|
Post by Gone on Sept 9, 2019 13:41:49 GMT
So technically he could follow the orinal law as that has precedence? interesting eh That was the choice before the new law was bought in. He now has to follow both laws so in practical (but not technical) terms the second law legally amends the first law. The sooner the extension is agreed the sooner the election can happen - down to Boris de pifle and the EU for timescales now. Even if the law to force Boris to ask for an extension is passed today, if the French say ‘non’ there will be no extension and if labour block an early election, then there will be nothing to stop us crashing out....... So I guess Boris’s cunning plan will be to antagonise and generally upset a few key E.U. countries so that at least one votes ‘no’ to our extension request.
|
|
|
Post by patty on Sept 9, 2019 15:24:50 GMT
That was the choice before the new law was bought in. He now has to follow both laws so in practical (but not technical) terms the second law legally amends the first law. The sooner the extension is agreed the sooner the election can happen - down to Boris de pifle and the EU for timescales now. Even if the law to force Boris to ask for an extension is passed today, if the French say ‘non’ there will be no extension and if labour block an early election, then there will be nothing to stop us crashing out....... So I guess Boris’s cunning plan will be to antagonise and generally upset a few key E.U. countries so that at least one votes ‘no’ to our extension request. Unless they all hate Boris and want to see him out.... Ever get the feeling its a personal vendetta between so many people now and newt to do with the referendum result? As per what is becoming the norm in politics we've lost sight of any agenda...
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Sept 9, 2019 15:36:08 GMT
Even if the law to force Boris to ask for an extension is passed today, if the French say ‘non’ there will be no extension and if labour block an early election, then there will be nothing to stop us crashing out....... So I guess Boris’s cunning plan will be to antagonise and generally upset a few key E.U. countries so that at least one votes ‘no’ to our extension request. Unless they all hate Boris and want to see him out.... Ever get the feeling its a personal vendetta between so many people now and newt to do with the referendum result? As per what is becoming the norm in politics we've lost sight of any agenda... Definitely. They are all at it. Corbyn spent many years as a back bench mp slagging off the E.U., now he wants to remain, could it be because it hurts the Tory party?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Sept 9, 2019 16:04:40 GMT
" You can picture naughtyfox shambling along to the cashpoint each month to check his EU pension has been paid in, and his subscription to Pornhub has been paid out. " I take it you will be refusing the one the Finns might offer you if you are a good boy then? Or is it "do as I say not as I do"?
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Sept 9, 2019 16:51:21 GMT
It's not a matter of 'offering' - more like I have earned my pension. If I make it another 6 years.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Sept 9, 2019 17:43:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Sept 9, 2019 17:58:01 GMT
John Major ate Edwina Curry.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Sept 9, 2019 18:33:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Sept 10, 2019 7:03:44 GMT
With the Speaker required as part of the pomp and ceremony to walk from the Commons through to the Lords, Labour's Lloyd Russell-Moyle, 35, threw himself across Mr Bercow, seemingly in a symbolic bid to block him moving. Ginger head around Bercow's nether-regions. Focus on Lloyd Russell-Moyle: MP for Brighton Kemptown. CV peppered with FUCK ALL. Standing in Parliament to announce to the world that he’s been a little bit of a naughty boy and as a result has contracted AIDS he had the temerity to declare he didn’t want a public out pouring of sympathy for being so brave…….. It seems drama queen twattery is not a stranger to him. He also went into one big stylie when Theresa May cancelled the deal vote and grabbed the ‘ceremonial mace’ in protest……the only ‘mace’ that should have been grabbed was the type that comes in a can and promptly sprayed into the idiot’s face. At PMQs this afternoon, mace-wielding prat Lloyd Russell-Moyle accused Andrea Leadsom of having said that “parents should decide when they are exposed to LGBT education,” whipping out the accusation that this was “Conservative Party dog-whistle politics.” The only problem is that Andrea Leadsom didn’t say that at all… What Leadsom actually said was that she supports LGBT relationship education: “It’s absolutely vital that children do grow up understanding the society they live in and they grow up tolerant, seeking equality and respecting differences… I think it is the case that you have to allow parents to choose to withdraw their children up to a certain age, but at the same time in order to have an equal society there comes a point where children do need to understand the social norms around them.” Curiously, Russell-Moyle hasn’t said anything about the Labour MP Shabana Mahmood who has been directly supporting the parents in Birmingham who are campaigning against LGBT-inclusive education. Even Owen Jones condemned her, but somehow Russell-Moyle hasn’t said a word on it.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Sept 10, 2019 11:00:23 GMT
The unprecedented rise in property values is driven by two major factors: 1. The ability of fat cats from the City to invest in property either as a second home or as a static cash haven. This practice is not limited to London. 2. Average joes leaping onto the buy-to-let bandwagon, which has been reigned in a bit since the reduction of a tax break, about three years ago. I personally know an ex-cab driver who bought quite a few derelict houses in the north of England entirely on bank loans and rented them. He is your actual slum-landlord who preys directly on the poorest in society and the availability of housing benefit. He now lives in a multi-bedroom mansion in a leafy north London suburb, paid for by a system which encourages exploitation. This is the same system which blames the disenfranchised for the woes of society every time a recession rears its ugly head, which it will continue to do, since economic recession is essential to the function of capitalism. Blaming the poor deflects attention away from the nature of the system you love so much. Its a cynical trick but one which mentally deficient twats fall for every time. Of course, even daring to suggest that the recent economic crash was the result of unmitigated greed is too much for some, but it led to the funnelling of even more cash into property by those with greasy bank accounts. Please refer to point 1 if you feel confused. Just for the record, and to leave you in no doubt that I do not think the sun shines from the arses of the Labour Party faithful, I would remind you it was the easy availability of credit and the buy it now, pay later culture of the society led by the governments of Blair and Brown which sleep-walked us into this current mess. Do not forget that it was Brown who removed restrictions on London's trading markets which had been in place since the global depression sparked by the Wall Street crash of 1929. The more you make vile statements about Jewish people and now some half-baked comment about 'commies' just shows you up for the intellectually-challenged ignorant neo-nazi you obviously are. Anarchy with responsibility? You clearly utterly fail to understand your own mantra. What a twat. if people keep on coming here in the numbers that currently are, we will never ever be able to build that number of houses on a continues basis! So that for me is a real reason for affordable houses becoming unaffordable I would agree with this, greed and buy to let exacerbated the problem but in them selves were not the primary cause, that was due to a plain supply and demand situation
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Sept 10, 2019 11:31:25 GMT
Buy to let is/ was a contributory factor towards the shift in the balance between supply and demand, in favour of demand, hence higher prices.
Rents have not risen as much as they would have done had buy to let not become popular, as less properties would have been available for rent. This is complicated of course by an argument that had had buy to let not expanded more people would have bought rather than rented, lowering the demand for renting.
Supply and demand sets the price of everything, unless governments legislate otherwise. It's naïve to blame any particular situation on one factor, a factor applying to only one side of the supply/ demand equation; while ignoring the other.
|
|