Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Of all of the replacements circling, who's least terrible? Can we get Cameron back?

David Davis. I regard him as a bit of a Cincinnatus type figure.

David Davis has been quoted as saying he is leaving after 2019...he's happily preparing his life raft whilst the rest of us drown (and I'm sure he'll find some cushy job somewhere...)

Right...which only reinforces my perception of him as a Cincinnatus-like figure.

Do you even know who Cincinnatus was?

Yes, I thought you were actually promoting him as the next leader. Maybe I was taking your comment too literally?

If this was a Chairperson of a football club I'd be expecting the manager to be gone in a month...."Theresa May says cabinet 'fully behind' her leadership"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41519601

And apparently the office of budget responsibility has been overestimating by quite some margin our productivity...that means budget forecast are off by a wide margin.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/obr-overestimated-uk-productivity-for-seven-years-and-its-going-to-cause-philip-hammond-some-real-problems_uk_59d7490ae4b0f6eed34f854a?ir=UK+Politics&utm_hp_ref=uk-politics

I suppose the Tories are trying to get all the bad news out at once.

Yes, I thought you were actually promoting him as the next leader. Maybe I was taking your comment too literally?

I'm promoting him as someone who should be Prime Minister, not as someone who will or is likely to be.

For the benefit of anyone not familiar with Roman history, Cincinnatus was a Roman patrician who did not desire power, he just wanted to tend to his farm but was cajoled and coerced into accepting a Dictatorship to deal with a crisis threatening Rome not once but twice, and both times he willingly gave up his powers of Dictatorship and retired back to his farm once the crises were resolved.

Theres also a famous quote by the writer Douglas Adams I believe which goes (paraphrased): "Anyone who desires power is unsuited to wield it".

I'm drawing a (however tenuous) parallel between Cincinnatus and David Davis. Given that he's already announced his retirement, Davis clearly has no ambition for power (at least, not anymore. He did run for the Tory party leadership in 2005), therefore he's more suited to hold power than a greasy career politician like David Cameron or Tony Blair who desire power for power's sake.

If we were living in the Roman Republic and I were a Roman Senator, I'd be forwarding a motion that we should drag David Davis kicking and screaming into Number 10 to deal with the crisis of Brexit.

Alas were are not living in Ancient Rome, and I am not a Roman Senator.


tl;dr I'm a fan of principled back benchers like David Davis and Frank Field over career politician scum bags like Blair or Cameron.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Yes, I thought you were actually promoting him as the next leader. Maybe I was taking your comment too literally?

I'm promoting him as someone who should be Prime Minister, not as someone who will or is likely to be.

For the benefit of anyone not familiar with Roman history, Cincinnatus was a Roman patrician who did not desire power, he just wanted to tend to his farm but was cajoled and coerced into accepting a Dictatorship to deal with a crisis threatening Rome not once but twice, and both times he willingly gave up his powers of Dictatorship and retired back to his farm once the crises were resolved.

Theres also a famous quote by the writer Douglas Adams I believe which goes (paraphrased): "Anyone who desires power is unsuited to wield it".

I'm drawing a (however tenuous) parallel between Cincinnatus and David Davis. Given that he's already announced his retirement, Davis clearly has no ambition for power (at least, not anymore. He did run for the Tory party leadership in 2005), therefore he's more suited to hold power than a greasy career politician like David Cameron or Tony Blair who desire power for power's sake.

If we were living in the Roman Republic and I were a Roman Senator, I'd be forwarding a motion that we should drag David Davis kicking and screaming into Number 10 to deal with the crisis of Brexit.

Alas were are not living in Ancient Rome, and I am not a Roman Senator.


tl;dr I'm a fan of principled back benchers like David Davis and Frank Field over career politician scum bags like Blair or Cameron.

David Davis isn't some principled messiah, he's a knob end with an EU axe to grind who's suddenly found himself having to sort out his own gak sandwich. I hope it chokes the witch.

U mad bro?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
U mad bro?

Isnt this the type of thing that got the US thread locked?

I've banged the drum many a time before on the subject of Tory incompetence, but it seems they have plumbed new depths!

They can't even organise a back bench rebellion anymore

Judging by numerous newspaper accounts, the rebellion has fizzled out, the rebels have been smoked out, and Grant Shapps is on the run

What a shower

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
U mad bro?

I think perhaps a better look at David Davis's approach might be more helpful. So to begin:-

David Davis worked for Tate and Lyle for almost 20 years. This is an American company that uses sugar cane to make sugar. This has to be imported and the majority comes from what were former British colonies. Effectively this in areas where work is cheap and conditions poor.

Tate and Lyle's major competitor is British Sugar (a British company) which uses sugar beet to manufacture sugar. Sugar beet is one of the staples of arable UK farmers (as well as other European countries, especially France). In comparison the UK and EU have high labour costs but good conditions.
Sugar beet is relatively easy to grow (no issues supermarkets demands for perfect specimens) and has a good demand hence it being a staple of a lot of farmers.

When it comes down to it, it is cheaper to grow and import sugar cane than it is to grow sugar beet in the UK.

The EU however place considerable import duties on sugar cane to protect the sugar beet industry and EU farmers (including UK farmers). In the end this makes Cane sugar and sugar beet relatively comparable in terms of cost (sugar beet is slightly better off in terms of market share).

Tate & Lyle campaigned for Brexit as they are opposed to the duties placed on cane sugar.

Leaving the EU and with a driving ambition of free world trade these duties will disappear although it is unlikely the EU will drop the duties on this. Hence any UK sugar will suddenly become taxable.

So what are the consequences of this...

Dropping duties will suddenly make sugar beet much more expensive compared to cane sugar. In post Brexit land where costs will be everything, noting sugar is in pretty much everything we buy, this will give Tate and Lyle a huge advantage. They can suddenly make a much cheaper product that British sugar can't compete with. This will leave British Sugar to either convert to cane sugar or, probably, in the end go bust. This will lead to a large number of UK arable farmers to lose a significant source of income. It almost certainly some will have to pack up the bags and leave the industry. The EU will still be protecting its own sugar beet industry, so selling sugar to the EU isn't likely to be viable.

For Tate & Lyle free trade is a boon. If British Sugar don't switch to sugar cane (and even if they do they have to source suppliers not already working for Tate & Lyle), then Tate & Lyle will corner more and more of the market as the demand to control costs grow. They will likely go from having 40% of the market share to 80% or more in the UK in just a small number of years.

So what has this to do with David Davis. He worked his way up through T&L for a good number of years. I would suspect that should he decide to leave politics an opening for a Directors position (if not higher) will suddenly appear at T&L with a nicer sweetner for DD to join them. He will then be in a position over a decade or so where T&L become the dominant supplier in the UK (destroying the UK wide industry in the process).

So why does DD want to leave after 2019?, because in the end he is a business person. He does not want to take on the poison chalice of trying to repair the damage from Wrexit. If we remain in the EU (we change our mind) then the Tories will lose enough support that go to UKIP again that they will lose power for decades. Conversely as the economy likely crashes, times get harder then people will blame the Tories and again likely not get in again for decades. Businesses will not want people that have such a tainted histories (e.g Blair). Leaving in 2019 means he won't be tainted, be able to get a job that almost certainly guarantees large growth year on year almost certainly paying more than the a PMs position does. In five years we will have forgotten about DD and whichever clown is in charge will subject to our ire.

You can of course try and buy exclusively from British sugar, but in all those packets of cakes, sweets, chocolates etc there will be T&L sugar cane products rather than UK grown sugar beet.

A more detailed article can be found here if anyone is interested.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/27/brexit-sugar-beet-cane-tate-lyle-british-sugar

When it comes to politics, and especially the Tories, it's always worth following the money. Do you trust Davis with Brexit when his only concern is a retirement gig? Or May who is most concerned about her husbands investment company?

I don't know what Johnson us after though; power? Where's he hoping to get richer from?

Herzlos wrote:
When it comes to politics, and especially the Tories, it's always worth following the money.

One should always be careful however, not to blithely assume corruption or pecuniary self-interest on the part of government officials. Private Eye has turned the implication of such things into something of a art. As someone combing through historical public sector sub-contracting correspondence and paperwork however, it isn't the case far, far more frequently than it is. For every fifteen such implied cases, only one of them ever seems to actually have any substance to it.

It is too easy at times to believe the worst in people with no evidence. For example, looking at the matter under discussion, Davis hasn't worked for Tate and Lyle for over twenty years, in which time it's actually been sold as a company to an American food giant. Certainly, there's no executives left there he would have an attachment to, and if he wanted to get a job in consultancy or lazy fake directorships, there are infinitely better prospects for a man of his connections than mumping for sugar.

Too often in politics, insinuations of corruption are just an extended game of six degrees of Kevin Bacon. 'Ah, they must be corrupt, because they went to school with someone who now works as an executive aide for a newspaper owner' or some such bollocks. Such things wouldn't even be enough to get a police file opened, let alone a conviction in court; yet far too many people sagely nod and go, 'Ah, so that's where their interest is' because it aligns with their existing political beliefs (left or right). The fact that you can draw such lines between practically all people and professions at the top levels never crosses their minds.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
U mad bro?

I'm not your Bro.

 Crazyterran wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
U mad bro?

Isnt this the type of thing that got the US thread locked?

It was certainly part of the reason.

RULE #1 and all that, yes?

So Theresa May maybe demoting Boris, and a cabinet re-shuffle maybe on the cards to bring in fresh young blood. Quite where they've managed to scrape fresh young blood from is anyone's guess. Younger than current incumbents certainly, but new ideas and fresh thinking? Doubtful, probably more of the same old neo-liberal BS.

Also, a FOI request has has been submitted to find out what legal advice the Govt has received about stopping Brexit. Politically it's probably suicide for any party that tried it, and unlikely to happen considering the damage it would do to the party, much better to feth the country over instead.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/07/theresa-may-secret-advice-brexit-eu

Satisfying though it would be to stop this debacle, it would only rear it's ugly head again and we'd end up in a worse place I feel. Even though it is an idiotic decision, it must stand because otherwise our application and integrity of democracy would be questioned and people would perhaps decide that if the Govt doesn't have to follow the rules....

More concerning to me was the quote at the end...

A DExEU spokesperson said: “We made our position clear in the supreme court. As a matter of firm policy, our notification will not be withdrawn. The British people voted to leave the EU and we will deliver on their instruction. There can be no attempts to remain inside the EU and no attempt to rejoin it.”

I'm not sure if the Dept for Exiting the EU has the authority to do anything other than remove us from the EU, it has no mandate to prevent us rejoining if we wish.

Herzlos wrote:
When it comes to politics, and especially the Tories, it's always worth following the money.

That's true, indeed. This is in fact a deep problem for our modern society, something that is easily dismissed by politicians themselves or, to be honest, any people who don't see what is the trouble with potential conflict of interest. It doesn't mean conviction of corruption, but the bias is still somewhere, in any form.

The fact there are lobbies and companies investing a lot of money to keep having contact with politicians, even if it's not illegal, isn't innocent. You don't invest time and money in something inefficient. There is a reason, and it is simple : someone who is in power and has friendly contacts with a particular category of people will be influenced in some way by them, even unconsciously. It's human nature ; when someone is friendly towards you, you tend to be more open to what they are saying - or at least, you listen to them and that may be all they want.

Don't listen to right wing people who say that this is not a problem. It is. Getting paid for that, having gifts for that, being helped to find a job for some relatives or finding a job for relatives, all of that have the same roots and consequences and will affect the people in some ways (sometimes little, sometimes big), no matter what they say. A lot of problems find their roots because someone at the top is in a conflict of interest. Usually, it's not something sudden; it is gradual and takes a lot of time before small things add to each other until it becomes such a big problem that it can becomes a case of conviction, or worse.

This is what leads to corruption. It always starts with a conflict of interest. And it always starts small, with the man or woman thinking it's not a big deal.

Follow the money, it's always telling something about those who are behind. And yes...it's usually the right wing people who are the most prone to defend this ; because they are the ones who have the most contact with people with a lot of money/influence, and thus most prone to conflict of interest. The fact right wing people have ties with the private sector isn't innocent as well. And when you give all the powers to people who are used not to care about conflict of interest, thinking they are "above" all of this legal stuff and are grown up enough to decide for everything...it usually ends into deep corruption, no matter what.

Of course, you will have people who say that they are not influenced and don't listen to lobbies. The fact they let them exist is already a warning sign ; and when they say it, you should really ask yourself why you would believe them at all.

Boris needs booting out, he's not stupid but crafty. His buffoonish act of being an undiplomatic clod is tiresome and proves that he values self promotion over all else. Anything to be the centre of attention. This embarrassment that wants to be PM is a snake in the cabinet. May should kick him out and face any leadership challenge head on, but I doubt he would push for one.

For Hilarity's sake, I was on BBC's website, and at the time, the headlines were ordered thus:

Brexit 'no deal' planning is well underway says Minister
Large Cocaine Shipment intercepted in Atlantic.


And that's all that really needs said.

In a surprising development, Denmark has broken cover and accused the EU of playing "a game" over the Brexit divorce bill.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/08/denmark-dismisses-eu-wrangling-brexit-divorce-bill-game

No doubt this minister will be 'persuaded' to retract his comments in due course

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
In a surprising development, Denmark has broken cover and accused the EU of playing "a game" over the Brexit divorce bill.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/08/denmark-dismisses-eu-wrangling-brexit-divorce-bill-game

No doubt this minister will be 'persuaded' to retract his comments in due course

It's hardly that dramatic, it's the Danish finance minister offering his opinion. He's not "accusing" anyone of playing a game;

Jensen said: “In any political negotiations, there is not enough time, not enough money, not enough this, not enough that. This is part of the game.

Meaning that it's all part of normal negotiations, you're just spinning it.

Meanwhile, Priti Patel, I've seen her on QT on occasions and often thought she came across as pretty arrogant and loathsome, until I checked her voting record, and found she is infact, very arrogant and loathsome.

Votes for greater use of the armed forces in foreign conflicts whilst simultaneously voting against the armed forces covenant
Votes to crease the full range of taxes that affect the poor, middle and working class' the most whilst voting against any tax reform for the most wealthy
Voted to sell of our forests, against climate change regulation, against powers for the Welsh assembly and Scottish parliament, votes for local councils to only have access to the business rates produced in their areas thereby slashing funds available in small and rural communities, I could go on, but the thought that this woman has been touted for higher office in the conservative party is giving me high blood pressure.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24778/priti_patel/witham/votes

I've heard people say that she is one to watch for the future.

@r_squared

It's not me it's spinning it - it's the newspaper. I'm just the messenger

At any rate, the idea that the EU 27 are united as one, is a total nonsense. There are cracks there, especially with the Danes and the Eastern European nations that could have been exploited for Britain's gain.

Of course, that would require a Foreign Secretary with some diplomatic sense, and political acumen, and not the complete and utter buffoon we have now!

A good opportunity to make hay has been missed

The EU27 is negotiating as one; we've tried talking to Macron/Merkel independently and shut down. So I don't think there are any cracks we can exploit directly.

Herzlos wrote:
The EU27 is negotiating as one; we've tried talking to Macron/Merkel independently and shut down. So I don't think there are any cracks we can exploit directly.

What they say in public and what they say in private are two different things.

I am convinced that with a half-decent foreign secretary, instead of one that is mistrusted and despised by the 27, we could be making ground somewhere, especially with Hungary and Poland, who have had their own run ins with the EU these past months.

Indeed. But we don't have one, so we can't exploit that avenue.

We just need to face up to the fact we're dealing with all of EU27 together, get our fingers out and start engaging with them.

This all seems like stuff that should have been thought about before June 2016, not just starting to be looked at in Oct 2017

Theresa May sets out Brexit options including 'no deal'
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41546701

The UK has set out how it could operate as an "independent trading nation" after Brexit, even if no trade deal is reached with Brussels.
Prime Minister Theresa May told MPs "real and tangible progress" had been made in Brexit talks.
But the country must be prepared for "every eventuality," as the government published papers on future trade and customs arrangements.

 Vaktathi wrote:
This all seems like stuff that should have been thought about before June 2016, not just starting to be looked at in Oct 2017

Theresa May sets out Brexit options including 'no deal'
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41546701

The UK has set out how it could operate as an "independent trading nation" after Brexit, even if no trade deal is reached with Brussels.
Prime Minister Theresa May told MPs "real and tangible progress" had been made in Brexit talks.
But the country must be prepared for "every eventuality," as the government published papers on future trade and customs arrangements.

You are making the assumption that Wrexit was only meant to be a political game by the Tory party and was never meant to happen. That not enough people came out to vote and they weren't stuck in limbo land where a third of the population are happy in the EU, a third aren't and a third we have no idea about. You've now got Wrexiters who are desperately clinging to push it through whilst general opinion is swinging against leaving and they'll push it through regardless of the consequences which will affect the poorest and less socially mobile than those with the money. In a rational UK we would have had well laid out documents showing the strengths and weaknesses of each option. Unfortunately "rational" and "UK" don't really go hand in hand anymore and instead we had a battle over pointless soundbites and immigration.

I think this is all May softening us up now to go full WTO. Now where is that video of homer crashing down a cliff again? I think she might have realised she is losing supporters to Labour who want to Remain and hence she is trying to shore up support with the hard liners.

Still secret meetings are being had for future trade deals - maybe this is one that is being lined up . Diamonds perhaps....?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41551096

 Vaktathi wrote:
This all seems like stuff that should have been thought about before June 2016, not just starting to be looked at in Oct 2017

You'd think that wouldn't you eh ?



http://www.balpa.org/Media-Centre/Press-Releases/BALPA-says-a-Brexit-%E2%80%98no-deal%E2%80%99-would-spell-disaster

Release date: 10/10/2017


Commenting on suggestions by the Prime Minister that a Brexit ‘no deal’ was now an option, BALPA General Secretary Brian Strutton said:

“The entire UK aviation sector which employs nearly a million people and carries more than 250 million passengers per annum would be devastated by a Brexit ‘no deal’.

“Unlike most other sectors there are no World Trade Organisation or any other rules to fall back on for aviation if there is no deal.

“UK airlines could find they have to stop flying – it’s that serious. And this would impact passengers long before March 2019 because airlines couldn’t sell advance tickets and, frankly, would passengers risk buying them?

“It is utter madness for anyone to think that a Brexit ‘no deal’ would be anything but a total disaster for our world leading UK aviation sector and beyond. After all, without air cargo we will not be able to export or import freely. The entire industry has said that we have to see evidence of the post-Brexit plan for aviation now if we are to avert a catastrophic crisis of confidence.”

Good job we hold all the cards mind though eh ?

David 'literally, you have one job' Davis there folks.

The Tories really need to stop pandering to the fringe lunatics in their own ranks.

Common sense will prevail. Planes won't be grounded in 2019. Both sides have too much to lose. A deal will be cobbled out at the last minute.

We need them far more than they need us though....

I'm still hoping this is all a cunning ruse to force a second referendum. Make such an absolute mess that they feel 'duty bound' to present the deal to the populace.

Good way of showing the fringe lunatics for the nutters they are, and just how utterly unpracticeable their demands are.

Then of course, I remember this is The Tories, and it is in all likelihood completely genuine shocking incompetence, and there is no plan, let alone a basic if quite cunning one.

Still over a year to put plans and foundations into place. We'll be in a much better position next year.

A week is a long time in politics, a year is an eternity. Who know what the world will be like in October 2018?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

A week is a long time in politics, a year is an eternity.

A year is an eternity in politics. It's about two minutes in international state-level trade negotiations. And this is the latter.

nfe wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

A week is a long time in politics, a year is an eternity.

A year is an eternity in politics. It's about two minutes in international state-level trade negotiations. And this is the latter.

The German car manufactures will come through for us. I have the utmost faith in them...