Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Type 45
    • By Type 45 3rd Apr 18, 7:18 PM
    • 59Posts
    • 6Thanks
    Type 45
    Next recession, trade wars, up to 50% portfolio losses
    • #1
    • 3rd Apr 18, 7:18 PM
    Next recession, trade wars, up to 50% portfolio losses 3rd Apr 18 at 7:18 PM
    Anyone concerned?
Page 7
    • eskbanker
    • By eskbanker 10th Apr 18, 10:27 AM
    • 6,805 Posts
    • 7,058 Thanks
    eskbanker
    Democracy?
    When did we elect the Head of State and Hangers On, or the absurdly over-populated House of Lords? (bigger than the whole of the EU Parliament for 27 countries)
    - both of which have power of veto over the 'democratically elected' who are held up by bribes to buy DUP votes.
    An unbiased media would give at least equal coverage to the campaign for an elected Head of State, as it gives to Royal Births and Weddings etc.
    Originally posted by Glen Clark
    When did the head of state last exercise a power of veto over anything?
    • IanManc
    • By IanManc 10th Apr 18, 10:37 AM
    • 521 Posts
    • 847 Thanks
    IanManc
    When did the head of state last exercise a power of veto over anything?
    Originally posted by eskbanker
    When Queen Anne refused Royal Assent to the Scottish Militia Bill on 11 March 1708.
    • eskbanker
    • By eskbanker 10th Apr 18, 10:46 AM
    • 6,805 Posts
    • 7,058 Thanks
    eskbanker
    When Queen Anne refused Royal Assent to the Scottish Militia Bill on 11 March 1708.
    Originally posted by IanManc
    ....but was that accurately reported on that evening's News at Ten?
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 10th Apr 18, 10:49 AM
    • 3,909 Posts
    • 6,107 Thanks
    Malthusian
    An unbiased media would give at least equal coverage to the campaign for an elected Head of State, as it gives to Royal Births and Weddings etc.
    Originally posted by Glen Clark
    Ooh, that's a tough one. Do we broadcast footage of a royal wedding with parades, flags, pomp, circumstance and a celebration of national unity and shared history, or do we broadcast interviews with tedious shrivelled-up pub bores who spend their free time smugly correcting anyone who refers to 'British citizens' ("don't you know you're a subject?") while wearing "Blair for President" T-shirts.
    • Reaper
    • By Reaper 10th Apr 18, 10:55 AM
    • 6,224 Posts
    • 4,477 Thanks
    Reaper
    Democracy?
    When did we elect the Head of State and Hangers On, or the absurdly over-populated House of Lords? (bigger than the whole of the EU Parliament for 27 countries)
    - both of which have power of veto over the 'democratically elected' who are held up by bribes to buy DUP votes.
    Originally posted by Glen Clark
    I have a soft spot for the House of Lords. Its members don't have to pander to public opinion and party whips have limited control over the members because they tend not to have any political ambitions that can be manipulated. As a result they can look objectively at daft legislation pushed through the Commons and point out the flaws.

    Although you say they have a power of veto they do not. They can only delay bills for between 1 month and 1 year, and some types not at all.

    Personally I would like to see it have more power to act as a break on stupid, ill thought out measures governments push though to jump on the latest band wagon, but sadly there is no prospect of that happening.
    • IanManc
    • By IanManc 10th Apr 18, 11:08 AM
    • 521 Posts
    • 847 Thanks
    IanManc
    Ooh, that's a tough one. Do we broadcast footage of a royal wedding with parades, flags, pomp, circumstance and a celebration of national unity and shared history, or do we broadcast interviews with tedious shrivelled-up pub bores who spend their free time smugly correcting anyone who refers to 'British citizens' ("don't you know you're a subject?") while wearing "Blair for President" T-shirts.
    Originally posted by Malthusian
    Excellent!

    I love it when people roll out this argument when they're in the middle of a rant about the UK not being a democracy but being a feudal monarchy.

    In fact we are British Citizens. To check that you just need to look at your passport, on the page with the photograph on, and underneath your name it says "Nationality - British Citizen".

    British Subjects are a dwindling group of people who had British nationality and lived in Empire countries but did not take the nationality of that country when it became independent. They do not have a right of abode in the UK and can not pass on their nationality to their offspring, so the group is declining in number and is reckoned to be about thirty thousand.
    • Glen Clark
    • By Glen Clark 10th Apr 18, 5:09 PM
    • 4,111 Posts
    • 3,139 Thanks
    Glen Clark
    When did the head of state last exercise a power of veto over anything?
    Originally posted by eskbanker
    The fact Her Unelected Majesty & Hangers On, and her staff are always exempted from inconvenient legislation like the, Employment Protection Act etc suggest she does use it But we don't really know much about they because they are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act too, and refuse to give interviews or answer unscripted questions. We only know what gets past her spin doctors.
    We have not one page of written constitution, they make it up to suit themselves as they go along.
    All we have is an unwritten understanding she won't use her power as long as everything keeps going her way.
    This is what they call Democracy.
    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair
    • ValiantSon
    • By ValiantSon 10th Apr 18, 6:49 PM
    • 1,585 Posts
    • 1,322 Thanks
    ValiantSon
    The fact Her Unelected Majesty & Hangers On, and her staff are always exempted from inconvenient legislation like the, Employment Protection Act etc suggest she does use it But we don't really know much about they because they are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act too, and refuse to give interviews or answer unscripted questions. We only know what gets past her spin doctors.
    We have not one page of written constitution, they make it up to suit themselves as they go along.
    All we have is an unwritten understanding she won't use her power as long as everything keeps going her way.
    This is what they call Democracy.
    Originally posted by Glen Clark
    I'm no fan of our existing constitution, and certainly don't believe that our country can meaningfully be considered a functioning democracy, but it is not correct to say that there is no written constitution. Our constitution is written, but it isn't codified. There are four sources of the constitution: statutes; common law; conventions; works of authority (Walter Bagehot; A.V. Dicey; Erskine May).

    For those arguing that the monarch does not exercise executive power, you are missing the fact that her power is delegated, through royal prerogative, to officers of the crown. The use of royal prerogative circumvents parliament in many situations (including, for example, declarations of war). Furthermore the current monarch has exercised direct royal prerogative during her reign. She most recently did this in 1974 when she appointed Harold Wilson as prime minister. You could, also, reasonably argue, that she directly exercised the royal prerogative in 2017 when she allowed Theresa May to remain as prime minister despite her being unable to command a majority in the House of Commons (a supply and confidence agreement, such as exists with the DUP, does not create a majority).
    • Glen Clark
    • By Glen Clark 10th Apr 18, 7:15 PM
    • 4,111 Posts
    • 3,139 Thanks
    Glen Clark
    . She most recently did this in 1974 when she appointed Harold Wilson as prime minister.
    Originally posted by ValiantSon
    I thought she failed to appoint Harold Wilson as Prime Minister despite his winning the election - the Unelected Head of State kept the elected Prime Minister out of office for 2 days whilst Heath tried and failed to cut a deal with the Liberals?
    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair
    • Glen Clark
    • By Glen Clark 10th Apr 18, 7:21 PM
    • 4,111 Posts
    • 3,139 Thanks
    Glen Clark
    I'm no fan of our existing constitution, and certainly don't believe that our country can meaningfully be considered a functioning democracy, but it is not correct to say that there is no written constitution. Our constitution is written, but it isn't codified. There are four sources of the constitution: statutes; common law; conventions; works of authority (Walter Bagehot; A.V. Dicey; Erskine May).
    .
    Originally posted by ValiantSon
    They still make it up to suit themselves as they go along. For instance we aren't allowed to see her paintings in Windsor Castle unless she lets them out on loan to museums. But when they caught fire in her care they were ours because we had to pay for their restoration. And now we have paid for them they are hers again.
    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair
    • ValiantSon
    • By ValiantSon 10th Apr 18, 7:26 PM
    • 1,585 Posts
    • 1,322 Thanks
    ValiantSon
    I thought she failed to appoint Harold Wilson as Prime Minister despite his winning the election - the Unelected Head of State kept the elected Prime Minister out of office for 2 days whilst Heath tried and failed to cut a deal with the Liberals?
    Originally posted by Glen Clark
    Labour were the largest party, but with no majority. The correct constitutional procedure is for the existing prime minister to remain in office until a new government can be formed. This can involve the existing PM trying to reach a coalition or supply and confidence agreement. The same thing happened in 2010 when Gordon Brown remained in office, but in this instance, David Cameron was able to demonstrate that he could command a majority after having agreed a coalition deal with the Liberal Democrats.

    They still make it up to suit themselves as they go along. For instance we aren't allowed to see her paintings in Windsor Castle unless she lets them out on loan to museums. But when they caught fire in her care they were ours because we had to pay for their restoration. And now we have paid for them they are hers again.
    Originally posted by Glen Clark
    That has nothing to do with the constitution, however. That is simply because we are, collectively, very stupid.
    • dividendhero
    • By dividendhero 10th Apr 18, 10:26 PM
    • 188 Posts
    • 163 Thanks
    dividendhero
    Although you say they have a power of veto they do not. They can only delay bills for between 1 month and 1 year, and some types not at all.
    .
    Originally posted by Reaper
    As I understand it, the House of Lords can't stop legislation - but with two conditions

    (1) The legislation must be in the Governments manifesto
    (2) The Govt must have an overall majority

    These are the "Salisbury Conventions".

    Maybots Govt don't have a majority, as such the HoL can block legislation ... How relevant this is when Govt only seem interested in trying to ban plastics and making a hash of Brexit, but not much else..who knows?
    • IanManc
    • By IanManc 10th Apr 18, 10:58 PM
    • 521 Posts
    • 847 Thanks
    IanManc
    As I understand it, the House of Lords can't stop legislation - but with two conditions

    (1) The legislation must be in the Governments manifesto
    (2) The Govt must have an overall majority

    These are the "Salisbury Conventions".

    Maybots Govt don't have a majority, as such the HoL can block legislation ... How relevant this is when Govt only seem interested in trying to ban plastics and making a hash of Brexit, but not much else..who knows?
    Originally posted by dividendhero
    The Conservatives have a confidence and supply agreement with the DUP, so the government does have a majority. That's the whole point of the confidence and supply agreement.
    • grey gym sock
    • By grey gym sock 11th Apr 18, 1:05 AM
    • 4,270 Posts
    • 3,787 Thanks
    grey gym sock
    The Conservatives have a confidence and supply agreement with the DUP, so the government does have a majority.
    Originally posted by IanManc
    they have a working majority. but the conservatives and the DUP ran on different manifestos in the general election, so i don't see how the salisbury convention can be engaged. there's no manifesto which a majority of MPs ran on.
    • bowlhead99
    • By bowlhead99 11th Apr 18, 7:18 AM
    • 7,692 Posts
    • 14,065 Thanks
    bowlhead99
    they have a working majority. but the conservatives and the DUP ran on different manifestos in the general election, so i don't see how the salisbury convention can be engaged. there's no manifesto which a majority of MPs ran on.
    Originally posted by grey gym sock
    They did of course have different manifestos, though if there are common points of those manifestos then despite the fact that DUP is not part of the administration (because of not being in a proper coalition) it wouldn't IMHO be unreasonable to follow the Salisbury concept of the Lords not thwarting a bill that implements a manifesto commitment of a majority of MPs, where the public had voted for a majority of MPs which had that commitment in their manifestos.

    Of course, the manifestos were not the same but if there was something that was in both, and 'the will of the people' in an election returned enough MPs from those two camps which both wanted a certain option (even if there was stuff around the edges that differed a bit - as an actual bill will always have stuff around the edges that wasn't in a high level manifesto commitment anyway) then it doesn't seem outlandish that the Lords could see, as Salisbury did, that the proposals were put before the country at an election and the electorate liked them and gave power to the people who had put the proposals to the country (despite the proposals being worded differently and sitting in two separate documents).

    However, it depends how you interpret the convention in terms of what it's trying to achieve; you could take the view that the DUP themselves didn't get a mandate to do what they wanted, so we'll disregard what they want, even though what they said they would do in the area under discussion is aligned with what Conservatives said they would do and the public votes returned enough MPs from both camps to pass parliamentary bills implementing the common commitments made.

    Mark Elliott's blog had some discussion about this last year, extract below if it's of interest
    https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2017/06/10/does-the-salisbury-convention-apply-during-a-hung-parliament/
    The question thus reduces to whether the "mandate"; that is relevant for the purpose of the Salisbury convention is one that attaches to the manifesto commitment in question or whether the convention is triggered only when the government has earned a mandate to implement its manifesto commitments. On the first view, shared Conservative-DUP commitments would fall within the convention (as would, say, shared Conservative-Liberal Democrat commitments) because there would be majority support for the commitment. But on the second view, the convention would have no application to a minority government's manifesto commitments even if other parties, including a confidence-and-supply partner, had made the same commitments ; because, as a government, the minority administration would have failed to earn a mandate to implement those commitments. Normative arguments can be made in support of either of these views. But, for reasons elaborated upon below, no answer can be dictated, because the governing criterion is ultimately what members of the relevant political community think.
    This doesn't really address the critical question contemplated by the OP about whether anyone is or should be concerned about the next recession, trade wars and 50% portfolio losses. I haven't previously responded on the thread so should probably offer the thought that it is natural to be concerned about those things but I am not unduly concerned about them. I'm just the normal amount of concerned, and have arranged my portfolio accordingly.
    Last edited by bowlhead99; 11-04-2018 at 7:34 AM. Reason: fixed link and closing comment
    • dividendhero
    • By dividendhero 11th Apr 18, 7:21 AM
    • 188 Posts
    • 163 Thanks
    dividendhero
    The Conservatives have a confidence and supply agreement with the DUP,.
    Originally posted by IanManc
    The Tories supply the money and the DUP supply the confidence seems to be the top and bottom of it.

    The Scottish Tories are a separate party so I think there's even less of a case for the Salisbury convention to apply. However main problem with issue isn't the HoL (who don't seem to have delayed or blocked anything yet) it's the sheer weakness of Maybots leadership - there's Ministers in place who should have been sacked ages ago - Johnson and Davis come to mind, both just seem to go round saying whatever's on top of their head at that moment
    • grey gym sock
    • By grey gym sock 11th Apr 18, 2:11 PM
    • 4,270 Posts
    • 3,787 Thanks
    grey gym sock
    The question thus reduces to whether the "mandate"; that is relevant for the purpose of the Salisbury convention is one that attaches to the manifesto commitment in question or whether the convention is triggered only when the government has earned a mandate to implement its manifesto commitments. On the first view, shared Conservative-DUP commitments would fall within the convention (as would, say, shared Conservative-Liberal Democrat commitments) because there would be majority support for the commitment.
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    it seems to me a very odd idea that the salisbury convention might also apply to shared conservative / liberal democrat commitments, in a parliament in which there is no coalition (nor other arrangement) between those parties. by the same logic, would it also apply to commitments shared by all parties represented in the commons other than the conservatives (e.g. (IIRC) abolishing the bedroom tax)?

    i think the point of the convention is about not frustrating the will of a government which has a democratic mandate. you can't leave the "government" part out of that.

    in practice, the house of lords show a lot of restraint when their views are in conflict with the commons. it is not limited to the salisbury convention. for instance, they often back down when the commons insists "yes, we do want this" and send the identical issue back to the lords for a second vote.

    This doesn't really address the critical question contemplated by the OP about whether anyone is or should be concerned about the next recession, trade wars and 50% portfolio losses. I haven't previously responded on the thread so should probably offer the thought that it is natural to be concerned about those things but I am not unduly concerned about them. I'm just the normal amount of concerned, and have arranged my portfolio accordingly.
    me, too
    • Glen Clark
    • By Glen Clark 11th Apr 18, 5:02 PM
    • 4,111 Posts
    • 3,139 Thanks
    Glen Clark
    Ooh, that's a tough one. Do we broadcast footage of a royal wedding with parades, flags, pomp, circumstance and a celebration of national unity and shared history, or do we broadcast interviews with tedious shrivelled-up pub bores who spend their free time smugly correcting anyone who refers to 'British citizens' ("don't you know you're a subject?") while wearing "Blair for President" T-shirts.
    Originally posted by Malthusian
    Blair supports the Monarchy. (and sucks up to anyone else with wealth and power?)
    I am no fan of his but if we had him as President at least we could get rid of him after 5 years. We wouldn't be stuck with Blair, plus his extended family and hangers on, then all Blair's descendants and their externded families and hangers on, whatever they turn out to be like, for evermore.
    Last edited by Glen Clark; 11-04-2018 at 5:06 PM.
    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair
    • slapmatt
    • By slapmatt 12th Apr 18, 9:49 AM
    • 80 Posts
    • 1,066 Thanks
    slapmatt
    So... what are people using to hedge against a potential drop in the stock market?
    • ProDave
    • By ProDave 12th Apr 18, 9:58 AM
    • 781 Posts
    • 850 Thanks
    ProDave
    So Maybot is about to put our 3 nuclear powers up against the might of Russia.

    Anyone now still feel a stock market crash is not iminent.

    As before I am keeping my pension pot in cash right now.

    What do the DUP think? If they are against war, vote of no confidence = Jeremy as PM. That might be good for keeping us out of a war but I still see that crash.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

103Posts Today

1,613Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • I've decided my weekend starts here while the sun's glow is still baskable. So I'm signing off. Have a great weeke? https://t.co/9FxNEpDs6p

  • No not correct. The big six do, but you can get fixed tariffs guaranteed not to rise and about 25% cheaper. Just tr? https://t.co/B2ft5OS3Ig

  • Baaaa! Scottish Power has bleated and followed the herd, today announcing it's putting up energy prices by 5.5%. R? https://t.co/vi3hBxo4Hn

  • Follow Martin