Why Couldnt the Red Brick Wall stand Corbyn?

[reohn2]

As I recall the reason Ash saplings were imported from the continent was that they were 20p per plant cheaper than UK grown

Probably not true because most 20/40cm or 40/60cm stock would have cost around 35 to 40 pence per stem when sold at 1000+ trees. So 20 pence is too much of a reduction.

However seed collected here in the UK was sent abroad to be grown on and that obviously was a financial decision (the benefit of being in the EU ) .

And though that brought ash dieback here it would have arrived anyway. As said earlier though identified on nursery stock in 2012 it seems likely it was already here for some seven to ten years before that. So it was sadly inevitable.

Memory fails I was going off the discussion in this thread:- viewtopic.php?f=15&t=69803&hilit=Ash+dieback&start=15

[roubaixtuesday]

I've never claimed the Labour party under Corbyn's leadership to be anything other than left of centre though not extreme left in any way,

Corbyn's policies would be regarded as mainstream and fairly centrist social democratic policies in most of Western Europe.

Perhaps overall, but there are some aspects of policy which could be described as hard or extreme left.

Specifically, nationalisation was promised with shareholder compensation to be decided by parliament, rather than current market value - the implication being that it would be below market value.

Confiscation of assets by the state could legitimately be described as extreme or hard left I think. Likewise the proposals for inclusive ownership funds could be regarded in the same way.

[reohn2]

I've never claimed the Labour party under Corbyn's leadership to be anything other than left of centre though not extreme left in any way,

Corbyn's policies would be regarded as mainstream and fairly centrist social democratic policies in most of Western Europe.

I tend to agree,and also BoJo's Tory party would be considered far right policies in those same countries.

[mercalia]

I see Blair the has-been is shooting his mouth off?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50829352


In his speech, ex-Labour leader Mr Blair - a longstanding critic of the party's move to the left under Mr Corbyn - said: "I believe with different leadership we would have kept much of our vote in traditional Labour areas.

"Instead, we pursued a path of almost comic indecision - alienated both sides of the debate."



how? support Brexit then alienate the remainers. Support remain, then still loose the red wall? Blair is such a jerk these days? must be old age dementia

[pete75]

I've never claimed the Labour party under Corbyn's leadership to be anything other than left of centre though not extreme left in any way,

Corbyn's policies would be regarded as mainstream and fairly centrist social democratic policies in most of Western Europe.

Perhaps overall, but there are some aspects of policy which could be described as hard or extreme left.

Specifically, nationalisation was promised with shareholder compensation to be decided by parliament, rather than current market value - the implication being that it would be below market value.

The nationalised industries were sold off at prices decided by the government at well below market value as shown by the immediate and usually quite large jump in the share prices. They would be nationalised in the same way they were denationalised.

[reohn2]

I've never claimed the Labour party under Corbyn's leadership to be anything other than left of centre though not extreme left in any way,

Corbyn's policies would be regarded as mainstream and fairly centrist social democratic policies in most of Western Europe.

Perhaps overall, but there are some aspects of policy which could be described as hard or extreme left.

Specifically, nationalisation was promised with shareholder compensation to be decided by parliament, rather than current market value - the implication being that it would be below market value.

Confiscation of assets by the state could legitimately be described as extreme or hard left I think. Likewise the proposals for inclusive ownership funds could be regarded in the same way.

Is it 'hard left' to relieve the railway companies that that which they are failing to run as an effective and affordable means of transport,after all their sharholders have benefitted from their mismanagement and bad services for long enough.

[PDQ Mobile]

Please, please go and read something more pertinent or original than the Woodland Trust website.

You'll like this tho because it was an EU report; it looked into EU citizens' attitudes and knowledge of trees, woodlands or forests.

Despite our low level of woodland cover a high proportion of UK citizens reckoned they had a moderate to good knowledge about them. This was surprising because in countries where there are much more substantial areas of forest, and far bigger forest industries, people did not rate their knowledge so highly.

As was said (not in the report and not by me) but it appears that people in those countries 'have enough knowledge to know they don't know that much'. Whereas here everyone's an expert.

I've no idea where the report is so don't ask for a link. And please, no more of your theories on ash dieback, l deal with it already. Ta.

So firstly to Ben@forest.
I have tried to put forward a view that even a layman can have some validity.
Sometimes a wider perspective from outside a given discipline can offer new insights and angles.
And the/any "profession" can be rather narrow and self protecting.

This drift came about by you stating that I was not being objective about forestry and the wider point about Labour's manifesto regarding the environment.
You Ben, described it as "obviously a piece pure gloss" without any serous addressing of why whatsoever.
Others on here had described it as the most comprehensive of all the parties including the Greens.

I saw that as the same non-objective criticism of Corbyn by you, that I posted at the bottom of here.
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=134387&start=120

Straight out of the popular press, pretty much verbatim.

[PDQ Mobile]

(Snip only in interests of brevity))
As for climate change, it has had a significant impact on ash die back, and has likely contributed to it's rapid spread. However this study suggests that climate change may also alleviate the ash die back crisis in other areas. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep35303

And secondly regarding Ash dieback and other tree pathogens.
I read the Vorpal quoted article.
It seems to make sense insofar as any study is likely to overlook some small but significant factor. The report indeed concedes this; "Unfortunately, phenomenological models cannot consider processes of host-pathogen coevolution that may influence our results37,38"

The new (very recent) isolation of the genome that provides (total?) resistance is not covered. For the UK Ash population into the future it is a glimmer of hope.

Ben chooses to blame the EU for ease of import of trees. And he may well be quite correct on that score.

Yet why we have had to import trees seems to me to be a failure over a longer period of time by the UK forestry and timber "industries".
Ash regenerates so readily. Why transport it other than for more profit?

The position here is that locally I have thousands of regenerating Ash trees on a small area, mostly under 6 years old, merely from a cessation of grazing.. And there are in Gwynedd large populations of mature Ash. The middle "juvenile" trees are less well represented because of the high sheep populations in many old woodlands. (You could blame the EU for that too, but it won't change much after we leave).
All those aforementioned tress show considerable dieback now, a layman's estimate is a deal more than 50%.
We have already lost just about all of the Wych Elm that formally populated some places- again an timber industry imported pathogen.

Commercial forestry has significant problems at the moment, not only Larch. It is (has been?) often a tax dodge for wealthy folk to boot!

So I take with a hefty pinch a salt the protestations of competence and objectivity from the forest professions.

It could have been somewhat different and arguably healthier if profit had been less the driving factor and woodland had been managed more for amenity, diversity of species, a better local supply of construction grade timber etc.

This is me with my rose tinted spectacles of course. As I am sure will be pointed out.
But to suggest that the professional in this area are all knowing and seeing is to to not see their rather hefty dark glasses.

[roubaixtuesday]

Corbyn's policies would be regarded as mainstream and fairly centrist social democratic policies in most of Western Europe.

Perhaps overall, but there are some aspects of policy which could be described as hard or extreme left.

Specifically, nationalisation was promised with shareholder compensation to be decided by parliament, rather than current market value - the implication being that it would be below market value.

The nationalised industries were sold off at prices decided by the government at well below market value as shown by the immediate and usually quite large jump in the share prices. They would be nationalised in the same way they were denationalised.

I have no idea how this is relevant to the point I made - that confiscating property for public ownership can legitimately be described as hard left. It's in no way mainstream in Western Europe to do this.

[roubaixtuesday]

Corbyn's policies would be regarded as mainstream and fairly centrist social democratic policies in most of Western Europe.

Perhaps overall, but there are some aspects of policy which could be described as hard or extreme left.

Specifically, nationalisation was promised with shareholder compensation to be decided by parliament, rather than current market value - the implication being that it would be below market value.

Confiscation of assets by the state could legitimately be described as extreme or hard left I think. Likewise the proposals for inclusive ownership funds could be regarded in the same way.

Is it 'hard left' to relieve the railway companies that that which they are failing to run as an effective and affordable means of transport,after all their sharholders have benefitted from their mismanagement and bad services for long enough.

I did not mention railways. My understanding is that the proposal there was to bring back into public ownership when franchises end. I did not, and would not describe that as hard left.

[reohn2]

Perhaps overall, but there are some aspects of policy which could be described as hard or extreme left.

Specifically, nationalisation was promised with shareholder compensation to be decided by parliament, rather than current market value - the implication being that it would be below market value.

Confiscation of assets by the state could legitimately be described as extreme or hard left I think. Likewise the proposals for inclusive ownership funds could be regarded in the same way.

Is it 'hard left' to relieve the railway companies that that which they are failing to run as an effective and affordable means of transport,after all their sharholders have benefitted from their mismanagement and bad services for long enough.

I did not mention railways. My understanding is that the proposal there was to bring back into public ownership when franchises end. I did not, and would not describe that as hard left.

You have my apology,what other industries did you have in mind?

[horizon]

Perhaps overall, but there are some aspects of policy which could be described as hard or extreme left.

Specifically, nationalisation was promised with shareholder compensation to be decided by parliament, rather than current market value - the implication being that it would be below market value.

Confiscation of assets by the state could legitimately be described as extreme or hard left I think. Likewise the proposals for inclusive ownership funds could be regarded in the same way.

You may be right (naturally I don't find these policies extreme ) but I don't think Labour policies were the key. Brexit was more probably the key as it is itself the key to quite a lot of other things. But then we have this problem of Corbyn himself. Most of his values resonate well in London and the cities and that's why he's leader (by a landslide) and indeed very popular in some quarters (over 10m votes in the election). But they don't go down well with the traditional, mainly older, white working class. Labour has been losing these voters for years but the young people of London had made their views clear: they are embracing the world of the future, not the past - Ryanair not RAF. Corbyn represents their thinking so Labour were unlikely to present a different face to the North.

I don't know whether Cummings would have chosen his strategy had there been a different Labour leader - the more popular ones are Remainers anyway. But I think he would have done, so Brexit would still have been the key and still is.

The election systems in the UK and US are the ones we have and I maintain that both Trump and Boris used them to their advantage. I have this horrible feeling that people may accuse me of using this as an excuse for Corbyn's defeat: I see it as a damning indictment on the Left in both the UK and US to stop being so morally superior and to actually look at what happened. But I also say to the older people of the North: try to stay on the same planet as your adult children in London and Manchester.

[roubaixtuesday]

Is it 'hard left' to relieve the railway companies that that which they are failing to run as an effective and affordable means of transport,after all their sharholders have benefitted from their mismanagement and bad services for long enough.

I did not mention railways. My understanding is that the proposal there was to bring back into public ownership when franchises end. I did not, and would not describe that as hard left.

You have my apology,what other industries did you have in mind?

Mail, water and energy are mentioned in the manifesto.

But the point I'm making is not specific to any industry, and I'm not even saying if it is good or bad. Just that Labour was proposing to confiscate these assets without paying market value, which can legitimately be called hard left.

[Vorpal]

Mail, water and energy are mentioned in the manifesto.

But the point I'm making is not specific to any industry, and I'm not even saying if it is good or bad. Just that Labour was proposing to confiscate these assets without paying market value, which can legitimately be called hard left.

Where does it say that shareholder compensation would be decided by parliament?

[pete75]

I did not mention railways. My understanding is that the proposal there was to bring back into public ownership when franchises end. I did not, and would not describe that as hard left.

You have my apology,what other industries did you have in mind?

Mail, water and energy are mentioned in the manifesto.

But the point I'm making is not specific to any industry, and I'm not even saying if it is good or bad. Just that Labour was proposing to confiscate these assets without paying market value, which can legitimately be called hard left.

How do you know they wouldn't pay market value? It's quite conceivable that if Labour had been elected the share values in those industries would have plummeted to such a low level that the government would have paid market value.