Blimey, the Tories have won all 3 seats for Killamarsh parish council election. (Former) Labour heartland. Highest votes: 495 Con, 357 Lab, 183 Ind
Wow, there’s some very weird by-elections this year, results all over the place for all the parties with wins and losses in the most unexpected seats. Obviously a lot of local factors in play, does tend to suggest there may be a lot of unexpected local results four weeks from now.
Blimey, the Tories have won all 3 seats for Killamarsh parish council election. (Former) Labour heartland. Highest votes: 495 Con, 357 Lab, 183 Ind
More evidence that South Yorkshire is turning blue?
Oh my days.
(Yes I know Killamarah is in Derbyshire but it has a Sheffield post code and 0114 as its phone number so it is effectively part of Yorkshire, I’m annexing it)
Sheffield proper is bound to go massively Labour though ? The rural hinterland of the Sheffield City Region (SCR) has the Tories as a proper opposition, and the Lib Dems in the west of the city. But Hillsborough/Sheffield South East are going to return whopping Labour votes. The only uncertainty is does it go red on the first count ?
I was merely curious for your assessentment stodge, I regard you to be very level headed and analytical, more so than me. My impression if we take national polls as correct is lds are averagely represented. But not necessarily as on brand as some
Okay - apologies for my slight brusqueness. Arguing with the Epping Tory does that on a Friday morning.
I don't have a feel for LD representation on here any more but I'm probably not a typical LD. There's plenty of criticism of the LDs from the usual suspects and not much support for Vince Cable in particular.
The one thing I have detected from talking to newer LD members (specifically those who've joined since 2015) is that while there remains a strong hint of fiscal conservatism, the idea of any support for a future minority Conservative Government in a Hung Parliament is absolutely anathema as is the same notion for a future minority Labour Government led by Corbyn.
One told me he would support a minority Conservative Government on only two conditions - I asked what they were - he said one would be to start immediate negotiations with the EU on cancelling Brexit and returning to the EU as full members and the second the introduction of STV for all elections.
I opined I thought May or indeed any Conservative leader would find those conditions "challenging".
It’s amusing how members of a party which claims to be keen on minority governments and coalitions are simultaneously opposed to making the compromises needed to make them work!
I imagine this chap is young. Pragmatism and ability to deliver leaflets are unfortunately inversely correlated.
I can as the last PB poll on it had the number of PB Tories almost identical to the percentage who voted Tory at the previous general election.
Though PB has an above average percentage of LDs and Remainers who don't like Corbyn agreed
First, you're quoting a PB poll as "evidence" ? Really ?
Second, the question wasn't about the number of Conservatives but the split between LEAVE and REMAIN. I suspect the LEAVE element among PB Conservatives is over-representative of the actual numbers but that's simply speculation on my part.
It was a poll posted on this site in which most PBers contributed and the last proper record we have of how PBers vote, though another one post Brexit would be useful.
PB is not disproportionally Tory, PB is disproportionatally LD and hence I would imagine has a majority of Remainers despite the country voting Leave. PB is also full of past Tory voters who voted Remain, TSE, BigG even me
Indeed. It's hypothetical. Mrs May isn't stupid. If she's still around she will abandon her remaining Lancaster House red lines and sign us up permanently to the Single Market, the Customs Union and most of CAP. There will be a haggle, some face saving. "Brexit by Thesaurus" as they try to find euphemisms for measures they have already rejected. Most people will go along with the rule taking, at least for a while, just to put the thing to bed. Long term it stores up trouble.
It's a prediction but the central contradiction of Brexit is hard fact. There is no sustainable viable outcome for the UK that doesn't involve a close relationship with the European Union on their terms. If we are not a member shaping the rules we have to be a non-member taking the rules with fewer benefits. We can't be a member because we rejected that in a referendum and democracy must respected. Democracy enables you to make dumb decisions.
The government have been avoiding it but something in that contradiction has to give. Going for rule taking rather than rejoining the EU or indefinite chaos seems a pretty compelling prediction.
Single Market equals FOM though. Mr Brady would surely be opening a big post bag?
I don't know about Mr Brady's post bag. I suspect the EU would make some concession on freedom of movement if we agree the rest. Their most important goal is to get us to stay in their system, so it will be rule-taking and no divergence. They quite like our money. Security is a win/win, as is aviation, nuclear processing, Galileo, Erasmus on a lower access rule-taking basis. We could offer diplomatic support for EU international positions in exchange for the EU supporting our third country trade deals. Freedom of Movement is probably a second order issue for the EU and they might negotiate it to some extent.
If we do all that, what could a freedom of movement concession like? I suggest three conditions: Firstly, the EU would have to agree our policy, partly because it will be reciprocated. Secondly, it has to be objective and rule-based. eg you have a right to come to the UK if you have an offer of employment. Thirdly, it has to treat all EU nationalities equally.
A freedom of movement concession is a hypothesis that would need testing. Will it be enough to get through the UK political system? I don't know. The alternatives to agreement are pretty grim. I don't expect anyone to actually walk away. More likely it goes to standoff. Ultimately, and probably sooner than later it will need to be resolved.
The legacy of Munich resonates so strongly 80 years on. The notion we can never be seen to appease a foreign dictator is engrained in the political and cultural psyche of this country. It led to Suez because we couldn't appease Nasser and that was a foreign policy disaster of the first order which actually started the chain of events which led to the 23/6/16 referendum.
Munich wasn't the shameful retreat with which we are presented. Chamberlain knew Britain and France weren't ready for war - he bought us time, valuable time to produce more spitfires and make more available to the RAF. The cost was his political reputation (irrelevant) and the suffering of the Czech people which was prolonged and terrible but had we gone to year and lost the whole of Europe might have gone into darkness.
It's generally true a price has to be paid for action and a different price for inaction. Both May and Corbyn probably know that and understand it. I suspect May seeks the upholding of international law and order as paramount and allowing clear violations to go unchecked now risks greater problems later.
I agree with your analysis in the final paragraph; that there are risks on both sides, hence the differing policies of the two leaders.
I disagree with you re Munich. I don't have time for a long post, but:
- Chamberlain didn't go to Munich to seek a tactical pause in an inevitable conflict; he was genuinely committed to appeasement in the Ronseal sense: that if legitimate grievances were addressed, war was not inevitable - hence the 'peace in our time' stuff (which was a gaffe borne out of tiredness but many an unguarded comment has escaped through tiredness - it was probably a good reflection of his true views.
- yes, Britain and France weren't ready for war but neither was Germany (which is one reason Hitler drew back). It's probable that even if war had broken out a year earlier, the attack on France couldn't have happened much earlier than it did in reality.
- The Czechs themselves would have been no pushover. They had formidable defences in the Sudetenland and a useful army.
- Had war gone ahead, there was a half-decent chance of a successful army coup against Hitler. We shouldn't put too much faith in that - the history of other coups against him wasn't great - but it was one of the better ones.
- Stalin offered support against Hitler in 1938, though whether he'd have followed through is debatable - the Red Army wasn't in great shape at the time and Hitler might well still have cut the same deal he did with him over Poland.
- Germany could not have defeated Britain in 1938 - its air force and navy wasn't strong enough to mount an invasion - and even had the worst happened, the strategic situation could not have developed worse than the one that actually came to pass in the summer of 1940.
Comments
More like Renault being mighty upset at being beaten by the Honda.
https://www.lgcplus.com/politics-and-policy/governance-and-structure/local-elections-2018-the-race-is-on-to-pick-up-formerly-ukip-seats/7023939.article
NEW THREAD
https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/984708166058377217?s=20
I imagine this chap is young. Pragmatism and ability to deliver leaflets are unfortunately inversely correlated.
PB is not disproportionally Tory, PB is disproportionatally LD and hence I would imagine has a majority of Remainers despite the country voting Leave. PB is also full of past Tory voters who voted Remain, TSE, BigG even me
If we do all that, what could a freedom of movement concession like? I suggest three conditions: Firstly, the EU would have to agree our policy, partly because it will be reciprocated. Secondly, it has to be objective and rule-based. eg you have a right to come to the UK if you have an offer of employment. Thirdly, it has to treat all EU nationalities equally.
A freedom of movement concession is a hypothesis that would need testing. Will it be enough to get through the UK political system? I don't know. The alternatives to agreement are pretty grim. I don't expect anyone to actually walk away. More likely it goes to standoff. Ultimately, and probably sooner than later it will need to be resolved.
I disagree with you re Munich. I don't have time for a long post, but:
- Chamberlain didn't go to Munich to seek a tactical pause in an inevitable conflict; he was genuinely committed to appeasement in the Ronseal sense: that if legitimate grievances were addressed, war was not inevitable - hence the 'peace in our time' stuff (which was a gaffe borne out of tiredness but many an unguarded comment has escaped through tiredness - it was probably a good reflection of his true views.
- yes, Britain and France weren't ready for war but neither was Germany (which is one reason Hitler drew back). It's probable that even if war had broken out a year earlier, the attack on France couldn't have happened much earlier than it did in reality.
- The Czechs themselves would have been no pushover. They had formidable defences in the Sudetenland and a useful army.
- Had war gone ahead, there was a half-decent chance of a successful army coup against Hitler. We shouldn't put too much faith in that - the history of other coups against him wasn't great - but it was one of the better ones.
- Stalin offered support against Hitler in 1938, though whether he'd have followed through is debatable - the Red Army wasn't in great shape at the time and Hitler might well still have cut the same deal he did with him over Poland.
- Germany could not have defeated Britain in 1938 - its air force and navy wasn't strong enough to mount an invasion - and even had the worst happened, the strategic situation could not have developed worse than the one that actually came to pass in the summer of 1940.