Marlon Brando vs. Michael Howard
I agree with you that Michael Howard’s declaration does matter. But it does not matter as much as it could have if he declared his position a couple of years ago.
As you have already mentioned, Howard put in a lot of work to ensure that Cameron and Osborne became the next generation of the Tory leadership. And he has remained very loyal to them ever since.
But the 2015 general election win has mitigated this somewhat. Up until that point, Howard was essentially the Cameron’s political Godfather, as you have claimed. He still remains in that role to some extent, but now that Cameron’s brand of Conservatism has won a general election in it’s own right, Howard is no longer the ‘power behind the throne’. Cameron and Osborne do not owe him their positions any longer. They owe that to the electorate. And re-election brings it’s own legitimacy that election alone does not.
I think Howard is comfortable with this to the point that his and Cameron’s relationship are now much more equal. Indeed, in electoral terms, Cameron is much more successful. This means that Howard is a lot freer to express his political opinions on issues he thinks are important, and at the moment there are few issues more important to the Conservative party than it’s future relationship with the EU.
One of the advantages to Cameron of big, and otherwise friendly beasts such as Howard, Gove and even Boris declaring themselves for Brexit is that they are incredibly unlikely to call for Cameron’s blood should the Remain camp lose. In fact, it is more than likely that they will argue publicly that Cameron should stay as PM to conduct the renegotiations. At the end of the day, it is not what the media thinks that determines if Cameron stays or not under Brexit, but the opinions of his MPs and other colleagues.
Matt Taylor, Hereford, UK | @MPRTaylor
In response to Will David Cameron have to resign if he loses the EU referendum? – 23rd February 2016
I agree with the vast majority of that analysis, but disagree strongly that Cameron should be the one to negotiate our leaving with the EU if the “Leave” side prevails. There is no way that the Leave side would allow the man who totally failed in his negotiations to reform our relationship with the EU to be the man who negotiates our exit. He is a terrible negotiator and is known for being spiteful of those who disagree with him. It is more than likely that he would deliberately try to negotiate the worst deal possible for the UK out of sheer spite.
In the event of a Leave vote, he should go immediately.
Ken Hall, Barrow, UK
Liberté, égalité, séparés
Declan Ganley says that Brexiteers would achieve that which escaped Napoleon, driving Britain from the Continent. Like so many Europhiles, he is loose with the facts.
Napoleon did drive Britain from the Continent. The leading role that he played in expelling British forces from Toulon in 1793 was key to his rise. It was not until 1809, after a number of false starts from Flanders to Corunna, that Britain re-established a permanent significant presence under Wellington’s command. It took a further 6 years of fighting, culminating at Waterloo, to free Europe from the tyranny of empire and to re-establish nation states. These formed the bedrock of peace for almost 100 years, until imperialist dreams once again gripped central Europe, including the Great War of 1914-18, this time under the Kaiser. In the second chapter of this war, in 1940, Britain was again ejected from the Continent, with the Dunkirk Evacuation.
It is not for nothing that we remember Dunkirk fondly. It was necessary to withdraw in order to re-engage successfully. Declan’s argument wrongly assumes that the current rulers of the Europe are permanent and that we should meekly submit to whatever imperialist madness is abroad, to ‘influence’ it. He provides, however, no evidence to suggest that this would be successful, just blind faith. The historical record, by contrast, is that when necessary we have stood apart for the benefit not just of ourselves but the whole Continent.
G Bathurst, Windsor, UK | @gjbathurst
Upsetting the Apple cart
In response to: Are you on team Apple? – 23rd February 2016.
It irks me that you have put me on ‘Team Apple’. I detest their approach to business, forcing customers to use a closed market with approved apps, and developing technology which is intent on not interfacing with anything not made by apple. I think it goes against everything that made PCs great and now makes Android great. The future is open source and a user driven evolution of software.
Apple was successful because it tapped into a market of people who wanted a standardised, simplified, tech offering – something everyone else had so they could ‘fit in’ – and sold it as if it was a statement of uniqueness. Their most beneficial asset as a company is their fanbase, which allows them to make old, previously uneconomical tech marketable through an economy of scale and cheap Chinese labour.
Well done to them, but to me people who use Apple tech are sheep, willing to be fleeced to pay for their insecurity. A healthy society pushing the boundaries of understanding and human endeavour needs a good measure of eccentricity and eccentrics who don’t use Apple.
However, if the article is trying to suggest that Apple should build encryption which is breakable, then the journalist is simply failing to understand the concepts of encryption. This isn’t an 80’s Hollywood tech film, and cliched analogies about ‘backdoors’ is just lazy writing. The purpose of encryption is for it to be mathematically so difficult to logically try and break that it would take an unreasonable amount of computer power an unreasonable amount of time to work it out. Think about that for a second. The only way to make it accessible without the required key is to build in a fundamental mathematical flaw, or to record and store the users keys when they are set up (by the user). This is stupid and defeats the purpose of encryption that is as important to your everyday life as it is to criminals.
Frank Vernor, Fife, UK
Brexit market
With regard to Brexit and the pound devaluing, this according to historical facts has always been a volatile situation, just like with most currencies in the market. Therefore even if it devalued 15%, during the referendum as the HSBC scaremonger is suggesting, it would be back where it was within a relatively short period of time. I am old enough to remember when we got kicked out of the ERM with Lamont (Black Wednesday) and a far greater currency crisis with interest rates exceeding 15% and the dire effect on the economy, business and UK industry. This was a far worse case and only took us a few years to get back again. So what’s the big deal when fluctuations are at the whim of the markets? Indeed, according to a Guardian analysis from official figures, economically from 1992 onwards, the wealth of the nation increased year-on-year right up to 2007.
The only people who are bothered are those who speculate over the short-term, not the long-term which is the paramount concern. We shall have to see with Brexit, but personally I cannot see any great change coming either way long-term and if anything, things may become better.
Dr David Hill, Huddersfield, UK
