Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

MDS posted:

I think the point Heseltine is trying to make is describing (for him) the lesser of two evils: i.e. the choice between a Corbyn government and a botched hard Brexit.  I've taken him to be saying that, bad though a Corbyn government would be for the UK, the damage it would inflict would be recoverable within a reasonable period whereas the damage done to the UK by a hard Brexit would be greater, much longer felt and much harder to correct.  I'm no fan of Heseltine and never have been but I find myself agreeing with his logic here.

MDS, I respect your opinion as it is honestly felt and expressed. Heseltine, however, is a charlatan and has been one for many years, regardless of his Brexit 'opinions'.

MDS posted:

I think the point Heseltine is trying to make is describing (for him) the lesser of two evils: i.e. the choice between a Corbyn government and a botched hard Brexit.  I've taken him to be saying that, bad though a Corbyn government would be for the UK, the damage it would inflict would be recoverable within a reasonable period whereas the damage done to the UK by a hard Brexit would be greater, much longer felt and much harder to correct.  I'm no fan of Heseltine and never have been but I find myself agreeing with his logic here.

What you've just said Mike, is precisely what I understood from Heseltine's recent remarks. And it makes perfect sense.

The prospect of a Hard Brexit and a Corbyn gov is going to be a real challenge if both materialise, And I appreciate that Heseltine wasn't suggesting that both catastrophies will happen.

As I said, Resurrection, I'm no fan of Hezza. I've always felt his ego was too big to allow him to be sufficiently objective in pursuing what is best for the UK rather than best for his career & public profile ambitions.  But, leaving his objectives to one side, on this issue I find his logic sound. He's essentially saying the interests of the UK should come before the interests of his party.  I know you will disagree with his analysis of the impact of a hard Brexit but that's not quite the point. Indeed, I think the hysterical reaction of the Bow Group saying the Tory whip should be removed from him adds weight to his argument about putting country before party because the behaviour of the Bow Group and other hard Brexiteers looks very much like they want to put the interests of the Conservative party ahead of those of the UK.  I think the Tories need to think very carefully about how this is coming across to the electorate because, regardless of Brexit v remain debate, their tactics seem to playing very much into the hands of Corbyn.  To my mind it's almost suicidal politics.       

A couple of points from me:

I remember Tarzan buying his way out of National Service in the 1960s, so much for putting country before self.

Corbyn will never be Prime Minster and the Labour Party is presently a long, long way from being electable.

thebigfredc posted:

Corbyn will never be Prime Minster and the Labour Party is presently a long, long way from being electable.

This begs a question of why? If your view is based upon doubts about the competence of Corbyn to be PM and the Labour Party to form a working government, I suspect that there are quite a few people who share such doubts.  However, I'd suggest that very many voters aren't really interested in the finer points of administrative competence, policy coherence,  economic theory etc etc and make their decision on who to vote for on simple grounds e.g. 'I'm fed up with [8] years of austerity; Corbyn says he will do something different so I'll give him a go', or 'I'm fed up with the Tories who only look after their friends/making a mess of Brexit and I want to punish them so I'll vote Labour'.

Remember it wasn't that long ago that many people were dismissive of the Orange one's [our esteemed moderator has ruled that debate on T***p will no longer be allowed on here] ambitions to stand for POTUS.  

Given the divisions within the Conservative party, the absence of a working majority, and the monumental task it has of managing Brexit, I think there's a good chance of political implosion and effectively handing the reins to Corbyn without him and the Labour Party needing to do very much at all.   It gives me no pleasure whatsoever to be saying all this but the political landscape doesn't look very conventional to me at the moment. 

thebigfredc posted:

A couple of points from me:

I remember Tarzan buying his way out of National Service in the 1960s, so much for putting country before self.

Corbyn will never be Prime Minster and the Labour Party is presently a long, long way from being electable.

Tarzan's history is not the issue. He has simply put across a prediction and a point of view that many of us had already envisioned. His choice of words were simply clearer and more concise than, for example mine !

Corbyn would be a disaster for a few years.

A hard Brexit will be an absolute, unmitigated disaster for a few generations

MDS posted:

Remember it wasn't that long ago that many people were dismissive of the Orange one's [our esteemed moderator has ruled that debate on T***p will no longer be allowed on here] ambitions to stand for POTUS.  

 

An orange Tulip? 

Having enjoyed freedom of movement all over the EU for several decades, I am very sorry to lose that. I also do some international trading, much of it free trade in the EU and nobody yet has told me how things will change in future. I can only expect at the moment that my costs will increase. The PM put a few boys (Davis, Gove and Boris) in key positions almost as a punishment or a challenge. And so far they have not impressed me at all. I just feel like nobody in government knows what to bargain for with Brussels, or has any real idea of how it will all end. It's a bit like the Chinese suddenly announcing in December that they will no longer acept our plastics for recycling from January, and the little twerp that is Gove announcing that he is planning to bring all councils into line as regards the scope of their recycling, as if sticking his finger in the dyke of the problem will actually stop the flood.

Corbyn is an avowed Socialist in the mode of Tony Benn. The U.K. has not voted in one of those since WW2 including in the years of high Trade Union membership and large scale social housing. Capitalism and consumerism are entrenched in our society more than ever and hence I just can't see electorate choosing him.

That's true. And if most of the electorate remembered the days of high Trade Union membership, widespread availability of council houses /flats, pre-privatisation of the railways, water companies etc etc I agree the prospect of a Corbyn-led government might be remote. But a very large proportion of the electorate were not alive in those days and will only know about them from the history books or being told about them by their parents or grand-parents. To very many young voters the socialist  agenda that Corbyn talks about is new and untried.    

MDS posted:

To very many young voters the socialist  agenda that Corbyn talks about is new and untried.    

It's also very attractive.  What have younger voters seen in their lifetimes?  The richest 1% come to control more than 50% of global wealth.  A housing market rigged so far in favour of those who already have money (both investors and buy-to-let retiree types) that a large proportion of the young no longer expect to ever own their own homes.  The erosion of public services with things like sure start and tax credits taken away.  And which party was in power the last time the economy was in properly decent shape?  Labour, with the only years of GDP surplus in younger voters' lifetimes.

And conversely, unlike older voters, the young aren't encumbered with cliched prejudices like 'tories are good at the economy' or 'labour encourage strikes' or what have you.  They just look at the information from the mid-90s or so (i.e. their lifetimes) and consider things much before that time old enough to be irrelevant.  The prejudices they're more likely to have are things like 'old people are racist' (a standard cliche for decades, but the Brexit stuff brings it out), 'people who have money are only interested in keeping it for themselves', 'politics is rigged for pensioners against the young' and so on - things which do not point to voting tory.

Personally I very much hope that Corbyn or someone like him does get into  number 10, much as I realise that might be a minority view on here.  But that's neither here nor there.  What is important to realise is that the young aren't interested in Corbyn because they're stupid or naive.  Rather, they aren't hung up on what governments before 1979 did, and have positive reasons to want something different from what they've got.  He offers that, and seems more likely than the other team to deliver it.

Dave***t posted:

MDS posted:

To very many young voters the socialist  agenda that Corbyn talks about is new and untried.    

It's also very attractive.  What have younger voters seen in their lifetimes?  The richest 1% come to control more than 50% of global wealth.  A housing market rigged so far in favour of those who already have money (both investors and buy-to-let retiree types) that a large proportion of the young no longer expect to ever own their own homes.  The erosion of public services with things like sure start and tax credits taken away.  And which party was in power the last time the economy was in properly decent shape?  Labour, with the only years of GDP surplus in younger voters' lifetimes.

And conversely, unlike older voters, the young aren't encumbered with cliched prejudices like 'tories are good at the economy' or 'labour encourage strikes' or what have you.  They just look at the information from the mid-90s or so (i.e. their lifetimes) and consider things much before that time old enough to be irrelevant.  The prejudices they're more likely to have are things like 'old people are racist' (a standard cliche for decades, but the Brexit stuff brings it out), 'people who have money are only interested in keeping it for themselves', 'politics is rigged for pensioners against the young' and so on - things which do not point to voting tory.

Personally I very much hope that Corbyn or someone like him does get into  number 10, much as I realise that might be a minority view on here.  But that's neither here nor there.  What is important to realise is that the young aren't interested in Corbyn because they're stupid or naive.  Rather, they aren't hung up on what governments before 1979 did, and have positive reasons to want something different from what they've got.  He offers that, and seems more likely than the other team to deliver it.

Suffering catfish! The last time that the British economy was in rude health i.e. not some sort of fiction built on quantitive easing was just before 1997 and you know who got in. Although I have no respect for the man nowadays, Ken Clarke was the best Chancellor of the Exchequer that we ever had, and you want to know why? He did nothing, absolutely nothing. He more or less left the economy to successfully run itself and left it to be ruined by Brown and Blair, but especially the one eyed, financially illiterate, emotionally very unstable, Brown. 

Corbyn and especially McDonnell are Brown on speed. They could take an economy and make it evaporate before your very eyes. Equating Corbyn or McDonnell with the impact of Brexit is like equating the impact and deeds of Mother Theresa (and I don't mean May) with those of Pol Pot, who I am sure must have been highly praised by Corbyn at some point in his very inglorious career. 

MDS posted:

That's true. And if most of the electorate remembered the days of high Trade Union membership, widespread availability of council houses /flats, pre-privatisation of the railways, water companies etc etc I agree the prospect of a Corbyn-led government might be remote. But a very large proportion of the electorate were not alive in those days and will only know about them from the history books or being told about them by their parents or grand-parents. To very many young voters the socialist  agenda that Corbyn talks about is new and untried.    

Mike, I'm old enough to remember those days and the prospect of high Trade Union membership, railways and utilities in public ownership, and widespread availability of social housing (along with sensible interventions in markets) is rather attractive to me.

Certainly a more appealing prospect than the status quo.

Kevin-W posted:

MDS posted:

That's true. And if most of the electorate remembered the days of high Trade Union membership, widespread availability of council houses /flats, pre-privatisation of the railways, water companies etc etc I agree the prospect of a Corbyn-led government might be remote. But a very large proportion of the electorate were not alive in those days and will only know about them from the history books or being told about them by their parents or grand-parents. To very many young voters the socialist  agenda that Corbyn talks about is new and untried.    

Mike, I'm old enough to remember those days and the prospect of high Trade Union membership, railways and utilities in public ownership, and widespread availability of social housing (along with sensible interventions in markets) is rather attractive to me.

Certainly a more appealing prospect than the status quo.

I'm also old enough to remember the year of 24% inflation (1975).

Huge posted:

Kevin-W posted:

MDS posted:

That's true. And if most of the electorate remembered the days of high Trade Union membership, widespread availability of council houses /flats, pre-privatisation of the railways, water companies etc etc I agree the prospect of a Corbyn-led government might be remote. But a very large proportion of the electorate were not alive in those days and will only know about them from the history books or being told about them by their parents or grand-parents. To very many young voters the socialist  agenda that Corbyn talks about is new and untried.    

Mike, I'm old enough to remember those days and the prospect of high Trade Union membership, railways and utilities in public ownership, and widespread availability of social housing (along with sensible interventions in markets) is rather attractive to me.

Certainly a more appealing prospect than the status quo.

I'm also old enough to remember the year of 24% inflation (1975).

Slightly later than that my mortgage rate was 15% as it was LIBOR linked. The unions, particularly in the car industry, caused mayhem and helped deindustrialise the U.K. Restrictive practices were strictly enforced as were  demarcation lines. Literally millions of days were lost in strikes. Nowadays, Union strength lies within the protected Public sector as well as the semi privatised Government franchise of the railways; these are of course run very inefficiently. Due to mass membership inclusion which is reinforced by inertia, the Unions have the money, time and clout to be politically active, particularly in the Labour Party.

Given that the likes of McCluskey, McDonnell and Corbyn are unreconstructed Communists who embedded themselves in unionism or politics during tha '70s, as did Red Robbo, Scargill, Gallioway and so many other 'activists', who have feather bedded their own lives at the expense of the careers and lives of those they purported to support, it is hardly surprising that they have fond memories of a period where they flourished. These people do not have a creative bone in their bodies and actually sew salt in the land they they claim to cultivate. Their idea of Socialism is to generously help themselves to other peoples' money.

Like Kevin-W, Huge, I'm also old enough to remember the days of union power, Scargill and co.  And as a slight aside I think history has shown that Scargill was right when he said that the Government under Thatcher wanted to destroy the UK coal industry, even though the government denied it at the time.  

Anyway, getting back to the possible voting intentions of today's electorate, the connotations of Resurrection's phrase of "unreconstructed communists" for folk like us with all those memories, won't be recognised by the vast majority of today's younger voters.  Indeed, where would they look in the world today to find the sort of communist behaviour that underpins this phrase? Russia, China? Not today, I think. The world as well as the UK has moved on and so have people's values and expectations.  The Conservatives and their supporters continue to label Corbyn, McDonnell & co in very similar terms to those sentiments expressed by Resurrection but I believe this to be a massive tactical mistake because they are constructing arguments tailored to suit that part of the electorate that on the whole already vote Conservative, and that group is shrinking because of demographics.  This line of argument is utterly ineffective for younger voters. Unless the Conservatives come up with some new and fresh arguments and ideas I think the party is facing a very bleak future.  Politics is a tough and dirty game and at the moment Corbyn's tactics and arguments are far more likely to resonate with young voters looking for something new and different.  His 'history' will be irrelevant to them.

A shall point initially, MDS.

The destruction of the coal industry was not simply a Thatcherite plot as more coal mines were closed under Labour as under the Conservatives. Blair and Brown had 13 years to reverse these closures but simply 'chose' to accelerate the process.

The car industry was resurrected under the Tories with the Nissan plant in Sunderland and the Honda plant in Swindon. We produce more cars than we have ever done before, albeit under foreign ownership and with many fewer employees. However, let us not forget the complete hopelessness of British management after WWII. Nepotism and Spanish practices were rife. Additionally, the politicians' fixation with the free market has allowed foreigners to plunder our companies wholesale. Last unforgivable act for me, although I made a few bob out of it, was the acquisition of ARM, the chip designer, by Sunbright the dodgy Far Eastern company. As soon as an AIM listed company flourishes some foreign company can easily jump in and acquire it. Only in the U.K...

As for Corbyn & Co selling a new message to a different generation, this can only be seen through Socialist spectacles. These people are dinosaurs kept alive through Public funds and their foothold in public institutions such as the NHS. As all of you should well know, the uniquely funded NHS does not function very well and is not regarded as a suitable model to copy anywhere in the world no matter how much you may love it. However, Unison's millions of badly paid members paying a few quid each month provides ample funds for politicking by its unreconstructed Communist leaders. 

Although the Tories do have a lot of dross amongst its leadership, they are diamonds in comparison to the Watsons, Abbots, McDonnells of the Labour Party. Their so called costed manifesto at the last election was one sided bookkeeping that would impress the EU. Their so called 'investments' i.e. splurges,had no identifiable means of being supported or supportable. 

ARM was actually bought by SoftBank the Japanese company headed by Masayoshi Son. 

Don't get me wrong, Resurrection. I don't look back to those times as if they were some golden age. You're right about the British car industry then. Shoddy work-practices, sponsored by the unions, were appalling. Crap management contributed too. The cars produced suffered very poor quality control. The arrival of Nissan and Toyota stimulated a welcome revival. The utility companies behaved as if they were doing the customers a favour.  I don't think I agree with you about the NHS. There are still examples of inefficiency but I would not lay that at the door of Unison. I think the NHS's problems are (a) increased demand (general volume and very many more types of treatments now available) (b) under-funding by government (c) constant re-organisations and funding models imposed by government which produces a huge over-head in management cost and drain on capacity.

But generally I don't think we're far apart.  My essential point is not to advocate/defend Tory or Labour policies and leaders but contrasting the way the two parties are currently choosing to present themselves. In my view, the Conservative's approach is narrow, unimaginative and backward looking. The Corbyn approach is coming across as fresh and giving new voters hope, and it is also much better at exploiting social media (though I suspect the Tories will catch-up on that one). The consequence could well be defeat for the Tories and victory for Corbyn and issues of substance, competence and history won't matter much. 

Resurrection posted:

Last unforgivable act for me, although I made a few bob out of it, was the acquisition of ARM, the chip designer, by Sunbright the dodgy Far Eastern company SoftBank.  As soon as an AIM listed company flourishes some foreign company can easily jump in and acquire it. Only in the U.K...

Well given that ARM only existed due to it being spun out of an Italian owned company (Acorn were owned by Olivetti at the point they created the ARM RISC processor) and marginally over 50% owned by Americans (Apple owned nearly 50 equal to Acorn and VLSI owned the remainder)...

Your rose tinted vision of U.K. companies is just that... rose tinted.

Eloise posted:

Resurrection posted:

Last unforgivable act for me, although I made a few bob out of it, was the acquisition of ARM, the chip designer, by Sunbright the dodgy Far Eastern company SoftBank.  As soon as an AIM listed company flourishes some foreign company can easily jump in and acquire it. Only in the U.K...

Well given that ARM only existed due to it being spun out of an Italian owned company (Acorn were owned by Olivetti at the point they created the ARM RISC processor) and marginally over 50% owned by Americans (Apple owned nearly 50 equal to Acorn and VLSI owned the remainder)...

Your rose tinted vision of U.K. companies is just that... rose tinted.

Truly Eloise, thou art a piece of work. Acorn may have started life by the original Olivetti company but was wholly British staffed, based and mostly funded. Apple did gave a large holding in it until about 2000 but reduced its holding to about 15%. ARM's IPO was in 1998, by which time it was truly British, and until its acquisition by Soft Bank was a FTSE 100 stalwart. It is, of course, still based in Cambridge and if you look back its history it has had and still has a very strong British management and research team.

ARM does not make chips, it designs and licences them, and very profitably too. Its designs have been core to Apple's iPhone,  are used by Qualcomm and NVIDIA for Graphics Processor Units. The point is that the extremely valuable intellectual property is now owned by the Japanese company who will of course reap all the benefits of its profits. They can choose to move its research anywhere it likes, although so could ARM when it was independent. 

I, of course, had ARM shares that I bought at about £4 and lost when it was acquired for about £17 a share. I was still not very happy.

And the point of your muddled post was?

Resurrection, I think we are all agreed that a Labour Government lead by Corbyn and the others mentioned above, would be a disaster. Those of us who want to Remain are simply using Corby/Labour as a yardstick to express out concerns that such an outcome would be a trivial disaster compared to Brexit. cricky, IMHO Brexit will be am unmittigated disaster !

I am no supporter of the Labour Party but, Lord Adonis has captured some of my concerns..........

In his resignation letter, Lord Adonis accused Mrs May of "allying with UKIP and the Tory hard right to wrench Britain out of the key economic and political institutions of modern Europe", saying the UK was "hurtling towards the EU's emergency exit with no credible plan for the future of British trade and European co-operation".

"If Brexit happens, taking us back into Europe will become the mission of our children's generation, who will marvel at your acts of destruction," he said.

"A responsible government would be leading the British people to stay in Europe while also tackling, with massive vigour, the social and economic problems within Britain which contributed to the Brexit vote."

Lord Adonis said he planned to oppose "relentlessly" the government's EU (Withdrawal) Bill in the House of Lords.

What's also of concern to me, is that such a man as was suited to heading up the National Infrastructure Committee, feels it obligatory to resign.

I suppose that us 48% Remainers should also resign membership of the UK ?

Don Atkinson posted:

Resurrection, I think we are all agreed that a Labour Government lead by Corbyn and the others mentioned above, would be a disaster.

No, Don, we all most emphatically are not.  In fact the cynic in me suspects that subtler operators within the govt are happy for Heseltine to be a kind of useful idiot in that sense, because while attention is concentrated on the Brexit part of what he said, the 'Corbyn would be a disaster' part slides smoothly through as if it were an acknowledged fact.  This is a known campaign/psychological tactic.

But heading into party waters seems likely to derail a worthwhile thread.  That's why I haven't replied directly to Resurrection's economic opinion etc.  Having pointed out that we can't take your assertion as read, I hope we can drop it and stay closer to topic.

In which spirit, Adonis - I was quite surprised at the tone of his statement.  At how forcefully it was worded.  This was after all coming from a man who is no hard leftist, having been aligned quite closely with Gove, no less, when he was minister for education, and instrumental in introducing tuition fees.  

If he's right about May's personal position that's also a surprise, as I'd thought of her as largely trapped - not particularly ideologically driven herself, but trying to mediate between emphatically opposed forces around the table.  If she's actually become a hard brexiteer, then I fear all remainers and even the softer or more neutral leavers have cause to worry deeply.

The schoolyard response from the govt (he jumped before he was pushed) was hardly a reassuring display of maturity and seriousness.

Indeed some unusually tough words from Adonis, though I think he's long had a reputation for having a bit of an ego. I don't think this will affect things around Brexit much and since he previously served under a Labour government I don't thing it provides much in the way of new ammunition to the Opposition. That said, it might stoke the anxieties of the remainers/soft-Brexit members sitting on the government benches.  I sense that's the community that TM and her hard-brexit ministers fear more than Labour at the moment.   

MDS posted:

Indeed some unusually tough words from Adonis, though I think he's long had a reputation for having a bit of an ego. I don't think this will affect things around Brexit much and since he previously served under a Labour government I don't thing it provides much in the way of new ammunition to the Opposition. That said, it might stoke the anxieties of the remainers/soft-Brexit members sitting on the government benches.  I sense that's the community that TM and her hard-brexit ministers fear more than Labour at the moment.   

I care nothing for Adonis, Blair's head of policy, as his political leanings are the antithesis of mine as are obviously his opinions on Brexit. In terms of economic understanding of the needs of this country, I would rather rely on Mystic Meg than most politicians but can't think of one left leaning politician I would give credence to.

Can't  be bothered going into detail as my response to Eloise about the history of ARM seems to be stuck with the mods.