politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Who will be the Tory London Mayoral Candidate

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. G, at some point or another, most of us post something we regret.

I still feel quite the fool for confusing Queens Anne and Mary [even though it's a vulgarly recent period of history].

On the other hand this double lock stuff now means Scotland can't leave the Union unless everyone else says they can.

franklyn said:

What about Mr Salmond standing to be mayor of London

It would be very interesting to see how well SNP candidates would fare in the rest of the UK. Leaving aside the independence issue, they could well hoover up many of the traditional left-wing voters who are dismayed with Labour's policy platform.

OldKingCole said:

Alanbrooke said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. G, at some point or another, most of us post something we regret.

I still feel quite the fool for confusing Queens Anne and Mary [even though it's a vulgarly recent period of history].

On the other hand this double lock stuff now means Scotland can't leave the Union unless everyone else says they can.

And their problem will be????????

Northern Ireland won't let them.

Life_ina_market_town said:

williamglenn said:

That's all very well but I think Sturgeon is fundamentally right that if Scotland (or NI) votes differently to the UK as a whole that it would be tantamount to a vote to secede and would, in the SNP's case, be grounds for a further independence referendum.

The UK is not a federal state but we'd do well to start thinking of ourselves that way. We don't have a great record so far of maintaining the territorial integrity and cohesion of a unitary state spanning these islands.

The question will be "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?" (clause 1(4) of the Bill). Those in Scotland will be voting about what the position of the United Kingdom will be, not what the position of Scotland ought to be.

That's what they should be doing and what may well be the legal position, hence why the double lock idea cannot really be entertained I think, but sadly the political consequences will not care what the legal position is. In this scenario it won't be 'Oh, the UK as a whole voted this way, that's alright then', it'll be 'Scotland voted differently and so this cannot stand' and a fine old pretext for another IndyRef, not that one may be needed depending on the 2016 Holyrood elections and what position they take on another one.

kle4 said:

That's what they should be doing and what may well be the legal position, hence why the double lock idea cannot really be entertained I think, but sadly the political consequences will not care what the legal position is. In this scenario it won't be 'Oh, the UK as a whole voted this way, that's alright then', it'll be 'Scotland voted differently and so this cannot stand' and a fine old pretext for another IndyRef, not that one may be needed depending on the 2016 Holyrood elections and what position they take on another one.

Of course the Scots nationalists will attempt to use the result of the referendum for their political advantage. They have every right to, and why wouldn't they? If the majority of Scots voted to leave, but the UK to stay in, I have no doubt Ms Sturgeon et al. will become Damascene converts to the cause of Euroscepticism.

What is clear, however, is that if the majority of Scots vote to stay in, but the rest of the UK votes to leave, that will not in and of itself be a mandate for Scottish secession. A mandate for that will require a referendum on that question. That will almost certainly require the consent of the Westminster Parliament, which, as Cameron has made clear, will not be forthcoming any time soon. Her Majesty's Government has every right to treat the referendum in 2013 as settling the matter for a generation.

Life_ina_market_town said:

kle4 said:

That's what they should be doing and what may well be the legal position, hence why the double lock idea cannot really be entertained I think, but sadly the political consequences will not care what the legal position is. In this scenario it won't be 'Oh, the UK as a whole voted this way, that's alright then', it'll be 'Scotland voted differently and so this cannot stand' and a fine old pretext for another IndyRef, not that one may be needed depending on the 2016 Holyrood elections and what position they take on another one.

Of course the Scots nationalists will attempt to use the result of the referendum for their political advantage. They have every right to, and why wouldn't they? If the majority of Scots voted to leave, but the UK to stay in, I have no doubt Ms Sturgeon et al. will become Damascene converts to the cause of Euroscepticism.

What is clear, however, is that if the majority of Scots vote to stay in, but the rest of the UK votes to leave, that will not in and of itself be a mandate for Scottish secession. A mandate for that will require a referendum on that question. That will almost certainly require the consent of the Westminster Parliament, which, as Cameron has made clear, will not be forthcoming any time soon. Her Majesty's Government has every right to treat the referendum in 2013 as settling the matter for a generation.

Hohum, don't know. Williamglenn is right, and while LIAMT is right about questioning how far Sturgeon's argument will get at Westminster nevertheless I think it will be forceful indeed, ASSUMING we get a different result in Scotland (and not 51/49).

Perhaps the most interesting outcome would be a 51/49 for In UK wide, but Out in England.

Stark_Dawning said:

Sandpit said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Disraeli, precisely.

She's simply seeking to foster division, which is the SNP's modus operandi when it comes to the UK.

Cameron needs to put Salmond and Sturgeon back in their boxes, and quickly.
The government reaction to the SNP should be to ignore them completely. They represent only a small fraction of MPs and and any concessions made to them will be met only by a new list of demands. They really can't win by engaging with the Nats.

Very true.The SNP have realized they'll never be able to win a referendum so have embarked on a different tack: antagonize the English so much that they effectively get Scotland expelled from the union. Of course, the English are a race of supreme tolerance and patience and will never be goaded into such impetuousness. Nonetheless, the antics of Salmond and his motley crew can't fail to drag Scotland's good name through the mud. We English have a duty to make it clear to the Scots that we see the SNP merely as cluster of unrepresentative eccentrics and outriders - not a symptom of some wider malaise.

I think that you might be surprised if you asked Scots what they think of the antics of the SNP in the HoC.
I think that quite a lot of people up here would be broadly supportive of what they are doing to upset what is perceived as some of the posher, upperclass part of England. I'm not saying that it is everyone but probably atleast in line with the amount of support that the SNP party have generally.

Carnyx said:

The_Apocalypse said:

I personally think Sol Campbell would be a completely disastrous choice for the Conservative party. I recall, during the election campaign, reading a Guardian interview with Campbell, were he came across as completely self-obsessed and the epitome of narcissism, proclaiming that we he'd grown up, there had been 'no safety net'. Given that Campbell was born in the 70s, that is actually impossible, and would have grown up in the 80s and 90s - when a welfare state did indeed exist, that is actually impossible. In order for the Tories to win the London, they need a fairly moderate candidate, or at least one that come across that way, and can relate to people. Boris Johnson, to all intends and purposes came across as a 'moderate' Conservative to Londoners, in what is a metropolitan, liberal, centre-left city. Sol Campbell, does not come off as a moderate at all tbh, and if anything will probably have issues attempting to understand the London electorate - something which is vital.

I'd argue the ideal candidate for the Conservatives, who could genuinely win would be Zac Goldsmith - someone who isn't too ideological, and quite people-friendly. It would be a shame if Conservative HQ didn't back him.

That's very interesting.

This is spot on as regards Campbell, regardless of the Arsenal-Spurs thing he has a habit of saying things in interviews that make him sound borderline delusional, like the claim that he'd have been England captain for 10 years if he wasn't black. Now there maybe some truth to the claim that black players may have got a raw deal due to football's old boys network, but not even Bobby Moore managed that, let alone someone who was known for being a bit of a loner within the game and wasn't necessarily well liked in dressing rooms. The story about him telling the sports minister and collected FA bods 'But I am Sol Campbell' is cringeworthily hilarious. If he is to go into politics, best for it not to be in a job when he'll be constantly badgered by the media.

A Goldsmith candidacy could be dangerous for the Tories in the long run - his independence could set up a few battles with a Tory government. Unlike Boris, where disagreements were largely sound and fury and his own ambitions, he would actually pick a fight over a point of principle and run with it until it became severely embarrassing. Brady will probably be more interested in 2020 - she's got a lot on her plate in 2016 with West Ham's stadium move. Goldsmith would be the intelligent choice - a sort of Boris without the baggage and vanity, which people may be tiring of.

Saltire said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Sandpit said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Disraeli, precisely.

She's simply seeking to foster division, which is the SNP's modus operandi when it comes to the UK.

Cameron needs to put Salmond and Sturgeon back in their boxes, and quickly.
The government reaction to the SNP should be to ignore them completely. They represent only a small fraction of MPs and and any concessions made to them will be met only by a new list of demands. They really can't win by engaging with the Nats.

Very true.The SNP have realized they'll never be able to win a referendum so have embarked on a different tack: antagonize the English so much that they effectively get Scotland expelled from the union. Of course, the English are a race of supreme tolerance and patience and will never be goaded into such impetuousness. Nonetheless, the antics of Salmond and his motley crew can't fail to drag Scotland's good name through the mud. We English have a duty to make it clear to the Scots that we see the SNP merely as cluster of unrepresentative eccentrics and outriders - not a symptom of some wider malaise.

I think that you might be surprised if you asked Scots what they think of the antics of the SNP in the HoC.
I think that quite a lot of people up here would be broadly supportive of what they are doing to upset what is perceived as some of the posher, upperclass part of England. I'm not saying that it is everyone but probably atleast in line with the amount of support that the SNP party have generally.

I never thought of Denis Skinner as one of the posher, upper class of England, but I suppose class is all about relative position of the observer.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The SNP will need all their attention in Holyrood where their power is at present. When George Osborne announces the welfare cuts on the 8th July they will have to use their new found tax raising powers to maintain, let alone increase welfare in Scotland, as they will not win an austerity argument in RUK

What will they do when Osborne announces tax cuts for the English?

surbiton said:

What is the SNP doing in the HoC that is wrong ? They are saying that they will not accept some stupid laughable conventions. Good.

Even Ryanair now has allocated seating. Time to build a new parliament next to the NEC.

SandyRentool said:

surbiton said:

What is the SNP doing in the HoC that is wrong ? They are saying that they will not accept some stupid laughable conventions. Good.

Even Ryanair now has allocated seating.

No that you mention it, Pam Ann would make a good speaker.

surbiton said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

surbiton said:

What is the SNP doing in the HoC that is wrong ? They are saying that they will not accept some stupid laughable conventions. Good.

It will be interesting to see that if they continue to defy Bercow he suspends some or all of them

They will ask Bercow if he knew where his wife was.

Really ?

Life_ina_market_town said:

kle4 said:

That's what they should be doing and what may well be the legal position, hence why the double lock idea cannot really be entertained I think, but sadly the political consequences will not care what the legal position is. In this scenario it won't be 'Oh, the UK as a whole voted this way, that's alright then', it'll be 'Scotland voted differently and so this cannot stand' and a fine old pretext for another IndyRef, not that one may be needed depending on the 2016 Holyrood elections and what position they take on another one.

Of course the Scots nationalists will attempt to use the result of the referendum for their political advantage. They have every right to, and why wouldn't they? If the majority of Scots voted to leave, but the UK to stay in, I have no doubt Ms Sturgeon et al. will become Damascene converts to the cause of Euroscepticism.

What is clear, however, is that if the majority of Scots vote to stay in, but the rest of the UK votes to leave, that will not in and of itself be a mandate for Scottish secession. A mandate for that will require a referendum on that question. That will almost certainly require the consent of the Westminster Parliament, which, as Cameron has made clear, will not be forthcoming any time soon. Her Majesty's Government has every right to treat the referendum in 2013 as settling the matter for a generation.

The Smith Comission says hat the future of Scottish Independence is in the hands of the people of Scotland. Tow withhold consent in the hypothetical situation where as bill has been passed at Holyrood to hold a referendum by a party or union of parties holding more than 50% of the seats who had stood on a platform of holding a referendum would be pretty gob smacking.

First exit polls from Italy regional elections indicating PD set to lose Liguria.

Flightpathl said:

SandyRentool said:

surbiton said:

What is the SNP doing in the HoC that is wrong ? They are saying that they will not accept some stupid laughable conventions. Good.

Even Ryanair now has allocated seating. Time to build a new parliament next to the NEC.

Flush with other peoples money aren't you. And for what?

Well, we could have two Parliament buildings - one next to the NEC and one in London. Then we could alternate between the two. We could have the MPs sit one week in the NEC building out of every four, and the remaining three weeks in London. All the civil servants and government documents could be packed up and moved with them.

Hang on, I think some lunatics somewhere are already using that system though .... ;-)

Life_ina_market_town said:

Alistair said:

The Smith Comission says hat the future of Scottish Independence is in the hands of the people of Scotland. Tow withhold consent in the hypothetical situation where as bill has been passed at Holyrood to hold a referendum by a party or union of parties holding more than 50% of the seats who had stood on a platform of holding a referendum would be pretty gob smacking.

The Report of the Smith Commission for further devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament states at p. 12 that "nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose." True enough. The Smith Commission, which recommends increases in the powers of the Scottish Parliament, is not a fetter on the power of the Scottish Parliament to provide for the holding of a second referendum. Two things, however, are fetters of that nature.
(1) Those parts of the Scotland Act 1998, unaffected by Smith or the Scotland Bill, which most people agree prevent the Scottish Parliament unilaterally holding a second independence referendum.
(2) The fact that both sides agreed before the referendum that the result would settle the matter for a generation.
For Westminster Parliament to refuse to consent to a second independence referendum would be no more "gob smacking" than if it refused to consent to a demand of the Scottish Parliament to legislate on British nationality, international relations, defence or any other reserved matter.

I don't remember seeing "settle the matter for a generation" in the Edinburgh Agreement.

Huzzah for Dave, he has finally seen sense

David Cameron has ruled out withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights despite objections from Michael Gove, the Justice Secretary, and Theresa May, the Home Secretary.

http://bit.ly/1HYvcIc

JosiasJessop said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Had tea with Her Maj in Windsor yesterday

Only kidding, but I did go to Windsor (via the GWR route for those interested), also went on a boat trip as far upstream as Bray.

Ah, I think you must have gone over Brunel's magnificent bowstring bridge over the Thames. A much-ignored masterpiece that still looks surprisingly modern (the new railway bridge on London Road in Derby is also a bowstring, although a much more boring design).

I did indeed go over that bridge!

Shame that the station is now reduced to only one three-car platform (normal service on a busy Saturday only a 2-car Class 165!), but much of the 1897 structure is still in use as the Windsor Royal Shopping centre.

Alistair said:

Yvette Cooper's price starting to eek in a little, last price matched @ 5.6

Has she cleared 35 ?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Huzzah for Dave, he has finally seen sense

David Cameron has ruled out withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights despite objections from Michael Gove, the Justice Secretary, and Theresa May, the Home Secretary.

http://bit.ly/1HYvcIc

Is this the fastest breaking of an election promise in British political history?

Pulpstar said:

Alistair said:

Yvette Cooper's price starting to eek in a little, last price matched @ 5.6

Has she cleared 35 ?

From the look of her, she might have cleared 50....

TheScreamingEagles said:

Huzzah for Dave, he has finally seen sense

David Cameron has ruled out withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights despite objections from Michael Gove, the Justice Secretary, and Theresa May, the Home Secretary.

A great opportunity for reform has been lost. It is unsurprising, however, since Cameron has never attempted to be a radical Prime Minister. The error the Conservatives made was failing to diagnose the problem, which was principally the Convention itself, rather than Strasbourg (despite its many faults). There is still a faint hope that the Human Rights Act 1998 will be repealed, and that our obligations under 46 of the Convention will have the same status in domestic law as our supposed liabilities to the creditors of the now defunct International Tin Council. It is now looking ever more likely that the UK will still be a party to the Convention and the 1998 Act will be in force at the next general election.

@AndyJS thanks for linking to the LBC election night broadcast last night. I listened to it this morning, most interesting.

Dave is steadily boosting Con numbers in the House of Lords.

6 new Con Peers have joined since the GE - and that's before we get the actual dissolution honours list.

Latest state of parties is Con 229, Lab 212, LD 100

It's not that long ago (12 to 18 months?) that Con and Lab were equal.

Con still miles behind Lab + LD but he's moving in the right direction at a decent pace.

http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/new-lords/

AndreaParma_82 said:

First exit polls from Italy regional elections indicating PD set to lose Liguria.

According to Reuters, that looked shaky due to the presence of a "breakaway left wing candidate." Any other results in?

LIAMT

We may get another chance.

The EU's clear reluctance to back the Strasbourg court gives the clear impression of an imminent, indeed ongoing, land grab.

Like the dozen other institutions the EU has swallowed I doubt the ECtHR will last the hug of death.

...although I confess I have all bases covered unless favourite Burnham wins.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

@AndyJS thanks for linking to the LBC election night broadcast last night. I listened to it this morning, most interesting.

I've reached 1:30am so far. It's pretty good, except for missing the first result in Houghton.

Actually, I was listening to it in conjunction with reading the comments on PB. Quite an entertaining combination I thought.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

rottenborough said:

Cooper is excellent value IMHO at 5/1. Close your eyes and imagine who is facing Cameron at PMQs in October.

I got 6.6 yesterday.

As I mentioned, still getting used to the BetFair mechanic - and I don't want to rush. If betting is risk, then understanding the mechanic is a risk one should master.

Thats pretty good. I am in on 7. Although may go back for more later this week.

Life_ina_market_town said:

Alistair said:

So you are putting no stock in a document signed by The Prime Minister and the First Minister in their official capacity but feel that statements very clearly made as personal opinions by them are binding?

Weird.

The Edinburgh Agreement is irrelevant to this question. It was a very short agreement between HMG and the Scots Government which dealt with how an independence referendum could be lawfully enacted by the Scottish Parliament. It did not say (1) whether it set a precedent for allowing the Scots Parliament to call an independence referendum whenever there was a majority for it in that Parliament, or (2) whether the referendum would settle the matter for a period of time. It didn't mention those things, because it had no need to. On the other hand, almost all major Scottish politician agreed during the campaign that the referendum would settle the matter for a generation. That was the basis on which the Scottish electorate voted, and the Westminster Parliament is within its rights to treat their decision as settling the matter for a generation.

So you are saying that if the SNP stand for election at Holyrood on a platform of an Independence referendum in the next parliament and they get, for the sake of the argument, 100% of the vote that Westminster would not authorise a second IndyRef?

"nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose."

People of Scotland) We choose for Scotland to become independent
Westminster) No

This is an odd definition of not preventing

TheWhiteRabbit said:

LIAMT

We may get another chance.

The EU's clear reluctance to back the Strasbourg court gives the clear impression of an imminent, indeed ongoing, land grab.

Like the dozen other institutions the EU has swallowed I doubt the ECtHR will last the hug of death.

This is pure nonsense. The Charter of Fundamental Rights must be interpreted consistently with Strasbourg case law (article 6(1) TEU). The EU Heads of Government are also very strongly in favour of EU accession to the ECHR, specifically inserting a requirement that the EU must accede to the Convention into the Treaties themselves. The Convention rights constitute general principles of EU law (see articles 6(2)-(3) TEU, and Protocol 8 to the Treaties). Great effort and expense was wasted negotiating the EU's accession to the Convention for second time. The opposition to accession has come, as it has always done, from the Court of Justice, which rightly fears that accession will mean a disintegration of the autonomy of EU law, and a threat to its supremacy. Hence the Court has again declared that accession is incompatible with the Treaties (see Re (Opinion 2/94) Accession of the Community to the European Human Rights Convention [1996] 2 CMLR 265; Re Opinion 2/13 of the court (Re accession to European Convention on Human Rights) [2015] 2 CMLR 21).

Alistair said:

So you are saying that if the SNP stand for election at Holyrood on a platform of an Independence referendum in the next parliament and they get, for the sake of the argument, 100% of the vote that Westminster would not authorise a second IndyRef?

"nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose."

People of Scotland) We choose for Scotland to become independent
Westminster) No

This is an odd definition of not preventing

The thing that prevents another referendum in the foreseeable future is not the Smith Commission, but the result of the previous referendum. If Cornish nationalists took control of Cornwall Council demanding a secession referendum to settle the matter for a generation, no doubt one would be granted by the Westminster Parliament. If the Cornish electorate then voted to remain part of the UK, however, the Westminster Parliament would not be obliged to grant a further referendum after every subsequent local government election. Had the Smith Commission been intended to give the Scottish Parliament the power unilaterally to hold independence referendums, it would have said so in express words. It didn't.

PD trailing in Umbria in the first projection: 41 to 40%.

If PD lose both Liguria and Umbria, they couldn't spin as a good night. They need a 5-2 rather than a 4-3

La7 (another channel)'s early projections have PD just ahead in Umbria rather than just behind. So a long night there.

For 5 Stars we must wait for their final shares in various contests. How many 20% plus can they get? Surely Liguria and Marche. Maybe Campania and Puglia.

rcs1000 said:

AndreaParma_82 said:

Rai is indicating a ahead to ahead in Liguria. Their first projections based on 8% counted is 31% Forza Italia and co 30% PD 24% 5 Stelle.

The breakaway left wing candidate (after a messy primary contests) is around 10-11%.

Other Rai early projections:


Early indications from Tuscany is PD 47% with Lega runner up at around 20%.

In Marche PD at 39% with 5 Stelle second at 24%.

Puglia is PD candidate at 44% with 5 Stelle second at 20%

Veneto is Lega incumbent 45% with PD woman 25% and Verona mayor (Lega splinter) at 13%.

PD is ahead in Campania so sar.

rcs1000 said:

AndreaParma_82 said:

First exit polls from Italy regional elections indicating PD set to lose Liguria.

According to Reuters, that looked shaky due to the presence of a "breakaway left wing candidate." Any other results in?

Sounds pretty much as expected. Slightly disappointing for Five Star, slightly better than expected for Lega and co.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

AndyJS said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Huzzah for Dave, he has finally seen sense

David Cameron has ruled out withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights despite objections from Michael Gove, the Justice Secretary, and Theresa May, the Home Secretary.

http://bit.ly/1HYvcIc

Is this the fastest breaking of an election promise in British political history?

He didn't promise to leave the ECHR, he promised to repeal the HRA.

Correct. But for all sides, politicians being misquoted goes with the territory. Its how a politician lives with that which is the nub of the matter.

Life_ina_market_town said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Huzzah for Dave, he has finally seen sense

David Cameron has ruled out withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights despite objections from Michael Gove, the Justice Secretary, and Theresa May, the Home Secretary.

A great opportunity for reform has been lost. It is unsurprising, however, since Cameron has never attempted to be a radical Prime Minister. The error the Conservatives made was failing to diagnose the problem, which was principally the Convention itself, rather than Strasbourg (despite its many faults). There is still a faint hope that the Human Rights Act 1998 will be repealed, and that our obligations under 46 of the Convention will have the same status in domestic law as our supposed liabilities to the creditors of the now defunct International Tin Council. It is now looking ever more likely that the UK will still be a party to the Convention and the 1998 Act will be in force at the next general election.

How nice it is to hear of the dear old International Tin Council again! That was the very first case I did when I first went into private practice.

Cyclefree said:

How nice it is to hear of the dear old International Tin Council again! That was the very first case I did when I first went into private practice.

Lord Templeman's outstanding rant in that case deserves quotation:

My Lords, these appeals raise a short question of construction of the plain words of a statutory instrument. The trial judges and the Court of Appeal rightly decided this question in favour of the respondents. Losing the construction argument, the appellants put forward alternative submissions which are unsustainable. Those submissions, if accepted, would involve a breach of the British constitution and an invasion by the judiciary of the functions of the Government and of Parliament. The Government may negotiate, conclude, construe, observe, breach, repudiate or terminate a treaty. Parliament may alter the laws of the United Kingdom. The courts must enforce those laws; judges have no power to grant specific performance of a treaty or to award damages against a sovereign state for breach of a treaty or to invent laws or misconstrue legislation in order to enforce a treaty.

An intemperate man, but miles ahead of the current constitution of the Supreme Court.

Flightpathl said:

There seems little reason to withdraw from the convention. Its the way its being misinterpreted and misused which is the issue. The problem is the HRA which allows our own judges to impose their notions of 'right to family life' etc.

Article 8 of the Convention provides that any "interference" with a person's right to respect for their family life in the United Kingdom must be no more than necessary in a democratic society for the pursuit of a legitimate aim contained in article 8(2). The 1998 Act merely gives effect to this bizarre obligation in domestic law. If we remain a party to the Convention, but repeal the 1998 Act, then the Strasbourg Court (whose interpretation of article 8 is considerably more radical than that of our judges) will have a monopoly to interpret and apply article 8 in the UK.