't make it any more likely. Remember this is Jo Johnson rather than Boris.
But he’s the (relatively) sensible brother. Although wasn’t appointing Toby Young to something his idea?
I disagree. If May lost a VoNC, Corbyn, Momentum and all the social media left would be jumping up and down and demanding the 'right' to form a government, citing various precedents and authorities (of which there are enough to make a plausible case). There is a much greater risk to the Palace's independence from not calling Corbyn than from calling him.
[snip]
What happens if Corbyn too fails to win a VoC, leading to an election. The question is whether the incumbent PM - Corbyn - would continue in office for the election campaign despite having failed to gain the support of the Commons, or whether he too would be obliged to resign, in which case we could be looking at a technocratic government for the election period. While that is wholly outside recent British political experience, it could be the least-controversial option. I still have a 250/1 betting slip on Gus O'Donnell as next PM for that very reason (although other neutral candidates would probably now be ahead of him as options).
I don't think the British state would allow someone to become Prime Minister (and thus acquire executive authority) who demonstrably wouldn't have the confidence of the present legislature. So Corbyn would only become PM in such circumstances if the (some?) Tories commit to abstain.
The precedents have never involved someone becoming PM merely to prove that they can't - there has always been the expectation that they have the short-term confidence required.
And yet that is exactly what the FTPA requires. Once the VoNC has been passed, then either a new PM must be invited *before* a VoC can be held, or else no new PM is so invited, in which case the existing one presumably retains office despite it having been demonstrated that the Commons doesn't have confidence in them.
Actually, there are a few examples of individuals being invited to form governments, accepting the commission, and then finding that they weren't able to - but you mostly have to go back to the 18th century. I think the last case might have been Lord John Russell in the 1840s.
But the FTPA changes things. In a hung parliament, when one government falls, I do think the Palace would be badly advised to refuse to call the LotO if it was clear that no-one from the outgoing government could form an administration within days, and if the LotO was up to try.
Be careful for what you wish. If Leave wins again, even by one vote, basically that means no deal, with all the consequences. on which you and I broadly agree.
I disagree. The real choice is the deal or Remain.
JoJo's statement is one of the clearest and most powerful arguments I've seen against simply accepting that we have to go with the T May deal, however bad. And to be losing votes on the Tory remain side is the last thing May needs in trying to stitch a majority together.
Bet JoJo would have made a far better Foreign Secretary as well.
I disagree. If May lost a VoNC, Corbyn, Momentum and all the social media left would be jumping up and down and demanding the 'right' to form a government, citing various precedents and authorities (of which there are enough to make a plausible case). There is a much greater risk to the Palace's independence from not calling Corbyn than from calling him.
My guess as to how things would play out are that within 24 hours of the VoNC, there is a good chance that May resigns or is forced out. If, within 3-4 days, it's clear that there is likely to be an uncontested Tory leadership election, the Palace will hold off inviting anyone else until the new Tory leader has had the chance to test the Commons (as leader of the largest party, and who could put together a sufficiently large confidence base to win a vote). If the Tory election is contested - and hence would take longer than 14 days - or if May didn't resign, then Corbyn would then be invited to form a government. Similarly, if the new Tory leader failed to win a vote, Corbyn would then go to the Palace.
What happens then is interesting. Chances are that Corbyn too would fail to win a VoC, leading to an election. The question is whether the incumbent PM - Corbyn - would continue in office for the election campaign despite having failed to gain the support of the Commons, or whether he too would be obliged to resign, in which case we could be looking at a technocratic government for the election period. While that is wholly outside recent British political experience, it could be the least-controversial option. I still have a 250/1 betting slip on Gus O'Donnell as next PM for that very reason (although other neutral candidates would probably now be ahead of him as options).
I don't think the British state would allow someone to become Prime Minister (and thus acquire executive authority) who demonstrably wouldn't have the confidence of the present legislature. So Corbyn would only become PM in such circumstances if the (some?) Tories commit to abstain.
The precedents have never involved someone becoming PM merely to prove that they can't - there has always been the expectation that they have the short-term confidence required.
What think you of the idea that T.May would be directed by the Palace, prior to acceptance of her resignation, to permit parliamentary time for a vote or votes on pre-invitation motions for any PM candidate?
Anyone who succeeded in a pre-invitation vote would then be invited to try and gain confidence by the Palace with a complete guarantee that Palace neutrality would not have been compromised.
I'll have to dig out again the FTPA discussion that suggested this formulation.
The NHS will bet getting more than the bus-advertised £350m per week by the end of the parliament*, paid in no small part by EU-derived membership savings.
Brexit is already costing us £500m per week
Costing us?
Ah, ive worked out what youve done. You've taken the predicted economic growth and the actual and divided this difference by 52. It doesnt quite work like that.
I agree with that - though a technocratic government seems highly unlikely to me. In the absence of an immediate change of Tory leader the Palace would be dragged deeply into such a mess were it not to invite Corbyn.
They would invite Corbyn, but only in the sense of putting out feelers to see whether he thought he could put together a majority.
But only a subsequent Vote of Confidence would deliver an answer to that.
Well, where do you stop? They can't go through dozens of potential candidates, appointing each one PM and then waiting for a VONC.
The position is really no different to what happens in a hung parliament. Discussions take place behind the scenes to find out who appears to be able to put together a majority, and only then is it tested by a confidence vote (if necessary). Cameron wasn't automatically appointed PM in 2010, he had to establish first that the LibDems were likely to support him.
In the case of a hung parliament the incumbent PM always has the first opporunity to form a minority Government. Both Brown in May 2010 and Heath following the February 1974 election could have opted to meet Parliament to test their support in the Commons. Neither was constitutionally required to resign at the point they chose to do so.
With the joys of Margin of Error, it means that, using the Baxter Strong Transition Model and a MoE of 3% for the bigger parties and 2% for the LDs, this actually translates to:
Makes second referendum more likely. The brexiteers have shot themselves in the foot and remain is becoming the sanest option
Anyone who thinks Remain is the sanest option after the vote to Leave was the largest democratic mandate this country has ever seen is in for a very, very rude awakening at the next election....
I disagree. If May lost a VoNC, Corbyn, Momentum and all the social media left would be jumping up and down and demanding the 'right' to form a government, citing various precedents and authorities (of which there are enough to make a plausible case). There is a much greater risk to the Palace's independence from not calling Corbyn than from calling him.
My guess as to how things would play out are that within 24 hours of the VoNC, there is a good chance that May resigns or is forced out. If, within 3-4 days, it's clear that there is likely to be an uncontested Tory leadership election, the Palace will hold off inviting anyone else until the new Tory leader has had the chance to test the Commons (as leader of the largest party, and who could put together a sufficiently large confidence base to win a vote). If the Tory election is contested - and hence would take longer than 14 days - or if May didn't resign, then Corbyn would then be invited to form a government. Similarly, if the new Tory leader failed to win a vote, Corbyn would then go to the Palace.
What happens then is interesting. Chances are that Corbyn too would fail to win a VoC, leading to an election. The question is whether the incumbent PM - Corbyn - would continue in office for the election campaign despite having failed to gain the support of the Commons, or whether he too would be obliged to resign, in which case we could be looking at a technocratic government for the election period. While that is wholly outside recent British political experience, it could be the least-controversial option. I still have a 250/1 betting slip on Gus O'Donnell as next PM for that very reason (although other neutral candidates would probably now be ahead of him as options).
I don't think the British state would allow someone to become Prime Minister (and thus acquire executive authority) who demonstrably wouldn't have the confidence of the present legislature.
But that would surely be demonstrated by his success or failure in winning an affirmative Vote of Confidence?
That is what soundings are for. In practice no new PM should ever lose a VoC - it would be an international humiliation for the country, and constitutionally very concerning that they had acquired executive powers.
In March 1974 there was no certainty that Harold Wilson could win a VOC.
With the joys of Margin of Error, it means that, using the Baxter Strong Transition Model and a MoE of 3% for the bigger parties and 2% for the LDs, this actually translates to:
Con: 257-340 Lab: 241-330 LD: 9-20 SNP: 17-47
But we all love false precision.
I would expect to see the SNP at the low end of that range.
I disagree. If May lost a VoNC, Corbyn, Momentum and all the social media left would be jumping up and down and demanding the 'right' to form a government, citing various precedents and authorities (of which there are enough to make a plausible case). There is a much greater risk to the Palace's independence from not calling Corbyn than from calling him.
[snip]
What happens if Corbyn too fails to win a VoC, leading to an election. The question is whether the incumbent PM - Corbyn - would continue in office for the election campaign despite having failed to gain the support of the Commons, or whether he too would be obliged to resign, in which case we could be looking at a technocratic government for the election period. While that is wholly outside recent British political experience, it could be the least-controversial option. I still have a 250/1 betting slip on Gus O'Donnell as next PM for that very reason (although other neutral candidates would probably now be ahead of him as options).
I don't think the British state would allow someone to become Prime Minister (and thus acquire executive authority) who demonstrably wouldn't have the confidence of the present legislature. So Corbyn would only become PM in such circumstances if the (some?) Tories commit to abstain.
The precedents have never involved someone becoming PM merely to prove that they can't - there has always been the expectation that they have the short-term confidence required.
And yet that is exactly what the FTPA requires. Once the VoNC has been passed, then either a new PM must be invited *before* a VoC can be held, or else no new PM is so invited, in which case the existing one presumably retains office despite it having been demonstrated that the Commons doesn't have confidence in them.
Actually, there are a few examples of individuals being invited to form governments, accepting the commission, and then finding that they weren't able to - but you mostly have to go back to the 18th century. I think the last case might have been Lord John Russell in the 1840s.
But the FTPA changes things. In a hung parliament, when one government falls, I do think the Palace would be badly advised to refuse to call the LotO if it was clear that no-one from the outgoing government could form an administration within days, and if the LotO was up to try.
Although the closest example is probably Balfour putting the Liberals in to bat in 1905 in the hope they wouldn't be able to form a government. 18 years before the next Tory PM came into a much changed society. Too clever by three quarters!
Makes second referendum more likely. The brexiteers have shot themselves in the foot and remain is becoming the sanest option
Anyone who thinks Remain is the sanest option after the vote to Leave was the largest democratic mandate this country has ever seen is in for a very, very rude awakening at the next election....
And risks civil unrest before then, and the disengagement of a huge swathe for a generation or more after, coupled with handing 20-30% to a populist.
Pandora's box is open. Soft leave tending towards BINO is the sanest option.
Can we start betting on what fraction UKIP will get at the next Euro elections if we do stay in?
A big percentage.
UKIP Branch attendance is starting to tick up. Those who cared enough last time round are watching this Remain Government with astonishment and even anger. Lots more to come..
To have lost a Remain supporting Minister makes it that much harder for May to win support from Labour Remainers. So she is even more reliant on Leavers - which makes racing a deal less likely. It is very hard to see how she might reach a deal with the EU that will pass the Commons.
If she were to choose between no deal or a second referendum, which way did we think she will go?
The NHS will bet getting more than the bus-advertised £350m per week by the end of the parliament*, paid in no small part by EU-derived membership savings.
Brexit is already costing us £500m per week
Costing us?
Ah, ive worked out what youve done. You've taken the predicted economic growth and the actual and divided this difference by 52. It doesnt quite work like that.
To have lost a Remain supporting Minister makes it that much harder for May to win support from Labour Remainers. So she is even more reliant on Leavers - which makes racing a deal less likely. It is very hard to see how she might reach a deal with the EU that will pass the Commons.
If she were to choose between no deal or a second referendum, which way did we think she will go?
LosersVote.
Anything to duck the responsibility for her (in)actions. And, at the decision point, she'll be backed by the Remain part of the tory party.
To have lost a Remain supporting Minister makes it that much harder for May to win support from Labour Remainers. So she is even more reliant on Leavers - which makes racing a deal less likely. It is very hard to see how she might reach a deal with the EU that will pass the Commons.
If she were to choose between no deal or a second referendum, which way did we think she will go?
To have lost a Remain supporting Minister makes it that much harder for May to win support from Labour Remainers. So she is even more reliant on Leavers - which makes racing a deal less likely. It is very hard to see how she might reach a deal with the EU that will pass the Commons.
If she were to choose between no deal or a second referendum, which way did we think she will go?
Ant second referendum would neeed to be between May's deal and a WTO deal.
Comments
Xmas at the Johnson's should be a treat.
Actually, there are a few examples of individuals being invited to form governments, accepting the commission, and then finding that they weren't able to - but you mostly have to go back to the 18th century. I think the last case might have been Lord John Russell in the 1840s.
But the FTPA changes things. In a hung parliament, when one government falls, I do think the Palace would be badly advised to refuse to call the LotO if it was clear that no-one from the outgoing government could form an administration within days, and if the LotO was up to try.
Bet JoJo would have made a far better Foreign Secretary as well.
Anyone who succeeded in a pre-invitation vote would then be invited to try and gain confidence by the Palace with a complete guarantee that Palace neutrality would not have been compromised.
I'll have to dig out again the FTPA discussion that suggested this formulation.
Ah, ive worked out what youve done. You've taken the predicted economic growth and the actual and divided this difference by 52. It doesnt quite work like that.
O/t, just booked a family week on Anglesey in July, just before the most of the schools break up. Hoping for better than average N Welsh weather.
NEW THREAD
Con: 257-340
Lab: 241-330
LD: 9-20
SNP: 17-47
But we all love false precision.
I took a nibble at few seconds ago at 310.
Too clever by three quarters!
Pandora's box is open. Soft leave tending towards BINO is the sanest option.
If she were to choose between no deal or a second referendum, which way did we think she will go?
Anything to duck the responsibility for her (in)actions. And, at the decision point, she'll be backed by the Remain part of the tory party.