Politicised law. Its just too dangerous to mess about with.
Allowing a government to suspend democracy without boundaries would also have been politicising the law.
I can see that argument which is why what Boris tried was so disgraceful. Our system works largely on self restraint. He showed none and neither did the SC. Neither was an improvement on the status quo ante.
Genuinely interested in where you think the SC erred in law in their decision.
I did a post about it at theis qualified to make and is very unlikely to have the relevant information to make. It was an enormous land grab into matters which previously were in the political and not the legal sphere
Johnson taking the piss was the problem. Not sure how you eliminate a populist politician’s desire to do that from any system. What we now know is that thefive weeks beyond the fact it wanted to. That, surely, is not good enough. If the decision had gone the other way what would have stopped an eight week closure next time, or an eight month one? At some point there has to be a line and in our system only the courts or Parliament can draw it.
BiB - Surely you've answered your own question. As @DavidL rightly points out, this was a land grab by the Supreme Court. Of course, it's not that big a deal as there's nothing to stop a future government abolishing the Supreme Court or passing legislation that formalises the limits of prorogation.
It was not a land grab. It was the highest Court in the land doing what it has always done: clarifying an aspect of our unwritten constitution. And, as has always been the case, if Parliament does not like it, it can change the law. That, as things currently stand, is that the government cannot close down Parliament for an extended period without its permission or without due cause.
Quite. Does anyone seriously think involvement in this area of our governance was something that the Courts either wanted or asked for? (which frankly is what “land grab” implies)
Politicised law. Its just too dangerous to mess about with.
As you know all law is intimately bound up with politics, in the widest sense. Even the very idea that the ruler should be bound by the law was a profoundly political statement when first expressed.
Nonetheless over time we have been pretty good in this country at developing a system which seems to understand where the boundaries are between law and politics in a narrow sense. The US has a different way of approaching this even though it grew out of the English system and takes much from it. You cannot simply take one case from the US and transpose it here. There is a delicate balancing act between the three branches of the US government, in part because the Founding Fathers thought hard about these issues when drawing up the US Constitution. We have done it in another way.
But when one bit of government behaves in a way which upends all normal and generally understood conventions and rules then it is only right that other parts intervene. Indeed it may be necessary. That seems very political. But we should remember why it became necessary: because the executive seems to have adopted a “end justifies all means” approach to governance, something which is profoundly at odds with the normal way of doing things here.
The problem was Parliament’s original land grab. That’s not to say Boris behaved well (he didn’t) but you need to look for the original sin
It was forced into it. Look at those that had to come to an agreement to make it happen, they aren't natural bedfellows.
Analysis in the Times comparing public support for May’s deal vs Johnson’s “deal”. The latter is NOT A DEAL. When are the media going to get it into their thick heads?
May’s big error obviously was not agreeing with the EU to have them rubbishing her proposals for weeks, only to have them meekly submit, after “clarification” of what they involved.
I can see that argument which is why what Boris tried was so disgraceful. Our system works largely on self restraint. He showed none and neither did the SC. Neither was an improvement on the status quo ante.
Genuinely interested in where you think the SC erred in law in their decision.
I did a post about it at theis qualified to make and is very unlikely to have the relevant information to make. It was an enormous land grab into matters which previously were in the political and not the legal sphere.
I acknowledge that they felt obliged to do this because Boris was taking the piss (as Alastair memorably summarised) but once these doors are open they are very hard to close again. The latest nonsense in the Court of Session is a good example. Is this really how we want our politics to be? Dominated by those willing and able to run off to the Courts at the drop of a hat?
Johnson taking the piss was the problem. Not sure how you eliminate a populist politician’s desire to do that from any system. What we now know is that thefive weeks beyond the fact it wanted to. That, surely, is not good enough. If the decision had gone the other way what would have stopped an eight week closure next time, or an eight month one? At some point there has to be a line and in our system only the courts or Parliament can draw it.
BiB - Surely you've answered your own question. As @DavidL rightly points out, this was a land grab by the Supreme Court. Of course, it's not that big a deal as there's nothing to stop a future government abolishing the Supreme Court or passing legislation that formalises the limits of prorogation.
It was not a land grab. It was the highest Court in the land doing what it has always done: clarifying an aspect of our unwritten constitution. And, as has always been the case, if Parliament does not like it, it can change the law. That, as things currently stand, is that the government cannot close down Parliament for an extended period without its permission or without due cause.
Although, pre-2009, the highest court of the land wouldn't have been able to rule of the legality of prorogation as by definition it would have been prorogued itself.
What I'm objecting to is your suggestion that the court had no option but to rule against the government on the grounds of "well, what if the government prorogued for eight months?" Well, presumably there could have been another court case. Personally, I don't think the court should be the arbiter of what is and what isn't acceptable in this regard. Let the democratically elected MPs make that decision.
I can see that argument which is why what Boris tried was so disgraceful. Our system works largely on self restraint. He showed none and neither did the SC. Neither was an improvement on the status quo ante.
Genuinely interested in where you think the SC erred in law in their decision.
I did a post about it at theis qualified to make and is very unlikely to have the relevant information to make. It was an enormous land grab into matters which previously were in the political and not the legal sphere.
I acknowledge that they felt obliged to do this because Boris was taking the piss (as Alastair memorably summarised) but once these doors are open they are very hard to close again. The latest nonsense in the Court of Session is a good example. Is this really how we want our politics to be? Dominated by those willing and able to run off to the Courts at the drop of a hat?
Johnson taking the piss was the problem. Not sure how you eliminate a populist politician’s desire to do that from any system. What we now know is that thefive weeks beyond the fact it wanted to. That, surely, is not good enough. If the decision had gone the other way what would have stopped an eight week closure next time, or an eight month one? At some point there has to be a line and in our system only the courts or Parliament can draw it.
BiB - Surely you've answered your own question. As @DavidL rightly points out, this was a land grab by the Supreme Court. Of course, it's not that big a deal as there's nothing to stop a future government abolishing the Supreme Court or passing legislation that formalises the limits of prorogation.
It was not a land grab. It was the highest Court in the land doing what it has always done: clarifying an aspect of our unwritten constitution. And, as has always been the case, if Parliament does not like it, it can change the law. That, as things currently stand, is that the government cannot close down Parliament for an extended period without its permission or without due cause.
Although, pre-2009, the highest court of the land wouldn't have been able to rule of the legality of prorogation as by definition it would have been prorogued itself.
Not actually true I think. And anyway since they ruled the prorogation in effect never happened it’s a moot point anyway!
On the topic, as a non-betting person can I ask where these sorts of silly odds come from? Is it the result of just a few silly people putting up bets at bad odds, or does it take a consistent pressure from a lot of people thinking that eg a Clinton nomination is much more likely than it really is to drag betfair's offered prices down to these levels?
Welcome, PM.
Betfair doesn't set prices on its Exchange market. The prices there are simply a reflection of market forces. In this case, it seems almost certain that the buyers (Clinton backers) are wrong and the sellers are right (she isn't standing and wouldn't win anyway.) I think it is just a case of bad punters (there have to be some!) assessing the situation wrong, but there could be other explanations. There have been a number of cases where the market has been deliberately distorted for political advantage. Romney vs Obama was a well publicised example. MItt's team were piling money on him just to make it look like he was doing better than he was. I don't think that is what is happening here though. I think it's just dopey betting.
Sometimes there is no explanation though. When Leadsome stood for the Tory Party Leadership she was backed heavily, out of all proportion to her actual chances. She bombed out in the first round, as the PB punters predicted.
It was easy money, and we still don't understand it.
On the topic, as a non-betting person can I ask where these sorts of silly odds come from? Is it the result of just a few silly people putting up bets at bad odds, or does it take a consistent pressure from a lot of people thinking that eg a Clinton nomination is much more likely than it really is to drag betfair's offered prices down to these levels?
Welcome, PM.
Betfair doesn't set prices on its Exchange market. The prices there are simply a reflection of market forces. In this case, it seems almost certain that the buyers (Clinton backers) are wrong and the sellers are right (she isn't standing and wouldn't win anyway.) I think it is just a case of bad punters (there have to be some!) assessing the situation wrong, but there could be other explanations. There have been a number of cases where the market has been deliberately distorted for political advantage. Romney vs Obama was a well publicised example. MItt's team were piling money on him just to make it look like he was doing better than he was. I don't think that is what is happening here though. I think it's just dopey betting.
Sometimes there is no explanation though. When Leadsome stood for the Tory Party Leadership she was backed heavily, out of all proportion to her actual chances. She bombed out in the first round, as the PB punters predicted.
It was easy money, and we still don't understand it.
I have very mixed emotions about Andrea Leadsom. I made an awful lot of money out of those mysteriously short odds. But I'd previously tipped her (at much longer odds, mind). So that's a bit embarrassing.
Was Johnson pole dancing with Ms Arcuri, and throwing public money at her, before or after his then-wife, and mother of some of his children, was diagnosed with cancer?
If Trump stands down or is brought down by one of his many scandals, I would expect every republican with a pulse to jump in. Don't see why republicans would pick Pence when they could go for someone more exciting.
If Trump stands down or is brought down by one of his many scandals, I would expect every republican with a pulse to jump in. Don't see why republicans would pick Pence when they could go for someone more exciting.
If Trump goes, Pence is automatically the President. There would not be time for the GOP to run a meaningful primary campaign - in fact some states have already cancelled their GOP primaries to prevent a challenge to Trump. So Pence will be the nominee.
Also bear in mind that even in the unlikely event the Senate removes Trump, they are 100% certain not to remove Pence as well - as that would mean President Pelosi.
On the topic, as a non-betting person can I ask where these sorts of silly odds come from? Is it the result of just a few silly people putting up bets at bad odds, or does it take a consistent pressure from a lot of people thinking that eg a Clinton nomination is much more likely than it really is to drag betfair's offered prices down to these levels?
Welcome, PM.
Betfair doesn't set prices on its Exchange market. The prices there are simply a reflection of market forces. In this case, it seems almost certain that the buyers (Clinton backers) are wrong and the sellers are right (she isn't standing and wouldn't win anyway.) I think it is just a case of bad punters (there have to be some!) assessing the situation wrong, but there could be other explanations. There have been a number of cases where the market has been deliberately distorted for political advantage. Romney vs Obama was a well publicised example. MItt's team were piling money on him just to make it look like he was doing better than he was. I don't think that is what is happening here though. I think it's just dopey betting.
Sometimes there is no explanation though. When Leadsome stood for the Tory Party Leadership she was backed heavily, out of all proportion to her actual chances. She bombed out in the first round, as the PB punters predicted.
It was easy money, and we still don't understand it.
Was not an automated bot suggested that someone had forgotten about and continued to back her?
I think it is worth giving thought to what the Democratic field is going to look like when he is no longer in it.
I have seen stuff in the past which suggested a decent crossover between Biden support and Sanders as a next preference. This was perhaps a couple of months back so things could have changed since then but if Biden starts falling back and there is a decent crossover still in support it could really help Sanders.
Whilst Warren may attract some potential Sanders supporters I wonder if Biden supporters might actually be a better pool for Sanders and not that good for Warren.
Sanders has to persuade people that his health scare is nothing to worry about. Given his age and the seriousness of the condition that is not going to be easy. I also find it more than a bit weird that so many Democrats are happy to vote for someone who is not actually a member of their party. At the moment this race looks Warren's to lose to me. Early days of course but none of them are having anything close to the impact a young Obama did.
Sanders found the ceiling of his support last time, when up against Hillary Clinton who, long being assured of the nomination, tolerated rather than opposed him. Sanders could never be the nominee; he is the Rand Paul of the Democatic Party, with lots of followers but not enough of them.
If your ceiling is over 45% then you just need it to be more than a 2 horse race the whole way through. If those who don't like Sanders end up divided over a wide range of candidates.
Not saying he will necessarily win but he has been written off too easily on here previously and still has a pretty decent chance.
On the topic, as a non-betting person can I ask where these sorts of silly odds come from? Is it the result of just a few silly people putting up bets at bad odds, or does it take a consistent pressure from a lot of people thinking that eg a Clinton nomination is much more likely than it really is to drag betfair's offered prices down to these levels?
Welcome, PM.
Betfair doesn't set prices on its Exchange market. The prices there are simply a reflection of market forces. In this case, it seems almost certain that the buyers (Clinton backers) are wrong and the sellers are right (she isn't standing and wouldn't win anyway.) I think it is just a case of bad punters (there have to be some!) assessing the situation wrong, but there could be other explanations. There have been a number of cases where the market has been deliberately distorted for political advantage. Romney vs Obama was a well publicised example. MItt's team were piling money on him just to make it look like he was doing better than he was. I don't think that is what is happening here though. I think it's just dopey betting.
Sometimes there is no explanation though. When Leadsome stood for the Tory Party Leadership she was backed heavily, out of all proportion to her actual chances. She bombed out in the first round, as the PB punters predicted.
It was easy money, and we still don't understand it.
Was not an automated bot suggested that someone had forgotten about and continued to back her?
Didn't hear that. Any evidence? It sure helped me out if that's what it was.
Was Johnson pole dancing with Ms Arcuri, and throwing public money at her, before or after his then-wife, and mother of some of his children, was diagnosed with cancer?
Analysis in the Times comparing public support for May’s deal vs Johnson’s “deal”. The latter is NOT A DEAL. When are the media going to get it into their thick heads?
May’s big error obviously was not agreeing with the EU to have them rubbishing her proposals for weeks, only to have them meekly submit, after “clarification” of what they involved.
I think it is worth giving thought to what the Democratic field is going to look like when he is no longer in it.
I have seen stuff in the past which suggested a decent crossover between Biden support and Sanders as a next preference. This was perhaps a couple of months back so things could have changed since then but if Biden starts falling back and there is a decent crossover still in support it could really help Sanders.
Whilst Warren may attract some potential Sanders supporters I wonder if Biden supporters might actually be a better pool for Sanders and not that good for Warren.
Sanders has to persuade people that his health scare is nothing to worry about. Given his age and the seriousness of the condition that is not going to be easy. I also find it more than a bit weird that so many Democrats are happy to vote for someone who is not actually a member of their party. At the moment this race looks Warren's to lose to me. Early days of course but none of them are having anything close to the impact a young Obama did.
Sanders found the ceiling of his support last time, when up against Hillary Clinton who, long being assured of the nomination, tolerated rather than opposed him. Sanders could never be the nominee; he is the Rand Paul of the Democatic Party, with lots of followers but not enough of them.
If your ceiling is over 45% then you just need it to be more than a 2 horse race the whole way through. If those who don't like Sanders end up divided over a wide range of candidates.
Not saying he will necessarily win but he has been written off too easily on here previously and still has a pretty decent chance.
If it is a 3 horse race "to the end", then the candidate with the least delegates will transfer in the last few days handing their delagates over to the candidate of their choice. Such as Biden 30%, Warren 25% Sanders 45%, then Warren would probably endorse Saunders. I find this scenario quite unlikely though.
Many thanks to Viewcode for his excellent book review. It reminds me why I had to block Matthew Goodwin on twitter. His academic work is excellent and well worth digesting but his advocacy is grating.
Couldn’t you just unfollow him? Was he personally bombarding you with unwanted advocacy?
On the topic, as a non-betting person can I ask where these sorts of silly odds come from? Is it the result of just a few silly people putting up bets at bad odds, or does it take a consistent pressure from a lot of people thinking that eg a Clinton nomination is much more likely than it really is to drag betfair's offered prices down to these levels?
Welcome, PM.
Betfair doesn't set prices on its Exchange market. The prices there are simply a reflection of market forces. In this case, it seems almost certain that the buyers (Clinton backers) are wrong and the sellers are right (she isn't standing and wouldn't win anyway.) I think it is just a case of bad punters (there have to be some!) assessing the situation wrong, but there could be other explanations. There have been a number of cases where the market has been deliberately distorted for political advantage. Romney vs Obama was a well publicised example. MItt's team were piling money on him just to make it look like he was doing better than he was. I don't think that is what is happening here though. I think it's just dopey betting.
Sometimes there is no explanation though. When Leadsome stood for the Tory Party Leadership she was backed heavily, out of all proportion to her actual chances. She bombed out in the first round, as the PB punters predicted.
It was easy money, and we still don't understand it.
Was not an automated bot suggested that someone had forgotten about and continued to back her?
Didn't hear that. Any evidence? It sure helped me out if that's what it was.
Frazer Nelson is really not very good. His manner and light Scottish accent deceives. As a spokesman for Johnson often put up against EU journalists he too often sounds vaccuous and leaden footed.
If Trump stands down or is brought down by one of his many scandals, I would expect every republican with a pulse to jump in. Don't see why republicans would pick Pence when they could go for someone more exciting.
If Trump stands down or is brought down by one of his many scandals, I would expect every republican with a pulse to jump in. Don't see why republicans would pick Pence when they could go for someone more exciting.
If Trump goes, Pence is automatically the President. There would not be time for the GOP to run a meaningful primary campaign - in fact some states have already cancelled their GOP primaries to prevent a challenge to Trump. So Pence will be the nominee.
Also bear in mind that even in the unlikely event the Senate removes Trump, they are 100% certain not to remove Pence as well - as that would mean President Pelosi.
Not if Trump is removed, Pence becomes President who names a new VP. Then Pence is removed one week later and the new VP becomes President.
Something similar happened with Gerald Ford, who was not on the 1972 Election ticket. The difference is that VP Agnew went before Nixon did.
Sanders has to persuade people that his health scare is nothing to worry about. Given his age and the seriousness of the condition that is not going to be easy. I also find it more than a bit weird that so many Democrats are happy to vote for someone who is not actually a member of their party. At the moment this race looks Warren's to lose to me. Early days of course but none of them are having anything close to the impact a young Obama did.
Party membership in the US is a bit of a nominal matter (in fact formally I don't think you can actually join, merely register as a supporter so you can vote in their primaries?). There was a lot of speculation about whether Trump would run as a Republican or a Democrat.
The thing about Sanders is (like Corbyn) that he's a genuine leftist from way back - it is simply inconceivable that he would suddenly swing to the centre. It is not in the least inconceivable that Warren will - I've seen commentaries that she intends to just as soon as Sanders is out of the way. So as an American leftist (and in this I think it's possible to think oneself into that position) I wouldn't dream of not voting for Sanders, if only to keep Warren honest. Of course I'd vote Biden or Klobouchar or whoever against Trump, but we've not got to that stage yet.
Good article, I agree with all of that, except for the spelling of KLOBUCHAR.
It's interesting how inefficient these markets manage to be. Weirdly the big markets like this with relatively large liquidity probably have more obvious howlers than the small ones, because they attract more dumb people. Robin Hanson has this theory that having lots of dumb money makes markets better overall, because to attract the wolves, you need a bunch of sheep.
I think it is worth giving thought to what the Democratic field is going to look like when he is no longer in it.
I have seen stuff in the past which suggested a decent crossover between Biden support and Sanders as a next preference. This was perhaps a couple of months back so things could have changed since then but if Biden starts falling back and there is a decent crossover still in support it could really help Sanders.
Whilst Warren may attract some potential Sanders supporters I wonder if Biden supporters might actually be a better pool for Sanders and not that good for Warren.
Sanders has to persuade people that his health scare is nothing to worry about. Given his age and the seriousness of the condition that is not going to be easy. I also find it more than a bit weird that so many Democrats are happy to vote for someone who is not actually a member of their party. At the moment this race looks Warren's to lose to me. Early days of course but none of them are having anything close to the impact a young Obama did.
Sanders found the ceiling of his support last time, when up against Hillary Clinton who, long being assured of the nomination, tolerated rather than opposed him. Sanders could never be the nominee; he is the Rand Paul of the Democatic Party, with lots of followers but not enough of them.
If your ceiling is over 45% then you just need it to be more than a 2 horse race the whole way through. If those who don't like Sanders end up divided over a wide range of candidates.
Not saying he will necessarily win but he has been written off too easily on here previously and still has a pretty decent chance.
Sanders has no chance. Warren is a younger, female, wider supported and better funded version of him
If Trump stands down or is brought down by one of his many scandals, I would expect every republican with a pulse to jump in. Don't see why republicans would pick Pence when they could go for someone more exciting.
If Trump stands down or is brought down by one of his many scandals, I would expect every republican with a pulse to jump in. Don't see why republicans would pick Pence when they could go for someone more exciting.
If Trump goes, Pence is automatically the President. There would not be time for the GOP to run a meaningful primary campaign - in fact some states have already cancelled their GOP primaries to prevent a challenge to Trump. So Pence will be the nominee.
Also bear in mind that even in the unlikely event the Senate removes Trump, they are 100% certain not to remove Pence as well - as that would mean President Pelosi.
Not if Trump is removed, Pence becomes President who names a new VP. Then Pence is removed one week later and the new VP becomes President.
Something similar happened with Gerald Ford, who was not on the 1972 Election ticket. The difference is that VP Agnew went before Nixon did.
Any replacement VP has to be approved by a 2/3rds vote of both houses. If everyone knows Pence is a gonner then the House won’t confirm anyone.
I think it is worth giving thought to what the Democratic field is going to look like when he is no longer in it.
I have seen stuff in the past which suggested a decent crossover between Biden support and Sanders as a next preference. This was perhaps a couple of months back so things could have changed since then but if Biden starts falling back and there is a decent crossover still in support it could really help Sanders.
Whilst Warren may attract some potential Sanders supporters I wonder if Biden supporters might actually be a better pool for Sanders and not that good for Warren.
Sanders has to persuade people that his health scare is nothing to worry about. Given his age and the seriousness of the condition that is not going to be easy. I also find it more than a bit weird that so many Democrats are happy to vote for someone who is not actually a member of their party. At the moment this race looks Warren's to lose to me. Early days of course but none of them are having anything close to the impact a young Obama did.
Sanders found the ceiling of his support last time, when up against Hillary Clinton who, long being assured of the nomination, tolerated rather than opposed him. Sanders could never be the nominee; he is the Rand Paul of the Democatic Party, with lots of followers but not enough of them.
Had Sanders won 1% more in Iowa he would have won the caucus to add to his New Hampshire win then likely have been nominee
Had Saunders won 1% more in Iowa he would have won a couple more Iowan delegates. It would not have made a difference to the final nomination.
I think it is worth giving thought to what the Democratic field is going to look like when he is no longer in it.
I have seen stuff in the past which suggested a decent crossover between Biden support and Sanders as a next preference. This was perhaps a couple of months back so things could have changed since then but if Biden starts falling back and there is a decent crossover still in support it could really help Sanders.
Whilst Warren may attract some potential Sanders supporters I wonder if Biden supporters might actually be a better pool for Sanders and not that good for Warren.
Sanders has to persuade people that his health scare is nothing to worry about. Given his age and the seriousness of the condition that is not going to be easy. I also find it more than a bit weird that so many Democrats are happy to vote for someone who is not actually a member of their party. At the moment this race looks Warren's to lose to me. Early days of course but none of them are having anything close to the impact a young Obama did.
Sanders found the ceiling of his support last time, when up against Hillary Clinton who, long being assured of the nomination, tolerated rather than opposed him. Sanders could never be the nominee; he is the Rand Paul of the Democatic Party, with lots of followers but not enough of them.
If your ceiling is over 45% then you just need it to be more than a 2 horse race the whole way through. If those who don't like Sanders end up divided over a wide range of candidates.
Not saying he will necessarily win but he has been written off too easily on here previously and still has a pretty decent chance.
Sanders has no chance. Warren is a younger, female, wider supported and better funded version of him
If Trump stands down or is brought down by one of his many scandals, I would expect every republican with a pulse to jump in. Don't see why republicans would pick Pence when they could go for someone more exciting.
But that requires Trump to be brought low before the primary season kicks off. If (at least some) primaries already happened, and Pence is now in the White House, how are these other republicans going to jump in?
Not sure I follow. If the primaries have already happened, then Trump is the nominee and the bet will have lost. If Trump quits halfway through the primary season, then his delegates don't automatically go to Pence. Rules differ state by state I think. I don't think it's sure at all they would go for Pence.
If Trump goes suddenly, via resignation, 25th Amendment or the grim reaper, Pence becomes POTUS. That would surely give him pole position for Nov 2020.
Indeed that is how Gerald Ford became Republican candidate in 1976.
Do you think so? I don't think Pence would be in poll position. I have seen nothing which makes me think that he would or could fight a strong Nomination campaign, let alone Presidential campaign.
In the Ford example, he had a year and a half in the White House before the primaries began and had enough time to bed in his presidential credentials. LBJ might be a better example.
The Republican Party is the party of Donald Trump.
Is this true? If that is the case then the huge Republican party has shifted even more than the Conservative party has shifted. Four years ago this sentence would have been laughed out of court.
His favourable numbers with Republicans are excellent. It's with independents and democrats he's a disaster.
I'm sure your right, but George Bush was popular within the Republican party, that did not mean the the Republican Party was the Party of George Bush.
What an outstanding article. If I were resident in the UK, I'd be taking the excellent advice in the header.
I am and I have. But I think the parentheses in your final para "(which includes any situation where Trump steps down between nomination and inauguration)" are incorrect: Betfair settle "according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election".
Politicised law. Its just too dangerous to mess about with.
Allowing a government to suspend democracy without boundaries would also have been politicising the law.
I can see that argument which is why what Boris tried was so disgraceful. Our system works largely on self restraint. He showed none and neither did the SC. Neither was an improvement on the status quo ante.
Genuinely interested in where you think the SC erred in law in their decision.
I did a post about it at the time. The key paragraph, which sets out the new test for prorogation is paragraph 50. It contains at least 3, arguably 4, entirely subjective assessments which no Court is qualified to make and is very unlikely to have the relevant information to make. It was an enormous land grab into matters which previously were in the political and not the legal sphere.
I acknowledge that they felt obliged to do this because Boris was taking the piss (as Alastair memorably summarised) but once these doors are open they are very hard to close again. The latest nonsense in the Court of Session is a good example. Is this really how we want our politics to be? Dominated by those willing and able to run off to the Courts at the drop of a hat?
The way that MPs spaffed the time up a wall suggests that the PM had accurately assessed that there was nothing for them to do until the EU makes some decisions....
What an outstanding article. If I were resident in the UK, I'd be taking the excellent advice in the header.
I am and I have. But I think the parentheses in your final para "(which includes any situation where Trump steps down between nomination and inauguration)" are incorrect: Betfair settle "according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election".
Even so, a bet on Pence at 60s is an excellent trading bet. If he becomes the Republican nominee his odds will come in to 3s at least.
What an outstanding article. If I were resident in the UK, I'd be taking the excellent advice in the header.
What’s the risk that Pence gets taken out by the Ruskis because they know their boy is going down and they want his final act to be to nominate a new VP?
Does that need Senate confirmation?
Intra-term nominations to fill vice presidential vacancies need majority confirmation in both houses. Now the Democrats control the House of Representatives that's another reason to protect Pence.
Was Johnson pole dancing with Ms Arcuri, and throwing public money at her, before or after his then-wife, and mother of some of his children, was diagnosed with cancer?
8 minutes between the lightbulb appearing in your head that the bad man possibly did something nasty and the decision to double down 🤣
“Eureka!!! I’ve got him this time! Everything he says or does must be seen through this tenuous prism! I can see it now... Boris Johnson: My part in his downfall”
I think it is worth giving thought to what the Democratic field is going to look like when he is no longer in it.
I have seen stuff in the past which suggested a decent crossover between Biden support and Sanders as a next preference. This was perhaps a couple of months back so things could have changed since then but if Biden starts falling back and there is a decent crossover still in support it could really help Sanders.
Whilst Warren may attract some potential Sanders supporters I wonder if Biden supporters might actually be a better pool for Sanders and not that good for Warren.
Sanders has to persuade people that his health scare is nothing to worry about. Given his age and the seriousness of the condition that is not going to be easy. I also find it more than a bit weird that so many Democrats are happy to vote for someone who is not actually a member of their party. At the moment this race looks Warren's to lose to me. Early days of course but none of them are having anything close to the impact a young Obama did.
Sanders found the ceiling of his support last time, when up against Hillary Clinton who, long being assured of the nomination, tolerated rather than opposed him. Sanders could never be the nominee; he is the Rand Paul of the Democatic Party, with lots of followers but not enough of them.
Had Sanders won 1% more in Iowa he would have won the caucus to add to his New Hampshire win then likely have been nominee
Had Saunders won 1% more in Iowa he would have won a couple more Iowan delegates. It would not have made a difference to the final nomination.
It would, no candidate who won Iowa and New Hampshire has failed to be the nominee since 1992 and then Bill Clinton was the underdog not heavy favourite like Hillary
On the topic, as a non-betting person can I ask where these sorts of silly odds come from? Is it the result of just a few silly people putting up bets at bad odds, or does it take a consistent pressure from a lot of people thinking that eg a Clinton nomination is much more likely than it really is to drag betfair's offered prices down to these levels?
Welcome, PM.
Betfair doesn't set prices on its Exchange market. The prices there are simply a reflection of market forces. In this case, it seems almost certain that the buyers (Clinton backers) are wrong and the sellers are right (she isn't standing and wouldn't win anyway.) I think it is just a case of bad punters (there have to be some!) assessing the situation wrong, but there could be other explanations. There have been a number of cases where the market has been deliberately distorted for political advantage. Romney vs Obama was a well publicised example. MItt's team were piling money on him just to make it look like he was doing better than he was. I don't think that is what is happening here though. I think it's just dopey betting.
Sometimes there is no explanation though. When Leadsome stood for the Tory Party Leadership she was backed heavily, out of all proportion to her actual chances. She bombed out in the first round, as the PB punters predicted.
It was easy money, and we still don't understand it.
Was not an automated bot suggested that someone had forgotten about and continued to back her?
Didn't hear that. Any evidence? It sure helped me out if that's what it was.
No just mooted on here which was were imsaw it.
It's plausible, but I guess we'll never know for sure.
This is the problem with all such polls. We might tell the pollsters we want to choose between Yvette Cooper and Ken Clarke but when we pick up the pencil in the polling booth, the only potential prime ministers on offer are Jeremy Corbyn and Boris. More pertinently for recent polls, the Greens won't even be standing in most constituencies, nor the Brexit Party in many.
Was Johnson pole dancing with Ms Arcuri, and throwing public money at her, before or after his then-wife, and mother of some of his children, was diagnosed with cancer?
8 minutes between the lightbulb appearing in your head that the bad man possibly did something nasty and the decision to double down 🤣
“Eureka!!! I’ve got him this time! Everything he says or does must be seen through this tenuous prism! I can see it now... Boris Johnson: My part in his downfall”
It's also a classic example of "watch the birdie". We now know that Boris Johnson and Jennifer Arcuri had a friendship, one she "cares deeply about" and who she stored in her phone as "Alex the Great". Whether they were making the beast with two backs is neither here nor there (I know which way I'm betting, but that's by the by). The question is whether Boris Johnson inappropriately helped a friend.
There is enough evidence about that, you would have thought, for a full investigation now.
It would, no candidate who won Iowa and New Hampshire has failed to be the nominee since 1992 and then Bill Clinton was the underdog not heavy favourite like Hillary
Why don't you try counting how many non-slam-dunk Democratic primaries there are in the dataset you're using there, which starts with a case that breaks your rule. Then tell us whether you still think that particular factoid is a useful predictor of what would have happened in 2016 had Sanders performed a bit better in Iowa.
Pence's odds look good to me. If there's a discrepancy with the Trump/Pence odds it's likelier to be around Trump's odds. The only thing that will stop him getting the nomination is death or total incapacity. Even if he had a serious illness, he'd dismiss it as fake news or a democratic plot and his name would still be on the paper.
Everybody knows the Senate won't convict him in an impeachment trial and, frankly, the Republican Party has been reduced to a few hog-tied passengers in a hijacked bus, wide eyed in terror and willing to do anything to just not get singled out by the fat lunatic who has taken the wheel. They will nod Trump through no matter what. Frankly, I wouldn't put it past them to give him the nomination even if he was found dead on the toilet a month before the convention.
I think it is worth giving thought to what the Democratic field is going to look like when he is no longer in it.
I have seen stuff in the past which suggested a decent crossover between Biden support and Sanders as a next preference. This was perhaps a couple of months back so things could have changed since then but if Biden starts falling back and there is a decent crossover still in support it could really help Sanders.
Whilst Warren may attract some potential Sanders supporters I wonder if Biden supporters might actually be a better pool for Sanders and not that good for Warren.
Sanders has to persuade people that his health scare is nothing to worry about. Given his age and the seriousness of the condition that is not going to be easy. I also find it more than a bit weird that so many Democrats are happy to vote for someone who is not actually a member of their party. At the moment this race looks Warren's to lose to me. Early days of course but none of them are having anything close to the impact a young Obama did.
Sanders found the ceiling of his support last time, when up against Hillary Clinton who, long being assured of the nomination, tolerated rather than opposed him. Sanders could never be the nominee; he is the Rand Paul of the Democatic Party, with lots of followers but not enough of them.
Had Sanders won 1% more in Iowa he would have won the caucus to add to his New Hampshire win then likely have been nominee
Had Saunders won 1% more in Iowa he would have won a couple more Iowan delegates. It would not have made a difference to the final nomination.
It would, no candidate who won Iowa and New Hampshire has failed to be the nominee since 1992 and then Bill Clinton was the underdog not heavy favourite like Hillary
Was Johnson pole dancing with Ms Arcuri, and throwing public money at her, before or after his then-wife, and mother of some of his children, was diagnosed with cancer?
8 minutes between the lightbulb appearing in your head that the bad man possibly did something nasty and the decision to double down 🤣
“Eureka!!! I’ve got him this time! Everything he says or does must be seen through this tenuous prism! I can see it now... Boris Johnson: My part in his downfall”
It's also a classic example of "watch the birdie". We now know that Boris Johnson and Jennifer Arcuri had a friendship, one she "cares deeply about" and who she stored in her phone as "Alex the Great". Whether they were making the beast with two backs is neither here nor there (I know which way I'm betting, but that's by the by). The question is whether Boris Johnson inappropriately helped a friend.
There is enough evidence about that, you would have thought, for a full investigation now.
The question actually was;
“Was Johnson pole dancing with Ms Arcuri, and throwing public money at her, before or after his then-wife, and mother of some of his children, was diagnosed with cancer?”
If we care to look rather than excitedly speculate, we find that his wife was diagnosed with cancer this May, and separated from him in 2018
Was Johnson pole dancing with Ms Arcuri, and throwing public money at her, before or after his then-wife, and mother of some of his children, was diagnosed with cancer?
8 minutes between the lightbulb appearing in your head that the bad man possibly did something nasty and the decision to double down 🤣
“Eureka!!! I’ve got him this time! Everything he says or does must be seen through this tenuous prism! I can see it now... Boris Johnson: My part in his downfall”
It's also a classic example of "watch the birdie". We now know that Boris Johnson and Jennifer Arcuri had a friendship, one she "cares deeply about" and who she stored in her phone as "Alex the Great". Whether they were making the beast with two backs is neither here nor there (I know which way I'm betting, but that's by the by). The question is whether Boris Johnson inappropriately helped a friend.
There is enough evidence about that, you would have thought, for a full investigation now.
There is already enough in the public domain to tell us Boris is an awful human being.
But, to answer the question:
Boris and Arcuri’s “friendship” seems to be from 12, 13, 14.
Boris and his wife Marina Wheeler were certainly a public couple at this time. They separated in 2018.
Marina Wheeler was diagnosed with with cervical cancer in 2019.
Mr. Doof, there were a lot of close calls that could've easily gone Sanders' way versus Clinton, though.
Agreed. There is however too much emphasis placed on a close win in the Dem primaries. Yes winning over 50% has a knock on effect to the next few primaries, but this probably does not change as many votes as is usually claimed. And changes very few delegates.
Note this is for the Dem Nomination. Rep Primaries are winner take all and has quite a different effect.
Mr. Meeks, comparing Boris Johnson to Alexander the Great is a historical abomination of such spectacular proportions that not even Mr. Eagles would make it.
Pence's odds look good to me. If there's a discrepancy with the Trump/Pence odds it's likelier to be around Trump's odds. The only thing that will stop him getting the nomination is death or total incapacity. Even if he had a serious illness, he'd dismiss it as fake news or a democratic plot and his name would still be on the paper.
Everybody knows the Senate won't convict him in an impeachment trial and, frankly, the Republican Party has been reduced to a few hog-tied passengers in a hijacked bus, wide eyed in terror and willing to do anything to just not get singled out by the fat lunatic who has taken the wheel. They will nod Trump through no matter what. Frankly, I wouldn't put it past them to give him the nomination even if he was found dead on the toilet a month before the convention.
The senate would convict him if Trump's actions have been found to be blatantly illegal, and the voters move stongly against Trump because of it.
The Republicans want to stay in the White House and would drop Trump if it was necessary.
I agree that it is unlikely that both of the above conditions occur.
I can see that argument which is why what Boris tried was so disgraceful. Our system works largely on self restraint. He showed none and neither did the SC. Neither was an improvement on the status quo ante.
Genuinely interested in where you think the SC erred in law in their decision.
I acknowledge that they felt obliged to do this because Boris was taking the piss (as Alastair memorably summarised) but once these doors are open they are very hard to close again. The latest nonsense in the Court of Session is a good example. Is this really how we want our politics to be? Dominated by those willing and able to run off to the Courts at the drop of a hat?
Johnson taking the piss was the problem. Not sure how you eliminate a populist politician’s desire to do that from any system. What we now know is that thefive weeks beyond the fact it wanted to. That, surely, is not good enough. If the decision had gone the other way what would have stopped an eight week closure next time, or an eight month one? At some point there has to be a line and in our system only the courts or Parliament can draw it.
BiB - Surely you've answered your own question. As @DavidL rightly points out, this was a land grab by the Supreme Court. Of course, it's not that big a deal as there's nothing to stop a future government abolishing the Supreme Court or passing legislation that formalises the limits of prorogation.
It was not a land grab. It was the highest Court in the land doing what it has always done: clarifying an aspect of our unwritten constitution. And, as has always been the case, if Parliament does not like it, it can change the law. That, as things currently stand, is that the government cannot close down Parliament for an extended period without its permission or without due cause.
Although, pre-2009, the highest court of the land wouldn't have been able to rule of the legality of prorogation as by definition it would have been prorogued itself.
Not actually true I think. And anyway since they ruled the prorogation in effect never happened it’s a moot point anyway!
"About 80 to 90 appeals are heard each year. The Law Lords sit from Monday to Thursday throughout the law terms. They hear appeals on days when the House of Lords is sitting but **also during the parliamentary recess, prorogation** and even (by special dispensation from the Queen) during a dissolution"
Mr. Meeks, comparing Boris Johnson to Alexander the Great is a historical abomination of such spectacular proportions that not even Mr. Eagles would make it.
Though the Gordian knot might be a good metaphor for Brexit, and if this latter day Alexander disentangles this one, he too might be all-conquering. I'm not holding my breath.
Mr. Meeks, comparing Boris Johnson to Alexander the Great is a historical abomination of such spectacular proportions that not even Mr. Eagles would make it.
I think this is a "comparison" on the level of Cyclefree "comparing" Brexit with the break up of Yougoslavia, because they appeared in the same article.
Mr. Meeks, the knot wasn't disentangled, though. It was cut.
Mr. Doof, I was responding to Mr. Meeks but not accusing him of the travesty (could've been clearer I was referencing someone to whom he had himself referred, though).
Mr. Meeks, comparing Boris Johnson to Alexander the Great is a historical abomination of such spectacular proportions that not even Mr. Eagles would make it.
Though the Gordian knot might be a good metaphor for Brexit, and if this latter day Alexander disentangles this one, he too might be all-conquering. I'm not holding my breath.
Politicised law. Its just too dangerous to mess about with.
As you know all law is intimately bound up with politics, in the widest sense. Even the very idea that the ruler should be bound by the law was a profoundly political statement when first expressed.
Nonetheless over time we have been pretty good in this country at developing a system which seems to understand where the boundaries are between law and politics in a narrow sense. The US has a different way of approaching this even though it grew out of the English system and takes much from it. You cannot simply take one case from the US and transpose it here. There is a delicate balancing act between the three branches of the US government, in part because the Founding Fathers thought hard about these issues when drawing up the US Constitution. We have done it in another way.
But when one bit of government behaves in a way which upends all normal and generally understood conventions and rules then it is only right that other parts intervene. Indeed it may be necessary. That seems very political. But we should remember why it became necessary: because the executive seems to have adopted a “end justifies all means” approach to governance, something which is profoundly at odds with the normal way of doing things here.
The problem was Parliament’s original land grab. That’s not to say Boris behaved well (he didn’t) but you need to look for the original sin
I don't think so. Why should the executive have the whip hand in deciding what the legislature votes on? It's the legislature's job to pass legislation. When the executive prevents the legislature from enacting legislation it wants to enact, that is a very traditional recipe for authoritarianism.
I don't think many of you realise the knife-edge this country was on before the Miller/Cherry judgment was handed down. The justices were smart enough to see the danger and decided emphatically to make it clear that the executive must not prevent parliament from doing its job.
I'm struggling to think of examples of when a conflict between parliament and the executive conflict ought to be resolved in favour of the executive. Perhaps if parliament were trying to enact legislation that cancelled our normal electoral cycle.
Whilst we have regularly, free and fair elections, tyranny of parliament is a pretty abstract concept. But without parliament being able to do its business freely, tyranny of the executive is extremely easy to imagine, and we have innumerable concrete examples of that in history and in the world today.
I can see that argument which is why what Boris tried was so disgraceful. Our system works largely on self restraint. He showed none and neither did the SC. Neither was an improvement on the status quo ante.
Genuinely interested in where you think the SC erred in law in their decision.
I did a post about it at theis qualified to make and is very unlikely to have the relevant information to make. It was an enormous land grab into matters which previously were in the political and not the legal sphere.
I acknowledge that they felt obliged to do this because Boris was taking the piss (as Alastair memorably summarised) but once these doors are open they are very hard to close again. The latest nonsense in the Court of Session is a good example. Is this really how we want our politics to be? Dominated by those willing and able to run off to the Courts at the drop of a hat?
Johnson taking the piss was the problem. Not sure how you eliminate a populist politician’s desire to do that from any system. What we now know is that thefive weeks beyond the fact it wanted to. That, surely, is not good enough. If the decision had gone the other way what would have stopped an eight week closure next time, or an eight month one? At some point there has to be a line and in our system only the courts or Parliament can draw it.
BiB - Surely you've answered your own question. As @DavidL rightly points out, this was a land grab by the Supreme Court. Of course, it's not that big a deal as there's nothing to stop a future government abolishing the Supreme Court or passing legislation that formalises the limits of prorogation.
Although, pre-2009, the highest court of the land wouldn't have been able to rule of the legality of prorogation as by definition it would have been prorogued itself.
What I'm objecting to is your suggestion that the court had no option but to rule against the government on the grounds of "well, what if the government prorogued for eight months?" Well, presumably there could have been another court case. Personally, I don't think the court should be the arbiter of what is and what isn't acceptable in this regard. Let the democratically elected MPs make that decision.
Frazer Nelson is really not very good. His manner and light Scottish accent deceives. As a spokesman for Johnson often put up against EU journalists he too often sounds vaccuous and leaden footed.
weird accent Roger, like no other Scottish accent ever heard.
Frazer Nelson is really not very good. His manner and light Scottish accent deceives. As a spokesman for Johnson often put up against EU journalists he too often sounds vaccuous and leaden footed.
weird accent Roger, like no other Scottish accent ever heard.
Mr. Meeks, the knot wasn't disentangled, though. It was cut.
Mr. Doof, I was responding to Mr. Meeks but not accusing him of the travesty (could've been clearer I was referencing someone to whom he had himself referred, though).
Mr. Meeks, comparing Boris Johnson to Alexander the Great is a historical abomination of such spectacular proportions that not even Mr. Eagles would make it.
Isn't it true that Alexander was an effective campaigner but rubbish at administration?
Interestingly, despite domestic audiences being in thrall at his magnificent conquests, if you look at the historical sources in, say, India, Alexander's arrival, his alliances with local rulers, his battles and his departure are entirely unremarked upon. We in the west see a clever general who conquered parts of India, but Indian history has him as a total irrelevance.
In the end, after Alexander died in a ditch, his empire broke into pieces because he failed to think of any consequences other than the brief, bright flarelight of personal achievement. He got there, but when he got there all he left was a sticky mess and regret. As a metaphor for Boris's personal and professional life, it's somewhat apt.
Mr. Song, comparing Alexander the Great's decisiveness with a Lib Dem policy is horrendous.
Mr. Divvie, it's sometimes said that fiction has to make more sense than reality in order to be credible.
Can be odd sometimes, though. People will suspend disbelief for dragons and magic, but (less than yesteryear, anyway) not for black and white villains or idiots being in charge of a country.
Still staggering Conservative MPs collectively decided to back a known incompetent and bloody fool.
In relation to the Arcuri-Johnson story it is worth noting that even if they were simply friends, there would still have been a conflict of interest, which - at least based on what we have been told so far - seems not to have been addressed properly of at all.
In relation to the Arcuri-Johnson story it is worth noting that even if they were simply friends, there would still have been a conflict of interest, which - at least based on what we have been told so far - seems not to have been addressed properly of at all.
Mr. Divvie, that's a foolish comparison. What matters is not the tax an individual pays but the tax that goes to the state. You could increase maximum income tax to 95% but that would see the overall tax take decline dramatically.
This idea that harming the rich is inherently good is just madness.
Mr. Noo, on India: Alexander wanted to keep going (and would've won, Chandragupta showed it was ripe for conquest) but his army refused on the not unreasonable grounds they wanted to go home.
Administration is harder to call as he didn't really do it himself. Antipater kept Macedon ticking over and other administrators (satraps) handled the other bits of his empire. Alexander was ever with the army, ever-conquering. I think it's a bit harsh to criticise him on those grounds.
His empire crumbled as much due to the lack of an adult heir as anything else. If his possible suggestion of Craterus had been adopted (Craterus was absent at the time) by those around him then the empire could've been held together. As it happened, his deathbed companions chose, apparently, to mishear the name as 'krateroi' [or suchlike, apologies for my lack of Greek], meaning 'the strongest' should inherit]. Craterus himself got killed early on in the Diadochi Wars, a victim of both Eumenes' brilliance and the misinformation he was fed by an idiot whose name escapes me.
It's also a classic example of "watch the birdie". We now know that Boris Johnson and Jennifer Arcuri had a friendship, one she "cares deeply about" and who she stored in her phone as "Alex the Great". Whether they were making the beast with two backs is neither here nor there (I know which way I'm betting, but that's by the by). The question is whether Boris Johnson inappropriately helped a friend.
There is enough evidence about that, you would have thought, for a full investigation now.
It could well turn out that he was at the same time "romancing" her and using his influence as London Mayor to steer public money and status her way. But even then I doubt the impact would be quite what one might hope for. Just "Boris being Boris" innit.
If Trump stands down or is brought down by one of his many scandals, I would expect every republican with a pulse to jump in. Don't see why republicans would pick Pence when they could go for someone more exciting.
If Trump stands down or is brought down by one of his many scandals, I would expect every republican with a pulse to jump in. Don't see why republicans would pick Pence when they could go for someone more exciting.
If Trump goes, Pence is automatically the President. There would not be time for the GOP to run a meaningful primary campaign - in fact some states have already cancelled their GOP primaries to prevent a challenge to Trump. So Pence will be the nominee.
Also bear in mind that even in the unlikely event the Senate removes Trump, they are 100% certain not to remove Pence as well - as that would mean President Pelosi.
Not if Trump is removed, Pence becomes President who names a new VP. Then Pence is removed one week later and the new VP becomes President.
Something similar happened with Gerald Ford, who was not on the 1972 Election ticket. The difference is that VP Agnew went before Nixon did.
Well it was hugely unlikely that Trump would be able to emulate Nixon in finding a VP even more crooked than himself.
Although, pre-2009, the highest court of the land wouldn't have been able to rule of the legality of prorogation as by definition it would have been prorogued itself.
What I'm objecting to is your suggestion that the court had no option but to rule against the government on the grounds of "well, what if the government prorogued for eight months?" Well, presumably there could have been another court case. Personally, I don't think the court should be the arbiter of what is and what isn't acceptable in this regard. Let the democratically elected MPs make that decision.
Not again... this is another example of some of the bullshit that passes as “fact” on this site. A tiny bit of Google will tell you Section 8 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 specifically stated -
“For preventing delay in the administration of justice, the House of Lords may sit and act for the purpose of hearing and determining of appeals...during any prorogation of Parliament...”.
Can we put this one to bed once and for all please?
In relation to the Arcuri-Johnson story it is worth noting that even if they were simply friends, there would still have been a conflict of interest, which - at least based on what we have been told so far - seems not to have been addressed properly of at all.
Also worth noting that the GLA has statutory powers of investigation which go some way beyond those Parliament possesses.
Achieving this goal has been the long term project of the American right since the 1960s, and the Brexit project is part of a similar process here. I've spent enough time with rich people to know that cutting their tax bill might not be all they care about politically, but it is pretty close to all they care about.
"The police watchdog has been strongly criticised by a retired High Court judge for its review of how detectives handled false claims of a Westminster paedophile ring.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) cleared five detectives of wrongdoing, but Sir Richard Henriques said its review was "flawed".
Sir Richard said it "fell well short of an effective investigation"."
Sir Richard is undoubtedly correct, and nobody should be surprised. The cynic in me suspects the investigation was deliberately botched, but it is unlikely we will ever know.
The police’s first instinct when criticised in this case has been to protect their own.
Based on what we have learnt in this case, neither the Met nor Wiltshire Police nor IPOC are fit for purpose.
Umm, Cyclefree, I hate to take issue but did anyone think they were fit for purpose before?
Because if not, we haven't even learned that.
Well no.
But for God’s sake, is it too much to expect people to be competent in their job? Or even have some sense of shame and responsibility. Clearly it is.
I’ve not been to the blasted police training college and I seem to know more about how investigations should be done than these bozos or even the Victim’s Commissioner, one Vera Baird QC.
You are expecting people in the police and ancillary organisations to be appointed on the basis of talent and experience rather than cronyism and doing favours for the right people?
You, whose job description is 'trying to stop bankers from being fuckwits?'
Yes, Cyclefree, it is too much to expect. That would be an intelligent request and when has the Home Office ever behaved intelligently?
A proper investigation would have consumed huge amounts of police time for years. How much easier to just hand the job to a couple of hopeless plods and tell them not to try too hard. Naturally they are defended when they fail, because they were never intended to succeed.
A proper investigation would not have taken years. Not if run by competent investigators. This is one of those myths that is spread by those who either have no idea how investigations are done or who have every incentive to use an investigation to kick the whole affair into the long grass never to to be heard or seen again.
Frazer Nelson is really not very good. His manner and light Scottish accent deceives. As a spokesman for Johnson often put up against EU journalists he too often sounds vaccuous and leaden footed.
weird accent Roger, like no other Scottish accent ever heard.
'Raised in Nairn educated at Glasgow Uiversity...." But I haven't heard one like it either. Spent too much time with Old Etonians at the Spectator and become distorted.
In relation to the Arcuri-Johnson story it is worth noting that even if they were simply friends, there would still have been a conflict of interest, which - at least based on what we have been told so far - seems not to have been addressed properly of at all.
Exactly the point I made above. There seems to be ample evidence for a full investigation.
Although, pre-2009, the highest court of the land wouldn't have been able to rule of the legality of prorogation as by definition it would have been prorogued itself.
What I'm objecting to is your suggestion that the court had no option but to rule against the government on the grounds of "well, what if the government prorogued for eight months?" Well, presumably there could have been another court case. Personally, I don't think the court should be the arbiter of what is and what isn't acceptable in this regard. Let the democratically elected MPs make that decision.
Not again... this is another example of some of the bullshit that passes as “fact” on this site. A tiny bit of Google will tell you Section 8 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 specifically stated -
“For preventing delay in the administration of justice, the House of Lords may sit and act for the purpose of hearing and determining of appeals...during any prorogation of Parliament...”.
Can we put this one to bed once and for all please?
Jennifer Arcuri is a scream! She's giving Stormy Daniels a run for her money. She thinks the British press is interested in her and Boris just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time!
President Donald Trump talked to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey about the military incursion, the White House said in its statement. The administration, without elaborating on the scope of the attack, referred to the invasion as a “long-planned operation.”
[snip] his army refused on the not unreasonable grounds they wanted to go home.
Alexander was ever with the army, ever-conquering. I think it's a bit harsh to criticise him on those grounds.
Oh I think it's entirely relevant to criticise him on those grounds. There's is nothing about conquest that means we have to analyse it only on its own terms. The question but for what? is pertinent before, during and after. Alexander was no mere general. He wasn't executing the orders of some strategist behind the lines. He was in charge, fighting a path towards — what? What was he trying to achieve? Victory for its own sake? No wonder the soldiers wanted to go home.
There is no doubt that Alexander was extremely capable as a campaigner, but we are not under any obligation to limit our judgements to just that aspect of his leadership. Leadership is much more faceted that winning a fight. The gaze of the historian ought not to be solely from the standpoint of what was attempted and whether it succeeded, but 1. what were the motives, 2. what was forgotten in the melee, and 3. what the effect was for the ordinary folk. Sadly, the answer to #2 is often #3
Not saying he will necessarily win but he has been written off too easily on here previously and still has a pretty decent chance.
Sanders has no chance. Warren is a younger, female, wider supported and better funded version of him
Perhaps. But Jezziah and I are probably a closer match to an activist 25% of the democratic primary electorate. She doesn't strike me at all as a version of Sanders, any more than David Miliband strikes me as a version of Corbyn. She goes on about wicked bankers a lot, but is not consistently left-wing. Nor is she consistently better in polls vs Trump, and her lead in Democratic polls is not consistent either.
I don't think Sanders will win either - the health scare will worry some, and anyway there aren't quite enough leftists even among Democratic activists. But it's a mistake to say he's got no chance, because he has a solid base, whereas Warren's appeal is relatively recent and IMO less deep. I do agree that if Sanders drops out his support will mostly go to Warren, for want of better, but it won't happen soon.
weird accent Roger, like no other Scottish accent ever heard.
Apparently the Scottish accent - if of the mild and educated variety - is an enormous asset in selling insurance. Outside Scotland, I assume that means.
I read this somewhere several years ago. In a tabloid newspaper, I think, but I can't remember which one.
In relation to the Arcuri-Johnson story it is worth noting that even if they were simply friends, there would still have been a conflict of interest, which - at least based on what we have been told so far - seems not to have been addressed properly of at all.
Exactly the point I made above. There seems to be ample evidence for a full investigation.
Spoilsport!
(She's now morphed from 'Pole-dancing model' to 'American business woman')
In relation to the Arcuri-Johnson story it is worth noting that even if they were simply friends, there would still have been a conflict of interest, which - at least based on what we have been told so far - seems not to have been addressed properly of at all.
Exactly the point I made above. There seems to be ample evidence for a full investigation.
Sorry: had not seen your comment when I made mine.
Conflicts of interest policies are pretty standard in most well run organisations, even if some members of the current government give every impression of never having heard of them.
Not saying he will necessarily win but he has been written off too easily on here previously and still has a pretty decent chance.
Sanders has no chance. Warren is a younger, female, wider supported and better funded version of him
Perhaps. But Jezziah and I are probably a closer match to an activist 25% of the democratic primary electorate. She doesn't strike me at all as a version of Sanders, any more than David Miliband strikes me as a version of Corbyn. She goes on about wicked bankers a lot, but is not consistently left-wing. Nor is she consistently better in polls vs Trump, and her lead in Democratic polls is not consistent either.
I don't think Sanders will win either - the health scare will worry some, and anyway there aren't quite enough leftists even among Democratic activists. But it's a mistake to say he's got no chance, because he has a solid base, whereas Warren's appeal is relatively recent and IMO less deep. I do agree that if Sanders drops out his support will mostly go to Warren, for want of better, but it won't happen soon.
Warren is also a self proclaimed enthusiast for capitalism - albeit with strong regulation. Sanders is... not.
In relation to the Arcuri-Johnson story it is worth noting that even if they were simply friends, there would still have been a conflict of interest, which - at least based on what we have been told so far - seems not to have been addressed properly of at all.
Exactly the point I made above. There seems to be ample evidence for a full investigation.
You made the point in response to the tabloid style smear/allegation wrapped in a question that he slept with Jennifer Arcuri whilst knowing his wife had cancer... any opinion on that?
The other point worth noting is what due diligence was done on Arcuri's companies when money was being given to them. One paper reported that one of Arcuri's business partners was Tom Hayes, the first trader to be convicted in relation to Libor manipulation.
He was charged in December 2012.
Did anyone ask about the connection and whether it was sensible to pass public money to an individual/company with such connections?
There may be nothing to this but it is something that should have been checked out as part of due diligence. Assuming there was any, of course .......
In relation to the Arcuri-Johnson story it is worth noting that even if they were simply friends, there would still have been a conflict of interest, which - at least based on what we have been told so far - seems not to have been addressed properly of at all.
Exactly the point I made above. There seems to be ample evidence for a full investigation.
You made the point in response to the tabloid style smear/allegation wrapped in a question that he slept with Jennifer Arcuri whilst knowing his wife had cancer... any opinion on that?
Which bit of "Whether they were making the beast with two backs is neither here nor there (I know which way I'm betting, but that's by the by). The question is whether Boris Johnson inappropriately helped a friend..." didn't you understand ?
I went to Frieze Art Fair yesterday. It's always a pretty good barometer for assessing the health of the London/bubble economy.
It was bustling: with more visitors and more sales than I can remember. The good times are definitely rolling for some. Why? The weakness of the £? A surprising fightback? The first hint that there is life beyond the B-word?
Perhaps they were all so cheerful because they know Brexit is going to be cancelled.
Mr. Noo, a significant part of the invasion plans was (propaganda or not) revenge for the earlier invasion by Xerxes. Indeed, Xenophon's Anabasis was used as an invasion guidebook by Philip (Alexander's father) when planning the war.
It's a mistake to try and impose modern ways of thinking on the ancient world. War was even more commonplace then, and security and revenge were perfectly valid reasons for attacking Persia.
Building an empire as an end in itself may be frowned upon today but it was eminently common as a desire in the ancient world.
Also worth noting that whilst Alexander was ruthless to people in rebel areas he was intelligent and showed a great deal of clemency to those who just surrendered.
In relation to the Arcuri-Johnson story it is worth noting that even if they were simply friends, there would still have been a conflict of interest, which - at least based on what we have been told so far - seems not to have been addressed properly of at all.
Exactly the point I made above. There seems to be ample evidence for a full investigation.
You made the point in response to the tabloid style smear/allegation wrapped in a question that he slept with Jennifer Arcuri whilst knowing his wife had cancer... any opinion on that?
Which bit of "Whether they were making the beast with two backs is neither here nor there (I know which way I'm betting, but that's by the by). The question is whether Boris Johnson inappropriately helped a friend..." didn't you understand ?
I understood it all. I’m asking what he made of the tabloid style smear.
In relation to the Arcuri-Johnson story it is worth noting that even if they were simply friends, there would still have been a conflict of interest, which - at least based on what we have been told so far - seems not to have been addressed properly of at all.
Exactly the point I made above. There seems to be ample evidence for a full investigation.
You made the point in response to the tabloid style smear/allegation wrapped in a question that he slept with Jennifer Arcuri whilst knowing his wife had cancer... any opinion on that?
There's no need to make up things about Boris Johnson. The facts about him are grim enough already.
As far as I'm concerned, he could nob all five Spice Girls simultaneously, consecutively or in some confused ménage-a-six. Just so long as he doesn't then use his influence to funnel public funds to his female chums.
In relation to the Arcuri-Johnson story it is worth noting that even if they were simply friends, there would still have been a conflict of interest, which - at least based on what we have been told so far - seems not to have been addressed properly of at all.
Exactly the point I made above. There seems to be ample evidence for a full investigation.
You made the point in response to the tabloid style smear/allegation wrapped in a question that he slept with Jennifer Arcuri whilst knowing his wife had cancer... any opinion on that?
There's no need to make up things about Boris Johnson. The facts about him are grim enough already.
As far as I'm concerned, he could nob all five Spice Girls simultaneously, consecutively or in some confused ménage-a-six. Just so long as he doesn't then use his influence to funnel public funds to his female chums.
Why do people feel the need to make things up? Is this site becoming a tabloid for people who think they’re too clever for tabloids?
Comments
Without that we’d have signed the WA 9 months ago
It is the name of the University in South Bend, Indiana.
Mayor Pete is mayor of South Bend.
May’s big error obviously was not agreeing with the EU to have them rubbishing her proposals for weeks, only to have them meekly submit, after “clarification” of what they involved.
What I'm objecting to is your suggestion that the court had no option but to rule against the government on the grounds of "well, what if the government prorogued for eight months?" Well, presumably there could have been another court case. Personally, I don't think the court should be the arbiter of what is and what isn't acceptable in this regard. Let the democratically elected MPs make that decision.
Betfair doesn't set prices on its Exchange market. The prices there are simply a reflection of market forces. In this case, it seems almost certain that the buyers (Clinton backers) are wrong and the sellers are right (she isn't standing and wouldn't win anyway.) I think it is just a case of bad punters (there have to be some!) assessing the situation wrong, but there could be other explanations. There have been a number of cases where the market has been deliberately distorted for political advantage. Romney vs Obama was a well publicised example. MItt's team were piling money on him just to make it look like he was doing better than he was. I don't think that is what is happening here though. I think it's just dopey betting.
Sometimes there is no explanation though. When Leadsome stood for the Tory Party Leadership she was backed heavily, out of all proportion to her actual chances. She bombed out in the first round, as the PB punters predicted.
It was easy money, and we still don't understand it.
https://twitter.com/Andrew_ComRes/status/1181113743624806400?s=20
I have very mixed emotions about Andrea Leadsom. I made an awful lot of money out of those mysteriously short odds. But I'd previously tipped her (at much longer odds, mind). So that's a bit embarrassing.
Also bear in mind that even in the unlikely event the Senate removes Trump, they are 100% certain not to remove Pence as well - as that would mean President Pelosi.
Not saying he will necessarily win but he has been written off too easily on here previously and still has a pretty decent chance.
Something similar happened with Gerald Ford, who was not on the 1972 Election ticket. The difference is that VP Agnew went before Nixon did.
The thing about Sanders is (like Corbyn) that he's a genuine leftist from way back - it is simply inconceivable that he would suddenly swing to the centre. It is not in the least inconceivable that Warren will - I've seen commentaries that she intends to just as soon as Sanders is out of the way. So as an American leftist (and in this I think it's possible to think oneself into that position) I wouldn't dream of not voting for Sanders, if only to keep Warren honest. Of course I'd vote Biden or Klobouchar or whoever against Trump, but we've not got to that stage yet.
It's interesting how inefficient these markets manage to be. Weirdly the big markets like this with relatively large liquidity probably have more obvious howlers than the small ones, because they attract more dumb people. Robin Hanson has this theory that having lots of dumb money makes markets better overall, because to attract the wolves, you need a bunch of sheep.
https://torontosun.com/news/national/election-2019/poll-only-25-think-trudeau-should-get-a-second-term
“Eureka!!! I’ve got him this time! Everything he says or does must be seen through this tenuous prism! I can see it now... Boris Johnson: My part in his downfall”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_Canadian_federal_election
There is enough evidence about that, you would have thought, for a full investigation now.
https://twitter.com/RobDotHutton/status/1181116630392287234?s=20
Everybody knows the Senate won't convict him in an impeachment trial and, frankly, the Republican Party has been reduced to a few hog-tied passengers in a hijacked bus, wide eyed in terror and willing to do anything to just not get singled out by the fat lunatic who has taken the wheel. They will nod Trump through no matter what. Frankly, I wouldn't put it past them to give him the nomination even if he was found dead on the toilet a month before the convention.
“Was Johnson pole dancing with Ms Arcuri, and throwing public money at her, before or after his then-wife, and mother of some of his children, was diagnosed with cancer?”
If we care to look rather than excitedly speculate, we find that his wife was diagnosed with cancer this May, and separated from him in 2018
https://news.yahoo.com/boris-johnsons-wife-marina-wheeler-reveals-she-was-diagnosed-with-cervical-cancer-092014703.html
But, to answer the question:
Boris and Arcuri’s “friendship” seems to be from 12, 13, 14.
Boris and his wife Marina Wheeler were certainly a public couple at this time. They separated in 2018.
Marina Wheeler was diagnosed with with cervical cancer in 2019.
Note this is for the Dem Nomination. Rep Primaries are winner take all and has quite a different effect.
The Republicans want to stay in the White House and would drop Trump if it was necessary.
I agree that it is unlikely that both of the above conditions occur.
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/hoflbpjudicial.pdf (2008)
Mr. Doof, I was responding to Mr. Meeks but not accusing him of the travesty (could've been clearer I was referencing someone to whom he had himself referred, though).
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1181105183037767680?s=20
I don't think many of you realise the knife-edge this country was on before the Miller/Cherry judgment was handed down. The justices were smart enough to see the danger and decided emphatically to make it clear that the executive must not prevent parliament from doing its job.
I'm struggling to think of examples of when a conflict between parliament and the executive conflict ought to be resolved in favour of the executive. Perhaps if parliament were trying to enact legislation that cancelled our normal electoral cycle.
Whilst we have regularly, free and fair elections, tyranny of parliament is a pretty abstract concept. But without parliament being able to do its business freely, tyranny of the executive is extremely easy to imagine, and we have innumerable concrete examples of that in history and in the world today.
https://twitter.com/gabriel_zucman/status/1181009202837254144?s=20
Interestingly, despite domestic audiences being in thrall at his magnificent conquests, if you look at the historical sources in, say, India, Alexander's arrival, his alliances with local rulers, his battles and his departure are entirely unremarked upon. We in the west see a clever general who conquered parts of India, but Indian history has him as a total irrelevance.
In the end, after Alexander died in a ditch, his empire broke into pieces because he failed to think of any consequences other than the brief, bright flarelight of personal achievement. He got there, but when he got there all he left was a sticky mess and regret. As a metaphor for Boris's personal and professional life, it's somewhat apt.
Mr. Divvie, it's sometimes said that fiction has to make more sense than reality in order to be credible.
Can be odd sometimes, though. People will suspend disbelief for dragons and magic, but (less than yesteryear, anyway) not for black and white villains or idiots being in charge of a country.
Still staggering Conservative MPs collectively decided to back a known incompetent and bloody fool.
This idea that harming the rich is inherently good is just madness.
Mr. Noo, on India: Alexander wanted to keep going (and would've won, Chandragupta showed it was ripe for conquest) but his army refused on the not unreasonable grounds they wanted to go home.
Administration is harder to call as he didn't really do it himself. Antipater kept Macedon ticking over and other administrators (satraps) handled the other bits of his empire. Alexander was ever with the army, ever-conquering. I think it's a bit harsh to criticise him on those grounds.
His empire crumbled as much due to the lack of an adult heir as anything else. If his possible suggestion of Craterus had been adopted (Craterus was absent at the time) by those around him then the empire could've been held together. As it happened, his deathbed companions chose, apparently, to mishear the name as 'krateroi' [or suchlike, apologies for my lack of Greek], meaning 'the strongest' should inherit]. Craterus himself got killed early on in the Diadochi Wars, a victim of both Eumenes' brilliance and the misinformation he was fed by an idiot whose name escapes me.
Not again... this is another example of some of the bullshit that passes as “fact” on this site. A tiny bit of Google will tell you Section 8 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 specifically stated -
“For preventing delay in the administration of justice, the House of Lords may sit and act for the purpose of hearing and determining of appeals...during any prorogation of Parliament...”.
Can we put this one to bed once and for all please?
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/07/trump-turkey-syria-invasion-037052
Turkey will soon invade northern Syria, the White House announced late Sunday in a statement that seemed to indicate at least tacit American support.
President Donald Trump talked to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey about the military incursion, the White House said in its statement. The administration, without elaborating on the scope of the attack, referred to the invasion as a “long-planned operation.”
Alexander was no mere general. He wasn't executing the orders of some strategist behind the lines. He was in charge, fighting a path towards — what? What was he trying to achieve? Victory for its own sake? No wonder the soldiers wanted to go home.
There is no doubt that Alexander was extremely capable as a campaigner, but we are not under any obligation to limit our judgements to just that aspect of his leadership. Leadership is much more faceted that winning a fight. The gaze of the historian ought not to be solely from the standpoint of what was attempted and whether it succeeded, but
1. what were the motives,
2. what was forgotten in the melee, and
3. what the effect was for the ordinary folk.
Sadly, the answer to #2 is often #3
I don't think Sanders will win either - the health scare will worry some, and anyway there aren't quite enough leftists even among Democratic activists. But it's a mistake to say he's got no chance, because he has a solid base, whereas Warren's appeal is relatively recent and IMO less deep. I do agree that if Sanders drops out his support will mostly go to Warren, for want of better, but it won't happen soon.
I read this somewhere several years ago. In a tabloid newspaper, I think, but I can't remember which one.
(She's now morphed from 'Pole-dancing model' to 'American business woman')
Conflicts of interest policies are pretty standard in most well run organisations, even if some members of the current government give every impression of never having heard of them.
Sanders is... not.
He was charged in December 2012.
Did anyone ask about the connection and whether it was sensible to pass public money to an individual/company with such connections?
There may be nothing to this but it is something that should have been checked out as part of due diligence. Assuming there was any, of course .......
I went to Frieze Art Fair yesterday. It's always a pretty good barometer for assessing the health of the London/bubble economy.
It was bustling: with more visitors and more sales than I can remember. The good times are definitely rolling for some. Why? The weakness of the £? A surprising fightback? The first hint that there is life beyond the B-word?
Perhaps they were all so cheerful because they know Brexit is going to be cancelled.
It's a mistake to try and impose modern ways of thinking on the ancient world. War was even more commonplace then, and security and revenge were perfectly valid reasons for attacking Persia.
Building an empire as an end in itself may be frowned upon today but it was eminently common as a desire in the ancient world.
Also worth noting that whilst Alexander was ruthless to people in rebel areas he was intelligent and showed a great deal of clemency to those who just surrendered.
As far as I'm concerned, he could nob all five Spice Girls simultaneously, consecutively or in some confused ménage-a-six. Just so long as he doesn't then use his influence to funnel public funds to his female chums.