But that's irrelevant in this context isn't it? Nick was talking about the government offering some sort of scheme to get people investing (I think?). So they world be trying to maximise the returns of large numbers of people, presumably requiring multiple funds if they were investing actively. At that point the fact that market residuals are zero-sum becomes relevant
Yes, the more of the market you are advising the less fallacious the fallacy becomes. In practical terms you'd want Nick's fund in almost zero-cost trackers to shut down the scope for corruption. And even if you are just a single unsophisticated punter, trackers are in practice the best way of protecting yourself from your own misjudgments. But the zero sum fallacy is still a fallacy.
But how many of the population of London are actually living the theatre and posh restaurant lifestyle ?
Perhaps some people get a vicarious pleasure from walking through Regents Park and then admiring the Nash terraces but wouldn't even more merely resent being shown the lifestyle they can't afford and can never afford ?
The big attraction of London is there are a gazillion things to do. This is very important if you are the type of dynamo who likes to do a lot of things - and it is even more important if you aren't.
Re the super-rich, that's a fenced off enclave which 'ordinary Londoners' do not get to see much. If they did, I agree with you - the resentment would be great and possibly potent enough to have an impact. That is something I would like to see.
Believe it or not you can generally do those same things everywhere else.
Now for some they might have the time, inclination and means to have the theatre and posho restaurant lifestyle which may be London specific.
But for most people those gazillion things narrow down to commute, work, eat, wash, sleep.
To change the present electoral system, you have to win under FPTP.
All parties that win under FPTP become eat advantages of FPTP.
Y majority?
Terrible confession. A little bit of me wants the Lib Dems to ty prices
Once Brexit is sorted one way or the other I'll give them t be the future
After Brexit is done, however it is done, I wonder if we might see lism.
If Chuka wins Westminster for the LDs and beats Mark Field could he be Charles II to Boris' Cromwell?
Field rumored to be standing down, but Chuka wont win from third imo, labour will get 20% min, Tories should get 40
In the European Parliament elections the LDs won Westminster with more votes than the Tories and Brexit Party combined and comfortably beat Labour so I think Chuka has a very good chance, especially if he gets Labour tactical votes
Labour supporters voting for a quitter? And labour ir vote disappearing
Westminster European election results in May.
LDs 15805 Labour 9192 Brexit Party 7157 Conservatives 5198.
So only the LDs beat the Tories and Brexit Party combined in Westminster, Labour did not
Lower turnout than GE and a different election, the euro election results arent going to transpose to a GE, it was a protest election
They largely will in Westminster which was overwhelmingly Remain and even now the LDs are well up on the last general election in the polls with the Tories and Labour well down
If you think Chuka can pull off a 17% swing against the Tories AND a 14% swing against Labour in one heave then good luck with that. If he wins then the LD are taking most of London
He is a high profile name but I think the LDs will take most of the London seats where Remain got 65%+ including Kensington, Westminster, Battersea, Putney, Richmond Park etc they won in the European Parliament elections.
Where Remain polled closer to the UK average especially in Outer London or in poorer seats which have always been safe Labour e.g. in East and South London where Labour won even in the European Parliament elections then Labour will hold on as will the Tories in the few Leave areas in Outer London
Serious (rather than loaded) question - something I do not really understand.
Boris Johnson -
He has the balls to risk his premiership in a snap pre-Brexit election, seeking a mandate for Leave, do or die, no more delay beyond 31 Oct. I used to doubt this but no longer - it's clear that he has.
So WTF did he not just call an election as soon as he became PM?
Why wait and get entangled in all of this?
And why not present a bill to parliament now, providing for an October election?
He failed to get a 2/3 majority for an election, but he got a simple majority. It's not at all clear he wouldn't get a simple majority in favour of an election bill.
Well unless you work in the city or for a tech firm and earn the big bucks move back to your home town then if you want to get on the property ladder
My brothers both work in tech in London and both have had to move out to Kent and commute.
Our Dad still lives in zone 3, but then he's owned a house in London since the Callaghan ministry.
I was talking about working for Google or Apple or Facebook, not in IT support
They don't work in IT support. If you meant a job with one of three specific companies you should have said so. There are a lot of tech firms in London.
The Tories won't go all out for No Deal as the endgame like the Brexit Party, if they back No Deal it will be as a negotiating tool to get the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop they really want
That's going to look increasingly irrelevant as we approach 31/10 though I suppose if A.N Other achieves an extension it will still be in play.
The Rudd resignation suggests the talk about an agreed WA is just that - it would be ideal for Johnson if Macron facilitated our exit on 31/10 but on the assumption he will be slapped down by Merkel, I think we can assume the EU will offer another extension on 17/10.
Boris cannot and will not accept that.
The problem is polls like last night's YouGov paradoxically don't help. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas and a 14-point for the Conservatives isn't, despite what happened in 2017, going to encourage non-Conservatives to head for the hustings.
Unfortunately for Boris, while he has the polling numbers, he doesn't have the parliamentary numbers to force a GE under the FTPA. He does have the advantage of being head of Government and as we both know the EU negotiates with the Government not with the Commons so the only option for the Opposition is to table a successful VoNC in the current Government and put together an alternative Government which will command a majority and the leader of that Government goes to the EU as head of the UK Government.
The interesting part is how the EU will respond to the change in Government - it shouldn't make any difference but I have a suspicion it will if they see any prospect of getting A50 revoked or pushed into the distance (2022).
The other question is whether once in power, the anti-No Deal Government might quite like the idea of staying in Government. They have a powerful incentive in keeping Boris and the No Dealers on the outside so there may be more strength, cohesion and popularity than some suppose.
It could even go on until 2022 by which time the 2016 Referendum will look like ancient history.
The French will apparently veto a 3 month extension it is reported today and will only grant an extension if something changes e.g. up to a general election in November or another referendum
Serious (rather than loaded) question - something I do not really understand.
Boris Johnson -
He has the balls to risk his premiership in a snap pre-Brexit election, seeking a mandate for Leave, do or die, no more delay beyond 31 Oct. I used to doubt this but no longer - it's clear that he has.
So WTF did he not just call an election as soon as he became PM?
Why wait and get entangled in all of this?
And why not present a bill to parliament now, providing for an October election?
He failed to get a 2/3 majority for an election, but he got a simple majority. It's not at all clear he wouldn't get a simple majority in favour of an election bill.
I think it is because he believes it would not get through the Lords.
The Tories won't go all out for No Deal as the endgame like the Brexit Party, if they back No Deal it will be as a negotiating tool to get the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop they really want
That's going to look increasingly irrelevant as we approach 31/10 though I suppose if A.N Other achieves an extension it will still be in play.
The Rudd resignation suggests the talk about an agreed WA is just that - it would be ideal for Johnson if Macron facilitated our exit on 31/10 but on the assumption he will be slapped down by Merkel, I think we can assume the EU will offer another extension on 17/10.
Boris cannot and will not accept that.
The problem is polls like last night's YouGov paradoxically don't help. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas and a 14-point for the Conservatives isn't, despite what happened in 2017, going to encourage non-Conservatives to head for the hustings.
Unfortunately for Boris, while he has the polling numbers, he doesn't have the parliamentary numbers to force a GE under the FTPA. He does have the advantage of being head of Government and as we both know the EU negotiates with the Government not with the Commons so the only option for the Opposition is to table a successful VoNC in the current Government and put together an alternative Government which will command a majority and the leader of that Government goes to the EU as head of the UK Government.
The interesting part is how the EU will respond to the change in Government - it shouldn't make any difference but I have a suspicion it will if they see any prospect of getting A50 revoked or pushed into the distance (2022).
The other question is whether once in power, the anti-No Deal Government might quite like the idea of staying in Government. They have a powerful incentive in keeping Boris and the No Dealers on the outside so there may be more strength, cohesion and popularity than some suppose.
It could even go on until 2022 by which time the 2016 Referendum will look like ancient history.
The French will apparently veto a 3 month extension it is reported today and will only grant an extension if something changes e.g. up to a general election in November or another referendum
Obviously there is likely to be a general election.
It would have been viable if the Tories had done a "coronation" of Boris. That would have freed up July for an election but instead he had to spend weeks doing hustings and didn't become leader until the end of July.
Calling an election then would have meant spending August campaigning with loads of unhappy MPs and grumpy journalists all having to give up their Summer holidays.
He could have called it asap on resumption of parliament, rather than in response to getting boxed in by the Benn act.
That is what you were saying he ought to do.
But anyway, we are where we are. Or he is where he is, rather.
Gardenwalker is right, though. For many people - clearly not you - the best life possible, in the UK, is in in London.
London is a world city. Arguably the pre-eminent city on the planet. National Geographic thought so last year, despite Brexit.
But now London is so successful it is closed off to the young in the UK, no matter how clever and driven. It is bad for them, and very bad for the country, when the capital city - or its nicer bits - becomes a kind of closed playground for global super-rich and a few lucky Brits (mainly those who have some link to London property ownership already).
The building resentment of London, and the way it has been quarantined from the rest of the country, was a huge, hidden driver of Brexit.
But how many of the population of London are actually living the theatre and posh restaurant lifestyle ?
Perhaps some people get a vicarious pleasure from walking through Regents Park and then admiring the Nash terraces but wouldn't even more merely resent being shown the lifestyle they can't afford and can never afford ?
You don't have to totally live the life - few do. You just have to aspire to it, and think it conceivable you might live it, one day soon, if you work hard.
if London is so expensive you can't even live there, and never imagine living there, then that shuts the dream down.
But what happens when you accept you're not going to live it no matter how hard you work and how long you wait ?
And you realise that you're renting a room in Walthamstow while the people you grew up with have bought houses in your home town ?
Some bitterness and resentment perhaps and a desire to blame someone else ?
Well unless you work in the city or for a tech firm and earn the big bucks move back to your home town then if you want to get on the property ladder
Its not necessarily a good thing if the 'London aspiration' becomes unobtainable to few beyond the extremely talented and richly privileged.
Especially as government is concentrated in the same location.
That's without mentioning the resentment of the 'tried London and failed' people.
London is now an A+ global city along with New York city and Tokyo.
If you want to be in the London elite you cannot just be in the British elite but have to be in the global elite.
The only way to change that is stop London being a top global city which would diminish London but make it more affordable as it was in say the 1970s
Well unless you work in the city or for a tech firm and earn the big bucks move back to your home town then if you want to get on the property ladder
My brothers both work in tech in London and both have had to move out to Kent and commute.
Our Dad still lives in zone 3, but then he's owned a house in London since the Callaghan ministry.
I was talking about working for Google or Apple or Facebook, not in IT support
They don't work in IT support. If you meant a job with one of three specific companies you should have said so. There are a lot of tech firms in London.
If you work for one of those 3 you will be earning a 6 figure salary on average within a few years, if you don't you won't
Serious (rather than loaded) question - something I do not really understand.
Boris Johnson -
He has the balls to risk his premiership in a snap pre-Brexit election, seeking a mandate for Leave, do or die, no more delay beyond 31 Oct. I used to doubt this but no longer - it's clear that he has.
So WTF did he not just call an election as soon as he became PM?
Why wait and get entangled in all of this?
And why not present a bill to parliament now, providing for an October election?
He failed to get a 2/3 majority for an election, but he got a simple majority. It's not at all clear he wouldn't get a simple majority in favour of an election bill.
I think it is because he believes it would not get through the Lords.
But if that happened it would be propaganda gold. Just as it would be if it was blocked in the Commons by Labour voting against, rather than just abstaining as they did last week.
But how many of the population of London are actually living the theatre and posh restaurant lifestyle ?
Perhaps some people get a vicarious pleasure from walking through Regents Park and then admiring the Nash terraces but wouldn't even more merely resent being shown the lifestyle they can't afford and can never afford ?
The big attraction of London is there are a gazillion things to do. This is very important if you are the type of dynamo who likes to do a lot of things - and it is even more important if you aren't.
Re the super-rich, that's a fenced off enclave which 'ordinary Londoners' do not get to see much. If they did, I agree with you - the resentment would be great and possibly potent enough to have an impact. That is something I would like to see.
Believe it or not you can generally do those same things everywhere else.
Now for some they might have the time, inclination and means to have the theatre and posho restaurant lifestyle which may be London specific.
But for most people those gazillion things narrow down to commute, work, eat, wash, sleep.
And, more to the point, all of the things you can do in London when you live there, you can do as a visitor, probably with the same or higher frequency, given the understandable reluctance of working commuters to spend their leisure time travelling into town. As a visitor, instead of a journey home on the late night tube, you just walk round the corner to your hotel.
Of course, if you happen to live in Bloomsbury or the like, things feel different (but living in central London has other downsides), but for the vast majority of Londoners in the outer Boroughs, I bet the frequency with which they enjoy central London concerts/museums/galleries/restaurants/attractions etc. isn’t that high.
Well unless you work in the city or for a tech firm and earn the big bucks move back to your home town then if you want to get on the property ladder
My brothers both work in tech in London and both have had to move out to Kent and commute.
Our Dad still lives in zone 3, but then he's owned a house in London since the Callaghan ministry.
I was talking about working for Google or Apple or Facebook, not in IT support
They don't work in IT support. If you meant a job with one of three specific companies you should have said so. There are a lot of tech firms in London.
Serious (rather than loaded) question - something I do not really understand.
Boris Johnson -
He has the balls to risk his premiership in a snap pre-Brexit election, seeking a mandate for Leave, do or die, no more delay beyond 31 Oct. I used to doubt this but no longer - it's clear that he has.
So WTF did he not just call an election as soon as he became PM?
Why wait and get entangled in all of this?
He wanted to prove himself as a doer, and he didn't expect to get trapped by the Surrender Act - is my guess. He might also have wagered (quite reasonably) that Corbyn the Politician would always go for an election, whenever Boris asked.
Labour's restraint will be a surprise.
So Boris & Dom & Sajid & Michael - alias BDSM (you read it hear first!) - have made errors, but understandable ones.
Rawnsley today sets out the mistakes very clearly:
Yes, the belief that Corbyn would be compelled to agree a GE was the killer bit. But, of course, the No Deal posturing gave him the perfect excuse to refuse. Amateur-hour stuff. Like the Germans in Fawlty Towers, I'm starting to look at Boris, Cummings and VoteLeave and think: how did they win?
Has anyone seen anything suggesting on what basis the Government thinks the Act might be challenged? It looks quite straightforward to me. I hate it, but the law is the law and there’s little scope for any doubt in it. If Parliament isn’t content, he has to ask for an extension, and if offered he must accept.
I presume someone somewhere thinks Parliament doesn’t have the vires required. But that doesn’t work for me, since Parliament can do what it wants. Well I suppose, ironically it can’t do much about the limitations imposed by the European treaties without first leaving, but I don’t see those being relevant here.
As discussed at length, he can chose to resign first, but these articles seem to imply someone thinks there might be a legal basis on which to not send a letter. I don’t see it. All I can picture is the unpleasant stuff in a side letter (“p.s. you stink, we’ll veto everything forever and pull British troops out of Eastern Europe if you offer to extend, and I’d like to formally notify you that we find Spain in breach of the Treaty of Utrecht and we will be declaring war”).
The Act requires the Prime Minister to request an extension. This is international diplomacy which is a Preoragitive matter, effectively the PM's powers derive from the Prerogative, not Parliament. So you could argue that Parliament does not have the vires to 8bsteuct the Monarch in matters of diplumacy.
A Perogative power can’t be used to remove rights of citizens . That’s why Gina Miller won her case . Normal foreign policy decisions don’t remove rights . Triggering Article 50 would and now no deal would . MPs have clearly expressed they currently refuse to sanction no deal .
Whilst the right wing press were shouting betrayal the decision in GM protected all citizens but many Leavers to be blunt seem unable to grasp how important the GM case was and were led like sheep to be moaning about a decision which saved us from our rights being trashed at the stroke of a pen by an out of control government .
But that point has already been addressed. No Deal was explicitly accepted as a potential outcome when Article 50 was triggered with the permission of Parliament. It is written in black and white in the Article.
OK, thanks all for the various interesting answers to my question as to why people think the Great Man did not call an election before getting trapped. I will process, cogitate, and generally do the necessary.
Aside from YouGov which is showing something like 14% Tory leads the recent polls don't look too bad for during Johnson's honeymoon period from a Labour perspective. Every reason to think we could make up a few percent before an election and a few percent during it.
OK. I found it. This was kind of indicated by his earlier tweet. The polls are everywhere except YouGov consistently gives the Tories big or massive leads. There could be methodological divergence. Either, the YouGov is correct and the others wrong or YouGov is wrong. Really there is only one way to find out.
Indeed there is. The polling average is probably still the best guide till the wonders in parliament decide it's time for an election though.
polling average is about as reliable as Stuart Dickson's subsamples amalgamations for Scotland.
You are confusing me with James Kelly, formerly of this parish (prior to excommunication).
Serious (rather than loaded) question - something I do not really understand.
Boris Johnson -
He has the balls to risk his premiership in a snap pre-Brexit election, seeking a mandate for Leave, do or die, no more delay beyond 31 Oct. I used to doubt this but no longer - it's clear that he has.
So WTF did he not just call an election as soon as he became PM?
Why wait and get entangled in all of this?
He wanted to prove himself as a doer, and he didn't expect to get trapped by the Surrender Act - is my guess. He might also have wagered (quite reasonably) that Corbyn the Politician would always go for an election, whenever Boris asked.
Labour's restraint will be a surprise.
So Boris & Dom & Sajid & Michael - alias BDSM (you read it hear first!) - have made errors, but understandable ones.
Rawnsley today sets out the mistakes very clearly:
The thing is that Boris and Dom's interests aren't permanently aligned.
Boris wants to be PM, and Brexit helps that at the moment.
Dom wants radical upending of the British political model, and PM Boris is a route to that at the moment. But he clearly has no affection for the Conservative Party, which is where analogies with Alistair Campbell fall down.
If the symbiosis breaks down (and arguably it already has), what happens next?
Normally, advisers advise and ministers decide... This time?
The Supreme Court cannot strike down Primary Legislation.
It could interpret the law and request changes or say whether the law does what it intends to do .
There’s very little chance of Bozo succeeding in any challenge so I wouldn’t be surprised to see him ask the Queen to refuse Royal Consent to the anti no deal Bill .
This way he avoids breaking the law but it’s likely to cause a political meltdown .
I expect he’ll do a lectern speech saying something like . The rebel alliance agreed to a GE if I allowed smooth passage of the Bill , they haven’t agreed so I won’t advise Royal Consent .
With parliament suspended opposition MPs will be left with no time , when they return really their only option then is a VONC and even then Bozo could hang around for a while .
When Joe Denly is all that stands between England and defeat, there is a need for a new chief selector.
And that's with due respect for Joe Denly, but he can't hope to hang on here.
He can hope, albeit to dubious effect.
The only way he'll manage it is if Starc, Cummins and Hazlewood all crash into each other in the infield and leave Paine without frontline bowlers other than Lyon.
Has anyone seen anything suggesting on what basis the Government thinks the Act might be challenged? It looks quite straightforward to me. I hate it, but the law is the law and there’s little scope for any doubt in it. If Parliament isn’t content, he has to ask for an extension, and if offered he must accept.
I presume someone somewhere thinks Parliament doesn’t have the vires required. But that doesn’t work for me, since Parliament can do what it wants. Well I suppose, ironically it can’t do much about the limitations imposed by the European treaties without first leaving, but I don’t see those being relevant here.
As discussed at length, he can chose to resign first, but these articles seem to imply someone thinks there might be a legal basis on which to not send a letter. I don’t see it. All I can picture is the unpleasant stuff in a side letter (“p.s. you stink, we’ll veto everything forever and pull British troops out of Eastern Europe if you offer to extend, and I’d like to formally notify you that we find Spain in breach of the Treaty of Utrecht and we will be declaring war”).
The Act requires the Prime Minister to request an extension. This is international diplomacy which is a Preoragitive matter, effectively the PM's powers derive from the Prerogative, not Parliament. So you could argue that Parliament does not have the vires to 8bsteuct the Monarch in matters of diplumacy.
A Perogative power can’t be used to remove rights of citizens . That’s why Gina Miller won her case . Normal foreign policy decisions don’t remove rights . Triggering Article 50 would and now no deal would . MPs have clearly expressed they currently refuse to sanction no deal .
Whilst the right wing press were shouting betrayal the decision in GM protected all citizens but many Leavers to be blunt seem unable to grasp how important the GM case was and were led like sheep to be moaning about a decision which saved us from our rights being trashed at the stroke of a pen by an out of control government .
But that point has already been addressed. No Deal was explicitly accepted as a potential outcome when Article 50 was triggered with the permission of Parliament. It is written in black and white in the Article.
It is interesting that the litigation over proroguing Parliament hasn't got anywhere as the Courts have accepted it's a perogative power the government/PM has.
I just wonder whether No Deal could actually be ruled lawful in the Court?
Would be the ultimate irony after the way Remainers have run rings around the government in the Courts for these past three years if it's the Courts that eventually sanction No Deal...
When Joe Denly is all that stands between England and defeat, there is a need for a new chief selector.
And that's with due respect for Joe Denly, but he can't hope to hang on here.
He can hope, albeit to dubious effect.
The only way he'll manage it is if Starc, Cummins and Hazlewood all crash into each other in the infield and leave Paine without frontline bowlers other than Lyon.
Serious (rather than loaded) question - something I do not really understand.
Boris Johnson -
He has the balls to risk his premiership in a snap pre-Brexit election, seeking a mandate for Leave, do or die, no more delay beyond 31 Oct. I used to doubt this but no longer - it's clear that he has.
So WTF did he not just call an election as soon as he became PM?
Why wait and get entangled in all of this?
He wanted to prove himself as a doer, and he didn't expect to get trapped by the Surrender Act - is my guess. He might also have wagered (quite reasonably) that Corbyn the Politician would always go for an election, whenever Boris asked.
Labour's restraint will be a surprise.
So Boris & Dom & Sajid & Michael - alias BDSM (you read it hear first!) - have made errors, but understandable ones.
Rawnsley today sets out the mistakes very clearly:
Yes, the belief that Corbyn would be compelled to agree a GE was the killer bit. But, of course, the No Deal posturing gave him the perfect excuse to refuse. Amateur-hour stuff. Like the Germans in Fawlty Towers, I'm starting to look at Boris, Cummings and VoteLeave and think: how did they win?
The Vote Leave campaign was crap - as most of us identified at the time. Sadly history is slowly being rewritten to judge it a masterpiece of strategy and tactics. But it won because the Remain campaign was even more crap. And because people like to use referendums to kick those in power.
Aside from YouGov which is showing something like 14% Tory leads the recent polls don't look too bad for during Johnson's honeymoon period from a Labour perspective. Every reason to think we could make up a few percent before an election and a few percent during it.
OK. I found it. This was kind of indicated by his earlier tweet. The polls are everywhere except YouGov consistently gives the Tories big or massive leads. There could be methodological divergence. Either, the YouGov is correct and the others wrong or YouGov is wrong. Really there is only one way to find out.
Indeed there is. The polling average is probably still the best guide till the wonders in parliament decide it's time for an election though.
polling average is about as reliable as Stuart Dickson's subsamples amalgamations for Scotland.
You are confusing me with James Kelly, formerly of this parish (prior to excommunication).
I have never gathered or published amalgamations.
James says you did.
For the uninitiated, Stuart Dickson was for many years PB's leading SNP poster (and indeed one of its leading posters, full stop). He was originally subject to an indefinite ban for - get this - posting the results of Scottish subsamples from UK-wide opinion polls, and calculating the percentage changes in each party's support from the previous general election, which is a format that Smithson disapproves of (as it happens I also disapprove of it, but I don't exactly regard it as a hanging offence). That ludicrous ban was eventually lifted after TWO YEARS, a development that unsurprisingly Stuart was oblivious to until I alerted him to it. Having got back
Has anyone seen anything suggesting on what basis the Government thinks the Act might be challenged? It looks quite straightforward to me. I hate it, but the law is the law and there’s little scope for any doubt in it. If Parliament isn’t content, he has to ask for an extension, and if offered he must accept.
I presume someone somewhere thinks Parliament doesn’t have the vires required. But that doesn’t work for me, since Parliament can do what it wants. Well I suppose, ironically it can’t do much about the limitations imposed by the European treaties without first leaving, but I don’t see those being relevant here.
As discussed at length, he can chose to resign first, but these articles seem to imply someone thinks there might be a legal basis on which to not send a letter. I don’t see it. All I can picture is the unpleasant stuff in a side letter (“p.s. you stink, we’ll veto everything forever and pull British troops out of Eastern Europe if you offer to extend, and I’d like to formally notify you that we find Spain in breach of the Treaty of Utrecht and we will be declaring war”).
The Act requires the Prime Minister to request an extension. This is international diplomacy which is a Preoragitive matter, effectively the PM's powers derive from the Prerogative, not Parliament. So you could argue that Parliament does not have the vires to 8bsteuct the Monarch in matters of diplumacy.
A Perogative power can’t be used to remove rights of citizens . That’s why Gina Miller won her case . Normal foreign policy decisions don’t remove rights . Triggering Article 50 would and now no deal would . MPs have clearly expressed they currently refuse to sanction no deal .
Whilst the right wing press were shouting betrayal the decision in GM protected all citizens but many Leavers to be blunt seem unable to grasp how important the GM case was and were led like sheep to be moaning about a decision which saved us from our rights being trashed at the stroke of a pen by an out of control government .
But that point has already been addressed. No Deal was explicitly accepted as a potential outcome when Article 50 was triggered with the permission of Parliament. It is written in black and white in the Article.
But MPs have passed legislation saying a no deal can only be sanctioned by a vote .
The anti no deal bill can’t be challenged on the Royal Perogative . The SC has already ruled that can’t be used to remove rights which no deal would do .
Bozo has no chance of winning any challenge , the SC cannot strike down primary legislation .
I suspect today's interventions by EU figures might bounce some into wanting Oct 14 or they may lose the chance to extend
Lets hope there is a last minute change of heart from the Opposition tomorrow and we can finally get on with an election and (hopefully) resolving this one way or another.
When Joe Denly is all that stands between England and defeat, there is a need for a new chief selector.
And that's with due respect for Joe Denly, but he can't hope to hang on here.
He can hope, albeit to dubious effect.
The only way he'll manage it is if Starc, Cummins and Hazlewood all crash into each other in the infield and leave Paine without frontline bowlers other than Lyon.
Has anyone seen anything suggesting on what basis the Government thinks the Act might be challenged? It looks quite straightforward to me. I hate it, but the law is the law and there’s little scope for any doubt in it. If Parliament isn’t content, he has to ask for an extension, and if offered he must accept.
I presume someone somewhere thinks Parliament doesn’t have the vires required. But that doesn’t work for me, since Parliament can do what it wants. Well I suppose, ironically it can’t do much about the limitations imposed by the European treaties without first leaving, but I don’t see those being relevant here.
As discussed at length, he can chose to resign first, but these articles seem to imply someone thinks there might be a legal basis on which to not send a letter. I don’t see it. All I can picture is the unpleasant stuff in a side letter (“p.s. you stink, we’ll veto everything forever and pull British troops out of Eastern Europe if you offer to extend, and I’d like to formally notify you that we find Spain in breach of the Treaty of Utrecht and we will be declaring war”).
The Act requires the Prime Minister to request an extension. This is international diplomacy which is a Preoragitive matter, effectively the PM's powers derive from the Prerogative, not Parliament. So you could argue that Parliament does not have the vires to 8bsteuct the Monarch in matters of diplumacy.
A Perogative power can’t be used to remove rights of citizens . That’s why Gina Miller won her case . Normal foreign policy decisions don’t remove rights . Triggering Article 50 would and now no deal would . MPs have clearly expressed they currently refuse to sanction no deal .
Whilst the right wing press were shouting betrayal the decision in GM protected all citizens but many Leavers to be blunt seem unable to grasp how important the GM case was and were led like sheep to be moaning about a decision which saved us from our rights being trashed at the stroke of a pen by an out of control government .
But that point has already been addressed. No Deal was explicitly accepted as a potential outcome when Article 50 was triggered with the permission of Parliament. It is written in black and white in the Article.
But MPs have passed legislation saying a no deal can only be sanctioned by a vote .
The anti no deal bill can’t be challenged on the Royal Perogative . The SC has already ruled that can’t be used to remove rights which no deal would do .
Bozo has no chance of winning any challenge , the SC cannot strike down primary legislation .
The UK parliament cannot impose no no deal on the EU
Yes, the belief that Corbyn would be compelled to agree a GE was the killer bit. But, of course, the No Deal posturing gave him the perfect excuse to refuse. Amateur-hour stuff. Like the Germans in Fawlty Towers, I'm starting to look at Boris, Cummings and VoteLeave and think: how did they win?
The Vote Leave campaign was crap - as most of us identified at the time. Sadly history is slowly being rewritten to judge it a masterpiece of strategy and tactics. But it won because the Remain campaign was even more crap. And because people like to use referendums to kick those in power.
I suspect today's interventions by EU figures might bounce some into wanting Oct 14 or they may lose the chance to extend
Lets hope there is a last minute change of heart from the Opposition tomorrow and we can finally get on with an election and (hopefully) resolving this one way or another.
Would be ironic if Corbyns gameplaying caused no deal
I suspect today's interventions by EU figures might bounce some into wanting Oct 14 or they may lose the chance to extend
Lets hope there is a last minute change of heart from the Opposition tomorrow and we can finally get on with an election and (hopefully) resolving this one way or another.
Would be ironic if Corbyns gameplaying caused no deal
Well I have been saying these games could blow up spectacularly but I was thinking more of setting Farage and the Brexit Party up for a big run when the election comes...
Guy Verhofstadt tweets supporting the no extension without a firm change position The opposition might trap Boris in number 10 and lose any extension
That is interesting. The Germans will obviously have a say, but what happens to the law here ? Can Boris be compelled to offer whatever position the EU demand, if that is equal to "seeking an extension" ?
Boring, off topic, wrong empirically (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/funds/definitive-way-invest-every-major-market/) and wrong in principle. The "zero sum game" argument is spectacularly wrong because it is about the result obtained by the market as a whole, and no one is seeking to maximise the return to the market as a whole, they want to maximise return to one minuscule part of it (i.e. themselves). So it's like saying to an individual Premier League club: look, don't waste all that money on buying and then training players, because PL placings overall over the season are a zero sum game and for every team that goes up there is one that goes down, so the overall position at the end of each season is a net standstill.* To which the obvious and true answer is: I don't want to maximise returns for the PL, I want to maximise returns for Chelsea.
I am not a wealth manager nor a stooge for wealth managers, but I think in principle that monumental fallacies should be exposed.
*You have to include candidates for promotion to the PL as well, strictly speaking.
Opinions differ but there are numerous analyses showing that the performance of individual funds after deducting charges is not consistently better than performance of passive funds - see e.g. https://www.investopedia.com/news/active-vs-passive-investing/ for a balanced discussion.
Moreover, does Joe Bloggs working for Widgets Ltd really have a chance at beating the market by insisting that Widget's pension scheme should invest in XYZ Actve Fund rather than ABC passive fund? The amount of informed choice exercised by most people is precisely zero.
Anyway, under my proposal Joe can opt for XYZ if he wants to (or persuade his company to do so). But he would have a cheap, easy option with probably at least as good results (and no difficulty in keeping track if he changes company). Why would it be a bad idea for Government to offer it as an option? Despite my general leftiness, I'm not in favour of the Government doing everything and have no desire to see a state-owned British Rice Krispies, but where it can be helpful in a confusing market, why not?
Guy Verhofstadt tweets supporting the no extension without a firm change position The opposition might trap Boris in number 10 and lose any extension
Not that credible though, is it? They know that there's a very high chance of a GE post extension, which possibly means a soft Brexit or no Brexit at all. Why not roll the dice?
Cheaper for foreigners? -What happened to the yen? Low inflation (or high inflation for that matter) is beside the point for Japanese people. Or do you mean differentially low house price inflation as between Tokyo and elsewhere in Japan?
Yes, the belief that Corbyn would be compelled to agree a GE was the killer bit. But, of course, the No Deal posturing gave him the perfect excuse to refuse. Amateur-hour stuff. Like the Germans in Fawlty Towers, I'm starting to look at Boris, Cummings and VoteLeave and think: how did they win?
The Vote Leave campaign was crap - as most of us identified at the time. Sadly history is slowly being rewritten to judge it a masterpiece of strategy and tactics. But it won because the Remain campaign was even more crap. And because people like to use referendums to kick those in power.
Guy Verhofstadt tweets supporting the no extension without a firm change position The opposition might trap Boris in number 10 and lose any extension
Not that credible though, is it? They know that there's a very high chance of a GE post extension, which possibly means a soft Brexit or no Brexit at all. Why not roll the dice?
Well if the rebels want to chance that then they carry on regardless
Spoke to some friends from Buckingham this morning. Remainy but not left wing. They all said they were happy for the Tories to stand in Buckingham - because they wanted to vote for Bercow when it mattered. I reckon the Tories would need votes of people like them, and they clearly aren't getting them.
Suspect about this story of the Lib Dems standing aside for Rory Stewart, he might be above average for a Tory, but he's hardly a people's voter. Could disrupt the national messaging so hope this isn't as simple as that.
I suspect today's interventions by EU figures might bounce some into wanting Oct 14 or they may lose the chance to extend
Lets hope there is a last minute change of heart from the Opposition tomorrow and we can finally get on with an election and (hopefully) resolving this one way or another.
Would be ironic if Corbyns gameplaying caused no deal
Ironic in the sense that he would be its biggest beneficiary?
I suspect today's interventions by EU figures might bounce some into wanting Oct 14 or they may lose the chance to extend
Lets hope there is a last minute change of heart from the Opposition tomorrow and we can finally get on with an election and (hopefully) resolving this one way or another.
Would be ironic if Corbyns gameplaying caused no deal
Ironic in the sense that he would be its biggest beneficiary?
Ironic in the sense of the twitter fellating hes been getting from revokers this week
I'm talking about rent for normal people living there, not things that international business magazines think expats need to buy.
Tokyo rent has been consistently cheap for the whole of the last decade despite rising population, the trick is not to ban people from building things.
Aside from YouGov which is showing something like 14% Tory leads the recent polls don't look too bad for during Johnson's honeymoon period from a Labour perspective. Every reason to think we could make up a few percent before an election and a few percent during it.
OK. I found it. This was kind of indicated by his earlier tweet. The polls are everywhere except YouGov consistently gives the Tories big or massive leads. There could be methodological divergence. Either, the YouGov is correct and the others wrong or YouGov is wrong. Really there is only one way to find out.
Indeed there is. The polling average is probably still the best guide till the wonders in parliament decide it's time for an election though.
polling average is about as reliable as Stuart Dickson's subsamples amalgamations for Scotland.
You are confusing me with James Kelly, formerly of this parish (prior to excommunication).
I have never gathered or published amalgamations.
James says you did.
For the uninitiated, Stuart Dickson was for many years PB's leading SNP poster (and indeed one of its leading posters, full stop). He was originally subject to an indefinite ban for - get this - posting the results of Scottish subsamples from UK-wide opinion polls, and calculating the percentage changes in each party's support from the previous general election, which is a format that Smithson disapproves of (as it happens I also disapprove of it, but I don't exactly regard it as a hanging offence). That ludicrous ban was eventually lifted after TWO YEARS, a development that unsurprisingly Stuart was oblivious to until I alerted him to it. Having got back
Guy Verhofstadt tweets supporting the no extension without a firm change position The opposition might trap Boris in number 10 and lose any extension
That is interesting. The Germans will obviously have a say, but what happens to the law here ? Can Boris be compelled to offer whatever position the EU demand, if that is equal to "seeking an extension" ?
I think what happens if strings are attached may be a grey area.
Guy Verhofstadt tweets supporting the no extension without a firm change position The opposition might trap Boris in number 10 and lose any extension
Not that credible though, is it? They know that there's a very high chance of a GE post extension, which possibly means a soft Brexit or no Brexit at all. Why not roll the dice?
Well if the rebels want to chance that then they carry on regardless
Were you one of the ones who thought the Lords' filibuster was going to force Labour to agree to a GE?
But MPs have passed legislation saying a no deal can only be sanctioned by a vote .
The anti no deal bill can’t be challenged on the Royal Perogative . The SC has already ruled that can’t be used to remove rights which no deal would do .
Bozo has no chance of winning any challenge , the SC cannot strike down primary legislation .
Not so. The SC could rule it is a matter of Royal Prerogative in which case it is not a matter for Parliament unless they first legislate to end that prerogative. It is also debatable if No Deal removes any more rights than a Deal.
Guy Verhofstadt tweets supporting the no extension without a firm change position The opposition might trap Boris in number 10 and lose any extension
Not that credible though, is it? They know that there's a very high chance of a GE post extension, which possibly means a soft Brexit or no Brexit at all. Why not roll the dice?
Well if the rebels want to chance that then they carry on regardless
Were you one of the ones who thought the Lords' filibuster was going to force Labour to agree to a GE?
No, although I thought a deal had been done when it faded out
A GE or referendum will be reason for the EU to grant the extension.
Leavers once again falling into the trap of thinking the EU has any intention of being blamed for no deal .
How will a referendum be the reason with this govt?!
It won’t but a GE will .
The EU has no intention of being scapegoated as pushing the UK out with no deal . And the chance to see Bozo fall flat on his face is appealing . He’s detested by the EU .
Cheaper for foreigners? -What happened to the yen? Low inflation (or high inflation for that matter) is beside the point for Japanese people. Or do you mean differentially low house price inflation as between Tokyo and elsewhere in Japan?
If you're spending brexit pounds then everything will seem expensive, but even despite that Tokyo rent is crazy cheap compared to London (or the rest of the south-east).
Guy Verhofstadt tweets supporting the no extension without a firm change position The opposition might trap Boris in number 10 and lose any extension
That is interesting. The Germans will obviously have a say, but what happens to the law here ? Can Boris be compelled to offer whatever position the EU demand, if that is equal to "seeking an extension" ?
I think what happens if strings are attached may be a grey area.
...and perfect for Cumming's wargaming if so.
I wonder if that's one of his "plans that are going to melt Remainers".
Guy Verhofstadt tweets supporting the no extension without a firm change position The opposition might trap Boris in number 10 and lose any extension
Not that credible though, is it? They know that there's a very high chance of a GE post extension, which possibly means a soft Brexit or no Brexit at all. Why not roll the dice?
Well if the rebels want to chance that then they carry on regardless
Were you one of the ones who thought the Lords' filibuster was going to force Labour to agree to a GE?
No, although I thought a deal had been done when it faded out
That's fair enough as it seemed to be what the media believed too
A GE or referendum will be reason for the EU to grant the extension.
Leavers once again falling into the trap of thinking the EU has any intention of being blamed for no deal .
How will a referendum be the reason with this govt?!
It won’t but a GE will .
The EU has no intention of being scapegoated as pushing the UK out with no deal . And the chance to see Bozo fall flat on his face is appealing . He’s detested by the EU .
Then a GE would be the reason for extension. The EU wont extend on the basis that one day the UK might elect a referendum authorizing parliament. If no GE has been agreed, problem. The EU will not also want to be seen as making an offer conditional on a GE. That's called regime change
I'm talking about rent for normal people living there, not things that international business magazines think expats need to buy.
Tokyo rent has been consistently cheap for the whole of the last decade despite rising population, the trick is not to ban people from building things.
Tokyo is also full of pollution, with far fewer green parks than London and less green belt outside it.
If you build everywhere in London you would also make it a less pleasant city to live in even if you reduce rent and house prices a bit, yes we need to build more affordable housing in and around London but we also need to protect most of London's green spaces
Boring, off topic, wrong empirically (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/funds/definitive-way-invest-every-major-market/) and wrong in principle. The "zero sum game" argument is spectacularly wrong because it is about the result obtained by the market as a whole, and no one is seeking to maximise the return to the market as a whole, they want to maximise return to one minuscule part of it (i.e. themselves). So it's like saying to an individual Premier League club: look, don't waste all that money on buying and then training players, because PL placings overall over the season are a zero sum game and for every team that goes up there is one that goes down, so the overall position at the end of each season is a net standstill.* To which the obvious and true answer is: I don't want to maximise returns for the PL, I want to maximise returns for Chelsea.
I am not a wealth manager nor a stooge for wealth managers, but I think in principle that monumental fallacies should be exposed.
*You have to include candidates for promotion to the PL as well, strictly speaking.
Opinions differ but there are numerous analyses showing that the performance of individual funds after deducting charges is not consistently better than performance of passive funds - see e.g. https://www.investopedia.com/news/active-vs-passive-investing/ for a balanced discussion.
Moreover, does Joe Bloggs working for Widgets Ltd really have a chance at beating the market by insisting that Widget's pension scheme should invest in XYZ Actve Fund rather than ABC passive fund? The amount of informed choice exercised by most people is precisely zero.
Anyway, under my proposal Joe can opt for XYZ if he wants to (or persuade his company to do so). But he would have a cheap, easy option with probably at least as good results (and no difficulty in keeping track if he changes company). Why would it be a bad idea for Government to offer it as an option? Despite my general leftiness, I'm not in favour of the Government doing everything and have no desire to see a state-owned British Rice Krispies, but where it can be helpful in a confusing market, why not?
In the case of your proposal, I entirely agree that trackers would be the way to go. But the fallacy is still a fallacy. You link to a US centric website. The US is very much the poster boy for passive investing because it is the most researched market in the world. So the article I linked to earlier recommends passive for US, Europe and global funds, active elsewhere. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/funds/definitive-way-invest-every-major-market/
Cheaper for foreigners? -What happened to the yen? Low inflation (or high inflation for that matter) is beside the point for Japanese people. Or do you mean differentially low house price inflation as between Tokyo and elsewhere in Japan?
If you're spending brexit pounds then everything will seem expensive, but even despite that Tokyo rent is crazy cheap compared to London (or the rest of the south-east).
If I remember rightly, a decent bowl of Ramen is also much cheaper than it would be in London.
As an aside, Margaret Thatcher only once got a majority above 10,000 in Finchley and that was in 1970. In every other election, while the seat was comfortably held the majority was below 10,000 and in October 1974 sub 4,000.
Blair took on Sedgefield in 1983 and won by 8,000 - curiously, the first time it had not been a straight Lab-Con fight since 1929.
Leaders rarely lose seats - Sinclair lost his when Liberal leader in 1945, Arthur Henderson lost his as Labour leader in the 1931 landslide and Balfour lost his in the 1906 landslide. Strangely, both Henderson and Balfour remained party leaders even after their defeats.
Cheaper for foreigners? -What happened to the yen? Low inflation (or high inflation for that matter) is beside the point for Japanese people. Or do you mean differentially low house price inflation as between Tokyo and elsewhere in Japan?
If you're spending brexit pounds then everything will seem expensive, but even despite that Tokyo rent is crazy cheap compared to London (or the rest of the south-east).
But MPs have passed legislation saying a no deal can only be sanctioned by a vote .
The anti no deal bill can’t be challenged on the Royal Perogative . The SC has already ruled that can’t be used to remove rights which no deal would do .
Bozo has no chance of winning any challenge , the SC cannot strike down primary legislation .
Not so. The SC could rule it is a matter of Royal Prerogative in which case it is not a matter for Parliament unless they first legislate to end that prerogative. It is also debatable if No Deal removes any more rights than a Deal.
You’re missing a clear point . Parliament has expressed it does not want no deal unless it votes on the matter .
The SC will not overturn parliamentary sovereignty. Article 50 has set a precedent in terms of RP by defining what that can be used for .
But MPs have passed legislation saying a no deal can only be sanctioned by a vote .
The anti no deal bill can’t be challenged on the Royal Perogative . The SC has already ruled that can’t be used to remove rights which no deal would do .
Bozo has no chance of winning any challenge , the SC cannot strike down primary legislation .
Not so. The SC could rule it is a matter of Royal Prerogative in which case it is not a matter for Parliament unless they first legislate to end that prerogative.
If it's received royal assent, it can't be argued that it's infringing the royal prerogative.
Tokyo is also full of pollution, with far fewer green parks than London and less green belt outside it.
If you build everywhere in London you would also make it a less pleasant city to live in even if you reduce rent and house prices a bit, yes we need to hold more affordable housing in and around London but we also need to protect most of London's green spaces
Green belt is a specifically British perversion that sensible cities don't imitate - in some directions Tokyo just goes on and on, but if you want to get out to the countryside, you go in a direction where it doesn't.
I don't know where you get the idea that Tokyo is very polluted (unless you count cedar pollen in early spring which is hell) and it has loads of little parks all over the place. You don't need to build over parks to increase density - people mainly choose to build upwards near stations (not hugely high rise like Hong Kong, just like 5 to 11 floors), and also let the suburbs around the train lines grow.
On the polls, much as I hate to say it, hasn't YouGov been the "gold standard" in recent years? Including at the European elections.
I'd be inclined to take their 10-14% Tory leads as the truth, but of course that's likely to change when Boris is forced to either get an extension or resign from office.
But MPs have passed legislation saying a no deal can only be sanctioned by a vote .
The anti no deal bill can’t be challenged on the Royal Perogative . The SC has already ruled that can’t be used to remove rights which no deal would do .
Bozo has no chance of winning any challenge , the SC cannot strike down primary legislation .
Not so. The SC could rule it is a matter of Royal Prerogative in which case it is not a matter for Parliament unless they first legislate to end that prerogative.
If it's received royal assent, it can't be argued that it's infringing the royal prerogative.
I’d wager that tomorrow Bozo will advise the Queen against granting that . It’s Bozos best chance of getting an early election .
But MPs have passed legislation saying a no deal can only be sanctioned by a vote .
The anti no deal bill can’t be challenged on the Royal Perogative . The SC has already ruled that can’t be used to remove rights which no deal would do .
Bozo has no chance of winning any challenge , the SC cannot strike down primary legislation .
Not so. The SC could rule it is a matter of Royal Prerogative in which case it is not a matter for Parliament unless they first legislate to end that prerogative. It is also debatable if No Deal removes any more rights than a Deal.
Not just wrong, embarrassingly and eye-poppingly wrong.
"Three fundamental principles of the prerogative are:
The supremacy of statute law. Where there is a conflict between the prerogative and statute, statute prevails. Statute law cannot be altered by use of the prerogative; Use of the prerogative remains subject to the common law duties of fairness and reason. It is therefore possible to challenge use of the prerogative by judicial review in most cases; While the prerogative can be abolished or abrogated by statute, it can never be broadened. However, Parliament could create powers by statute that are similar to prerogative powers in their nature."
I can't see Boris chicken running but if he was going to, he could simply move next door to Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, which has now been freed up.
It would be wonderful if he chicken ran and lost... as was the case with Iain Sproat, who left marginal Aberdeen South for safer Roxburgh and Berwickshire in 1983... only to lose the latter and see the former retained by another Tory candidate.
None of it's going to happen though. He'll stay where he is and, although people will talk it up, I'm sorry to say that realistically he'll be fine.
On the polls, much as I hate to say it, hasn't YouGov been the "gold standard" in recent years? Including at the European elections.
I'd be inclined to take their 10-14% Tory leads as the truth, but of course that's likely to change when Boris is forced to either get an extension or resign from office.
Survation was the gold standard at the last general, European and local elections have a very different dynamic that results in a serious under-performance for the current incarnation of Labour (relatively low turnout for young and less wealthy).
But MPs have passed legislation saying a no deal can only be sanctioned by a vote .
The anti no deal bill can’t be challenged on the Royal Perogative . The SC has already ruled that can’t be used to remove rights which no deal would do .
Bozo has no chance of winning any challenge , the SC cannot strike down primary legislation .
Not so. The SC could rule it is a matter of Royal Prerogative in which case it is not a matter for Parliament unless they first legislate to end that prerogative.
If it's received royal assent, it can't be argued that it's infringing the royal prerogative.
I’d wager that tomorrow Bozo will advise the Queen against granting that . It’s Bozos best chance of getting an early election .
On what grounds? That it will keep Andrew out of the papers for a while?
Tokyo is also full of pollution, with far fewer green parks than London and less green belt outside it.
If you build everywhere in London you would also make it a less pleasant city to live in even if you reduce rent and house prices a bit, yes we need to hold more affordable housing in and around London but we also need to protect most of London's green spaces
Green belt is a specifically British perversion that sensible cities don't imitate - in some directions Tokyo just goes on and on, but if you want to get out to the countryside, you go in a direction where it doesn't.
I don't know where you get the idea that Tokyo is very polluted (unless you count cedar pollen in early spring which is hell) and it has loads of little parks all over the place. You don't need to build over parks to increase density - people mainly choose to build upwards near stations (not hugely high rise like Hong Kong, just like 5 to 11 floors), and also let the suburbs around the train lines grow.
OK I exaggerated a bit on pollution, Tokyo is certainly cleaner than say Shanghai and yes building around stations (as we are trying to do in Epping) and in suburbs is sensible while protecting parks.
However the green belt is one of the things which is best about London and makes it most livable and in Epping Forest there is a lot of opposition to building on it (led by the LDs)
Comments
Now for some they might have the time, inclination and means to have the theatre and posho restaurant lifestyle which may be London specific.
But for most people those gazillion things narrow down to commute, work, eat, wash, sleep.
Where Remain polled closer to the UK average especially in Outer London or in poorer seats which have always been safe Labour e.g. in East and South London where Labour won even in the European Parliament elections then Labour will hold on as will the Tories in the few Leave areas in Outer London
He failed to get a 2/3 majority for an election, but he got a simple majority. It's not at all clear he wouldn't get a simple majority in favour of an election bill.
And that's with due respect for Joe Denly, but he can't hope to hang on here.
That is what you were saying he ought to do.
But anyway, we are where we are. Or he is where he is, rather.
If you want to be in the London elite you cannot just be in the British elite but have to be in the global elite.
The only way to change that is stop London being a top global city which would diminish London but make it more affordable as it was in say the 1970s
Of course, if you happen to live in Bloomsbury or the like, things feel different (but living in central London has other downsides), but for the vast majority of Londoners in the outer Boroughs, I bet the frequency with which they enjoy central London concerts/museums/galleries/restaurants/attractions etc. isn’t that high.
Larry the Cat as PM.
He already lives in Downing Street, he knows how it works, and he's far more sensible than any of the human inhabitants.
And to put it at its most brutal, he couldn't possibly be worse than Johnson or Corbyn.
Admittedly, he'd need to be careful around Trump who is infamous for his pussy grabbing.
Hes going to request 3 months and a shit load of felix
I have never gathered or published amalgamations.
Boris wants to be PM, and Brexit helps that at the moment.
Dom wants radical upending of the British political model, and PM Boris is a route to that at the moment. But he clearly has no affection for the Conservative Party, which is where analogies with Alistair Campbell fall down.
If the symbiosis breaks down (and arguably it already has), what happens next?
Normally, advisers advise and ministers decide... This time?
It could interpret the law and request changes or say whether the law does what it intends to do .
There’s very little chance of Bozo succeeding in any challenge so I wouldn’t be surprised to see him ask the Queen to refuse Royal Consent to the anti no deal Bill .
This way he avoids breaking the law but it’s likely to cause a political meltdown .
I expect he’ll do a lectern speech saying something like . The rebel alliance agreed to a GE if I allowed smooth passage of the Bill , they haven’t agreed so I won’t advise Royal Consent .
With parliament suspended opposition MPs will be left with no time , when they return really their only option then is a VONC and even then Bozo could hang around for a while .
I just wonder whether No Deal could actually be ruled lawful in the Court?
Would be the ultimate irony after the way Remainers have run rings around the government in the Courts for these past three years if it's the Courts that eventually sanction No Deal...
The opposition might trap Boris in number 10 and lose any extension
Ahem.
For the uninitiated, Stuart Dickson was for many years PB's leading SNP poster (and indeed one of its leading posters, full stop). He was originally subject to an indefinite ban for - get this - posting the results of Scottish subsamples from UK-wide opinion polls, and calculating the percentage changes in each party's support from the previous general election, which is a format that Smithson disapproves of (as it happens I also disapprove of it, but I don't exactly regard it as a hanging offence). That ludicrous ban was eventually lifted after TWO YEARS, a development that unsurprisingly Stuart was oblivious to until I alerted him to it. Having got back
http://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2013/06/political-bettings-smithson-embarks-on.html
The anti no deal bill can’t be challenged on the Royal Perogative . The SC has already ruled that can’t be used to remove rights which no deal would do .
Bozo has no chance of winning any challenge , the SC cannot strike down primary legislation .
My touch has deserted me.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/city-breaks/most-expensive-and-cheapest-cities-2018/
If Boris loses the EU can say they will immediately implement the full 3 month extension requested
Moreover, does Joe Bloggs working for Widgets Ltd really have a chance at beating the market by insisting that Widget's pension scheme should invest in XYZ Actve Fund rather than ABC passive fund? The amount of informed choice exercised by most people is precisely zero.
Anyway, under my proposal Joe can opt for XYZ if he wants to (or persuade his company to do so). But he would have a cheap, easy option with probably at least as good results (and no difficulty in keeping track if he changes company). Why would it be a bad idea for Government to offer it as an option? Despite my general leftiness, I'm not in favour of the Government doing everything and have no desire to see a state-owned British Rice Krispies, but where it can be helpful in a confusing market, why not?
Low inflation (or high inflation for that matter) is beside the point for Japanese people. Or do you mean differentially low house price inflation as between Tokyo and elsewhere in Japan?
Leavers once again falling into the trap of thinking the EU has any intention of being blamed for no deal .
Suspect about this story of the Lib Dems standing aside for Rory Stewart, he might be above average for a Tory, but he's hardly a people's voter. Could disrupt the national messaging so hope this isn't as simple as that.
Tokyo rent has been consistently cheap for the whole of the last decade despite rising population, the trick is not to ban people from building things.
The EU has no intention of being scapegoated as pushing the UK out with no deal . And the chance to see Bozo fall flat on his face is appealing . He’s detested by the EU .
I wonder if that's one of his "plans that are going to melt Remainers".
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1170675581790371843
If you build everywhere in London you would also make it a less pleasant city to live in even if you reduce rent and house prices a bit, yes we need to build more affordable housing in and around London but we also need to protect most of London's green spaces
The SC will not overturn parliamentary sovereignty. Article 50 has set a precedent in terms of RP by defining what that can be used for .
Being awkward is what they do.
I don't know where you get the idea that Tokyo is very polluted (unless you count cedar pollen in early spring which is hell) and it has loads of little parks all over the place. You don't need to build over parks to increase density - people mainly choose to build upwards near stations (not hugely high rise like Hong Kong, just like 5 to 11 floors), and also let the suburbs around the train lines grow.
I'd be inclined to take their 10-14% Tory leads as the truth, but of course that's likely to change when Boris is forced to either get an extension or resign from office.
https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1114119719655755776?lang=en
Totally barking.
"Three fundamental principles of the prerogative are:
The supremacy of statute law. Where there is a conflict between the prerogative and statute, statute prevails. Statute law cannot be altered by use of the prerogative;
Use of the prerogative remains subject to the common law duties of fairness and reason. It is therefore possible to challenge use of the prerogative by judicial review in most cases;
While the prerogative can be abolished or abrogated by statute, it can never be broadened. However, Parliament could create powers by statute that are similar to prerogative powers in their nature."
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN03861
None of it's going to happen though. He'll stay where he is and, although people will talk it up, I'm sorry to say that realistically he'll be fine.
However the green belt is one of the things which is best about London and makes it most livable and in Epping Forest there is a lot of opposition to building on it (led by the LDs)