Loz

I have a wifi extender and it works fine. There was a good deal on one in the Amazon Prime sale today.

Quicker, easier and less admin to just join the Lib Dems en masse.

An interesting idea being bandied around... the Leader of the Opposition is defined as "Leader in that House of the party in opposition to Her Majesty's Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons.". The Leader in that House. You could interpret that as not (necessarily) being the official party leader. Can the 178 rebel Labour MPs propose a new Leader in the House, and therefore the leader of the opposition?

I dunno, quids - you only need about 35% to govern and, from what I saw on the TV, quite a few of the Leavers were usually non-voters.

If Labour had any business sense (yeah, I know...), they'd up the ?3 supporters fee to ?50 or even ?100 and at least make some dosh from the upcoming debacle.

Interesting times ahead. I reckon May might just go for an election in 3-6 months time if Labour start to rip themselves apart. Give herself a mandate in her own right.

The NEC has voted for a secret ballot for the Corbyn question. He may be toast...

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > > Not true Foxy. Hindenburg was indeed elected and > > appointed Hitler as Chancellor, but Hitler later > > won an election as the largest party, though > > needed to go into coalition to form government. > > It was a bit like the Referendum.. lets a re-run > .. and a bit of jiggling 'till I win.. No, not at all. Hitler's party won the most seats in all three elections before the Nazi's took over, but they didn't win enough seats to form government... and neither did anyone else. So they were reheld. So more like Harold Wilson's minority government of 1974, where another election had to be held later in the year.

I would have thought after Harriet Harman's big pink bus, they would have avoided that sort of imagery. (And no, "Harriet Harman's big pink bus" is not a euphemism. For anything.)

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > red devil Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > So we'll have a PM that hasn't been elected > either > > by the Tory membership or the country as a > whole. > > Brilliant!... > > It happens.. Hitler was never elected.. Hindenburg > got the majority vote. and the rest ia history. Not true Foxy. Hindenburg was indeed elected and appointed Hitler as Chancellor, but Hitler later won an election as the largest party, though needed to go into coalition to form government.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So we'll have a PM that hasn't been elected either > by the Tory membership or the country as a whole. > Brilliant!... Same happened with Gordon Brown.

Reports are saying she couldn't take the heat of the campaign after her ill-judged 'motherhood' comment. That would have been nothing compared to actually being PM, so she is best off out of it.

xkcd had it best...

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And I do not think he will survive as Labour Leader. If he does, I'm not sure there will be much left of Labour to lead.

Leadsom and Corbyn. This country has no hope if that happens.

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have nearly come a cropper (well I would have, had I not been doing just > 30mph and paying attention) Isn't 30mph the speed limit there?

Horsebox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Anything else you see for sale, on the street, on the beach of from someone who's 'brother-in-law > works for Cohiba' will 99% be fake. Agreed. And not even good fake. I bought one off a casa particulares host - an industrial suction pump wouldn't have been able to draw air through it.

Actually, RH, that will affect both social and private rental sectors, since most newcomers rent in some shape or form. But again, downward pressure on rental supply can only lead rents in one direction.

About 50% of homes in London are owner-occupied, about 25% social housing and 25% private rent. It's obvious that moving property from the private rent sector to the owner-occupier sector will have a larger effect on the private rent sector that the owner sector. Just look at the massive pressure on social housing. That was 35% in 1981 and 25% now. By your theory, there shouldn't be a problem as the demand and supply evens each other out across the sectors. But it hasn't worked that way, has it? Rents will go up. It's basic economics.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's obviously a simplification, but the basic > point remains - there's no reason why a BTL > landlord selling up will lead to increased rents, > because it doesn't affect the supply or demand for > property. I just explained how it can. You are assuming that supply and demand are fixed amounts. They are not. Demand in London is traditionally greater than supply. Population increase is faster than property building. That's why councils often have to put people up in B&Bs. And one more: people often rent in shared houses (HMOs). They rarely buy in shared houses.

Personally, I'd rather the centre-right Tory MPs and the centre-left Labour MPs join with the Lib Dems and create a new centrist party. Leave the true left-wings and the right-wings out in the cold where they should be. As I said the other day, Labour has always been a coalition of sorts... and that's what has got them to the point they are now. Extending that coalition will probably only fuel the fire.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When a BTL landlord sells, the property doesn't disappear, unless it's left vacant, which seems > unlikely. It's either bought by someone else and rented out, or owner-occupied (taking one more > potential renter out of the rental market, directly or indirectly). That is true, but currently you need a household salary of about 70-80k to afford to buy a house in London. Move rental properties to the purchase market and, yes, people with these level of salaries will buy them. But the rental market is already under a lot of pressure, so this will raise prices in that market as supply lowers, which will have a big effect on those on lower salaries. Not all people can buy. Not all people want to buy. Having said that, houses at the lower end of the market are mostly being moved from private landlords to corporate landlords. That will almost certainly not be good for competition. I just can't see the upside of this policy. It is erratically applied and helps just about no one, but has the potential to hurt those people who have to or want to rent.

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I welcome comments. Either Reuben is a complete idiot, or he is in desperate need of 10k. The EU is neither, so that particular game theory is utterly irrelevant. Unless you mean the UK is Reuben.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Radio London now agog with 'how do you feel about having a female PM' discussion, which is a bit > disappointing as you'd hope that in 21st Century Britain, 30-whatever years after Thatcher and with > Europe's strongest leader also a woman, we could discuss the candidates without their selection > being qualified by being female. Well, if you can get the Guardian to shut up about the candidates' gender for a few days, good luck to you.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Will Gove have to resign now? After going against Cameron and then turning against Boris, surely > he's too much of a risk to the party. As MP or minister? Not sure he will resign from the cabinet, but the likelihood of him being a cabinet minister to either of the candidates seems to have dropped markedly over the past week. I can't see him resigning as an MP.