[Oldmanmatt]

Voting leave because you are angry about austerity, poverty and under investment in Northern towns makes about as much sense as me being angry after having a crap day at work and deciding to get back at my boss by driving my car through my living room wall before signing over power of attorney to my boss. 

This^^^
That just read as another example(s) of everything that’s wrong with plebiscite democracy.

People, can be amazing, wonderful and inspiring. “The People” suck most of the time.

[Oldmanmatt]

Now I read that back, I realise it sounds as if I don’t care about the issues raised. That’s not my point, I very much do.

My point is, the very people most responsible for the shit state of the country, are the people that devised, drove and control the entire Brexit process.
The EU was the last check on their power and wealth grab, hence the drive now for “No Deal”.

[mrjonathanr]

Hi sdm, looking at your point rationally, for sure. But things aren’t always rational as they seem from our own point of view. Others may have a different logic.

This illustrates the point I think.

In Nuneaton (66% leave), I met a man who ..... told me he would be voting out in the EU referendum. But that might make the economy even more precarious, I said. He paused for a moment, narrowed his eyes. “If the economy goes down the toilet,” he said, “at least those bastards [in London] will finally know what it feels like to be us.”

[SamT]

This illustrates the point I think.

In Nuneaton (66% leave), I met a man who ..... told me he would be voting out in the EU referendum. But that might make the economy even more precarious, I said. He paused for a moment, narrowed his eyes. “If the economy goes down the toilet,” he said, “at least those bastards [in London] will finally know what it feels like to be us.”

But the flaw in this is that 'Those Bastards' he's referring to are the likes of Reece Mogg, IDS, Bojo, Gove et al and they are the last folks who'll feel any Brexit pain. Far from it and I expect they're going to do rather nicely out of at the expense.

[tc]

"Those bastards in London" also include the hedge fund managers who stand to make huge profits from shorting the pound.
And then there's Philip May. Philip May is a senior executive of Capital Group, an investment firm who buy shares in all sorts of companies across the globe – including thousands of shares in the world’s biggest defence firm, Lockheed Martin.
In 2018, Theresa May sanctioned British military action on Syria – air strikes that saw the debut of a new type of Cruise Missile, the JASSM, produced exclusively by the Lockheed Martin Corporation. Every single JASSM costs more than $1,000,000, and as a result of their widespread use during the bombing of Syria, the share price of Lockheed Martin soared. Consequently, with the air strikes on Syria having hugely boosted Lockheed Martin’s share price, Philip May’s firm made a fortune from their investment.
This is what we're up against, comrades 

[petejh]

And your point is?

We shouldn't have intervened in Syria?
We should have intervened in Syria?
We should have intervened in Syria using weapons made by a different manufacturer, whose shareholders don't include anyone who ever held a position of political power?
We should have intervened in Syria using weapons made by a community collective, whose employees are equal shareholders and where a % of proceeds from cruise missile sales are used to support local community projects - 'Co-Op Defense'?

I know a GP who invests in British American Tobacco because they sell a lot of - heart disease and cancer causing -cigarettes to people in third world and developing countries. Personally I think it's poor taste. Should he be struck off comrade?   


2 weeks away in Norway, no change here.

[Yossarian]

The global arms trade is fascinatingly evil and corrupt (I recommend Andrew Feinstein’s The Shadow World) but, as I understand it, the only JASSMs fired in Syria were American ones, dropped by B1-B bombers. Moreover, the UK doesn’t have any of them. Outside the US, only the Australians and Polish do.

The majority of the cruise missiles fired in Syria have been Tomahawks, which are manufactured by Raytheon, not LM. And the British ones are Storm Shadows, which are made by the European group MBDA.

[seankenny]

2 weeks away in Norway, no change here.

Is this really such an impossible a thing to comprehend?

... You have to make a highly specialised department 100 times bigger in no time. Sure it can be done - not in a (Boris Johnson style dismissal) 'couple of years'...

Explain why 'in no time'. That makes it sound like one week or one month. You must be aware that there's a minimum two-year exit process during which we remain with the current trade deals no?

It's good to debate these points and I'm open to being convinced but debate based on facts where they exist.

As for the smart Leavers, who are like rich folks staying in trailers in a rain-soaked Festival of Dumb and trying not to get their chinos muddy, do you really trust your leaders to steer you through the course ahead? Boris, with his well known inability to grasp of detail. IDS, whose attempt to reform the benefits system reached about 150,000 people after six years of effort. Gove, with his flagship policy of creating new schools in areas that didn't need them, the radical destroyer whose own boss described him as "a bit of a Maoist". Steve "blue sky thinking" Hilton who wanted to close jobcentres, abolish maternity leave and alter the weather. Government by TED talk isn't my idea of fun. And, erm, Priti Patel and Penny Mordaunt.

You might want to divorce the principle from the personnel, but you can't. These are the people we'll have running the most complex and intricate challenge the government has faced in decades. Feeling lucky?

Two weeks you say.

My gut feeling is the country wouldn't do any worse out of the EU as it has done in the EU.

[petejh]

? You've lost me ?

[tc]

Pete, Yossarian, if you don't understand the point I was trying to make, tough shit. I can't be arsed explaining it to you.

Pete, if your GP invests in the tobacco industry because it makes him money despite the cancer and heart disease it causes he's a cunt.

[tc]

Pete, Yossarian, if you don't understand the point I was trying to make, tough shit. I can't be arsed explaining it to you.

Pete, if your GP invests in the tobacco industry because it makes him money despite the cancer and heart disease it causes he's a cunt.

[Will Hunt]

Pete, Yossarian, if you don't understand the point I was trying to make, tough shit. I can't be arsed explaining it to you.

I think they very well get the point but they're challenging you on that particulars, which is that you accuse Theresa May of bombing Syria (which she couldn't do unilaterally anyway, she would need parliamentary support) in order to boost the fortunes of her husband. Yossarian acknowledges that the arms trade is corrupt and then debunks (I assume, I'm not going to fact check it) the reasoning behind what you said. So basically, if what Yos says is true, you are a spreader of conspiracy theories and fake news. Any comeback to that? I've got no problem with people exposing corruption where it genuinely exists.

Out of interest, what is it in particular that makes hedge funds and investment groups evil? And how do you think your pension is created?

[tomtom]

Out of interest, what is it in particular that makes hedge funds and investment groups evil? And how do you think your pension is created?

You can choose pension funds that invest ethically (as I believe ours does). For example steering away from tobacco companies (that have performed very well consistently over the last 20 years but make their money by peddling addictive death sticks), fossil fuel companies, Arms companies etc.. Some pension funds have invested (for example) in renewable energy, community housing projects as these are seen as long terms source of ethical income.

Not all 'hedge funds' are bad of course - and Hedge fund has become a bit of a catch all for investment companies. Though Hedging in its correct definition is betting for or against something happening. Personally I think this sucks - as it allows companies to be driven down in order for some to make money on their stocks collapse (within that company of course are people who rely on it for their livelihoods - think Carillion). EG if Yorkshire Water were in the sights of several hedge funds then you might well be concerned Will.

Of course ethics in business is a sliding scale - as to make money, someone has to loose money. I guess it depends upon your style

[andy popp]

as to make money, someone has to loose money.

Not necessarily so.

[Will Hunt]

Out of interest, what is it in particular that makes hedge funds and investment groups evil? And how do you think your pension is created?

You can choose pension funds that invest ethically (as I believe ours does). For example steering away from tobacco companies (that have performed very well consistently over the last 20 years but make their money by peddling addictive death sticks), fossil fuel companies, Arms companies etc.. Some pension funds have invested (for example) in renewable energy, community housing projects as these are seen as long terms source of ethical income.

Not all 'hedge funds' are bad of course - and Hedge fund has become a bit of a catch all for investment companies. Though Hedging in its correct definition is betting for or against something happening. Personally I think this sucks - as it allows companies to be driven down in order for some to make money on their stocks collapse (within that company of course are people who rely on it for their livelihoods - think Carillion). EG if Yorkshire Water were in the sights of several hedge funds then you might well be concerned Will.

Of course ethics in business is a sliding scale - as to make money, someone has to loose money. I guess it depends upon your style

I agree with everything you've said there, TT. Except the last bit, but I don't think you were being serious there.

The reason for my tetchy post is that tc's post came across as being typical of the lazy populist thinking that many indulge in now. i.e. banks are evil; investment is evil; all our problems are because of the finance industry. And then it's only a short step to get to: if you have money you're evil; if your parents had money you're evil; if you went to Eton you're evil; if you are in a position of power or privilege and you are related to or friends with someone else in a similar position then it's because you're corrupt etc etc etc

[Oldmanmatt]

Well said Will.

Both posts.

Except the bit about Eton. Definitely a finishing school for Bond villains, that place.

[seankenny]

This is a really good read.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/01/poorer-brexiters-worse-off-working-class-leavers?fbclid=IwAR1nVtPKEeIlECO8-5SSDc3KfKSE79yCIp6dcSEGgb0-CYIAOYjhLzLpu8Q
Particularly the breaking down of assumption by Remainers about why Leave voters voted in the way that they did.

I have to say I find Gary's argument inconclusive. Yes, as a pinko liberal earning a decent wage I vote against my economic interests, but there is a matter of scale. I don't vote to lose my job, I vote to pay slightly more in tax. The newest Conservative tax cuts were worth around £300 to me, but losing that isn't the same as losing a job paying £30,000 - that's an order of 100 times bigger. And scale does matter.

Naturally the other issue is that I don't entirely believe Leavers when they claim they are happy to be poorer. Most are either really poor and don't believe they can get much poorer, or are retired and so feeling insulated from economic storms. Most people in work voted to Remain, and most young people - who will live with this for longer - also voted Remain.

Also - and this may just be my experience or prejudice - is that scratch under what most Leavers say about "sovereignty" and what laws they are really, really vexed by, and it's freedom of movement. That's the one law they can name of any consequence (other than fishing/agriculture).

We also know - from Dominic Cummings, no less - that the £350m for the NHS was the offer that galvanised all parts of the Leave voting coalition. It worked for all Leavers. Because just about everyone uses the NHS and everyone wants it better, for purely self-interested reasons. So I end up feeling kind of bullshitted by Leavers who claim they are above money-grubbing motives and ascribe the desire to Leave the EU to some higher principle. (It does however say a lot about what they need from politics.)

Simon Wren-Lewis points out (in a piece worth a read) that Leavers have already suffered economic hardship from Brexit but they don't see it, so it's not a consideration for them, and the small numbers changing their mind are down to the somewhat hidden nature of the economic damage.
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-economic-cost-of-brexit-decision.html

"The Leave campaign, with the essential help of the Brexit press, managed to convince people that all this talk that the economy would be worse off after Brexit was false. Second, when the small percentage who think Brexit will damage the economy increases, support for Leave falls. Correlation does not prove causation, but this evidence suggests we should be sceptical about claims that Brexit is all about values and not about the economy."

[tomtom]

as to make money, someone has to loose money.

Not necessarily so.

Can you elaborate? My point was serious... despite being incorrectly spelt :D

Isn’t all wealth accumulation based upon the exploitation of someone else? UK’s wealth from colonial exploitation, Google/Facebooks wealth from the exploitation of personal data...

Happy to be re-educated with some economics 101 though....

[petejh]

Pete, Yossarian, if you don't understand the point I was trying to make, tough shit. I can't be arsed explaining it to you.

I don't think you understand the facts behind the conspiracy you just spouted.


You stated that LM missiles were fired by the UK at targets in Syria in the airstrikes (of April 2018). That is false - the UK don't own these. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/jassm-er-makes-combat-debut-against-syrian-chemical-447747/

That fact alone would be enough to demolish your conspiracy theory.

Then you stated that 'Consequently, with the air strikes on Syria having hugely boosted Lockheed Martin’s share price, Philip May’s firm made a fortune from their investment'.
Firstly - LM's share price over what time-range? LM's share price today is down on what it was on April 13th 2018 (the day before airstrikes began).
LM's share price has averaged down most days since April 13th, with a short uptrend for one week in April following the Syria airstrikes.

Perhaps you meant BAE systems? A report the week following the airstrikes reported that BAE share price had 'rocketed' (ahem..).
Except BAE's share price is down significantly today on where it was on April 13th, the day before airstrikes. Even at it's peak it looks like the share price rose around 10% in the week following the Syria strikes. Hardly rocketed.. though I stand to be corrected..

So you're trying to claim that Phillip May used UK airstrikes against Syrian government chemical weapons sites to benefit from a share price increase of Lockheed Martin (or maybe BAE) shares.
In which case it would be in the public record that Capital Group would have sold significant holdings in BAE or LM in the week following the Syrian airstrikes.

And is it?? Again I'm open to info you can find to support your theory..


Unless you can come up with some facts to support your claim then what you're claiming is utter made-up bollocks.

[Oldmanmatt]

Well, this is fun:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-settled-status-application-children-eu-citizens-yvette-cooper-home-office-a8775216.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1549973081

It is fortunate for my kids, that I sorted this out last year. Some friends are less lucky. Oddly, if the mother is foreign, it’s easier to sort than if the father is non-British. That is to say, my children’s claim to British citizenship is greater, because their Farther is British, than it would be if the parental nationality was reversed.
That’s not sexist, at all, is it?

[andy popp]

as to make money, someone has to loose money.

Not necessarily so.

Can you elaborate? My point was serious... despite being incorrectly spelt :D

Isn’t all wealth accumulation based upon the exploitation of someone else? UK’s wealth from colonial exploitation, Google/Facebooks wealth from the exploitation of personal data...

Happy to be re-educated with some economics 101 though....

Whilst many commercial relationships will involve a degree of exploitation that doesn't always mean they will be zero sum games. Business activity can create wealth as well as simply move it around. That said, corporate business has become extremely adept at expropriating an outsized chunk of the returns to business activity.

As an aside, Trump seems to understand international trade in entirely zero sum terms.

[Edit: not comparing you to Trump!!!]

[tomtom]

Isnt that built on the assumtion that everything has to grow?

[tc]

I don't think you understand the facts behind the conspiracy you just spouted.

Unless you can come up with some facts to support your claim then what you're claiming is utter made-up bollocks.
[/quote]

How kind of you to point out my stupidity in such patronising terms. Here are some of the sources I used when making all that bollocks up and then fact-checking it for accuracy:

http://www.grahamscambler.com/greedy-bastards-philip-may/

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/081416/top-5-shareholders-lockheed-martin-lmt.asp

https://www.rt.com/uk/424392-may-husbands-capital-group/

https://www.ft.com/content/47e1e0f6-408e-11e8-803a-295c97e6fd0b


https://www.businessinsider.fr/us/who-is-philip-may-theresa-may-husband-closest-advisor-capital-group-paradise-papers-2017-11

[tc]

And how do you think your pension is created?

State Pension + ethical and sustainable investments, since you ask.

[andy popp]

Isnt that built on the assumtion that everything has to grow?

Broadly, economic growth has been the "norm:" the cake has got larger. But I really only meant to address the narrow point that in order to make money someone else has to lose it, which isn't the case.