Utopia, you are standing in it!

The huge publicity given to recent parliamentary votes on Brexit has put the over-crowded division lobbies of the House of Commons in the spotlight as never before and prompted the introduction of proxy voting on a trial basis. While MPs now vote in two division lobbies, this has only been the case since 1836, as Dr. Kathryn Rix, Assistant Editor of our House of Commons, 1832-1945 project, explains.

On 22 February 1836 an historic vote took place in the House
of Commons, when the second reading of the London and Brighton Railway Bill was
defeated by 281 votes to 75. What made this division so significant was not the
legislation involved, but the manner in which the vote took place. As the Commons Journal recorded, ‘The House
divided: The Yeas to the old Lobby; The Noes to the new Lobby’. That new…

by Gabriel Ahlfeldt (London School of Economics, LSE), Stephen Redding (Princeton University), Daniel Sturm (LSE) and Nikolaus Wolf (Humboldt University Berlin)

The full post and online access to the full article is available on the Microeconomics website

Economic activity is highly unevenly distributed across geographical space. This is reflected in the existence of cities as well as the concentration of economic functions in specific locations within cities, such as Manhattan in New York and the Square Mile in London. Understanding the strength of the forces of agglomeration that underlie these concentrations of economic activity is central to a range of policy questions.

What makes cities thrive? Is it proximity to natural resources – such as rivers, oceans, and energy sources – that make places attractive for firms to locate production? Is it shared amenities – such as leafy streets and scenic views – that make them attractive places for people…

Phil Torres is a “riskologist” who studies existential risk, and seems to have it in for the New Atheists (Salon, of course, is always willing to provide him with a platform for that). Torres’s latest Salon piece is an attack on Steve Pinker and his last book (Enlightenment Now, or EN), a piece called “Steven Pinker’s fake Enlightenment: His book is full of misleading claims and false assertions.” Torres’s piece is pugnacious, ending with a suggestion that Pinker may actually be hiding stuff that he knows is wrong:

Let me end with a call for action: Don’t assume that Pinker’s scholarship is reliable. Comb through particular sentences and citations for other hidden — or perhaps intentionally concealed — errors in “Enlightenment Now.” Doing so could be, well, enlightening.

When I read Torres’s piece, I wasn’t impressed, as Pinker’s “errors and false assertions” seemed to…

This is the first time I’ve seen actual footage of a “speakeasy”—an illegal alcohol-dispensing joint that operated during Prohibition in America (between 1920 and 1933). Sent by reader Michael, the video even has sound, and shows dancing girls, a band, and an oily top-hatted master of ceremonies. And, as Michael pointed out, the booze is clearly visible on the tables.

The YouTube notes say this,

Old film of Mack’s Club (12 East Pearson Street) in Chicago, Il on February 13, 1931. The troupe leader is Harry Glen. These scenes were taken with early Movietone sound cameras. 

This club was in downtown Chicago, and I can’t find any other information about it, nor any about Harry Glen. Perhaps ambitious readers may find other information.  I’m just showing this because movies of speakeasies during Prohibition, which were illegal, are rare, and those with sound even rarer.

I don’t know how America survived…

In a post on this blog yesterday, Andrew Denny argued that I was wrong to suggest that a money resolution, with Crown recommendation, would be needed under the Standing Orders of the House of Commons for a  provision of a Bill for the purpose of securing the postponement of the expiry of the UK’s Article 50 notification or the revocation of that notification (“a postponing or revoking provision”).

He accurately sets out the standing orders and my argument from the paper, written for Policy Exchange, in which I made the suggestion. That argument is that any postponing or cancelling provision would involve (as the published Bills for securing a postponement do) a provision for the postponement or cancellation of “exit day” (within the meaning of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018). That, in turn, would mean the postponement or cancellation of the repeal of section 2(3) of the European…