Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
13 June 2017 at 11:16 #59020
@thane15
Puro, Thane
Are you saying this action was cowardly? I find that difficult to entertain, imho…..where, once again, the ‘why’ was of penetrating significance to this twin episode of ‘Hell Sent.’
Yes. Cowardly, selfish, there are a number of words that seem appropriate to me.
The Doctor walks in time. He is old, very old. Everyone he has cared about has died around him. He has died himself multiple times (I count each regeneration as a death, the the following doctor is essentially a new personality). He has sacrificed himself at least twice to save a companion (Peri and Rose).
In the Raven Clara made a choice to save one person. She may have made that choice in error, not understanding the full situation, but she accepted the choice she made and faced her death willingly. For once, the Doctor was unable to save her, even to sacrifice himself for her.
Having failed to save Clara, in Heaven Sent, he puts aside all rational considerations in an attempt to bring Clara back from Death. At the final moment, when he knows that he has failed, Clara is an animated corpse, undead walking not a living person, instead of saying that final goodbye that was robbed from both of them in the Raven, instead of returning her to death, he does the opposite. How can we not see this as a selfish, cowardly act on his part. It dishonours Clara’s actions in the Raven, it dishonours her memory and that off every other companion as well as that of his wife, River.
Of course, we can understand why he does it. Grief combined with Hell Bent provides the reason and a justification. However, that doesn’t make the justification a valid one. We can understand how the Doctor, broken in Hell Bent, severely damaged by his Dalek/Time Lord genocide in the Time War and subsequent shame and guilt, acts as he does. Is this him at his most Human ? The Doctor fell here, most certainly.
13 June 2017 at 10:34 #59019Agreed; but it *also* means sometimes giving up, stepping back, “Why can’t I just lose?! . . . You still won’t be there .” I see it from maybe a reverse viewpoint: I see the person who carries the title The Doctor having to learn that lesson of ultimate acceptance over and over again, because “never give up” is directly opposed to “This is right. I accept it.” The conflict is built into the character’s series of journeys, so to me, that intermittent lapse of acceptance isn’t failure. It’s part of the Doctor’s self, his nature. It’s all “Doctorish”, including glimpses into a very very long, TL perspective on things from time to time.
I agree with everything you’ve written here. The difference in opinion between us, is that after trying everything he can do (which we saw in the Library or the Raven episodes or to save Peri) and that final end comes (River, Rose trapped to an alternative universe for ever, Amy & Rory in the past) there is acceptance of that fact with sadness, depression, withdrawal from universe (Matt the Monk). Although these sort of things were less dwelt on in BG Who, you can add Adric, Susan and others into the same category.
What’s undoctorish is not accepting fate as he did with Clara. In the same way, but differently, the failure to even try to save the 4 year child at the beginning of Thin Ice, leaping to the conclusion in Smile that the space ship should be destroyed before even checking that the crew was dead, using the fake regeneration to test Bill are all more than just the Doctor being alien, they aren’t consistent with the way we expect the Doctor to act. We expect him to try and same the child (especially), to investigate the colony ship first and certainly not to provoke Bill into shooting him.
@pedant suggests, very plausibly, why this may be happening. I think Moff has something else in mind. We’ll see soon.
13 June 2017 at 02:10 #58997What is being Doctorish ? Each regeneration is different. In this particular place, (at the end of Heaven Sent) then No not in my opinion. Is Clara more important to him than River ? More important than Rose. River died. He knew how, where and when before he even knew who she was and what she was going to mean to him. What was Rose to D8 and D9 ? Was she less important to him than Clara ? There’s no answer to these questions and each of us will have a different opinion.
In mine, Being The Doctor means accepting fate, accepting companion’s decisions sacrifices (River sacrificed herself to save Him after all) no matter the personal cost. Can he fail. Of course, even he can have his breaking point. But by reaching that point, he ceases to be the Doctor, at least for a period. I said before I thought this was the most unDoctorish thing that he has happened. His most human even.
Anyway Ichabod, the questions that most relate to S10’s strange behaviour, is why and how does it relate to the last 2 or 3 episodes of D12.
13 June 2017 at 00:01 #5899112 June 2017 at 23:25 #5898912 June 2017 at 23:22 #58988No I haven’t – other things yes.
I can understand why you think the Doctor is depressed (I’m assuming you essentially mean clinically depressed). The Doctor has spent a billion (or several) years in a ground hog day loop, breaking through to the Time Lords. Hell Bent suggests each time is the first time for the Doctor, although its probable that he remember something between each time.
I agree that this caused him to attempt to try and recover Clara from her Death in a way that the Doctor hasn’t acted before (or after with River). He then has a large chunk of his memories of Clara and Clara related adventures removed by her. At that point does he even remember Hell Bent or Heaven sent even happened to him ? He sees the gaps and can make some educated guesses.
He then goes to the final 24 year Dinner with River, following which she leaves to go to her Death at the Library. He’s called to the execution. River sends Nardole to look after him and he decides to save Missy and help her find redemption (and his own ?). There is several hundred (probably) years of the two talking before he meets Bill and series 10 commences.
If you’re suggesting that he’s acting unDoctorish because of depression caused by this sequence of events, then I can certainly accept that as plausible. Would Moff signal that with less ambiguity ? Perhaps, perhaps not.
Whatever his state of mind when he met Bill, I’d suggest that adventures with Bill would be therapeutic ?. Wouldn’t we be seeing him behave more like the Doctor from the Pilot onwards, even if the last two stories are going to be about something dreadful, which causes is final “fall” ? It seems to me that things are getting worse not better as we go through S10.
12 June 2017 at 22:16 #58985In Hell Bent, was the first version we saw, the very first time. He left himself clues to speed up the process of getting to the barrier. Whatever memory he has, must be limited. Less than all, or the episode is a lie.
In any case, I’m not sure that it changes my overall idea, or even that @pedant ‘s argument does. Pedant’s suggestion gives him a valid excuse for not being able to meet the Doctor’s moral code at that point, but doesn’t for anything else subsequently, except to explain why he is now increasingly undoctorish. Hell bent broke him and he’s falling apart. However, after Clara removed her existence from his memory, surely it is reasonable that how he acted in the attempt to save Clara after the her Death (and the events that lead up to it) must also be gone ?
12 June 2017 at 18:58 #58978I thought it was your idea, but I want 100 % sure !
I don’t think you can necessarily take the title too literally with Moff. I suppose, at the core, I’m suggesting that the undoctorishness is growing and will somehow reach a peak. The Doctor may make the wrong choice, or be faced with a no-win situation. I dont know and cant guess what Moff has planned. I wonder if the choice of more primitive Mondasian cybermen is a clue.
Why I like your a wonderful life idea, is that its a way of constructing a christmas episode in theme which ends not in sadness (the regeneration), but in a rebirth leading into something new, full of hope for the future. That concept fits so well with how series 10 (and the end of series 9) seems to be progressing towards a Doctor, who is gradually becoming the un-doctor.
Isn’t Missy/Master the ultimate un-doctor in any case ? Does the execution, the vault, the proposed redemption of Missy counter-point the Doctor’s gradual fall into un-doctorism ? To redeem Missy, the Doctor falls (becomes the un-doctor). Could anything be worse for him ?
12 June 2017 at 18:43 #58976I agree, you can argue that the billion years, spent being tortured might have changed things, but then each Doctor in the Hell Bent castle has no memory of the previous Doctor. He has to work it out from first principles and then spent whatever time left clawing at the wall. Surely the impact can only be intellectual and not physical as there are no accumulated memory.
12 June 2017 at 18:14 #58972Missy in the vault is a massive problem for the Doctor forsure. He chose, he took responsibility (physical and moral) for Missy when he refused to execute her and took her at face value and exiled her to the vault. She may escape, but the responsibility can only be his if he chooses to let her go. Whilst she has free will, so does he. He cannot avoid some moral responsibility for her (post vault) actions once he placed her into the vault. Death sentences must always be wrong (there is always hope of redemption as missrori states), but then that’s why life imprisonment exists.
Even if the original spark that made the Master/Missy wasnt their fault, he/she chose to act upon those dark impulses and made it a core part of their personality. Original sin and the fall of lucifer. The oldest moral question in western thinking.
I agree with you at bluesqueakpip, not only is repentance and reformation the theme of this story, but isnt it (or at least different aspects of the same moral dilemma) the theme of series 10 so far and perhaps even of D12’s regeneration ?
By inference, the resolution must come at the regeneration. The Doctor Falls (a complete moral failure ? – something to do with Missy and/or Bill) and is redeemed at Christmas (It’s a wonderful life style perhaps – I cant recall who suggested that). A complete rebirth if you like ? Moff underlines the PTSD Doctors, the War Doctor, the Doctor = warrior, the UnDoctor themes for good.
With all that angst (D8 to D12) out of the way, Chibbers has an open door to do something completely different. A hard reset at a basic level. The AG AG-Who.
I don’t know if this is what Moff is planning or not, but if it is, it would indeed be a triumph, even if it doesn’t come of 100 %.
12 June 2017 at 16:40 #58969What I love most is that we all have different takes. I thought the Doctor was undoctorish in the way that he “saved” Clara. It was cowardly. As the Doctor, he can try everything and anything to save someone, and if he fails, he can suffer, but also know that there was nothing else he could do or would do differently. Clara acted nobly in the Raven. It was true to her character. Having failed to save her from the result her choice, then he death and his mourning is appropriate.
Acting outside his core principles (which he didn’t do with River, Rose, Amy/Rory or Adric in BG Who) in the way he did is undoctorish. Contrast it with the Time of the Doctor, when D11(13) sacrificed himself to protect Trenzalore and stayed true to his core morality, even though he knew it would be his Death.
The way the Doctor acted to “save” Clara was selfish and actually more like Missy/Master behaves. I think even Clara knew that, when she wiped herself from his memory.
Its not that he failed to save the child, but that he didnt even attempt to try and save the little boy that is undoctorish. The Doctor we know from pre-D11 would have been willing to died trying surely ?
I agree Heather is more probable (but if the puddle can absorb it someone, surely it is possible that the reverse can happen too ?). We have the impulse to destroy the star ship before even checking whether everyone had already died or not in Smile.
How can he let Missy go ?
He chose to save her from permanent Death on the basis of her vow to redeem herself and agreed to a 1,000 year period to help her do so. An impossible task ? Probably. Based on the Master’s character wouldn’t he/she do and say anything to avoid real Death ? The Doctor knows this better than anyone. The Doctor also knows that the Master did chose true Death once though.
Every subsequent death at Missy/Master’s hand would be completely his fault. His guilt. I’d suggest there isn’t any morally acceptable solution if she isn’t redeemed, except to finish the execution that he halted. Admit his mistake, not withstanding how painful it might be. He has placed himself into an almost impossible moral quandary, with a very low probability of success.
@bluesqueakpip re your On the Sofa comment. I sympathise. I felt the same all too often in series 5/6/7.
12 June 2017 at 15:06 #58967@bluesqueakpip @missrori @jimthefish @blenkinsopthebrave @thane15
Absolutely spot on. The failure to save the young child, is the most unusual thing we’ve seen in S10 (I also thought the lack of even an attempt to save the Girl in the puddle was also problematic, although not completely outside the range of possibilities). Things have escalated since, with the regeneration that wasnt (or was it), the Tardis dematerialising on its own and now Missy’s concern.
The doctor isnt the Doctor right now.
Why ? I think we’ve got various different variants on the same theory – something to do with the regeneration – on the go. Any alternatives ?
12 June 2017 at 14:09 #58964I agree with you Jim, Corbyn does indeed seem very open and honest (I’ll talk to anyone conversation I sawe on TV springs to mind). I’m not a Cobynite, but I like a lot of what I hear him say. I’m not so sure about those around him. Broadening appeal is going to be hard. I’m not sure what it will take to convert a decent % of the SE heartland to go pink.
On May. She is politically dead already. But someone needs to lead the Tory party and its not clear who else can command a majority. I think if she survives the week, she’ll be around for a while. The problem is that they can’t delay Brexit talks to have another leadership election and then general election in the next 12 months. If they were seen as opportunistic in April, they’ll be seen as abrogating their duty if they do something in the middle of the talks. There is a view that until the German election is finished nothing serious will happen. That creates a window that lasts until October, but I don’t see another election within that period changing the result significantly from this one.
Going to the country on the back of the Brexit deal with a new leader seems more likely. Who knows. Interesting times. Cameron is going to be damned by historians as one of the least politically acute PM’s of the modern age.
A Sinn Fein guy was on the TV this morning, in effect saying that they thought the UK government was always biased and reconfirming that they think the UK gov shouldnt be the arbitrator. That may be true especially after the DUP deal, but who ? The US would be ok (but not Trump surely). The EU isnt possible politically. Obama on a personal basis ? May has to get involved personally, but she seems completely disinterested.
I think an astute PM, would run a minority government and buy off the DUP without any sort of deal at all.
12 June 2017 at 11:17 #58951A major earthquake for sure – and we have an opposition now (finally) . I think Maybot is going to be around for quite a while unless Brexit causes the Tory party to split into hard/soft Brexit parties. The ideological hard brexiteers (who May seems to be captive to) aren’t going to go quietly. They will now raise some taxes, reduce the deficit target and spend more on public services.
In my opinion, for it to become a tectonic shift, Corbyn has to broaden his appeal (unless the Libdems can expand their vote in the SE significantly) and get a clear position on what his “soft brexit” looks like. John McD was on the TV this weekend restating brexit means leaving the single market (ie a Norway style arrangement cant be the solution). That is Maybot’s view.
I’d suggest that a Norway style exit (adopting the same sort of freedom of movement controls the Germans use) is probably the majority position across all MPs ?
12 June 2017 at 01:49 #58945Whilst stealing regeneration any might be involvec(or not), I suspect Moff has a rather more complicated idea in play.
12 June 2017 at 01:47 #58944I rather buy that description of the Master/Missy and Doctor relationship. In some ways, the relationship has always been one of mutual respect and mutual loathing. You have to ask whether the Master has ever really tried to kill the Doctor. He’s (I really wish we had an appropriate neutral pronoun in English) always us complex plots and stratagems. It’s like a test – get out of that one if you can. My intellect is better than those sort of thing (I’m tempted to say school boyish) with all that gloating. If you want someone dead, you don’t mess around.
I guess we’re meant to infer the Doctor and Missy have been talking for a very long time in the vault. With nothing else to do, you might expect the Doctor and Missy’s relationship to become warmer (for the duration anyway). What else do they have to talk about except their relationship – whatever it originally was – and the past.
11 June 2017 at 23:14 #58939The Master plotted to steal the Doctor’s remaining regnerations as did the Valeyard in BG Who (it came up in three or four different stories).
11 June 2017 at 13:37 #58907My guess is that Maybot will be around as PM for quite a while. The Tories can’t have a leadership contest in the middle of Brexit talks. Therefore whoever is the next leader has to be the sole candidate, who the majority can stand behind. I don’t think that’s Boris (right now anyway). It not obvious who else it might be either (if there was May would never have been appointed Tory party leader in the first place).
Looking at the lot of them from the outside, the most reasonable choice would seem to be Philip Hammond (as he said at their last party conference – no one voted for Brexit to be poorer) or David Davies (he at least seems to understand negotiations require good will and compromise). It’s interesting that May was supposed to be planning to dump both of them after her coronation.
11 June 2017 at 13:21 #58906re the Tardis/Nardole
If they had just wanted to get rid of Nardole from the story, he could have been left at home to guard the vault as in Smile. Don’t you have to conclude that the Tardis took Nardole and then refused to work, so that he had to bring Missy with him, to get back to Mars ?
Whilst it could be a red herring I think “are you alright Doctor ?” ties back to last weeks fake regeneration. It may well be as @optimall suggests or something else (plenty of discussion on last weeks episode thread and elsewhere)
10 June 2017 at 20:38 #58864My initial thought after watching the Mars story is that the Tardis has detected the Doctor is no longer quite the same person. Tie this into Missy’s question about whether he is alright, suggests a tie back to the replacement theory we discussed at length last week.
10 June 2017 at 20:35 #58863One initial thought is that the Tardis choosing to disappear itself and Missy’s Are you alright Doctor query link back last week ? I would be more explicit, but some of us were bonkerising on the spoiler thread last week so I havent been too explicit discussing that theory here.
10 June 2017 at 20:10 #58862Apart from Missy’s “are you alright Doctor” nothing conceptual for the longer term particularly stood out other than as has been pointed out by @pedant
Bonkerism at work for the rest in a very enjoyable way. As often with the purely fun episodes, the concept needed more time and depth to properly deliver its conclusion on the premise.
10 June 2017 at 15:12 #58852@Thane15
Post Industrial is a better description for the former Industrial heartland on the UK (essentially Birmingham northwards). Often referred to as the Labour heartlands.
There are rural areas, when Industry never touched too deeply. Northern Scotland, Central Wales, a lot of the east coast, the welsh borders in England. Central England between London and Birmingham. These areas are dominated by farming. They are deeply conservative (with a small c) and largely Tory voting. Often referred to as the “Shires” and “Home Counties”.
I have worked with guys like that. They are ARSE’s. Being simplistic, the wealthier your are (especially if you’re family has always been wealthy) the more selfish it seems your thinking becomes. The poorer you are, the more collectively you think.
One problem is that the really wealthy pay very little tax. There are some many legal structures combined with the ability to live in multiple global locations or in tax havens, which can be used to take income out of tax completely in the UK. Corporate tax structuring does exactly the same thing across the EU. These people/businesses don’t have any home or loyalty beyond themselves and their like. The world is chess pieces to them not people.
10 June 2017 at 14:24 #58849@Thane 15
Thane I was just trying to explain how it seems to me. There are about 1 million people (thats 1 in 40 ish) on zero hours contracts. If you’re a high paid professional that’s great. If you’re on minimum wage or close to it, you cant be sure how much money you’ll have to spend on rent and food each week. Many use pay day loans to fill the gap and hope to be able to repay it within the month.
On brexit and the EU we all have our opinions and like the Scot inde referendum, it got quite passionate and not much based on analysis and reflection. Looking back, using hindsight things seem clearer now.
Personally, I always see and read arguments from both sides of the debate. I am still undecided whether on balances it is a good or bad thing, using a 20 year outcome view.
10 June 2017 at 14:19 #58848@thane15
Hi Thane. Brexit wasnt unexpected though. I was in France, but I told my wife and her (french) friends that I thought it was very likely Leave would win (leaving the EU is an incredible idea for the majority of French people – unthinkable).
I hoped I was wrong, but not surprised at all that it happened. I certainly expected the result to be very close. I dont think the majority of voters is SE England really appreciate what the rest of the country thinks and feels. Most holiday overseas these days and dont leave the motorways much anyway. If you don’t travel in the UK for business, I don’t think many actually see how depressed parts of the country are.
10 June 2017 at 13:51 #58844One thing I meant to say to you. I was a 20 year old at Durham university during the strike. Two things particularly stand out. I was doing one set of exams (cant remember which year anymore) and I could hear one of the Colliery brass bands, come and go through the window. They were leading a March into the centre of Durham. I cant recall whether it was strike related or part of the annual Miners Gala. It was poignant the the time. Now it feels like the one last huzza for a dying industry. A lot of people, whole communities went. on the scrap heap between 1980 and 1990. Many never came back.
The other one, was a mate and I were waiting for a train one evening. A slightly drunk (I thought) guy shouted at us from another platform. He thought we were undercover Police.
10 June 2017 at 12:43 #58842This is quite interesting economic based view on why May lost. I wouldn’t suggest this was the only or even best reason, but the underlying economics are important back ground.
10 June 2017 at 12:09 #58841@thane15
Brexit happened because of two main reason so far as I can tell. One is that there is a minority view on both the left and right of UK politics (which has gradually morphed into more of a right wing view than left) that the EU is a flawed experiment. The argument on the left was always that the EU is part of the capitalist global structure that exploit workers. The argument on the right is a more theoretical view that the UK should be absolutely free to do what it wants and neither the EU or the European Court of Justice (and more lately the European Court of Human Rights) should have any power over the UK. Those pesky EU laws governing workers rights, our ability to expel terrorists back to Jordan etc.
These arcane argument were safely ignored by the majority, until the 2008/9 recesssion happened (which were are still in, even through growth has returned).The UK has its own rust belt, stretching across the SWest, Wales, Midlands, NW and NE and into Scotland. In the 1980s heavy industry (coal steel ship building) and light and heavy engineering jobs (there were millions) were wiped out almost overnight and not replaced. Many of these were skilled high paying jobs, which kept the communities wealthy enough. Since then local economies have recovered, but not back to the same point. Most jobs now are much lower paid service sector.
The UK went through really high rates of economic growth from 1997 to 2007. However, a significant proportion of this happened in SE and London (due to the Financial sector). The ONS collects GDP data per head (GVA basis). Its a bit dodgy I believe, but it is indicative. For 2015 GVA per person in London was £43.6k verses UK average of £25.3k. Wales is £18k, NI £18.6k, NE £18.9k, Midlands £20.8k, NW£21.9k, SE £27.8k.
In this growth period, a lot of jobs were created. Enough to support the existing UK population plus a significant increase in immigrants. What’s happened since 2008 especially is that in the poorer areas income has not increased much at all, benefits have been reduced. Costs have increased across that period through inflation. People have got poorer and remain poorer than they were in 2007 today. This is on the back of the impact of the 1980/90s recessions. Whilst employment % is at an all time high, a lot of these jobs are zero hours contracts (ie you dont know how much you’ll work from day to day and you only get paid by the hours worked). Many more are part time. None are high paying. Job insecurity is high. Some places are predominantly employing only EU citizens (widely claimed but certainly true in some instances) and it is claimed only recruiting in the EU and not locally. Public services have been significantly cut.There is limited public housing available. Immigration adds to demand. House rents have increased above inflation. Waiting times to see Doctors have increased (as has the number of people per doctor). Its more difficult to get into schools. The public infrastructure hasn’t kept pace with increased population size etc.
Resentment in general and against immigrant labour in particular has risen. The right in general and UKIP in especially have blamed the EU for this. The right controlled media (Sun, Daily Mail, Telegraph) has been publishing anti-EU propaganda since at least the 1980s. Combine all these things together and you end up with 52 % of voters being anti-EU.
The EU is the biggest single area of difference within the Tory party and has been since the 1980s. Its the one issue that could split the party. Increasingly, the Tory party members and new MPs have become increasingly eurosceptic. There has been talk about a referendum on the issue throughout the late 2000s. Cameron wanted to settle the issue within the Tories for a generation. He called the referendum to make the internal issue go away.
I dont think he appreciated how the anti-EU Tories and UKIP would combine and deploy with anti-EU propaganda and lie. The remain campaign was very poor and focused on a negative view of the EU (dubbed project fear). Basically the economic cost of leaving is very high. Nothing positive was said. I think they adopted project Fear approach as the similar tactic was used at the end of the Scottish independence referendum and was widely acclaimed to have worked. The final straw was that the leave camp were more motivated to vote than remain. People who hadnt voted for years across the rust belt voted and voted to leave.
This is simplistic and other people may say different things and have different point of views. This is mine though.
On trade, Puro, do you really think Australian agri-industry doesn’t want to sell more Beef and Lamb into new markets ? In 2016 the UK imported 264,000 tonnes of beef (exported 110,000) the vast majority too and from the EU. 4,000 tonnes was from Australia. I don’t know what Australian politicians are saying, but Irish politicians are extremely worried about the potential job losses and reduced tax income that food tariffs of 25 to 30 % would have on the Irish agricultural industry, which is heavily reliant on exports from Ireland into the UK. I’ll give you a cheap example. When McDonalds advertise on French TV they always say they use only 100 % French beef. In the UK its 100 % British and Irish beef.
10 June 2017 at 03:02 #58831Not a lot. From what I recall USA agri-industry was growing large straight banana’s in Central America (Honduras ?) while Europe was importing smaller curved bananas from the Caribbean – ex-French colonies ? and using product standards to exclude the larger bananas.
The biggest problem with brexit right now is that its a phoney war (ie 9/1930 through to 5/1940) when not a lot happened. Until both sides sit down and start to talk and feel where either side will compromise its hard to see what the outcome will be. Much of the Trade deal is actually relatively easy to do, because there is some much money involved. The sticking points are political (citizens rights) and whatever the financial cost of any unsettled liabilities and assets relating to the period up to 3/2019.
10 June 2017 at 01:25 #58827I said it was what I thought would happen not what I want to happen.
Anyway, The UK bought 2.69 million new cars in 2016 and manufactured 1.7 million, of which 0.3 million were sold in the UK. That’s a net import of 1.3 million cars in one year (SMMT figures). Whether you consider that to be a “BMW needs us” argument or not [ i don’t] That’s a lot of trade. The Net EU figures would show higher imports in any case as Land Rover/Jaguar and BMW Minis are exported globally and not just to the EU.
If you put barriers into that system (which is replicated across a wide range of products and sectors) it costs everyone. To pretend otherwise is being blinkered. The situation you describe about France, cuts both ways as well.
The primary reason the UK/French border is in France is for Trade reasons. Importing French goods into the UK (especially fresh food) is limited on the shortest routes by lack of physical space in the UK ports. UK inspection in France, where there is more space available, speeds up transit into the UK. Moving that back into the UK works against French trade (and wont make any difference to illegal immigrants as the shipper has legal responsibility and will have to pay for the cost of transport back into France as well as pay a fine).
These are such complicated integrated systems that no one really knows what will happen if barriers are put into place. There will be unintended consequences. But in general terms, lower imports into the UK from EU states as prices rise, will not be offset by extra sales within the EU or in export markets. EU producers loose volume and profits. By increasing import costs, it also becomes more profitable to switch to UK production for the UK market let alone import substitution from exports from other markets. Whilst UK exports to the EU will also reduce, it is possible to substitute products from export to UK domestic market.
When I was living in Dubai, all the meat you could buy came from Australia, New Zealand and Brazil (even in part French owned businesses). Most of the fruit and veg was North African and Indian in origin. Apples were routinely imported from the USA. European sourced food was quite rare. We see little imports from these locations because of EU wide trade barriers. Don’t think suppliers from these countries wouldn’t love to sell into the UK market.
In fact the UK market is a better place to export into than immediate EU neighbours in many ways. My wife is from Nice in France. Italy is less than 50 km down the road, but you won’t find much if any fresh Italian produce in Nice (it’s about a third cheaper if you go to Italy and buy at the nearest markets and supermarkets).This isnt because Fruit and veg are grown locally instead. In Nice it is mostly imported from central France, because that is where the French supply chains look to. There is virtually no Italian wine to be found in France. In the spring there was a main item on French TV news talking about French farmers smashing Spanish wine in supermarkets near the the border, which they claimed were being dumped into the French market.
Putin’s EU food import ban is widely ignored. There is now a new market in the Middle East and Belarus when EU products are completely rebadged as local produce and sold into Russia. As one of my Russian colleagues put it, where does all that (farmed) Salmon from that well known producer Belarus come from (Scotland, Norway and US).
I agree that May and Cameron have done a very good job of pissing off the EU, but to say we are friendless is wrong. We are rivals and would stab each other in the back, but that has always been the case.
I have a really good chuckle when I hear Tory brexiteers going on. The Single Market and extension of the EU into eastern Europe are Thatcher’s euro legacy. I dont suppose the modern day Thatcherites like May and Fox know that though. Even if they did, they are looking at a 20 year outcome and don’t much care whether things are shit for the first 10 years. It’s their mind set.
Taking a longer term view, it is possible (and has been done) to create economic justification for Brexit and leaving the single market. As always its a cost/benefit analysis and on what price you are prepared (for someone else) to pay.
The ever closer Union that the Eurozone needs for it to operate effectively will automatically create a federal EU. It seems The Defence union is the easiest step (now Britain is going), Macron’s EU facing economic policy is based on federalising EU finances and creating a EU budget and budget minister for the Eurozone as well as a stronger banking union. Macron has stated the Euro in its current form won’t last 10 years without this level of integration and that Frexit is inevitable without these steps.
9 June 2017 at 22:44 #58824If we no deal exit, we immediately go to WTO rules. We already trade on a WTO basis with the US and China (there are no EU trade deals with them). The problem would be one of a massive increase in scale not one of unknown basis.
As for none EU countries with EU trade deals, each would ask themselves whether they would prefer to continue to trade with the UK on the same basis as today by signing exactly the same paperwork as a separate UK/country law or see a reduction in their exports to here ? Most volumes here are small in any case.
I dont think any of this would be a small simple thing, but neither do I think it’ll be as impossible as some propaganda (from both sides) suggests. Whatever the EU rules say, The UK will have talked with all the major importers outside the EU before hand.
Since 50 % of UK trade is within the EU anyway, I would be absolutely amazed given the amount of trade both ways if both sides dont agree a start date and leave time for mutual implementation.
I absolutely agree with you, May acted solely in her own interests in April. The last two months should have been spent by the government doing everything possible regarding Brexit. So far as I am sh should have been sent to the Tower for even thinking t might be a good idea. She should have sought an elected mandate last year if it was that important to her.
I also agree with you on the rest. The only person who thinks immigration is going to go down in Maybot. Again I bet even she doesn’t think that. Regardless she said it for purely election purposes. She is one of the worst politicians out there.
9 June 2017 at 21:42 #58820There will be at least a year to agree on the paperwork (in fact we already know what that looks like as the UK and EU import from outside the EU already). Trade doesnt stop because of tarifs. We pay more for stuff and receive a tax inflow on imports. You need at least a year to train up the additional people to implement it. A lot is computerised anyway. For this, its a good thing that we’re an island.
9 June 2017 at 21:27 #58819I agree with you there. The only ay to negotiate something like Brexit on the basis of a national consensus. Since that doesnt exist, something Norway like is a win win for both sides. We’re out, but in enough to work for both sides. It will also kick the issue down the road for both Us and Europe. We can reach a final decision either way later.
9 June 2017 at 20:53 #58815On Brexit, I was previously of the opinion that the odds were on a no deal exit.
9 June 2017 at 20:47 #58814🙂 I dont think the public wants/likes regional government. However, if there’s enough money and power and it does good things locally (as well as charging income tax) attitudes can change quickly. I would say the London Mayor has worked well, even though it doesnt have enough real powers
I agree with you. What they want and what they’ll end up with are two different things. As @mudlark stated, its not clear who could replace her right now. There’s also a good chance they’ll split over Brexit. I doubt they can get hard brexit through parliament anymore and there’s an awful lot of Tories who will accept nothing else.
I’d put my money on a UK version of a Norway style arrangement now. Even David Davies thinks that the walk away/hard brexit mantra is dead. He’s the only one of May’s brexit team who understand the EU and has a streak of realism.
9 June 2017 at 19:39 #58809Who can replace May. It looks like the party is sufficiently split that no one will. I’m guessing that they’ll leave her there to sort Brexit and then dump her in a couple of years for someone more popular. Boris Johnson is probably the most obvious candidate (he is at least popular), but he’s also a wag (that is a general joker and buffoon). Like the Price Philip he is extremely gifted at speaking without engaging his Brain (think Trump like, with a sense of humour, good manners and able to speak in sentences). Historically, minority governments in the UK have lasted less than 12 months.
The economic consensus is that the pound has been too strong for years. Many also thought the post Brexit fall was long overdue. Since then, there have been some stats where exports have shown big increases. Whilst the fall has caused significant price increases for Imports (and the UK imports rather a lot running rough $5 to 10 billion trade deficit every month) and has (and will continue) to cause ral terms falling earnings, in the short term. Longer term it ought to keep more money in the UK (staycations) and cause UK produced goods to replace imports. Longer term that will create strong economic growth.
There are quire a lot of economists who think UK currency has been over valued for years (first because it was a petro-currency in the 1980s and 1990s and more lately due to the Finance sector), which has been a significant cause of running down manufacturing and agricultural sectors in the UK. For example, UK supermarkets import Milk from Poland, because its fractionally cheaper than buying it here.
Politically, the election looked like a great idea. The labour party was on its knees because Corbyn wasnt rated much and there had been a huge amount of infighting after his election. May needed a big majority so she could put her supporters (and those beholden to her – political patronage -) into all the key positions and dump Boris, Philip Hammond, David Davis, Liam Fiox, and a bunch of other semi-rivals.
I guess the party didnt realise what a poor campaigner she is and had no say into her manifesto, where she deliberately introduced policies which would act against her biggest supporters (basically retired people). Corbyn was recognised as a good campaigner, but I dont think we knew just how good. Plus he deliberately went left to shore up the Labour base. Even now, I dont think many party MPs or commentators think it will be enough to convert into a majority next election. They need to appeal more to the centre. However, Labour is in a much better position to move forward now than it has been since before 1997 (imo).
9 June 2017 at 19:16 #58806Re Northern ireland
You’re absolutely correct. The UK government is meant to be a neutral. I wont say the that the majority think its a problem (too much focus on the immediate aftermath), but it has been a significant theme in the news coverage today (alongside the general biblical style policies of the DUP party, originally set up by the Reverend Ian Paisley).
9 June 2017 at 17:47 #58801Hi Lisa. I don’t know how knowledgeable you are regarding British politics and the political system. So apologies in advance is this is old news for you.
Whilst British Prime Ministers appear and act like presidents, they don’t actually have any personal mandate to rule. They are the boss, the CEO, but the Board of Directors (the Cabinet) have much more significant say over policy and implementation behind the scenes. Worst still for the PM they have to keep there wider party supporters on side as they can be sacked by the party at any time. The French or USA presidents dont answer to their Parties in any similar way. I think the system is largely the same in Australia and new Zealand, but not in many other places. Corbyn can not implement everything that he believes in, even if he wanted to.
Whilst I’m writing this, the various factions within the Tory Party are furiously jostling for power. I have no doubt that if there was a candidate who could muster widespread appeal within the Tory party, May would be sacked almost immediately. In theory there would be a party election to appoint a successor. However, if there are no other candidates (as happened for May) then the new leader and prime minister would be appointed immediately. The reason why May will probably cling to power is that it seems that there is no single person the Tory Party as a whole can back right now. Over the next few months/years someone will emerge and May will be gone. It will not be in an election for sure.
May’s idea to reach out for support the the DUP in Northern Ireland will also have gone down very badly by many in the Tory party, because of the nature of that party’s core philosophy. It would also cause significant problems with the mechanisms that make the Northern Ireland Peace process work. That’s already in a mess because the DUP made a very expensive financial mistake, which has caused the power sharing arrangements to collapse. Making that situation worse for short term gain is widely seen as utter stupidity in the UK.
9 June 2017 at 14:53 #58796I agree May will stagger on, probably until the end of the Brexit negotiations (say 2020), be dumped and a new Tory leader will head into the next election. The Brexit talks are too soon to run a 3 month leadership election. They would need to appoint an MP as emergency leader asap. Is this possible or worse is there a single MP they can collectively stand behind, better than May ?
May is in a bigger bind than she was before. The Hard Brexit minority will block any softer deal she wants to do (or at least try to) making internal Tory party management on brexit near impossible. The majority of the rest of Parliament seems soft brexit orientated. The feared UKIP/Tory hard Brexit line based on the will of the people argument is fatally weakened. Norway style Brexit with some controls over immigration (ie the ones the Germans use now) seems more likely now than before. The only deal breaker seems to be the 100 Billion bill.
Can May back down to deliver this ? Maybe, but none of us know what she actually had in mind anyway. It seemed Hard Brexit, but was it. Gummer was supposed to be a certainty to replace David Davies (with Rudd as chancellor). It’s possible her intention was always something softer. That platform might well have won her the mandate she wanted. Her innate secrecy and control freakery may have cost her there.
On austerity measures, I expect they’ll continue until 2019/20 and then they’ll open the spending gates (with the new leader) to try and buy the next election. This may be made easier by a softer Brexit deal.
9 June 2017 at 14:20 #587919 June 2017 at 13:58 #58789Unfortunately our Westminster leaders are too in love with gaining absolute power from a minority of the electorate for any form of reform to be impossible. Clegg’s biggest mistake (apart from taking a centre-left party into a right wing party coalition) was not to insist PR as the price for the deal (not a referendum than nobody cared about).
England might have moved closer to a 2 party system last night than for a considerable period, but it is also clear that the regions have fragmented. More UKIP votes in the North went to the Tories (but not enough to win), whereas in the South more switched to Labour and the Tories gained little. I suspect a lot of remain/liberal Tory voters in London and the SE stayed at home last night.
9 June 2017 at 12:32 #58782I dont know what the cure is, but I think it must be built around local democracy. There was a time when Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle were important economic hubs rivaling London in economic importance (add Glasgow for Scotland and South Wales as a region). We have to get back to this way of looking at things. The new big mayors will help get this started, but I think more £ needs to be spent pump priming the local economy.
My wife is French, so I contrast with France a lot. The big regional cities in France has a lot more ability to make things happen locally, which drives the economy. The problem the French have got themselves into is that the Government (national and local) is more important than anything else.
9 June 2017 at 12:24 #58781I’ve been a firm believer in the UK having some form of PR based electoral system for as long as I can vote.In some ways the French system is better (two rounds, with only 2 candidates in the final round, so the supporters of the other defeated candidates have to choose). This is rather PR like, but unlike PR big minority parties dont get seats. I may hate the FN, but it cant be right in a democracy that a party that gets c20 % of the Vote gets no representation.
I saw that Labour were the second largest party in Scotland by votes, which surprised me. The coverage in the UK (already very poor) made me think that Labour had almost disappeared.
I agree the SNP were always going to loose some seats at the next election. I suspect they didnt expect quite this many though. It will also be a shame to loose Angus and Alec from Westminster. Both have had interesting things to say.
I also believe that England needs to be split into 5 or 6 regional governments similar to Scotland in intent. I dont think Westminster sees much beyond inner London and the media hub. The only time you see the rest of the country (England I mean) on TV is news coverage, when something bad happens.
9 June 2017 at 11:14 #58778@whisht @thane15
I broadly agree with you there. Whilst there are issues about how do we pay for the increasing cost of the older folk when they get sick and need social care, it’s probably safe to conclude that the majority view is that the government should pay for the largest chunk of the cost. This requires tax rises and that the long term (post 1945 at least) tax rate of c36 % of GDP needs to increase closer to 40 % (perhaps more) as we cant borrow enough to bridge the gap from 36 % Tax to c40 % spending anymore.
The Tory idea/aim of cutting government spending to c35 % of GDP (and eventually taxing lower than 36 % once the borrowing deficit was replaced with surpluses for a few years) – more US like taxation and public services – doesn’t seem to have any broad popular mandate today.
More than that anyway, there need to be a major investment in the UK outside the SE. The stats people have shown that UK GDP would be £150+ billion larger if the productivity rate in the SE was seen across the rest of the Country (thats about £50 billion of extra spending power for the government at current tax rates). Average productivity in the SE/London is higher than the average in Germany. How to make this happen though ?
9 June 2017 at 10:26 #58776@thane15
Puro if things had gone to plan, Gummer would be brexit secretary (replacing Davies) and Rudd would be chancellor (replacing Hammond) as May put her loyal supporters into all of the key positions.
She is staying it seems at least for now. Running a minority government with the largest Northern ireland unionist party propping her up. That suggests DUP will ask and get some major things for Unionists in Northern Ireland, which will make the devolved government there even more of a mess than it is now. The Tory party in Scotland (wins there) kept Tory seats approximately stable. On the rest of the UK, they lost seats. How ironic.
Last time something like this happened was in 1974. Wilson won the election (beating Heath) but didnt get a majority. A second election later in the year, gave him enough additional seats to rule. Its hard to see May doing that since she lost the election. If there wasnt Brexit negotiations starting very soon, she would have been forced to resign overnight. She’s safe for now I think. Cameron insisted that Scots couldnt vote on English issues (fear of the SNP). She cant rely on those MPs for most of her policy implementation.
However, her planned negotiating approach to Brexit and reshuffle in terms on Ministers is dead.
8 June 2017 at 22:30 #58760Are exit poles reliable as Bonkers ideas ? If even remotely accurate (ie a Tory majority of less than 20) this would be the election of the century in terms of result.
8 June 2017 at 22:28 #587598 June 2017 at 22:08 #587548 June 2017 at 22:06 #58753regarding the synopsis. Moff wrote a brief guide each episode in April in the Radio Times before the series aired (easily found on line). @missrori has more detailed information from the Dr Who Magazine, which is more recent (from what I gather).
Just curious is the synopsis you’re referring to in more detail than the April one (I appreciate you might not know).
Thanks
Nick
8 June 2017 at 19:21 #58743On UK election day you can argue this article is political. It is, but I think its well worth reading. I’m a Northerner at heart (although I’ve lived in the SE for longer), but I think that some of the descriptions here from an American journalist traveling in Yorkshire (apparently writing for Guardian America) are realistic and accurate representation of a large element of the UK. What a mess we are in.
-
AuthorPosts
