Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Vardinio'sCat]

1 hour ago, lifted*fox said:

 

To be fair, Maplin and Toys R Us are the masters of their own downfall in the current climate.

 

Maplin is far too overpriced and always has been - it's somewhere you only go when you're desperate for a part and can't wait for it to be delivered. They mostly just stock random crap - the only useful stuff is cables, fuses, etc. 

 

Toys R Us have had an outdated business model for a long time and their huge stores are probably far too expensive to run / maintain when margins on toys are probably eroding and more people are buying online. 

 

The economy isn't great but both of these companies were headed down the toilet for a long while, I think. 

 

Yeah, the business that fail to adapt will always be the first to go, but the current trading environment cannot be discounted as a factor.

 

The CEO said today (amongst other things)  “The business has worked hard over recent months to mitigate a combination of impacts from sterling devaluation post Brexit, a weak consumer environment and the withdrawal of credit insurance. These macro factors have been the principal challenge not the Maplin brand or its market differentiation.”

 

Now (in the words of Mandy Rice-Davies) he would say that wouldn't he, but I think retail is under big pressure right now, and I could list the growing number of casualities. My comment was really a response to the concept that we are powering ahead towards some Brexit wonderland.

[Vardinio'sCat]

2 hours ago, lifted*fox said:

 

Big John Major coming with the ****ing truth. 

 

He has been waiting 20+ years for this day, to get some revenge on the b**tards.

[Vardinio'sCat]

1 hour ago, Beechey said:

No, I'd still think he was just as much of a failure, because factually, he was.

 

As if that wasn't bad enough, John Major is a Chelsea fan and debated our FA Cup penalty controversy in the House of Commons, the pillock.

 

He did win an election against the odds though. I'm not saying he was a successful PM, but he didn't have a load of Eton chums to cover for him. Actually he is a bit like TM in that way.

[Beechey]

3 minutes ago, Vardinio'sCat said:

 

He did win an election against the odds though. I'm not saying he was a successful PM, but he didn't have a load of Eton chums to cover for him. Actually he is a bit like TM in that way.

That he certainly did, can't argue against that. Left school early with few qualifications, too.

[Vardinio'sCat]

Just now, Beechey said:

That he certainly did, can't argue against that. Left school early with few qualifications, too.

 

Pity it all went so horribly wrong for him personally, as I thought he was ok (for a tory ). I thought the whole soapbox thing was quite brave really, imagine Theresa trying that.  It is very hard to take over a party that has been in charge for 10 years, I can't remember anyone making it work.

 

Leavers need look no further than Major's b**stards to see the motivation for him wading in at this critical time.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

A lot of talk about John Major today... but that’s not the big Brexit story today, it’s the Irish question.

 

That is where Brexit will be defined - and it’s the area which could kill leaving the EU dead. 

 

The fact the government needs the DUP to govern makes the situation even worse. 

 

This truely is make or break point for the Brexiters - find an answer to the question and you get the break you’re looking for. 

 

But fail to find one - there’s no way out (because no-deal would surely require a hard border).

Edited 28 February 2018 by DJ Barry Hammond

[Beechey]

4 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

A lot of talk about John Major today... but that’s not the big Brexit story today, it’s the Irish question.

 

That is where Brexit will be defined - and it’s the area which could kill leaving the EU dead. 

 

The fact the government needs the DUP to govern makes the situation even worse. 

 

This truely is make or break point for the Brexiters - find an answer to the question and you get the break you’re looking for. 

 

But fail to find one - there’s no way out (because no-deal would surely require a hard border).

It's not really though, both main parties are basically aligned on the EU question. Labour have a front bench whose leader is a leaver. The only difference in the two parties are the wording of their policies.

 

Conservatives: "We will not be seeking membership of the Single Market, but will pursue instead a new strategic partnership with the EU, including an ambitious and comprehensive Free Trade Agreement and a new customs agreement."

Labour: "Labour would seek to negotiate a new comprehensive UK-EU customs union to ensure that there are no tariffs with Europe and to help avoid any need for a hard border in Northern Ireland."

 

Nobody has defined what a "customs agreement" is, or why a "customs union" would be different.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, SMX11 said:

Please also remember that we are late into this 'expansion' and a recession is likely brexit or not in the next few years (based on historical norms). 

This is rubbish. The real economy hasn't even really recovered from 2008 yet. Wages are still lower in real terms than they were then. 

 

Webbo keeps telling everybody we're ahead of euros in the financial cycle. It's farcical. Europe is at the start of a boom. We're still chugging along in 1st gear. How can we be ahead when we haven't had the good news bit yet.

 

Recession isn't a given. There was no recession between 1992 and 2008 but a huge boom. Where is the boom before the bust? It's nowhere as osborne removed any stimulus from the real economy through cuts and Brexit has finished the job. The Tories can never again talk of being good with the economy.

[Beechey]

8 minutes ago, toddybad said:

This is rubbish. The real economy hasn't even really recovered from 2008 yet. Wages are still lower in real terms than they were then. 

 

Webbo keeps telling everybody we're ahead of euros in the financial cycle. It's farcical. Europe is at the start of a boom. We're still chugging along in 1st gear. How can we be ahead when we haven't had the good news bit yet.

 

Recession isn't a given. There was no recession between 1992 and 2008 but a huge boom. Where is the boom before the bust? It's nowhere as osborne removed any stimulus from the real economy through cuts and Brexit has finished the job. The Tories can never again talk of being good with the economy.

UK rapidly outgrew much of the EU in 2013, 2014 and 2015. It was only 2017 really where we have been lower than the rest of the pack.

 

There actually was for many countries (in 2000/01) we just avoided it, like many countries avoided 2007/08. The UK, Canada and Australia avoided it, whereas the US, Japan, and much of the EU (both France and Germany entered recession) were quite greatly affected by it.

Edited 28 February 2018 by Beechey

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, Beechey said:

From the man who pegged Sterling to the Deutsche Mark (for ERM II), and even when his advisers were saying it was untenable, he kept it pegged until the stock market was forcing the Pound to collapse due to the Mark strengthening. Raised interest rates by 2% and then 3% in like 4 hours. He pegged it not for economic reasons, but purely for political reasons in wanting to be closer to the EU. Absolute shambles of a Prime Minister, and an even worse political opinion pundit, or whatever he is now.

 

Made both our country and people poorer, shocked national prestige (in fact was the worst event in the UK's membership of the EU, until 2016) and didn't change course until he was absolutely forced to, otherwise the Pound would have collapsed further than the ~10% or so it had already within the 2 or 3 month period that it was falling versus the Mark.

 

Stones and glass houses, John.

 

2 hours ago, MattP said:

We've nearly hit peak parody when John Major is saying we can't make people poorer and giving his opinion on European issues in the same speech saying others are getting it wrong. 

 

What next? Enoch Powell to advise us on race relations? George Osborne to lecture on too much austerity? Tony Blair to criticise on foreign intervention? 

 

Now, lads, I'm getting very confused as regards who's to blame (or credit) for what here....is it the PM or the Chancellor?

 

Here's the cast list:

- Late 80s inflationary boom that led us to join the ERM: Thatcher (PM), Lawson (Chancellor)

- Joined ERM at untenable rate: Thatcher (PM), Major (Chancellor)

- Crashed out of ERM on Black Wednesday: Major (PM), Lamont (Chancellor)

- Presided over post-ERM economic recovery: Major (PM), Ken Clarke (Chancellor)

 

So, the PM when we joined the ERM was Tory idol Thatcher and her Chancellor who created the mess was arch-Brexiteer Lawson.

The Chancellor who jacked up interest rates to 15% & crashed out on Black Wednesday was arch-Brexiteer Lamont.

 

Then, whenever I raise the economic boom and several years of budget surplus achieved by the Blair Govt, Tory posters tell me it was all due to the brilliant economy Labour inherited from the Tories....

The Tory PM was Major (Remainer), who is now depicted as "a shambles" not fit to comment on "making people poorer" ....and his Chancellor was Ken Clarke, a leading figure in the Tory Remainer rebellion....

 

 

 

 

Edited 28 February 2018 by Alf Bentley

[DJ Barry Hammond]

10 minutes ago, Beechey said:

It's not really though, both main parties are basically aligned on the EU question. Labour have a front bench whose leader is a leaver. The only difference in the two parties are the wording of their policies.

 

Conservatives: "We will not be seeking membership of the Single Market, but will pursue instead a new strategic partnership with the EU, including an ambitious and comprehensive Free Trade Agreement and a new customs agreement."

Labour: "Labour would seek to negotiate a new comprehensive UK-EU customs union to ensure that there are no tariffs with Europe and to help avoid any need for a hard border in Northern Ireland."

 

Nobody has defined what a "customs agreement" is, or why a "customs union" would be different.

 

The EU are unlikely to agree to any custom arrangement or similar without some form of ECJ oversight and other tied restrictions.

 

If thats the case, not only will the hard line Brexiters revolt at the idea, the remainers May start questioning - why ‘leave’ if that means being in pretty much the same position as being in, only worse off? 

 

Note - Boris Johnson’s leaked letter today had more truth to it than the government would care to admit - to effectively leave, there might have to be a hard border - but given that is so opposed on both sides of the border, it makes the Leave the EU question unsolvable until a solution here is found.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

@Alf Bentley

 

i think even those on the Labour side would concede Ken Clarke was a decent chancellor - in fact decent alround politician. 

Edited 28 February 2018 by DJ Barry Hammond

[Beechey]

13 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

Now, lads, I'm getting very confused as regards who's to blame (or credit) for what here....is it the PM or the Chancellor?

 

Here's the cast list:

- Late 80s inflationary boom that led us to join the ERM: Thatcher (PM), Lawson (Chancellor)

- Joined ERM at untenable rate: Thatcher (PM), Major (Chancellor)

- Crashed out of ERM on Black Wednesday: Major (PM), Lamont (Chancellor)

- Presided over post-ERM economic recovery: Major (PM), Ken Clarke (Chancellor)

 

So, the PM when we joined the ERM was Tory idol Thatcher and her Chancellor who created the mess was arch-Brexiteer Lawson.

The Chancellor who jacked up interest rates to 15% & crashed out on Black Wednesday was arch-Brexiteer Lamont.

 

Then, whenever I raise the economic boom and several years of budget surplus achieved by the Blair Govt, Tory posters tell me it was all due to the brilliant economy Labour inherited from the Tories....

The Tory PM was Major (Remainer), who is now depicted as "a shambles" not fit to comment on "making people poorer" ....and his Chancellor was Ken Clarke, a leading figure in the Tory Remainer rebellion....

 

 

 

 

A PM and Chancellor both take the praise and the blame. A Chancellor has to propose a policy and implement it, but a PM makes a decision on whether to implement it or not. That's quite obvious isn't it?

 

There's always overlap between government changes and anyone who wants to claim there isn't frankly is deluded. UK works on spending plans, and governments almost always maintain them for at least the year when they enter office.

Edited 28 February 2018 by Beechey

[Beechey]

8 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

The EU are unlikely to agree to any custom arrangement or similar without some form of ECJ oversight and other tied restrictions.

 

If thats the case, not only will the hard line Brexiters revolt at the idea, the remainers May start questioning - why ‘leave’ if that means being in pretty much the same position as being in, only worse off? 

 

Note - Boris Johnson’s leaked letter today had more truth to it than the government would care to admit - to effectively leave, there might have to be a hard border - but given that is so opposed on both sides of the border, it makes the Leave the EU question unsolvable until a solution here is found.

There's going to have to be joint-oversight. UK can't accept ECJ jurisdiction, and the EU can't accept UK jurisdiction, so inevitably there will need to be a concession from both sides if an agreement is to be made, which both sides want very much. I personally can't see a solution that keeps there being no border between RoI and NI, and no border between NI and rUK, with the UK remaining outside the CU.

Edited 28 February 2018 by Beechey

[SMX11]

12 minutes ago, toddybad said:

This is rubbish. The real economy hasn't even really recovered from 2008 yet. Wages are still lower in real terms than they were then. 

 

Webbo keeps telling everybody we're ahead of euros in the financial cycle. It's farcical. Europe is at the start of a boom. We're still chugging along in 1st gear. How can we be ahead when we haven't had the good news bit yet.

 

Recession isn't a given. There was no recession between 1992 and 2008 but a huge boom. Where is the boom before the bust? It's nowhere as osborne removed any stimulus from the real economy through cuts and Brexit has finished the job. The Tories can never again talk of being good with the economy.

I agree the economy hasn't really recovered since the crash, but to say that Europe is about to boom is totally misreading it in my opinion. The ECB has been intervening with a load of QE for years now since the Euro crisis and once it stops and attempts to unwind the growth will soon become anemic again. The FED will run into the same issue as the markets will force interest rates to rise as ever increasing debt with no central banks willing to continue to buy the bonds will exacerbate the issue. Nothing has fundamentally changed since 08 so I expect another calamity in the not too distant future once interest rates move towards 'normal' and governments not being able to fund themselves due to spiking debt interest payments coupled with unfunded pension liabilities.

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

@Alf Bentley

 

i think even those on the Labour side would concede Ken Clarke was a decent chancellor - in fact decent alround politician. 

 

Indeed. One of the few genuinely top-class politicians in the country. A wise man.

 

He deserves credit for the UK economy improving under Major in the wake of the Black Wednesday crash, though the currency devaluation helped.

 

Yet, according to Tories on here, he is to be credited for the economic upturn and budget surpluses under Blair, yet his opinions - and those of the PM who shared his glory (Major) - should be ignored over Brexit and its economic impact.

 

 

1 minute ago, Beechey said:

A PM and Chancellor both take the praise and the blame. A Chancellor has to propose a policy and implement it, but a PM makes a decision on whether to implement it or not.

 

So, presumably, we should ignore the opinions of the Brexiteer Chancellor Lawson who caused the inflation before we joined the ERM, and the opinions of the Brexiteer Chancellor Lamont who jacked interest rates to 15% and crashed us out of the ERM?

 

Presumably, too, the Remainer PM Major and Remainer Chancellor Clarke deserve credit for their economic success c. 1994-97?

[Beechey]

22 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Indeed. One of the few genuinely top-class politicians in the country. A wise man.

 

He deserves credit for the UK economy improving under Major in the wake of the Black Wednesday crash, though the currency devaluation helped.

 

Yet, according to Tories on here, he is to be credited for the economic upturn and budget surpluses under Blair, yet his opinions - and those of the PM who shared his glory (Major) - should be ignored over Brexit and its economic impact.

 

 

 

So, presumably, we should ignore the opinions of the Brexiteer Chancellor Lawson who caused the inflation before we joined the ERM, and the opinions of the Brexiteer Chancellor Lamont who jacked interest rates to 15% and crashed us out of the ERM?

 

Presumably, too, the Remainer PM Major and Remainer Chancellor Clarke deserve credit for their economic success c. 1994-97?

I'm not sure why you're bringing their EU voting into it, I certainly never mentioned that of my own accord (only when replying to someone else stating it). I don't care whether they like the EU or not. Ken Clarke was a decent Chancellor, yes. I happen to disagree with him on how we should function inside, or outside of the EU, but I think in that period he did a good job. Of course it's not as if inflation was low before 1990, is it? Hovering between 5% and 7-8% before 1989. I certainly respect them both for their convictions.

 

I'd argue that the rapid, sustained growth after 2002 was mostly of Labour's making. 5 years is definitely long enough for any hard hitting short-term policies of the prior government to have faded. And their spending plans definitely were not being used at that point.

 

Believe it or not, but people are generally more multidimensional in deciding their personal opinions about someone than simply which way they voted in 2016. For example, I'm pretty certain Jeremy Corbyn voted to leave in the referendum, but I seriously disagree with many of his foreign, defence and economic policies. Doesn't stop me from admiring him for his sustained views though.

Edited 28 February 2018 by Beechey

[Vardinio'sCat]

1 hour ago, Beechey said:

A PM and Chancellor both take the praise and the blame. A Chancellor has to propose a policy and implement it, but a PM makes a decision on whether to implement it or not. That's quite obvious isn't it?

 

There's always overlap between government changes and anyone who wants to claim there isn't frankly is deluded. UK works on spending plans, and governments almost always maintain them for at least the year when they enter office.

 

I don't think that was the case during some of the Blair/Brown years, though i can't remember if the division of labour (see what I did there?) was for the whole stint.

 

Your point about overlap is a good one, politicians don't often get to choose when they come to power. Some get lucky (Blair and the long boom), and some don't ( Cameron and TM walking into different kinds of s***storm).

[Vardinio'sCat]

1 hour ago, SMX11 said:

I agree the economy hasn't really recovered since the crash, but to say that Europe is about to boom is totally misreading it in my opinion. The ECB has been intervening with a load of QE for years now since the Euro crisis and once it stops and attempts to unwind the growth will soon become anemic again. The FED will run into the same issue as the markets will force interest rates to rise as ever increasing debt with no central banks willing to continue to buy the bonds will exacerbate the issue. Nothing has fundamentally changed since 08 so I expect another calamity in the not too distant future once interest rates move towards 'normal' and governments not being able to fund themselves due to spiking debt interest payments coupled with unfunded pension liabilities.

 

EU growth is strong at the moment, never mind the future. I think you are right to highlight QE in Europe (which started in 2015) as a big factor in the EU economy, as is strong growth globally.

 

Interest rate rises are going to put a brake on, but I don't think they are predicted to rise that high by historical standards. I'm not saying there won't be casualties and serious pain, as we have become very accustomed to those rock bottom rates. But I would  argue that debt interest, whilst important, has been somewhat over-egged in these years of austerity, in a fairly obvious attempt to shrink the state for political reasons.

 

I'm with you on pension problems though, it is a long term slow motion disaster, and that goes back a long way and involves both parties. Oh for the Google/Amazon/Facebook tax money, the things we could do!

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, Beechey said:

I'm not sure why you're bringing their EU voting into it, I certainly never mentioned that of my own accord (only when replying to someone else stating it). I don't care whether they like the EU or not. Ken Clarke was a decent Chancellor, yes. I happen to disagree with him on how we should function inside, or outside of the EU, but I think in that period he did a good job. Of course it's not as if inflation was low before 1990, is it? Hovering between 5% and 7-8% before 1989. I certainly respect them both for their convictions.

 

I'd argue that the rapid, sustained growth after 2002 was mostly of Labour's making. 5 years is definitely long enough for any hard hitting short-term policies of the prior government to have faded. And their spending plans definitely were not being used at that point.

 

Believe it or not, but people are generally more multidimensional in deciding their personal opinions about someone than simply which way they voted in 2016. For example, I'm pretty certain Jeremy Corbyn voted to leave in the referendum, but I seriously disagree with many of his foreign, defence and economic policies. Doesn't stop me from admiring him for his sustained views though.

 

Let me try to get my head round what you're saying....

 

You said that PMs and Chancellors share the praise/blame when things go right/wrong. You said that Major was a "total failure" who shouldn't expect people to listen to him. Yet he was PM when Clarke was being "a decent Chancellor", so presumably shares the praise for that and is therefore not a "total failure"? Or do you mean that we should pay no attention to Major because of the ERM fiasco, but should pay attention to Ken Clarke as he wasn't Chancellor for the ERM fiasco but was for the recovery?

 

As PMs and Chancellors share the praise/blame, presumably Lamont should be listened to even less than Major as he was involved in the ERM fiasco but not in the recovery? So when he pipes up supporting Brexit, we should laugh him out of the house? Similarly with Lawson: if Major stands condemned for his errors over the ERM and is not rehabilitated by presiding over the 1994-97 recovery, presumably we have to ignore anything good that Lawson did and condemn him for his error in allowing inflation to run out of control in the late 80s:  http://econ.economicshelp.org/2008/01/lawson-boom-of-late-1980s.html? So, he's another man whose opinions should be ignored when he advocates the economic benefits of Brexit?

 

So, we should be ignoring Major, Lamont and Lawson - but paying attention to Clarke, is that right? 

 

Don't get me wrong. I can see the hypocrisy in Major calling for a free vote after denying one to the "bastards" over Maastricht. His intervention is also timed to cause maximum damage, so he's no innocent - though that can be seen two ways: as disloyal to his leader (like the menacing interventions by Hard Brexiteers) or as a principled intervention on an issue crucial to the nation that he has consistently felt strongly about....just as Lawson and Lamont intervene periodically on the other side. In fact, I doubt that he bears any malice towards May but is seeking to influence an issue he feels strongly about (though I'm sure he enjoys getting personal revenge on the Brexiteer "bastards").

 

I'd like to think that I'm quite multidimensional in my political judgments. I certainly don't just decide my views based on the 2016 vote. I know that Frank Field has done a lot of good work on social security policy in the past, despite disagreeing with his Brexit stance. Likewise, parliament could do with a few more outspoken people from different backgrounds like Denis Skinner, though again I disagree with his views on the EU. On economic/social policy, I'd favour more state intervention and higher taxation than Ken Clarke, despite agreeing with him on Brexit - and less state intervention and lower tax than Corbyn would like, despite agreeing with his prioritisation of investment. While Corbyn's long-term Euroscepticism is beyond doubt, I don't know how you can be certain how he voted in 2016. He campaigned half-heartedly for Remain with criticism of the EU, so Soft Brexit (where Labour is currently headed) is probably a comfortable place for him. But my guess (only a guess) is that he followed the party line and voted Remain "with reservations".

Edited 1 March 2018 by Alf Bentley

[Beechey]

5 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Let me try to get my head round what you're saying....

 

You said that PMs and Chancellors share the praise/blame when things go right/wrong. You said that Major was a "total failure" who shouldn't expect people to listen to him. Yet he was PM when Clarke was being "a decent Chancellor", so presumably shares the praise for that and is therefore not a "total failure"? Or do you mean that we should pay no attention to Major because of the ERM fiasco, but should pay attention to Ken Clarke as he wasn't Chancellor for the ERM fiasco but was for the recovery?

 

As PMs and Chancellors share the praise/blame, presumably Lamont should be listened to even less than Major as he was involved in the ERM fiasco but not in the recovery? So when he pipes up supporting Brexit, we should laugh him out of the house? Similarly with Lawson: if Major stands condemned for his errors over the ERM and is not rehabilitated by presiding over the 1994-97 recovery, presumably we have to ignore anything good that Lawson did and condemn him for his error in allowing inflation to run out of control in the late 80s:  http://econ.economicshelp.org/2008/01/lawson-boom-of-late-1980s.html? So, he's another man whose opinions should be ignored when he advocates the economic benefits of Brexit?

 

So, we should be ignoring Major, Lamont and Lawson - but paying attention to Clarke, is that right? 

 

Don't get me wrong. I can see the hypocrisy in Major calling for a free vote after denying one to the "bastards" over Maastricht. His intervention is also timed to cause maximum damage, so he's no innocent - though that can be seen two ways: as disloyal to his leader (like the menacing interventions by Hard Brexiteers) or as a principled intervention on an issue crucial to the nation that he has consistently felt strongly about....just as Lawson and Lamont intervene periodically on the other side. In fact, I doubt that he bears any malice towards May but is seeking to influence an issue he feels strongly about (though I'm sure he enjoys getting personal revenge on the Brexiteer "bastards").

 

I'd like to think that I'm quite multidimensional in my political judgments. I certainly don't just decide my views based on the 2016 vote. I know that Frank Field has done a lot of good work on social security policy in the past, despite disagreeing with his Brexit stance. Likewise, parliament could do with a few more outspoken people from different backgrounds like Denis Skinner, though again I disagree with his views on the EU. On economic/social policy, I'd favour more state intervention and higher taxation than Ken Clarke, despite agreeing with him on Brexit - and less state intervention and lower tax than Corbyn would like, despite agreeing with his prioritisation of investment. While Corbyn's long-term Euroscepticism is beyond doubt, I don't know how you can be certain how he voted in 2016. He campaigned half-heartedly for Remain with criticism of the EU, so Soft Brexit (where Labour is currently headed) is probably a comfortable place for him. But my guess (only a guess) is that he followed the party line and voted Remain "with reservations".

Did you read what I said? He specified on government policy needing to change now, as he believes it may make people poorer, I specified on an instance when he was in government where he would have decided (not the Chancellor, as this was a foreign treaty, not just domestic policy) to take part in. He refused to change policy until the very last moment when he had allowed the Pound to fall through the floor, spending billions on trying to prop it up to no avail. In this instance, he doesn't have a leg to stand on, he didn't do what he is saying a good government should do. I'm seriously unsure why you're confused by this point. In this one instance of him saying this statement (that his government also did), he of all people should not criticise unless he is prepared for criticism to be levelled at him. It's not really about their overall record in government that I'm specifying. If Lawson came out and criticised the BoE for high inflation, I'd laugh at him for that too. Hope that clears my point up a bit.

 

Corbyn could definitely have voted to Remain, I don't doubt it's possibly, I just think it's highly unlikely. He's a man of principle and he's never shied away from his euroscepticism (really until he became Labour leader to be more mainstream). I think in the privacy of the ballot box he would have expressed himself personally, the way he has always felt, which is well documented. I'd be very stretched to call Labour's plans "soft" though. They want to leave the Single Market, and negotiate a new "customs union" with the EU, which is effectively the same policy of the government, except they want a new "customs arrangement". Their policies on everything but wording are effectively identical.

[Webbo]

I'm not going to call John Major. I'm disappointed with his comments, but I like the guy. Lamont never believed in the ERM and was said to be singing in the bath when we crashed out. It was the start of the 90s boom that Labour benefitted from.

[Alf Bentley]

51 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Did you read what I said? He specified on government policy needing to change now, as he believes it may make people poorer, I specified on an instance when he was in government where he would have decided (not the Chancellor, as this was a foreign treaty, not just domestic policy) to take part in. He refused to change policy until the very last moment when he had allowed the Pound to fall through the floor, spending billions on trying to prop it up to no avail. In this instance, he doesn't have a leg to stand on, he didn't do what he is saying a good government should do. I'm seriously unsure why you're confused by this point. In this one instance of him saying this statement (that his government also did), he of all people should not criticise unless he is prepared for criticism to be levelled at him. It's not really about their overall record in government that I'm specifying. If Lawson came out and criticised the BoE for high inflation, I'd laugh at him for that too. Hope that clears my point up a bit.

 

Corbyn could definitely have voted to Remain, I don't doubt it's possibly, I just think it's highly unlikely. He's a man of principle and he's never shied away from his euroscepticism (really until he became Labour leader to be more mainstream). I think in the privacy of the ballot box he would have expressed himself personally, the way he has always felt, which is well documented. I'd be very stretched to call Labour's plans "soft" though. They want to leave the Single Market, and negotiate a new "customs union" with the EU, which is effectively the same policy of the government, except they want a new "customs arrangement". Their policies on everything but wording are effectively identical.

 

Yes, I read what you wrote. There's no need to be rude.

 

Earlier, you said that a Chancellor and PM shared the praise and blame, one proposed/implemented, the other decided. Now you say the PM alone decided as it was a treaty (is that even true? the ERM came under a treaty, I presume, but we just decided to join when it was already up and running). Anyway, the PM when we joined the ERM wasn't Major, it was Thatcher.......so we have Thatcher to blame, not Major, do we? 

 

Granted, if you're blaming the PM for decisions and absolving the Chancellor, you can blame Major and not Lamont for us staying in the ERM (& Black Wednesday) after Thatcher signed us up, though that's an unusual interpretation.

Do you then persist in giving all the credit for the 94-97 recovery to Clarke and not Major? So, joining the ERM was down to PM Thatcher, staying in ERM to PM Major and all economic decisions thereafter to Chancellor Clarke? 

 

I'm not confused at all. I agreed with your earlier point about praise/blame being shared by Chancellor and PM. Thatcher, Major and Lamont share the blame for ERM/Black Wednesday, Major and Clarke share the praise for the 94-97 recovery.

So, Major got some stuff right and some wrong. As someone else said, though, even where he can be partly blamed for errors (over the ERM), does that mean we should ignore his comments on similar subjects forever thereafter? People sometimes learn from mistakes. We should judge his comments - and those of Brexiteers like Lamont and Lawson - on their merits, surely?

 

You seem to be pretty isolated in your analysis that Labour's new customs union policy is "effectively the same policy of the government". Almost every other commentator has seen the new Labour policy as establishing a clear policy difference.

Indeed, there are expectations that Labour will support the Soubry/Umunna amendment calling for a customs union, an amendment opposed by the govt. Some are even talking of May resigning or the govt collapsing over this issue. If the policies are effectively the same, surely the Tories will also support the rebel amendment? 

 

Re. Corbyn, we are both speculating. However, I was an active member of the Labour Party in the 80s & 90s and saw a shift in the Hard Left position. They had traditionally been Brexiteers on the lines set by Benn. But when the EU became more socially-minded under Delors, their stance became more ambivalent. Corbyn continued to vote against various EU treaties and the Hard Left continued to criticise aspects of the EU, but it was no longer a pure Brexit position, more an ambivalent one. The ambivalent views Corbyn expressed during the referendum campaign are probably close to where he stands - though I'd have liked him to have made a positive (but critical) case for Remain. God knows the Project Fear campaign run by leading Tory & Labour Remainers was awful.

 

In an ideal world, I'd like Corbyn to be proposing that we stay in the Single Market or even the EU, but that's not realistic unless something changes - unless the public mood shifts dramatically against Brexit (hasn't happened yet) or we get offered an awful deal or no deal (hasn't happened yet, but we seem to be heading in that direction unless May backtracks again).

 

To take this away from the Leave/Remain axis a minute, I'd rate PM Major as having a mixed record but a much better PM than Cameron. Despite having none of Cameron's privileged educational background, Major took over a struggling third-term govt, won another election against the odds, served a full term despite losing his majority and suffering backbench rebellions and handed over a benign economy for Labour to build on (I give him joint credit for that, just as I accept his joint blame for ERM).

Cameron will go down in history as one of the worst PMs ever for the referendum gamble that he took and lost purely for the sake of party management, and for the dismal Remain campaign he led. If, as I expect, this damages the British economy and society for decades, causing massive public division, his place in history will look black indeed. 

[Guest]

Time for you leavers to stop talking in terms of dreamlike hopes and start telling us what information you have that the business committee doesn't have that would suggest they're wrong.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/brexit-car-industry-no-deal-thousands-jobs-risk-millions-investment-business-committee-warn-a8233506.html?amp&__twitter_impression=true

[Beechey]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Yes, I read what you wrote. There's no need to be rude.

 

Earlier, you said that a Chancellor and PM shared the praise and blame, one proposed/implemented, the other decided. Now you say the PM alone decided as it was a treaty (is that even true? the ERM came under a treaty, I presume, but we just decided to join when it was already up and running). Anyway, the PM when we joined the ERM wasn't Major, it was Thatcher.......so we have Thatcher to blame, not Major, do we? 

 

Granted, if you're blaming the PM for decisions and absolving the Chancellor, you can blame Major and not Lamont for us staying in the ERM (& Black Wednesday) after Thatcher signed us up, though that's an unusual interpretation.

Do you then persist in giving all the credit for the 94-97 recovery to Clarke and not Major? So, joining the ERM was down to PM Thatcher, staying in ERM to PM Major and all economic decisions thereafter to Chancellor Clarke? 

 

I'm not confused at all. I agreed with your earlier point about praise/blame being shared by Chancellor and PM. Thatcher, Major and Lamont share the blame for ERM/Black Wednesday, Major and Clarke share the praise for the 94-97 recovery.

So, Major got some stuff right and some wrong. As someone else said, though, even where he can be partly blamed for errors (over the ERM), does that mean we should ignore his comments on similar subjects forever thereafter? People sometimes learn from mistakes. We should judge his comments - and those of Brexiteers like Lamont and Lawson - on their merits, surely?

 

You seem to be pretty isolated in your analysis that Labour's new customs union policy is "effectively the same policy of the government". Almost every other commentator has seen the new Labour policy as establishing a clear policy difference.

Indeed, there are expectations that Labour will support the Soubry/Umunna amendment calling for a customs union, an amendment opposed by the govt. Some are even talking of May resigning or the govt collapsing over this issue. If the policies are effectively the same, surely the Tories will also support the rebel amendment? 

 

Re. Corbyn, we are both speculating. However, I was an active member of the Labour Party in the 80s & 90s and saw a shift in the Hard Left position. They had traditionally been Brexiteers on the lines set by Benn. But when the EU became more socially-minded under Delors, their stance became more ambivalent. Corbyn continued to vote against various EU treaties and the Hard Left continued to criticise aspects of the EU, but it was no longer a pure Brexit position, more an ambivalent one. The ambivalent views Corbyn expressed during the referendum campaign are probably close to where he stands - though I'd have liked him to have made a positive (but critical) case for Remain. God knows the Project Fear campaign run by leading Tory & Labour Remainers was awful.

 

In an ideal world, I'd like Corbyn to be proposing that we stay in the Single Market or even the EU, but that's not realistic unless something changes - unless the public mood shifts dramatically against Brexit (hasn't happened yet) or we get offered an awful deal or no deal (hasn't happened yet, but we seem to be heading in that direction unless May backtracks again).

 

To take this away from the Leave/Remain axis a minute, I'd rate PM Major as having a mixed record but a much better PM than Cameron. Despite having none of Cameron's privileged educational background, Major took over a struggling third-term govt, won another election against the odds, served a full term despite losing his majority and suffering backbench rebellions and handed over a benign economy for Labour to build on (I give him joint credit for that, just as I accept his joint blame for ERM).

Cameron will go down in history as one of the worst PMs ever for the referendum gamble that he took and lost purely for the sake of party management, and for the dismal Remain campaign he led. If, as I expect, this damages the British economy and society for decades, causing massive public division, his place in history will look black indeed. 

Sorry mate, didn't mean to sound rude.

 

The issue with the Labour policy is that it wasn't at all defined what "a new customs union" is. If it's the same as the current customs union, why not just remain in the EU CU? Otherwise we might expect some changes, but what changes are they? For example, Corbyn says he wants . I wish everyone would just set out their ideas so I could see them all, it's so painful having to try and dissect every single speech for any hint of policy. In fairness to Labour, the government's position is just as ambiguous!

 

Maybe by "a customs union" they mean something along the lines of what we currently have, so that would preclude being able to create our own trade agreements, but having no say whatsoever on the agreements that are made on our behalf. But then the question is why not just remain in the current Customs Union? There's not a chance in hell the European Parliament will let us have a better customs union than member states have.

 

I never really had Major as a PM in my memory (was too young at the time), but I grew up with Blair, Brown, Cameron and now May, and personally I didn't like Cameron at all. For all the faults I see in Major at least he stood up for his beliefs, to my eyes Cameron had none of his own beliefs. That's without going into Major's personal background and his struggle itself, which is admirable to say the least. Maybe it's because I never really saw him as PM that my views are skewed to the negative, nobody really discusses the general good any PM does, the negative gets much more airtime.

Edited 1 March 2018 by Beechey