> @another_richard said: > > @Sean_F said: > > > @Nigelb said: > > > > @hamiltonace said: > > > > > > > > @Sandpit said: > > > > > > > > Third? Good piece as always Ms Cyclefree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also think iit is a great piece. One point I would add is that the union is being trashed for so called democracy. The issues of Scotland and Northern Ireland in particular are being not just ignored but derided. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you take away putting the interests of the economy and of the Union first and, well, being conservative, what do they have left? > > > > > > Brexit is not a conservative project. > > > It is a radical pursuit of an abstract - sovereignty - without any apparent coherent thought about the consequences, let alone planning for the nation’s future. > > > > > > And yes, an excellent header. I could tell it was a Cyclefree article from the first paragraph. > > > > There's not a lot a lot about the EU that's small or large C Conservative. > > The EU is very much an alliance between big government, big business and big culture. > > There are elements of Conservative support which approve of that.
It's a very old fashioned view of Conservatism. Working class and lower middle class Conservatives now have their own demands, which don't always coincide with those of the Villa Tories.
"British man who has never even been abroad threatened with deportation to Uganda Kyle Herbert, from Shrewsbury, was astonished to receive the letter which ordered him to leave the country or risk a £5,000 fine, imprisonment and removal by force"
They even followed up with a phone call to his boss and had him suspended for two weeks without pay as an illegal immigrant with no right to work in the country.
I always thought this was a risk to me if my birth certificate was lost in a fire, but it seems it's a risk for everyone. All the time.
> @williamglenn said: > > People who don't want the UK to break up need to come up with a coherent plan for constitutional reform pretty quickly. > > A Federal UK has been Lib Dem policy for over 100 years, also including HoL Reform and electoral Reform... https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/libdems/pages/4138/attachments/original/1392840156/117_-_Power_to_the_People.pdf?1392840156 > > That document rules out an English parliament on the grounds that it would be impossible to have a balanced federal UK on that basis, therefore it just emphasises how intractable the problem is.
Create a modern heptarchy and the job's a good'un.
> @Cicero said: > > @algarkirk said: > > One example: The right of 500,000,000 million people to live in the UK if they want with only very restricted powers to prevent it? > > Well in theory every one of the 330 million Americans can visit the UK at the same time, but it doesn't happen does it?
You could have added that all 67 million British people can simultaneously choose to become hairdressers. This will cause a catastrophic collapse in food and industrial production, and destroy the national defence. Clearly the government needs powers to centrally manage what job each of its citizens will do.
> @OblitusSumMe said: > > > Create a modern heptarchy and the job's a good'un.
That works in the context of an independent England (or England and Wales at a stretch) but not if you end up with a state in which a Scottish parliament sits alongside a Mercian parliament and England doesn't exist politically.
So Guildford could get mixed up with the rest of the national decline in the Conservative support (and I note on the News it was). It is (in my opinion) unrelated. It would have happened anyway because of the local stuff (details too long and grubby to go into here). You could argue I have no way of knowing this ( I no longer have any inside knowledge) and clearly national issues helped the LDs to also win seats here.
A quick review of the individual results is a give away that there is more going on here than the national issues.
The Independents weren't able to get candidates for 8 of the seats the Tories did hold onto. The Tories only held 9 seats (losing 26 seats from their 2015 results). They could have been down to just 1 if the Indies were able to fight the missed seats.
When you look at wards most impacted by the local mess the result is breathtaking. Take Ripley (Lovelace). It had never been lost by the Tories. In a by-election just after all this kicked off, a few years ago, they lost it to the LDs who got 70% of the vote and who then held it again in 2015. In 2011 the Tories had held it with 70% of the vote. Quite a swing!
The LD then defected to the Independents and got re-elected this time with 91% of the vote, the Tories got just 9%. LDs stood aside.
70% to 9% is pretty impressive achievement.
Turnout was a good indication as well this time. A seat unaffected by all of this had a 29% turnout, my ward was 55%!
Where the LDs won from the Conservatives the margins were of the more normal type of swing. In the wards the Indies were fighting for the local reasons it was often a massacre.
This rout should have happened in 2015, but the Independents couldn't get their act together then.
Hopefully the scandal here will come to an end and the only loser will be Ian Hislop and Private Eye (although it is clear there will need to be some court action possibly to stop the local plan)
A comment in the online local newspaper says it all:
"There is only one reason why the Conservatives failed in Guildford: 80,000 ignored comments!
Along with a touch of elite arrogance."
FYI the 80,000 refers to the objections to the local plan. To achieve 80,000 in one borough is going some, but the Tories put a huge effort into achieving it.
It should also be made clear that these Tories do not represent the Tory party as a whole. It is local, just local. Two existing Tory councillors and one LD set up the Independents in opposition to the local Tories. None of our Tory councillors (who objected to what was happening) put themselves up for re-election and the neighbouring Tory MP used Parliamentary privilege to make serious allegations about the leader of the Guildford Conservative group.
> @Sandpit said: > Mr. 43, that might still work out for Boris, though, as Farage won't be standing in the Conservative leadership contest. > > And yeah, that cartoon is just a bit weird. > > Does anyone still pay attention to any political cartoons, apart from Matt? > > (And @marf_the_cartoonist of course, hi Marf!).
Peter Brookes, Morten Morland, Christian Adams all three draw great political cartoons. all three have produced some exceptional works in the last 12 months.
Matt's format is different but one way or the other, he remains a class act.
Sometimes Steve Bell draws something worth a second glance.
> @Sean_F said: > > @another_richard said: > > > @Sean_F said: > > > > @Nigelb said: > > > > > @hamiltonace said: > > > > > > > > > > @Sandpit said: > > > > > > > > > > Third? Good piece as always Ms Cyclefree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also think iit is a great piece. One point I would add is that the union is being trashed for so called democracy. The issues of Scotland and Northern Ireland in particular are being not just ignored but derided. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you take away putting the interests of the economy and of the Union first and, well, being conservative, what do they have left? > > > > > > > > Brexit is not a conservative project. > > > > It is a radical pursuit of an abstract - sovereignty - without any apparent coherent thought about the consequences, let alone planning for the nation’s future. > > > > > > > > And yes, an excellent header. I could tell it was a Cyclefree article from the first paragraph. > > > > > > There's not a lot a lot about the EU that's small or large C Conservative. > > > > The EU is very much an alliance between big government, big business and big culture. > > > > There are elements of Conservative support which approve of that. > > It's a very old fashioned view of Conservatism. Working class and lower middle class Conservatives now have their own demands, which don't always coincide with those of the Villa Tories.
Dr. Foxy, that assumes the electorate was in favour.
Also, migration rates then were far lower than when Blair decided to 'rub the right's face in diversity'. And before further expansion (yeah, UK politicians were in favour of that too. But the divide between the political class and the electorate is a hallmark of the EU division).
So you are saying the entire problem is with British politicians? If so, how is leaving going to help.
“Mr” Dancer’s response to my simple question was quite revealing.
His issue is with democracy in *this* country, not with the EU.
Very good header and all very true, very true. Want to go deeper though, want to get into the 'psyche' of Brexit.
I'm wrestling with a question - why are large numbers of 'Leavers', up north, down south, working class and very much not, inland and coast, affluent suburbs, struggling towns, the bucolic tory shires, why are all these good people, and we are talking many millions, so enthused by the reactionary right wing ex City trader and public schoolboy, Nigel Farage?
I sense that this is the key to what Brexit is about. Not all of this 'left behind' and 'democratic deficit' stuff, which I think is superficial, but what it is REALLY about.
I don't know the precise correct answer, and perhaps there isn't one, but I feel it has a great deal to do with what politics seems to be increasingly driven by these days - IDENTITY.
> @williamglenn said: > > @OblitusSumMe said: > > > > > > Create a modern heptarchy and the job's a good'un. > > That works in the context of an independent England (or England and Wales at a stretch) but not if you end up with a state in which a Scottish parliament sits alongside a Mercian parliament and England doesn't exist politically.
When the Mercian and Northumbrian Parliaments decide that their interests are best served working with the Scottish Parliament against whichever region London is in then we have a balance in our governance that is currently lacking.
So Guildford could get mixed up with the rest of the national decline in the Conservative support (and I note on the News it was). It is (in my opinion) unrelated. It would have happened anyway because of the local stuff (details too long and grubby to go into here). You could argue I have no way of knowing this ( I no longer have any inside knowledge) and clearly national issues helped the LDs to also win seats here.
A quick review of the individual results is a give away that there is more going on here than the national issues. >
The LD then defected to the Independents and got re-elected this time with 91% of the vote, the Tories got just 9%. LDs stood aside.
70% to 9% is pretty impressive achievement.
Turnout was a good indication as well this time. A seat unaffected by all of this had a 29% turnout, my ward was 55%!
Where the LDs won from the Conservatives the margins were of the more normal type of swing. In the wards the Indies were fighting for the local reasons it was often a massacre.
This rout should have happened in 2015, but the Independents couldn't get their act together then.
Hopefully the scandal here will come to an end and the only loser will be Ian Hislop and Private Eye (although it is clear there will need to be some court action possibly to stop the local plan)
A comment in the online local newspaper says it all:
"There is only one reason why the Conservatives failed in Guildford: 80,000 ignored comments!
Along with a touch of elite arrogance."
FYI the 80,000 refers to the objections to the local plan. To achieve 80,000 in one borough is going some, but the Tories put a huge effort into achieving it.
It should also be made clear that these Tories do not represent the Tory party as a whole. It is local, just local. Two existing Tory councillors and one LD set up the Independents in opposition to the local Tories. None of our Tory councillors (who objected to what was happening) put themselves up for re-election and the neighbouring Tory MP used Parliamentary privilege to make serious allegations about the leader of the Guildford Conservative group.
That is also what happened in Tandridge. Massive opposition to the local plan and 4000 new homes on green belt just outside of Godstone.
Tunbridge Wells as well the same happened to the leader David Jukes who had insisted on pushing a local plan forwards that nobody wants.
This is the problem for the Tories..if the population keeps rising we need new houses..those houses have to be built somewhere but the Tory heartlands will not accept this. Its actually more toxic than Brexit in those areas.
> @kjh said: > > Re Guildford: > > So Guildford could get mixed up with the rest of the national decline in the Conservative support (and I note on the News it was). It is (in my opinion) unrelated. It would have happened anyway because of the local stuff (details too long and grubby to go into here). You could argue I have no way of knowing this ( I no longer have any inside knowledge) and clearly national issues helped the LDs to also win seats here. > > A quick review of the individual results is a give away that there is more going on here than the national issues. > > The Independents weren't able to get candidates for 8 of the seats the Tories did hold onto. The Tories only held 9 seats (losing 26 seats from their 2015 results). They could have been down to just 1 if the Indies were able to fight the missed seats. > > When you look at wards most impacted by the local mess the result is breathtaking. Take Ripley (Lovelace). It had never been lost by the Tories. In a by-election just after all this kicked off, a few years ago, they lost it to the LDs who got 70% of the vote and who then held it again in 2015. In 2011 the Tories had held it with 70% of the vote. Quite a swing! > > The LD then defected to the Independents and got re-elected this time with 91% of the vote, the Tories got just 9%. LDs stood aside. > > 70% to 9% is pretty impressive achievement. > > Turnout was a good indication as well this time. A seat unaffected by all of this had a 29% turnout, my ward was 55%! > > Where the LDs won from the Conservatives the margins were of the more normal type of swing. In the wards the Indies were fighting for the local reasons it was often a massacre. > > This rout should have happened in 2015, but the Independents couldn't get their act together then. > > Hopefully the scandal here will come to an end and the only loser will be Ian Hislop and Private Eye (although it is clear there will need to be some court action possibly to stop the local plan) > > A comment in the online local newspaper says it all: > > "There is only one reason why the Conservatives failed in Guildford: 80,000 ignored comments! > > Along with a touch of elite arrogance." > > FYI the 80,000 refers to the objections to the local plan. To achieve 80,000 in one borough is going some, but the Tories put a huge effort into achieving it. > > It should also be made clear that these Tories do not represent the Tory party as a whole. It is local, just local. Two existing Tory councillors and one LD set up the Independents in opposition to the local Tories. None of our Tory councillors (who objected to what was happening) put themselves up for re-election and the neighbouring Tory MP used Parliamentary privilege to make serious allegations about the leader of the Guildford Conservative group.
What was the local plan which caused such opposition ?
Dr. Foxy, that assumes the electorate was in favour.
Also, migration rates then were far lower than when Blair decided to 'rub the right's face in diversity'. And before further expansion (yeah, UK politicians were in favour of that too. But the divide between the political class and the electorate is a hallmark of the EU division).
So you are saying the entire problem is with British politicians? If so, how is leaving going to help.
“Mr” Dancer’s response to my simple question was quite revealing.
His issue is with democracy in *this* country, not with the EU.
The starting point should be the idea that power rests as close to the people as possible, and decisions should be made at the most local level. Town and county councils should raise much more of their own money, and should have power over more areas of responsibility than they do now. Things that really can’t be done at county level should be done at State level, and only things that can’t be done at State level should be done at National level - that’s not much more than the Central Bank, Defence and international trade.
Political power should be temporarily granted by the electorate to politicians who are then accountable for their exercise of the power for which they are stewards. It's a wild and crazy notion, I admit.
The LD then defected to the Independents and got re-elected this time with 91% of the vote, the Tories got just 9%. LDs stood aside.
70% to 9% is pretty impressive achievement.
Turnout was a good indication as well this time. A seat unaffected by all of this had a 29% turnout, my ward was 55%!
Where the LDs won from the Conservatives the margins were of the more normal type of swing. In the wards the Indies were fighting for the local reasons it was often a massacre.
This rout should have happened in 2015, but the Independents couldn't get their act together then.
Hopefully the scandal here will come to an end and the only loser will be Ian Hislop and Private Eye (although it is clear there will need to be some court action possibly to stop the local plan)
A comment in the online local newspaper says it all:
"There is only one reason why the Conservatives failed in Guildford: 80,000 ignored comments!
Along with a touch of elite arrogance."
FYI the 80,000 refers to the objections to the local plan. To achieve 80,000 in one borough is going some, but the Tories put a huge effort into achieving it.
It should also be made clear that these Tories do not represent the Tory party as a whole. It is local, just local. Two existing Tory councillors and one LD set up the Independents in opposition to the local Tories. None of our Tory councillors (who objected to what was happening) put themselves up for re-election and the neighbouring Tory MP used Parliamentary privilege to make serious allegations about the leader of the Guildford Conservative group.
That is also what happened in Tandridge. Massive opposition to the local plan and 4000 new homes on green belt just outside of Godstone.
Tunbridge Wells as well the same happened to the leader David Jukes who had insisted on pushing a local plan forwards that nobody wants.
This is the problem for the Tories..if the population keeps rising we need new houses..those houses have to be built somewhere but the Tory heartlands will not accept this. Its actually more toxic than Brexit in those areas.
So it’s all plain NIMBYism then?
People need to decide if they want their kids to be able to afford to live in their own neighbourhood, in some parts of England it’s clear that they don’t.
We are where we are as both parties have useless leadership.
May should have booted out after her useless election in 2017 but the Tories bottled it.
Labour have a minority weakling in Corbyn who only wins if the Tories persist with May.
A decent PM would have created a softish exit, with a clear end point where the UK is independent of the EU. Instead, we face what Olly Robbins described as a 'bridge's to rejoining in the early 2020's, which only a remainer as useless as May would think is a good idea.
Big 1st mover advantage for either main party who gets a new leader with the common touch.
> @timmo said: > Re Guildford: > > So Guildford could get mixed up with the rest of the national decline in the Conservative support (and I note on the News it was). It is (in my opinion) unrelated. It would have happened anyway because of the local stuff (details too long and grubby to go into here). You could argue I have no way of knowing this ( I no longer have any inside knowledge) and clearly national issues helped the LDs to also win seats here. > > A quick review of the individual results is a give away that there is more going on here than the national issues. > > The LD then defected to the Independents and got re-elected this time with 91% of the vote, the Tories got just 9%. LDs stood aside. > > 70% to 9% is pretty impressive achievement. > > Turnout was a good indication as well this time. A seat unaffected by all of this had a 29% turnout, my ward was 55%! > > Where the LDs won from the Conservatives the margins were of the more normal type of swing. In the wards the Indies were fighting for the local reasons it was often a massacre. > > This rout should have happened in 2015, but the Independents couldn't get their act together then. > > Hopefully the scandal here will come to an end and the only loser will be Ian Hislop and Private Eye (although it is clear there will need to be some court action possibly to stop the local plan) > > A comment in the online local newspaper says it all: > > "There is only one reason why the Conservatives failed in Guildford: 80,000 ignored comments > > Along with a touch of elite arrogance." > > FYI the 80,000 refers to the objections to the local plan. To achieve 80,000 in one borough is going some, but the Tories put a huge effort into achieving it. > > It should also be made clear that these Tories do not represent the Tory party as a whole. It is local, just local. Two existing Tory councillors and one LD set up the Independents in opposition to the local Tories. None of our Tory councillors (who objected to what was happening) put themselves up for re-election and the neighbouring Tory MP used Parliamentary privilege to make serious allegations about the leader of the Guildford Conservative group. > > That is also what happened in Tandridge. Massive opposition to the local plan and 4000 new homes on green belt just outside of Godstone. > > Tunbridge Wells as well the same happened to the leader David Jukes who had insisted on pushing a local plan forwards that nobody wants. > > This is the problem for the Tories..if the population keeps rising we need new houses..those houses have to be built somewhere but the Tory heartlands will not accept this. Its actually more toxic than Brexit in those areas.
The strategic incompetence of the Conservatives means they are now losing the votes of those who want higher house prices as well as those who want lower house prices.
<> <br /> > 70% to 9% is pretty impressive achievement.
>
> Turnout was a good indication as well this time. A seat unaffected by all of this had a 29% turnout, my ward was 55%!
>
> Where the LDs won from the Conservatives the margins were of the more normal type of swing. In the wards the Indies were fighting for the local reasons it was often a massacre.
>
> This rout should have happened in 2015, but the Independents couldn't get their act together then.
>
> Hopefully the scandal here will come to an end and the only loser will be Ian Hislop and Private Eye (although it is clear there will need to be some court action possibly to stop the local plan)
>
> A comment in the online local newspaper says it all:
>
> "There is only one reason why the Conservatives failed in Guildford: 80,000 ignored comments
>
> Along with a touch of elite arrogance."
>
> FYI the 80,000 refers to the objections to the local plan. To achieve 80,000 in one borough is going some, but the Tories put a huge effort into achieving it.
>
> It should also be made clear that these Tories do not represent the Tory party as a whole. It is local, just local. Two existing Tory councillors and one LD set up the Independents in opposition to the local Tories. None of our Tory councillors (who objected to what was happening) put themselves up for re-election and the neighbouring Tory MP used Parliamentary privilege to make serious allegations about the leader of the Guildford Conservative group.
>
> That is also what happened in Tandridge. Massive opposition to the local plan and 4000 new homes on green belt just outside of Godstone.
>
> Tunbridge Wells as well the same happened to the leader David Jukes who had insisted on pushing a local plan forwards that nobody wants.
>
> This is the problem for the Tories..if the population keeps rising we need new houses..those houses have to be built somewhere but the Tory heartlands will not accept this. Its actually more toxic than Brexit in those areas.
The strategic incompetence of the Conservatives means they are now losing the votes of those who want higher house prices as well as those who want lower house prices.
The housing issue and building vast swathes in Tory heartlands is much more of an existential threat than Brexit. These are people who are retired ,semi retired and more often than not professional people who can organise themselves into Independent protest groups. Just the sort of people who are instinctively Tory. They also will not vote in the main LD that's why the Independent route works.
The LD then defected to the Independents and got re-elected this time with 91% of the vote, the Tories got just 9%. LDs stood aside.
70% to 9% is pretty impressive achievement.
Turnout was a good indication as well this time. A seat unaffected by all of this had a 29% turnout, my ward was 55%!
Where the LDs won from the Conservatives the margins were of the more normal type of swing. In the wards the Indies were fighting for the local reasons it was often a massacre.
This rout should have happened in 2015, but the Independents couldn't get their act together then.
Hopefully the scandal here will come to an end and the only loser will be Ian Hislop and Private Eye (although it is clear there will need to be some court action possibly to stop the local plan)
A comment in the online local newspaper says it all:
"There is only one reason why the Conservatives failed in Guildford: 80,000 ignored comments!
Along with a touch of elite arrogance."
FYI the 80,000 refers to the objections to the local plan. To achieve 80,000 in one borough is going some, but the Tories put a huge effort into achieving it.
It should also be made clear that these Tories do not represent the Tory party as a whole. It is local, just local. Two existing Tory councillors and one LD set up the Independents in opposition to the local Tories. None of our Tory councillors (who objected to what was happening) put themselves up for re-election and the neighbouring Tory MP used Parliamentary privilege to make serious allegations about the leader of the Guildford Conservative group.
That is also what happened in Tandridge. Massive opposition to the local plan and 4000 new homes on green belt just outside of Godstone.
Tunbridge Wells as well the same happened to the leader David Jukes who had insisted on pushing a local plan forwards that nobody wants.
This is the problem for the Tories..if the population keeps rising we need new houses..those houses have to be built somewhere but the Tory heartlands will not accept this. Its actually more toxic than Brexit in those areas.
So it’s all plain NIMBYism then?
People need to decide if they want their kids to be able to afford to live in their own neighbourhood, in some parts of England it’s clear that they don’t.
> @Cicero said: > > @algarkirk said: > > > @Gardenwalker said: > > > Mr. B, indeed, if that customs union and backstop nonsense goes ahead. > > > > > > Mr. Matt, we'll be able to determine our own domestic laws rather than have them imposed by the EU, and thus able to hold the political decision-makers to account directly, rather than have MPs point to the EU as a scapegoat (which is another reason that scepticism flourished). > > > > > > Which domestic laws have been imposed against our will by the EU? > > > > One example: The right of 500,000,000 million people to live in the UK if they want with only very restricted powers to prevent it? > > Well in theory every one of the 330 million Americans can visit the UK at the same time, but it doesn't happen does it?
And all 65 million UK citizens could choose to live in Luxembourg if they want with ony very restricted powers to prevent it.
> @Cicero said: > > @algarkirk said: > > > @Gardenwalker said: > > > Mr. B, indeed, if that customs union and backstop nonsense goes ahead. > > > > > > Mr. Matt, we'll be able to determine our own domestic laws rather than have them imposed by the EU, and thus able to hold the political decision-makers to account directly, rather than have MPs point to the EU as a scapegoat (which is another reason that scepticism flourished). > > > > > > Which domestic laws have been imposed against our will by the EU? > > > > One example: The right of 500,000,000 million people to live in the UK if they want with only very restricted powers to prevent it? > > Well in theory every one of the 330 million Americans can visit the UK at the same time, but it doesn't happen does it?
All 66 million UK citizens can stand on Hammersmith Bridge and surprisingly there is no law against it.
EDIT: Actually all 500 million EU citizens are allowed to stand on Hammersmith Bridge. Disgraceful.
A good header cyclefree. > @edmundintokyo said: > > @Cicero said: > > > @algarkirk said: > > > One example: The right of 500,000,000 million people to live in the UK if they want with only very restricted powers to prevent it? > > > > Well in theory every one of the 330 million Americans can visit the UK at the same time, but it doesn't happen does it? > > You could have added that all 67 million British people can simultaneously choose to become hairdressers. This will cause a catastrophic collapse in food and industrial production, and destroy the national defence. Clearly the government needs powers to centrally manage what job each of its citizens will do.
A well chosen example of reducto ad absurdum. Unfortunately with Brexit such examples worked. Who can forget Nigel Lawson on Question Time saying 70,000,000 Turks could come and work here and the audible gasps in the audience? Feeding preposterous 'facts' to a dim audience became an art form and it's why we are where we are.
> @Barnesian said: > > @Cicero said: > > > @algarkirk said: > > > > @Gardenwalker said: > > > > Mr. B, indeed, if that customs union and backstop nonsense goes ahead. > > > > > > > > Mr. Matt, we'll be able to determine our own domestic laws rather than have them imposed by the EU, and thus able to hold the political decision-makers to account directly, rather than have MPs point to the EU as a scapegoat (which is another reason that scepticism flourished). > > > > > > > > Which domestic laws have been imposed against our will by the EU? > > > > > > One example: The right of 500,000,000 million people to live in the UK if they want with only very restricted powers to prevent it? > > > > Well in theory every one of the 330 million Americans can visit the UK at the same time, but it doesn't happen does it? > > All 66 million UK citizens can stand on Hammersmith Bridge and surprisingly there is no law against it. > > EDIT: Actually all 500 million EU citizens are allowed to stand on Hammersmith Bridge. Disgraceful.
Well, the police would issue them with a section something order instructing them to go elsewhere and then arrest them at a rate of ~100 per day.
We are where we are as both parties have useless leadership.
May should have booted out after her useless election in 2017 but the Tories bottled it.
Labour have a minority weakling in Corbyn who only wins if the Tories persist with May.
A decent PM would have created a softish exit, with a clear end point where the UK is independent of the EU. Instead, we face what Olly Robbins described as a 'bridge's to rejoining in the early 2020's, which only a remainer as useless as May would think is a good idea.
Big 1st mover advantage for either main party who gets a new leader with the common touch.
Do you have a reputable link to Olly Robbins saying that please?
> @timmo said: > > The housing issue and building vast swathes in Tory heartlands is much more of an existential threat than Brexit. These are people who are retired ,semi retired and more often than not professional people who can organise themselves into Independent protest groups. Just the sort of people who are instinctively Tory. They also will not vote in the main LD that's why the Independent route works.
Unaffordable housing will be much more of an existential threat to their communities than new housing.
But I wonder if there is some social snobbery reasons involved.
If you own an expensive house while the average person can't afford to own any house then you might start to feel like the 'lord of the manor' or at least like the gentility Dickens and Gaskell wrote about.
Dr. Foxy, that assumes the electorate was in favour.
Also, migration rates then were far lower than when Blair decided to 'rub the right's face in diversity'. And before further expansion (yeah, UK politicians were in favour of that too. But the divide between the political class and the electorate is a hallmark of the EU division).
So you are saying the entire problem is with British politicians? If so, how is leaving going to help.
“Mr” Dancer’s response to my simple question was quite revealing.
His issue is with democracy in *this* country, not with the EU.
The starting point should be the idea that power rests as close to the people as possible, and decisions should be made at the most local level. Town and county councils should raise much more of their own money, and should have power over more areas of responsibility than they do now. Things that really can’t be done at county level should be done at State level, and only things that can’t be done at State level should be done at National level - that’s not much more than the Central Bank, Defence and international trade.
Sure. And yet, the U.K. is one of the most centralised countries on Earth.
> @eristdoof said: > > @Cicero said: > > > @algarkirk said: > > > > @Gardenwalker said: > > > > Mr. B, indeed, if that customs union and backstop nonsense goes ahead. > > > > > > > > Mr. Matt, we'll be able to determine our own domestic laws rather than have them imposed by the EU, and thus able to hold the political decision-makers to account directly, rather than have MPs point to the EU as a scapegoat (which is another reason that scepticism flourished). > > > > > > > > Which domestic laws have been imposed against our will by the EU? > > > > > > One example: The right of 500,000,000 million people to live in the UK if they want with only very restricted powers to prevent it? > > > > Well in theory every one of the 330 million Americans can visit the UK at the same time, but it doesn't happen does it? > > And all 65 million UK citizens could choose to live in Luxembourg if they want with ony very restricted powers to prevent it.
But in practical terms what has happened is that thousands of East European Roma have migrated to Rotherham while the migration from Rotherham to Luxembourg is approximately zero.
> @another_richard said: > > @timmo said: > > Re Guildford: > > > > So Guildford could get mixed up with the rest of the natio. > > > > A quick review of the individual results is a give away that there is more going on here than the national issues. > > > > The LD then defected to the Independents and got re-elected this time with 91% of the vote, the Tories got just 9%. LDs stood aside. > > > > 70% to 9% is pretty impressive achievement. > > > > Turnout was a good indication as well this time. A seat unaffected by all of this had a 29% turnout, my ward was 55%! > > > > Where the LDs won from the Conservatives the margins were of the more normal type of swing. In the wards the Indies were fighting for the local reasons it was often a massacre. > > > > This rout should have happened in 2015, but the Independents couldn't get their act together then. > > > > Hopefully the scandal here will come to an end and the only loser will be Ian Hislop and Private Eye (although it is clear there will need to be some court action possibly to stop the local plan) > > > > A comment in the online local newspaper says it all: > > > > "There is only one reason why the Conservatives failed in Guildford: 80,000 ignored comments > > > > Along with a touch of elite arrogance." > > > > FYI the 80,000 refers to the objections to the local plan. To achieve 80,000 in one borough is going some, but the Tories put a huge effort into achieving it. > > > > It should also be made clear that these Tories do not represent the Tory party as a whole. It is local, just local. Two existing Tory councillors and one LD set up the Independents in opposition to the local Tories. None of our Tory councillors (who objected to what was happening) put themselves up for re-election and the neighbouring Tory MP used Parliamentary privilege to make serious allegations about the leader of the Guildford Conservative group. > > > > That is also what happened in Tandridge. Massive opposition to the local plan and 4000 new homes on green belt just outside of Godstone. > > > > Tunbridge Wells as well the same happened to the leader David Jukes who had insisted on pushing a local plan forwards that nobody wants. > > > > This is the problem for the Tories..if the population keeps rising we need new houses..those houses have to be built somewhere but the Tory heartlands will not accept this. Its actually more toxic than Brexit in those areas. > > The strategic incompetence of the Conservatives means they are now losing the votes of those who want higher house prices as well as those who want lower house prices.
It may be tactical incompetence, but not strategic incompetence.
A strategist would accept taking a hit in a local election, in order to prevent the number of owner occupiers from falling, which would destroy the Conservatives in the long run.
> @Sandpit said: > > People need to decide if they want their kids to be able to afford to live in their own neighbourhood, in some parts of England it’s clear that they don’t.
They don't mind as long as the kids inherit unaffordable property.
> @another_richard said: > > @timmo said: > > > > The housing issue and building vast swathes in Tory heartlands is much more of an existential threat than Brexit. These are people who are retired ,semi retired and more often than not professional people who can organise themselves into Independent protest groups. Just the sort of people who are instinctively Tory. They also will not vote in the main LD that's why the Independent route works. > > Unaffordable housing will be much more of an existential threat to their communities than new housing. > > But I wonder if there is some social snobbery reasons involved. > > If you own an expensive house while the average person can't afford to own any house then you might start to feel like the 'lord of the manor' or at least like the gentility Dickens and Gaskell wrote about.
There was a huge fuss when Porters Park was built in Shenley, but 15 years on, it's boosted the Conservative vote, locally, rather than undermining it.
> @TheScreamingEagles said: > We are where we are as both parties have useless leadership. > > > > May should have booted out after her useless election in 2017 but the Tories bottled it. > > > > Labour have a minority weakling in Corbyn who only wins if the Tories persist with May. > > > > A decent PM would have created a softish exit, with a clear end point where the UK is independent of the EU. Instead, we face what Olly Robbins described as a 'bridge's to rejoining in the early 2020's, which only a remainer as useless as May would think is a good idea. > > > > Big 1st mover advantage for either main party who gets a new leader with the common touch. > > Do you have a reputable link to Olly Robbins saying that please?
ITV reported his overheard conversation in Brussels bar> @TheScreamingEagles said: > We are where we are as both parties have useless leadership. > > > > May should have booted out after her useless election in 2017 but the Tories bottled it. > > > > Labour have a minority weakling in Corbyn who only wins if the Tories persist with May. > > > > A decent PM would have created a softish exit, with a clear end point where the UK is independent of the EU. Instead, we face what Olly Robbins described as a 'bridge's to rejoining in the early 2020's, which only a remainer as useless as May would think is a good idea. > > > > Big 1st mover advantage for either main party who gets a new leader with the common touch. > > Do you have a reputable link to Olly Robbins saying that please?
> @timmo said: > Re Guildford: > > > The LD then defected to the Independents and got re-elected this time with 91% of the vote, the Tories got just 9%. LDs stood aside. > > > > 70% to 9% is pretty impressive achievement. > > > > Turnout was a good indication as well this time. A seat unaffected by all of this had a 29% turnout, my ward was 55%! > > > > Where the LDs won from the Conservatives the margins were of the more normal type of swing. In the wards the Indies were fighting for the local reasons it was often a massacre. > > > > This rout should have happened in 2015, but the Independents couldn't get their act together then. > > > > Hopefully the scandal here will come to an end and the only loser will be Ian Hislop and Private Eye (although it is clear there will need to be some court action possibly to stop the local plan) > > > > A comment in the online local newspaper says it all: > > > > "There is only one reason why the Conservatives failed in Guildford: 80,000 ignored comments! > > > > Along with a touch of elite arrogance." > > > > FYI the 80,000 refers to the objections to the local plan. To achieve 80,000 in one borough is going some, but the Tories put a huge effort into achieving it. > > > > It should also be made clear that these Tories do not represent the Tory party as a whole. It is local, just local. Two existing Tory councillors and one LD set up the Independents in opposition to the local Tories. None of our Tory councillors (who objected to what was happening) put themselves up for re-election and the neighbouring Tory MP used Parliamentary privilege to make serious allegations about the leader of the Guildford Conservative group. > > That is also what happened in Tandridge. Massive opposition to the local plan and 4000 new homes on green belt just outside of Godstone. > > Tunbridge Wells as well the same happened to the leader David Jukes who had insisted on pushing a local plan forwards that nobody wants. > > This is the problem for the Tories..if the population keeps rising we need new houses..those houses have to be built somewhere but the Tory heartlands will not accept this. Its actually more toxic than Brexit in those areas. > > So it’s all plain NIMBYism then? > > People need to decide if they want their kids to be able to afford to live in their own neighbourhood, in some parts of England it’s clear that they don’t. > > In one word Yes
Well, sort of, although in defence of Nimbyism, too often the developers build thousands of rabbit hutches but no-one opens more doctors or dentists, or school places and hospital beds, or builds a new reservoir.
Not being a part of the increasingly integrated political structures of the EU (and that includes their imbecilic Parliament). Not being bound by QMV or policies that favour the EZ Not having to pay approximately £10bn a year towards EU integration. Having the freedom to make our own choices, albeit accepting that every choice has a price and nothing is free in this world. Having elections (EU Parliament apart, naturally) where those elected are able to implement the choices that we have made, be they smart or no. Democracy, in other words. Having the ability to set plans for agriculture and fish that are actually focused on these isles rather than the Med.
They really haven't gone away. We just focus on the complexities. Should we join a CU? Is it sensible to give the EU the power that gives them over our trade policy? Are the rewards of frictionless trade worth it? Where do we still want to integrate beyond a FTA? What, even if we are not members of the EU, does the countries of Europe do better together? How do we have a virtual border with a SM that we are not a part of?
These are not straightforward questions and a distinctly below average political class is making a right meal of them. It's disappointing but I really don't agree with @Cyclefree's premise.
> @Sean_F said: > > @another_richard said: > > > > The strategic incompetence of the Conservatives means they are now losing the votes of those who want higher house prices as well as those who want lower house prices. > > It may be tactical incompetence, but not strategic incompetence. > > A strategist would accept taking a hit in a local election, in order to prevent the number of owner occupiers from falling, which would destroy the Conservatives in the long run.
The strategic incompetence began earlier when the Conservatives chose to bribe the oldies and drown the young in debt.
The triple locking of pensions together with tripling tuition fees.
Plus the support for higher house prices rather than increased house building.
Did you not watch much Tom and Jerry? Tez laid the trap, but Jerry swapped the Dutch cheese for Brexit fudge. Tez is not very bright and falls for the trap. Tez can only look forward to a never ending sequence of very painful adventures, and Jerry wins every time!
None of the local plan complaints are particularly surprising - they happen everywhere. People want more housing provided it’s built somewhere else. The independents etc who were elected on the back of complaining about it (other counties as well) will find their room for manoeuvre severely curtailed. I think that positive acting, rather than whining, will be something of a shock (see also Brexit enthusiasts for this problem).
> @another_richard said: > > @kjh said: > > > > Re Guildford: > > > > What was the local plan which caused such opposition ?
It is more complex than just the local plan, which is appalling. For example: Refusal to share the calculation of housing needs Cayman Islands Development company wants to build new town. No information available on said company. Only spokesman is a Conservative from White Horse Council (may not be now I guess) Letter of support from Surrey County Council leader (now gone) to Guildford Borough Council turned out to have been written by developer Head of Planning resigns with no notice whatsoever (pushed out?) Councillor responsible on the Executive for planning found guilty of fraud Previous leader of council (also now resigned and stood down) together with councillor who was found guilty of fraud organised signatures to get local vote on an elected mayor (presumably to get stuff pushed through). Bribed students to collect signatures. Referendum held. 80% against. Less than half voted for than signatures collected which were verified voters! Conservative MP accuses leader of Russian links in Parliament
Regarding the local plan it is difficult to know where to start, but for instance the new town did not have a school. A primary school was added, but there is no where for any secondary school children to go to school. Just nowhere. There seem to be no plan for cars at all! This was close to the junction of the M25/A3. The pollution levels on the site exceed the maximum allowed and there was no plan to solve that. The same stuff was endemic throughout the whole plan. A 5 year old could tear it apart. Hence 80,000 objections.
There was a strong whiff of something else going on here.
'May in secret discussions with Labour on a second referendum'
May has held talks with Labour over a three-day second referendum giving voters a choice of Remain, Brexit with a Deal or No Deal if Parliament forced a second referendum either through further indicative votes or a Brexit legislation amendment.
The PM is also said to be ready to offer Labour a temporary Customs Union until the next general election with the winner saving on permanent arrangements
> @kinabalu said: > Very good header and all very true, very true. Want to go deeper though, want to get into the 'psyche' of Brexit. > > I'm wrestling with a question - why are large numbers of 'Leavers', up north, down south, working class and very much not, inland and coast, affluent suburbs, struggling towns, the bucolic tory shires, why are all these good people, and we are talking many millions, so enthused by the reactionary right wing ex City trader and public schoolboy, Nigel Farage? > > I sense that this is the key to what Brexit is about. Not all of this 'left behind' and 'democratic deficit' stuff, which I think is superficial, but what it is REALLY about. > > I don't know the precise correct answer, and perhaps there isn't one, but I feel it has a great deal to do with what politics seems to be increasingly driven by these days - IDENTITY.
I think it's the attraction to a plain speaking distinctive personality that taps into widespread diverse concerns. A populist. A successful brand. Trump has it. Corbyn has/had it. Blair had it. Contrast with Mrs May or Vince Cable.
> We are where we are as both parties have useless leadership.
>
>
>
> May should have booted out after her useless election in 2017 but the Tories bottled it.
>
>
>
> Labour have a minority weakling in Corbyn who only wins if the Tories persist with May.
>
>
>
> A decent PM would have created a softish exit, with a clear end point where the UK is independent of the EU. Instead, we face what Olly Robbins described as a 'bridge's to rejoining in the early 2020's, which only a remainer as useless as May would think is a good idea.
>
>
>
> Big 1st mover advantage for either main party who gets a new leader with the common touch.
>
> Do you have a reputable link to Olly Robbins saying that please?
ITV reported his overheard conversation in Brussels bar> @TheScreamingEagles said:
> We are where we are as both parties have useless leadership.
>
>
>
> May should have booted out after her useless election in 2017 but the Tories bottled it.
>
>
>
> Labour have a minority weakling in Corbyn who only wins if the Tories persist with May.
>
>
>
> A decent PM would have created a softish exit, with a clear end point where the UK is independent of the EU. Instead, we face what Olly Robbins described as a 'bridge's to rejoining in the early 2020's, which only a remainer as useless as May would think is a good idea.
>
>
>
> Big 1st mover advantage for either main party who gets a new leader with the common touch.
>
> Do you have a reputable link to Olly Robbins saying that please?
I have just reread that account, which I remember reading at the time. It is interesting just how much has changed since then. When it first came out, it seemed really important as an indicator of how the leave process was going to go. And in fact it was pretty accurate as a prognosis. But it already feels like history rather than current affairs. That might have been how we could have left. But it no longer feels at all like we are actually going to leave.
> @another_richard said: > > @Sandpit said: > > > > People need to decide if they want their kids to be able to afford to live in their own neighbourhood, in some parts of England it’s clear that they don’t. > > They don't mind as long as the kids inherit unaffordable property. > > The spirit of Audrey Forbes-Hamilton.
That worked 50 years ago, but today the kids are not far off retirement before they get their hands on the inheritance.
> @another_richard said: > > @Sean_F said: > > > @another_richard said: > > > > > > The strategic incompetence of the Conservatives means they are now losing the votes of those who want higher house prices as well as those who want lower house prices. > > > > It may be tactical incompetence, but not strategic incompetence. > > > > A strategist would accept taking a hit in a local election, in order to prevent the number of owner occupiers from falling, which would destroy the Conservatives in the long run. > > The strategic incompetence began earlier when the Conservatives chose to bribe the oldies and drown the young in debt. > > The triple locking of pensions together with tripling tuition fees. > > Plus the support for higher house prices rather than increased house building. > > Thankfully that last has now been reversed.
Indeed many Tory councillors lost their seats to the LDs or local Independents partly through Tory Local Plans for more housing in each authority opposed by LD or Residents' Association Nimbys
> @matt said: > Re Guildford. > > None of the local plan complaints are particularly surprising - they happen everywhere. People want more housing provided it’s built somewhere else. The independents etc who were elected on the back of complaining about it (other counties as well) will find their room for manoeuvre severely curtailed. I think that positive acting, rather than whining, will be something of a shock (see also Brexit enthusiasts for this problem).
See my other post. This isn't Nimbys here (well there will be some obviously). Something much bigger was happening.
> Very good header and all very true, very true. Want to go deeper though, want to get into the 'psyche' of Brexit.
>
> I'm wrestling with a question - why are large numbers of 'Leavers', up north, down south, working class and very much not, inland and coast, affluent suburbs, struggling towns, the bucolic tory shires, why are all these good people, and we are talking many millions, so enthused by the reactionary right wing ex City trader and public schoolboy, Nigel Farage?
>
> I sense that this is the key to what Brexit is about. Not all of this 'left behind' and 'democratic deficit' stuff, which I think is superficial, but what it is REALLY about.
>
> I don't know the precise correct answer, and perhaps there isn't one, but I feel it has a great deal to do with what politics seems to be increasingly driven by these days - IDENTITY.
I think it's the attraction to a plain speaking distinctive personality that taps into widespread diverse concerns. A populist. A successful brand. Trump has it. Corbyn has/had it. Blair had it. Contrast with Mrs May or Vince Cable.
Isn’t “plain speaking” synonymous with “common sense”. An inability to reference objective facts and an enthusiasm for simplifying and lying?
> @another_richard said: > > @eristdoof said: > > > @Cicero said: > > > > @algarkirk said: > > > > > @Gardenwalker said: > > > > > Mr. B, indeed, if that customs union and backstop nonsense goes ahead. > > > > > > > > > > Mr. Matt, we'll be able to determine our own domestic laws rather than have them imposed by the EU, and thus able to hold the political decision-makers to account directly, rather than have MPs point to the EU as a scapegoat (which is another reason that scepticism flourished). > > > > > > > > > > Which domestic laws have been imposed against our will by the EU? > > > > > > > > One example: The right of 500,000,000 million people to live in the UK if they want with only very restricted powers to prevent it? > > > > > > Well in theory every one of the 330 million Americans can visit the UK at the same time, but it doesn't happen does it? > > > > And all 65 million UK citizens could choose to live in Luxembourg if they want with ony very restricted powers to prevent it. > > But in practical terms what has happened is that thousands of East European Roma have migrated to Rotherham while the migration from Rotherham to Luxembourg is approximately zero.
> @Sandpit said: > Dr. Foxy, that assumes the electorate was in favour. > > Also, migration rates then were far lower than when Blair decided to 'rub the right's face in diversity'. And before further expansion (yeah, UK politicians were in favour of that too. But the divide between the political class and the electorate is a hallmark of the EU division). > > So you are saying the entire problem is with British politicians? If so, how is leaving going to help. > > “Mr” Dancer’s response to my simple question was quite revealing. > > His issue is with democracy in *this* country, not with the EU. > > The starting point should be the idea that power rests as close to the people as possible, and decisions should be made at the most local level. > Town and county councils should raise much more of their own money, and should have power over more areas of responsibility than they do now. > Things that really can’t be done at county level should be done at State level, and only things that can’t be done at State level should be done at National level - that’s not much more than the Central Bank, Defence and international trade.
And what can't be done at national level should be done at international level - dealing with climate change, effective taxation of multinationals, defence.
> @eristdoof said: > > @another_richard said: > > > @eristdoof said: > > > > @Cicero said: > > > > > @algarkirk said: > > > > > > @Gardenwalker said: > > > > > > Mr. B, indeed, if that customs union and backstop nonsense goes ahead. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr. Matt, we'll be able to determine our own domestic laws rather than have them imposed by the EU, and thus able to hold the political decision-makers to account directly, rather than have MPs point to the EU as a scapegoat (which is another reason that scepticism flourished). > > > > > > > > > > > > Which domestic laws have been imposed against our will by the EU? > > > > > > > > > > One example: The right of 500,000,000 million people to live in the UK if they want with only very restricted powers to prevent it? > > > > > > > > Well in theory every one of the 330 million Americans can visit the UK at the same time, but it doesn't happen does it? > > > > > > And all 65 million UK citizens could choose to live in Luxembourg if they want with ony very restricted powers to prevent it. > > > > But in practical terms what has happened is that thousands of East European Roma have migrated to Rotherham while the migration from Rotherham to Luxembourg is approximately zero. > > That says a lot about the population of Rotheram
> We are where we are as both parties have useless leadership.
>
>
>
> May should have booted out after her useless election in 2017 but the Tories bottled it.
>
>
>
> Labour have a minority weakling in Corbyn who only wins if the Tories persist with May.
>
>
>
> A decent PM would have created a softish exit, with a clear end point where the UK is independent of the EU. Instead, we face what Olly Robbins described as a 'bridge's to rejoining in the early 2020's, which only a remainer as useless as May would think is a good idea.
>
>
>
> Big 1st mover advantage for either main party who gets a new leader with the common touch.
>
> Do you have a reputable link to Olly Robbins saying that please?
ITV reported his overheard conversation in Brussels bar> @TheScreamingEagles said:
> We are where we are as both parties have useless leadership.
>
>
>
> May should have booted out after her useless election in 2017 but the Tories bottled it.
>
>
>
> Labour have a minority weakling in Corbyn who only wins if the Tories persist with May.
>
>
>
> A decent PM would have created a softish exit, with a clear end point where the UK is independent of the EU. Instead, we face what Olly Robbins described as a 'bridge's to rejoining in the early 2020's, which only a remainer as useless as May would think is a good idea.
>
>
>
> Big 1st mover advantage for either main party who gets a new leader with the common touch.
>
> Do you have a reputable link to Olly Robbins saying that please?
> @kjh said: > > Re Guildford: > > So Guildford could get mixed up with the rest of the national decline in the Conservative support (and I note on the News it was). It is (in my opinion) unrelated. It would have happened anyway because of the local stuff (details too long and grubby to go into here). You could argue I have no way of knowing this ( I no longer have any inside knowledge) and clearly national issues helped the LDs to also win seats here. > > A quick review of the individual results is a give away that there is more going on here than the national issues. > > The Independents weren't able to get candidates for 8 of the seats the Tories did hold onto. The Tories only held 9 seats (losing 26 seats from their 2015 results). They could have been down to just 1 if the Indies were able to fight the missed seats. > > When you look at wards most impacted by the local mess the result is breathtaking. Take Ripley (Lovelace). It had never been lost by the Tories. In vote. Quite a swing! > > The LD then defected to the Independents and got re-elected this time with 91% of the vote, the Tories got just 9%. LDs stood aside. > > 70% to 9% is pretty impressive achievement. > > Turnout was a good indication as well this time. A seat unaffected by all of this had a 29% turnout, my ward was 55%! > > Where the LDs won from the Conservatives the margins were of the more normal type of swing. In the wards the Indies were fighting for the local reasons it was often a massacre. > > This rout should have happened in 2015, but the Independents couldn't get their act together then. > > Hopefully the scandal here will come to an end and the only loser will be Ian Hislop and Private Eye (although it is clear there will need to be some court action possibly to stop the local plan) > > A comment in the online local newspaper says it all: > > "There is only one reason why the Conservatives failed in Guildford: 80,000 ignored comments! > > Along with a touch of elite arrogance." > > FYI the 80,000 refers to the objections to the local plan. To achieve 80,000 in one borough is going some, but the Tories put a huge effort into achieving it. > > It should also be made clear that these Tories do not represent the Tory party as a whole. It is local, just local. Two existing Tory councillors and one LD set up the Independents in opposition to the local Tories. None of our Tory councillors (who objected to what was happening) put themselves up for re-election and the neighbouring Tory MP used Parliamentary privilege to make serious allegations about the leader of the Guildford Conservative group.
At my parents' wedding anniversary yesterday I discovered my father's cousin was telling for the Independents in Guildford on polling day and they won the seat comfortably from nowhere
Yes Nimbys complain about house building, but Guildford was different. There was much more going on. The list I gave was only a small subset.
The greenbelt/housing issue is happening all over the place, but I would be interested to know if any other borough got 80,000 objections or anywhere near it. It is difficult to imagine how such a number was achievable. It takes incredible incompetence (or possibly worse) to achieve that reaction.
> @Barnesian said: > > @Cicero said: > > > @algarkirk said: > > > > @Gardenwalker said: > > > > Mr. B, indeed, if that customs union and backstop nonsense goes ahead. > > > > > > > > Mr. Matt, we'll be able to determine our own domestic laws rather than have them imposed by the EU, and thus able to hold the political decision-makers to account directly, rather than have MPs point to the EU as a scapegoat (which is another reason that scepticism flourished). > > > > > > > > Which domestic laws have been imposed against our will by the EU? > > > > > > One example: The right of 500,000,000 million people to live in the UK if they want with only very restricted powers to prevent it? > > > > Well in theory every one of the 330 million Americans can visit the UK at the same time, but it doesn't happen does it? > > All 66 million UK citizens can stand on Hammersmith Bridge and surprisingly there is no law against it. > > EDIT: Actually all 500 million EU citizens are allowed to stand on Hammersmith Bridge. Disgraceful.
All 66 million UK citizens could march from Sunderland to near Hammersmith Bridge in the name of Brexit.
> @HYUFD said: > > @another_richard said: > > > @Sean_F said: > > > > @another_richard said: > > > > > > > > The strategic incompetence of the Conservatives means they are now losing the votes of those who want higher house prices as well as those who want lower house prices. > > > > > > It may be tactical incompetence, but not strategic incompetence. > > > > > > A strategist would accept taking a hit in a local election, in order to prevent the number of owner occupiers from falling, which would destroy the Conservatives in the long run. > > > > The strategic incompetence began earlier when the Conservatives chose to bribe the oldies and drown the young in debt. > > > > The triple locking of pensions together with tripling tuition fees. > > > > Plus the support for higher house prices rather than increased house building. > > > > Thankfully that last has now been reversed. > > Indeed many Tory councillors lost their seats to the LDs or local Independents partly through Tory Local Plans for more housing in each authority opposed by LD or Residents' Association Nimbys
While Nick Palmer tells us that housing is a big issue to those who can't afford it.
The Conservatives have got themselves into a situation where they are being blamed by both sides.
> @another_richard said: > > @timmo said: > > Re Guildford: > > > > So Guildford could get mixed up with the rest of the national decline in the Conservative support (and I note on the News it was). It is (in my opinion) unrelated. It would have happened anyway because of the local stuff (details too long and grubby to go into here). You could argue I have no way of knowing this ( I no longer have any inside knowledge) and clearly national issues helped the LDs to also win seats here. > > > > A quick review of the individual results is a give away that there is more going on here than the national issues. > > > > The LD then defected to the Independents and got re-elected this time with 91% of the vote, the Tories got just 9%. LDs stood aside. > > > > 70% to 9% is pretty impressive achievement. > > > > Turnout was a good indication as well this time. A seat unaffected by all of this had a 29% turnout, my ward was 55%! > > > > Where the LDs won from the Conservatives the margins were of the more normal type of swing. In the wards the Indies were fighting for the local reasons it was often a massacre. > > > > This rout should have happened in 2015, but the Independents couldn't get their act together then. > > > > Hopefully the scandal here will come to an end and the only loser will be Ian Hislop and Private Eye (although it is clear there will need to be some court action possibly to stop the local plan) > > > > A comment in the online local newspaper says it all: > > > > "There is only one reason why the Conservatives failed in Guildford: 80,000 ignored comments > > > > Along with a touch of elite arrogance." > > > > FYI the 80,000 refers to the objections to the local plan. To achieve 80,000 in one borough is going some, but the Tories put a huge effort into achieving it. > > > > It should also be made clear that these Tories do not represent the Tory party as a whole. It is local, just local. Two existing Tory councillors and one LD set up the Independents > > > > That is also what happened in Tandridge. Massive opposition to the local plan and 4000 new homes on green belt just outside of Godstone. > > > > Tunbridge Wells as well the same happened to the leader David Jukes who had insisted on pushing a local plan forwards that nobody wants. > > > > This is the problem for the Tories..if the population keeps rising we need new houses..those houses have to be built somewhere but the Tory heartlands will not accept this. Its actually more toxic than Brexit in those areas. > > The strategic incompetence of the Conservatives means they are now losing the votes of those who want higher house prices as well as those who want lower house prices.
In Tunbridge Wells the oppositiin was more Jukes' plan to build a huge new very expensive 'white elephant' theatre complex to rival the West End supposedly when the town already has 2 theatres anyway
> @matt said: > > @kinabalu said: > > > Very good header and all very true, very true. Want to go deeper though, want to get into the 'psyche' of Brexit. > > > > > > I'm wrestling with a question - why are large numbers of 'Leavers', up north, down south, working class and very much not, inland and coast, affluent suburbs, struggling towns, the bucolic tory shires, why are all these good people, and we are talking many millions, so enthused by the reactionary right wing ex City trader and public schoolboy, Nigel Farage? > > > > > > I sense that this is the key to what Brexit is about. Not all of this 'left behind' and 'democratic deficit' stuff, which I think is superficial, but what it is REALLY about. > > > > > > I don't know the precise correct answer, and perhaps there isn't one, but I feel it has a great deal to do with what politics seems to be increasingly driven by these days - IDENTITY. > > > > I think it's the attraction to a plain speaking distinctive personality that taps into widespread diverse concerns. A populist. A successful brand. Trump has it. Corbyn has/had it. Blair had it. Contrast with Mrs May or Vince Cable. > > Isn’t “plain speaking” synonymous with “common sense”. An inability to reference objective facts and an enthusiasm for simplifying and lying?
Not at all. "Lock her up" by Trump was plain speaking, but cannot at all be called common sense.
> @HYUFD said > > In Tunbridge Wells the oppositiin was more Jukes' plan to build a huge new very expensive 'white elephant' theatre complex to rival the West End supposedly when the town already has 2 theatres anyway
So people wanted more money spent on everyday services rather than a vanity project ?
Not being a part of the increasingly integrated political structures of the EU (and that includes their imbecilic Parliament).
Not being bound by QMV or policies that favour the EZ
Not having to pay approximately £10bn a year towards EU integration.
Having the freedom to make our own choices, albeit accepting that every choice has a price and nothing is free in this world.
Having elections (EU Parliament apart, naturally) where those elected are able to implement the choices that we have made, be they smart or no. Democracy, in other words.
Having the ability to set plans for agriculture and fish that are actually focused on these isles rather than the Med.
They really haven't gone away. We just focus on the complexities. Should we join a CU? Is it sensible to give the EU the power that gives them over our trade policy? Are the rewards of frictionless trade worth it? Where do we still want to integrate beyond a FTA? What, even if we are not members of the EU, does the countries of Europe do better together? How do we have a virtual border with a SM that we are not a part of?
These are not straightforward questions and a distinctly below average political class is making a right meal of them. It's disappointing but I really don't agree with @Cyclefree's premise.
> > I think it's the attraction to a plain speaking distinctive personality that taps into widespread diverse concerns. A populist. A successful brand. Trump has it. Corbyn has/had it. Blair had it. Contrast with Mrs May or Vince Cable.
------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Isn’t “plain speaking” synonymous with “common sense”. An inability to reference objective facts and an enthusiasm for simplifying and lying?
Objective facts complicate simple messages. Best ignored or contradicted if you want to be a successful populist.
Making good decisions is complicated by facts and difficult trade-offs. That is why it definitely should not be left to "The People". That's why we have a representative democracy, imperfect though it is.
> @Barnesian said: > > > > > I think it's the attraction to a plain speaking distinctive personality that taps into widespread diverse concerns. A populist. A successful brand. Trump has it. Corbyn has/had it. Blair had it. Contrast with Mrs May or Vince Cable. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Isn’t “plain speaking” synonymous with “common sense”. An inability to reference objective facts and an enthusiasm for simplifying and lying? > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Objective facts complicate simple messages. Best ignored or contradicted if you want to be a successful populist. > > Making good decisions is complicated by facts and difficult trade-offs. That is why it definitely should not be left to "The People". That's why we have a representative democracy, imperfect though it is.
'The People' make decisions complicated by facts and difficult trade-offs throughout their lives.
> @Foxy said: > > @AlastairMeeks said: > > > Never mind the article, I have questions about the cartoon: > > > > > > https://twitter.com/telegraph/status/1125154470684442624 > > > > > > > > Since when did mice try to trap cats with mousetraps? And what real harm would come to the cat anyway? > > > > I'm not prepared to pay to read that article but you get the comments for free. They are not happy reading for Boris whose previously popular snake oil is comprehensively rejected in favour of the new stronger Farage brand. > > On that subject, Boris seems to have bought a new tie: > > https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1125298679013879808
> @another_richard said: > > @HYUFD said > > > > In Tunbridge Wells the oppositiin was more Jukes' plan to build a huge new very expensive 'white elephant' theatre complex to rival the West End supposedly when the town already has 2 theatres anyway > > So people wanted more money spent on everyday services rather than a vanity project ? > > There's a lesson there.
Yes especially when it is council taxpayers' money paying for it
> What was the local plan which caused such opposition ?
It is more complex than just the local plan, which is appalling. For example:
Refusal to share the calculation of housing needs
Cayman Islands Development company wants to build new town. No information available on said company. Only spokesman is a Conservative from White Horse Council (may not be now I guess)
Letter of support from Surrey County Council leader (now gone) to Guildford Borough Council turned out to have been written by developer
Head of Planning resigns with no notice whatsoever (pushed out?)
Councillor responsible on the Executive for planning found guilty of fraud
Previous leader of council (also now resigned and stood down) together with councillor who was found guilty of fraud organised signatures to get local vote on an elected mayor (presumably to get stuff pushed through). Bribed students to collect signatures. Referendum held. 80% against. Less than half voted for than signatures collected which were verified voters!
Conservative MP accuses leader of Russian links in Parliament
Regarding the local plan it is difficult to know where to start, but for instance the new town did not have a school. A primary school was added, but there is no where for any secondary school children to go to school. Just nowhere. There seem to be no plan for cars at all! This was close to the junction of the M25/A3. The pollution levels on the site exceed the maximum allowed and there was no plan to solve that. The same stuff was endemic throughout the whole plan. A 5 year old could tear it apart. Hence 80,000 objections.
There was a strong whiff of something else going on here.
Ah, that’s a lot more than NIMBYism. That sounds like a local Conservative party infiltrated by, umm, undesirable people to have run a council.
This is surely the sort of thing that should be investigated by the DCLG?
> @another_richard said: > > @HYUFD said > > > > In Tunbridge Wells the oppositiin was more Jukes' plan to build a huge new very expensive 'white elephant' theatre complex to rival the West End supposedly when the town already has 2 theatres anyway > > So people wanted more money spent on everyday services rather than a vanity project ? > > There's a lesson there.
This is going back sometime now and I can't remember where (for some reason I have a borough starting with 'W' in my head), but I recall there was a rock solid Labour council, with I think no Liberals on it, who decided to build Sports centres like there was no tomorrow. As a consequence in the election the Liberals suddenly found they were running the council with no experience whatsoever. Can't remember whether they managed to hack it or not.
> @another_richard said: > > @Barnesian said: > > > > > > > > I think it's the attraction to a plain speaking distinctive personality that taps into widespread diverse concerns. A populist. A successful brand. Trump has it. Corbyn has/had it. Blair had it. Contrast with Mrs May or Vince Cable. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Isn’t “plain speaking” synonymous with “common sense”. An inability to reference objective facts and an enthusiasm for simplifying and lying? > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Objective facts complicate simple messages. Best ignored or contradicted if you want to be a successful populist. > > > > Making good decisions is complicated by facts and difficult trade-offs. That is why it definitely should not be left to "The People". That's why we have a representative democracy, imperfect though it is. ---------------------------------------------------------- > > 'The People' make decisions complicated by facts and difficult trade-offs throughout their lives.
> @another_richard said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > @another_richard said: > > > > @Sean_F said: > > > > > @another_richard said: > > > > > > > > > > The strategic incompetence of the Conservatives means they are now losing the votes of those who want higher house prices as well as those who want lower house prices. > > > > > > > > It may be tactical incompetence, but not strategic incompetence. > > > > > > > > A strategist would accept taking a hit in a local election, in order to prevent the number of owner occupiers from falling, which would destroy the Conservatives in the long run. > > > > > > The strategic incompetence began earlier when the Conservatives chose to bribe the oldies and drown the young in debt. > > > > > > The triple locking of pensions together with tripling tuition fees. > > > > > > Plus the support for higher house prices rather than increased house building. > > > > > > Thankfully that last has now been reversed. > > > > Indeed many Tory councillors lost their seats to the LDs or local Independents partly through Tory Local Plans for more housing in each authority opposed by LD or Residents' Association Nimbys > > While Nick Palmer tells us that housing is a big issue to those who can't afford it. > > The Conservatives have got themselves into a situation where they are being blamed by both sides.
It is impossible to appease both young and middle aged people wanting more affordable housing to buy and older NIMBYs I am afraid.
However while the former might switch between Tory and Labour at a general election the latter will largely vote Tory at a general election even if they vote LD or Independent locally
> @HYUFD said: > > @kjh said: > > > > Re Guildford: > > > > So Guildford could get mixed up with the rest of the national decline in the Conservative support (and I note on the News it was). It is (in my opinion) unrelated. It would have happened anyway because of the local stuff (details too long and grubby to go into here). You could argue I have no way of knowing this ( I no longer have any inside knowledge) and clearly national issues helped the LDs to also win seats here. > > > > A quick review of the individual results is a give away that there is more going on here than the national issues. > > > > The Independents weren't able to get candidates for 8 of the seats the Tories did hold onto. The Tories only held 9 seats (losing 26 seats from their 2015 results). They could have been down to just 1 if the Indies were able to fight the missed seats. > > > > When you look at wards most impacted by the local mess the result is breathtaking. Take Ripley (Lovelace). It had never been lost by the Tories. In vote. Quite a swing! > > > > The LD then defected to the Independents and got re-elected this time with 91% of the vote, the Tories got just 9%. LDs stood aside. > > > > 70% to 9% is pretty impressive achievement. > > > > Turnout was a good indication as well this time. A seat unaffected by all of this had a 29% turnout, my ward was 55%! > > > > Where the LDs won from the Conservatives the margins were of the more normal type of swing. In the wards the Indies were fighting for the local reasons it was often a massacre. > > > > This rout should have happened in 2015, but the Independents couldn't get their act together then. > > > > Hopefully the scandal here will come to an end and the only loser will be Ian Hislop and Private Eye (although it is clear there will need to be some court action possibly to stop the local plan) > > > > A comment in the online local newspaper says it all: > > > > "There is only one reason why the Conservatives failed in Guildford: 80,000 ignored comments! > > > > Along with a touch of elite arrogance." > > > > FYI the 80,000 refers to the objections to the local plan. To achieve 80,000 in one borough is going some, but the Tories put a huge effort into achieving it. > > > > It should also be made clear that these Tories do not represent the Tory party as a whole. It is local, just local. Two existing Tory councillors and one LD set up the Independents in opposition to the local Tories. None of our Tory councillors (who objected to what was happening) put themselves up for re-election and the neighbouring Tory MP used Parliamentary privilege to make serious allegations about the leader of the Guildford Conservative group. > > At my parents' wedding anniversary yesterday I discovered my father's cousin was telling for the Independents in Guildford on polling day and they won the seat comfortably from nowhere
>> @DavidL said: > Those benefits of Brexit: > > Not being a part of the increasingly integrated political structures of the EU (and that includes their imbecilic Parliament). > Not being bound by QMV or policies that favour the EZ > Not having to pay approximately £10bn a year towards EU integration. > Having the freedom to make our own choices, albeit accepting that every choice has a price and nothing is free in this world. > Having elections (EU Parliament apart, naturally) where those elected are able to implement the choices that we have made, be they smart or no. Democracy, in other words. > Having the ability to set plans for agriculture and fish that are actually focused on these isles rather than the Med. > > They really haven't gone away. We just focus on the complexities. Should we join a CU? Is it sensible to give the EU the power that gives them over our trade policy? Are the rewards of frictionless trade worth it? Where do we still want to integrate beyond a FTA? What, even if we are not members of the EU, does the countries of Europe do better together? How do we have a virtual border with a SM that we are not a part of? > > These are not straightforward questions and a distinctly below average political class is making a right meal of them. It's disappointing but I really don't agree with @Cyclefree's premise.
The difficulty I see is that agreements on FTA's with the EU (and other countries) will likely make us subject to quite a lot of the EU rules we dislike but in a way which makes the process of agreement much less transparent and democratic.
So that, in reality, we may gain very little in practice in return for losing quite a lot. The point you make on democracy is a good one and there are good democratic arguments for being concerned about the EU's development thus far and its intended future development.
But how democratic are international treaties or ISDN tribunals? If we elect a new government which says it opposes some consequence of an international treaty we will in all likelihood have zero ability to change it. That risks making the disjunction between voters and politicians even worse than it is now rather than better.
The case being made for Brexit is that with one bound we will be free to do what we want. That is wholly unrealistic.
To be fair, it is not the case you make which is considerably more nuanced and thoughtful but I was not tilting at your windmill but at the Faragist one which seems to me to be both unrealistic and dangerous.
> @kjh said: > So just to summerise Guildford: > > Yes Nimbys complain about house building, but Guildford was different. There was much more going on. The list I gave was only a small subset. > > The greenbelt/housing issue is happening all over the place, but I would be interested to know if any other borough got 80,000 objections or anywhere near it. It is difficult to imagine how such a number was achievable. It takes incredible incompetence (or possibly worse) to achieve that reaction.
A planning barrister of my acquaintance says that the level of corruption involved in planning is far more widespread than most people realise.
Whilst there is a lot I agree with in the article I think delusion is inappropriate for “We must put Brexit behind us.” and “We must talk about what really matters to most voters: jobs, housing etc…”
If we are going to leave we are better off leaving sooner rather than later. If we are going to stay again it is better to be clear that is the plan rather than accept the gridlock and hope things change in the future.
If we leave having another 2-3 years in gridlock now may be the difference between being "post Brexit" in 2027 rather than 2024 - both feel a very along way off but it is still better to be able to move on earlier rather than later.
If we are going to stay we will need to see off possibly a referendum and certainly at least one, maybe more party committed to leave at the next few general elections. To do that will involve improving the lives of leavers in particular and "what really matters to voters". The financial clout to make a start on that is being withheld by the Treasury precisely because we are in limbo, and they need contingency for no deal.
If we decide to remain or accept Mays deal more cash will flow to our public services, companies will be able to make longer term plans, and some political attention can move partly on to housing, jobs, social care, environment.
Yes Brexit will still be the dominant issue regardless of what we choose, but there is a big difference between it taking up maybe 70% of our political efforts (gridlock) or maybe 40% (post decision) - the numbers are obviously arbitrary but it will be at a different level once a decision has been made, and each extra year of gridlock is damage which does not achieve anything.
By making a decision earlier, whilst accepting Brexit creates problems and sucks in political oxygen regardless, we save years at the end of the process, and free up some spare time to sort out other policies during the process.
I was in the gym yesterday morning so I couldn't hear what she was saying but the subtitles of Ruth Davidson's interview on Marr were seriously impressive. The Tories have missed her, and not just in Scotland.
What she said was that she had been a remainer but that she was also a democrat. If politicians decide that an issue is too big for them to resolve on their own and pass it to the people it is not then open to those same politicians to tell the people that they got the wrong answer.
She went on to point out that over 450 MPs were elected in 2017 supposedly committed to implementing that decision of the people (including all of the members of the CUKs.) She rightly observed that those on both extremes of this debate were getting louder and louder whilst those in the middle were getting quieter.
Personally, I think that the Constitution of the Tory party should be amended so that the next leader can be anyone at all who has a son called Finn.
The difficulty I see is that agreements on FTA's with the EU (and other countries) will likely make us subject to quite a lot of the EU rules we dislike but in a way which makes the process of agreement much less transparent and democratic.
The latest revisionist pro-Brexit argument I've seen a few times is that turning this into a neverending process of fractious negotiations is a feature, not a bug, and that it's much better if domestic politics gets wrapped up in discussions about the details of customs arrangements etc.
> @Cyclefree said: > >> @DavidL said: > > > > The difficulty I see is that agreements on FTA's with the EU (and other countries) will likely make us subject to quite a lot of the EU rules we dislike but in a way which makes the process of agreement much less transparent and democratic. > > So that, in reality, we may gain very little in practice in return for losing quite a lot. The point you make on democracy is a good one and there are good democratic arguments for being concerned about the EU's development thus far and its intended future development. > > But how democratic are international treaties or ISDN tribunals? If we elect a new government which says it opposes some consequence of an international treaty we will in all likelihood have zero ability to change it. That risks making the disjunction between voters and politicians even worse than it is now rather than better. > > The case being made for Brexit is that with one bound we will be free to do what we want. That is wholly unrealistic. > > To be fair, it is not the case you make which is considerably more nuanced and thoughtful but I was not tilting at your windmill but at the Faragist one which seems to me to be both unrealistic and dangerous.
Any trade deal involves compromise and our FTA with the EU will be no exception. There has undoubtedly been a lot of simplistic rubbish on both sides of this debate and we are not finished yet. For me, May's deal was an excellent compromise, not only for the actual departure but as a template for the eventual deal. The addition of a CU will make it less attractive but it will still be better than either no deal or revoke. I just wish they would get on with it. The current uncertainty is the worst outcome of all.
I was in the gym yesterday morning so I couldn't hear what she was saying but the subtitles of Ruth Davidson's interview on Marr were seriously impressive. The Tories have missed her, and not just in Scotland.
What she said was that she had been a remainer but that she was also a democrat. If politicians decide that an issue is too big for them to resolve on their own and pass it to the people it is not then open to those same politicians to tell the people that they got the wrong answer.
She went on to point out that over 450 MPs were elected in 2017 supposedly committed to implementing that decision of the people (including all of the members of the CUKs.) She rightly observed that those on both extremes of this debate were getting louder and louder whilst those in the middle were getting quieter.
Personally, I think that the Constitution of the Tory party should be amended so that the next leader can be anyone at all who has a son called Finn.
I think she was talking about you.
You were pretty quiet about and indeed voted for a campaign that Gove subsequently admitted went too far about whipping fears about Turks.
> @DavidL said: > I was in the gym yesterday morning so I couldn't hear what she was saying but the subtitles of Ruth Davidson's interview on Marr were seriously impressive. The Tories have missed her, and not just in Scotland. > > What she said was that she had been a remainer but that she was also a democrat. If politicians decide that an issue is too big for them to resolve on their own and pass it to the people it is not then open to those same politicians to tell the people that they got the wrong answer. > > She went on to point out that over 450 MPs were elected in 2017 supposedly committed to implementing that decision of the people (including all of the members of the CUKs.) She rightly observed that those on both extremes of this debate were getting louder and louder whilst those in the middle were getting quieter. > > Personally, I think that the Constitution of the Tory party should be amended so that the next leader can be anyone at all who has a son called Finn.
Ruth Davidson is an excellent Scottish Unionist leader to take on the Nationalists and her support for Deal plus Customs Union is acceptable I would imagine to most Tories or at least most Unionists in Remain voting Scotland.
In Leave voting England and Wales though it may be a different matter, Tories there want a harder Brexit than that
> @kjh said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > @kjh said: > > > > > > Re Guildford: > > > > > > So Guildford could get mixed up with the rest of the national decline in the Conservative support (and I note on the News it was). It is (in my opinion) unrelated. It would have happened anyway because of the local stuff (details too long and grubby to go into here). You could argue I have no way of knowing this ( I no longer have any inside knowledge) and clearly national issues helped the LDs to also win seats here. > > > > > > A quick review of the individual results is a give away that there is more going on here than the national issues. > > > > > > The Independents weren't able to get candidates for ssed seats. > > > > > > When you look at wards most impacted by the local mess the result is breathtaking. Take Ripley (Lovelace). It had never been lost by the Tories. In vote. Quite a swing! > > > > > > The LD then defected to the Independents and got re-elected this time with 91% of the vote, the Tories got just 9%. LDs stood aside. > > > > > > 70% to 9% is pretty impressive achievement. > > > > > > Turnout was a good indication as well this time. A seat unaffected by all of this had a 29% turnout, my ward was 55%! > > > > > > Where the LDs won from the Conservatives the margins were of the more normal type of swing. In the wards the Indies were fighting for the local reasons it was often a massacre. > > > > > > This rout should have happened in 2015, but the Independents couldn't get their act together then. > > > > > > Hopefully the scandal here will come to an end and the only loser will be Ian Hislop and Private Eye (although it is clear there will need to be some court action possibly to stop the local plan) > > > > > > A comment in the online local newspaper says it all: > > > > > > "There is only one reason why the Conservatives failed in Guildford: 80,000 ignored comments! > > > > > > Along with a touch of elite arrogance." > > > > > > FYI the 80,000 refers to the objections to the local plan. To achieve 80,000 in one borough is going some, but the Tories put a huge effort into achieving it. > > > > > > It should also be made clear that these Tories do not represent the Tory party as a whole. It is local, just local. Two existing Tory councillors and one LD set up the Independents in opposition to the local Tories. None of our Tory councillors (who objected to what was happening) put themselves up for re-election and the neighbouring Tory MP used Parliamentary privilege to make serious allegations about the leader of the Guildford Conservative group. > > > > At my parents' wedding anniversary yesterday I discovered my father's cousin was telling for the Independents in Guildford on polling day and they won the seat comfortably from nowhere > > Do you know which ward?
The lesson is that giving away power is a lot easier than reclaiming it.
As we’ll discover after we have left the EU.
It should be pretty clear by now that should we remain in the EU we will have no power whatsoever.
The ship has sailed.
You what? We would retain every power and right conferred on each and every member by the EU constitution, and would continue to enjoy the further soft power we gain from our relative economic and military pre eminence. What ship has sailed, and where to? Good metaphors should clarify rather than obfuscate.
UK is a jumped up banana republic, deluded thinking it is powerful instead of a laughing stock.
> @DavidL said: > > @Cyclefree said: > > >> @DavidL said: > > > > > > > The difficulty I see is that agreements on FTA's with the EU (and other countries) will likely make us subject to quite a lot of the EU rules we dislike but in a way which makes the process of agreement much less transparent and democratic. > > > > So that, in reality, we may gain very little in practice in return for losing quite a lot. The point you make on democracy is a good one and there are good democratic arguments for being concerned about the EU's development thus far and its intended future development. > > > > But how democratic are international treaties or ISDN tribunals? If we elect a new government which says it opposes some consequence of an international treaty we will in all likelihood have zero ability to change it. That risks making the disjunction between voters and politicians even worse than it is now rather than better. > > > > The case being made for Brexit is that with one bound we will be free to do what we want. That is wholly unrealistic. > > > > To be fair, it is not the case you make which is considerably more nuanced and thoughtful but I was not tilting at your windmill but at the Faragist one which seems to me to be both unrealistic and dangerous. > > Any trade deal involves compromise and our FTA with the EU will be no exception. There has undoubtedly been a lot of simplistic rubbish on both sides of this debate and we are not finished yet. For me, May's deal was an excellent compromise, not only for the actual departure but as a template for the eventual deal. The addition of a CU will make it less attractive but it will still be better than either no deal or revoke. I just wish they would get on with it. The current uncertainty is the worst outcome of all.
My feeling is that we could end up with an FTA which makes us so subject to so many EU rules but without any input into them that some of us, possibly quite a lot, will wonder what the point of departure was. We will not have Taken Back Control; we may well end up agreeing to FoM as part of an FTA; those other FTAs will come nowhere near what was promised and we will lose the advantages of being in the EU.
Now I may be wrong and you right. But politicians are entitled to ask - and it may be sensible to in this case - the voters to ask whether the proposed WA, if it is the template for a final deal (a pretty big "if" IMO), is the basis on which they want to leave or do they want to change their mind. None of that is an attack on democracy.
> @HYUFD said: > > @DavidL said: > > I was in the gym yesterday morning so I couldn't hear what she was saying but the subtitles of Ruth Davidson's interview on Marr were seriously impressive. The Tories have missed her, and not just in Scotland. > > > > What she said was that she had been a remainer but that she was also a democrat. If politicians decide that an issue is too big for them to resolve on their own and pass it to the people it is not then open to those same politicians to tell the people that they got the wrong answer. > > > > She went on to point out that over 450 MPs were elected in 2017 supposedly committed to implementing that decision of the people (including all of the members of the CUKs.) She rightly observed that those on both extremes of this debate were getting louder and louder whilst those in the middle were getting quieter. > > > > Personally, I think that the Constitution of the Tory party should be amended so that the next leader can be anyone at all who has a son called Finn. > > Ruth Davidson is an excellent Scottish Unionist leader to take on the Nationalists and her support for Deal plus Customs Union is acceptable I would imagine to most Tories or at least most Unionists in Remain voting Scotland. > > In Leave voting England and Wales though it may be a different matter, Tories there want a harder Brexit than that
Yesterday you were suggesting in a GE Brexit poll 30% and Tories 13%. Presumably the tory vote at 13% is not very hard Brexity at all?
> @TheScreamingEagles said: > I was in the gym yesterday morning so I couldn't hear what she was saying but the subtitles of Ruth Davidson's interview on Marr were seriously impressive. The Tories have missed her, and not just in Scotland. > > > > What she said was that she had been a remainer but that she was also a democrat. If politicians decide that an issue is too big for them to resolve on their own and pass it to the people it is not then open to those same politicians to tell the people that they got the wrong answer. > > > > She went on to point out that over 450 MPs were elected in 2017 supposedly committed to implementing that decision of the people (including all of the members of the CUKs.) She rightly observed that those on both extremes of this debate were getting louder and louder whilst those in the middle were getting quieter. > > > > Personally, I think that the Constitution of the Tory party should be amended so that the next leader can be anyone at all who has a son called Finn. > > I think she was talking about you. > > You were pretty quiet about and indeed voted for a campaign that Gove subsequently admitted went too far about whipping fears about Turks.
Did you agree with everything in May's disastrous Manifesto? Did you vote Tory nonetheless? Did you do so because on balance that seemed the best thing for the country? So did I.
The proposition that anyone who voted leave had to agree with everything that anyone campaigning for leave said or they could not do so is even more absurd. It really is total nonsense. It was a binary question to which we all brought our own judgment.
Davidson was talking about the current mess which is dominated by loons from the ERG and PV supporters. She was spot on.
This local plan thing (in general) seems to be a disaster for absolutely everyone. Central govt imposing unrealistic targets and then local councils cant achieve them but become very unpopular trying. Meanwhile it doesnt look good for those who want cheap housing, or for those who want to preserve the greenbelt. It seems obvious to me that if we really want to build loads of houses for commuters they need to be in new towns and/or motorway+good rail corridors. Even better would be to build enough houses in london regeneration projects so that commuting is not needed. Obviously there will then be nimby opposition in those areas, but it wont be in EVERY area at once which it seems to be now.
> @DavidL said: > Those benefits of Brexit: > > Not being a part of the increasingly integrated political structures of the EU (and that includes their imbecilic Parliament). > Not being bound by QMV or policies that favour the EZ > Not having to pay approximately £10bn a year towards EU integration. > Having the freedom to make our own choices, albeit accepting that every choice has a price and nothing is free in this world. > Having elections (EU Parliament apart, naturally) where those elected are able to implement the choices that we have made, be they smart or no. Democracy, in other words. > Having the ability to set plans for agriculture and fish that are actually focused on these isles rather than the Med. > > They really haven't gone away. We just focus on the complexities. Should we join a CU? Is it sensible to give the EU the power that gives them over our trade policy? Are the rewards of frictionless trade worth it? Where do we still want to integrate beyond a FTA? What, even if we are not members of the EU, does the countries of Europe do better together? How do we have a virtual border with a SM that we are not a part of? > > These are not straightforward questions and a distinctly below average political class is making a right meal of them. It's disappointing but I really don't agree with @Cyclefree's premise.
Amazing how these airy fairy benefits and principles fall to dust north of Berwick.
The proposition that anyone who voted leave had to agree with everything that anyone campaigning for leave said or they could not do so is even more absurd. It really is total nonsense. It was a binary question to which we all brought our own judgment.
Davidson was talking about the current mess which is dominated by loons from the ERG and PV supporters. She was spot on.
Did you not think it was possible to predict the current mess based on the undeliverable promises being made by the Leave campaign combined with their xenophobia?
>Yes Nimbys complain about house building, but Guildford was different. There was much more going on. The list I gave was only a small subset.
>The greenbelt/housing issue is happening all over the place, but I would be interested to know if any other borough got 80,000 objections or anywhere near it. It is difficult to imagine how such a number was achievable. It takes incredible incompetence (or possibly worse) to achieve that reaction.
In West Lancashire, Labour took a drubbing from Local Independents over the local plan proposals losing 4 seats, but there were less than 2000 representations here. I'm not doubting the Guildford figure was many times higher than that, but 80,000 is an almost impossible number to be believable. Were Russian bots active?
> @malcolmg said: > Mr. Glenn, ha. > > The lesson is that giving away power is a lot easier than reclaiming it. > > It's one reason I'm so concerned about the censorious nature of modern politics. > > Reclaiming allegedly lost power to be net less powerful hardly seems like a good or sensible trade. > > Mr. Glenn, ha. > > The lesson is that giving away power is a lot easier than reclaiming it. > > > As we’ll discover after we have left the EU. > > > > It should be pretty clear by now that should we remain in the EU we will have no power whatsoever. > > The ship has sailed. > > Mr. Glenn, ha. > > The lesson is that giving away power is a lot easier than reclaiming it. > > It's one reason I'm so concerned about the censorious nature of modern politics. > > Reclaiming allegedly lost power to be net less powerful hardly seems like a good or sensible trade. > > Mr. Glenn, ha. > > The lesson is that giving away power is a lot easier than reclaiming it. > > > As we’ll discover after we have left the EU. > > > > It should be pretty clear by now that should we remain in the EU we will have no power whatsoever. > > The ship has sailed. > > You what? We would retain every power and right conferred on each and every member by the EU constitution, and would continue to enjoy the further soft power we gain from our relative economic and military pre eminence. What ship has sailed, and where to? Good metaphors should clarify rather than obfuscate. > > UK is a jumped up banana republic, deluded thinking it is powerful instead of a laughing stock.
It would be a good thing if we lost all our powers to the EU. They couldn't possibly wield them as incompetently as we do.
> @williamglenn said: > The proposition that anyone who voted leave had to agree with everything that anyone campaigning for leave said or they could not do so is even more absurd. It really is total nonsense. It was a binary question to which we all brought our own judgment. > > > > Davidson was talking about the current mess which is dominated by loons from the ERG and PV supporters. She was spot on. > > Did you not think it was possible to predict the current mess based on the undeliverable promises being made by the Leave campaign combined with their xenophobia?
I'm looking forward to Ruth purging the loons from her own sub branch.
Comments
> > @Sean_F said:
> > > @Nigelb said:
> > > > @hamiltonace said:
> > >
> > > > > @Sandpit said:
> > >
> > > > > Third? Good piece as always Ms Cyclefree.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > I also think iit is a great piece. One point I would add is that the union is being trashed for so called democracy. The issues of Scotland and Northern Ireland in particular are being not just ignored but derided.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > When you take away putting the interests of the economy and of the Union first and, well, being conservative, what do they have left?
> > >
> > > Brexit is not a conservative project.
> > > It is a radical pursuit of an abstract - sovereignty - without any apparent coherent thought about the consequences, let alone planning for the nation’s future.
> > >
> > > And yes, an excellent header. I could tell it was a Cyclefree article from the first paragraph.
> >
> > There's not a lot a lot about the EU that's small or large C Conservative.
>
> The EU is very much an alliance between big government, big business and big culture.
>
> There are elements of Conservative support which approve of that.
It's a very old fashioned view of Conservatism. Working class and lower middle class Conservatives now have their own demands, which don't always coincide with those of the Villa Tories.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/british-man-who-never-even-12465021?fbclid=IwAR05tcn2Dk_nSN5mAlZQOC10UKfcBA1SdjTpjrlgbIbAIuHHa1rFV5aAO3M
"British man who has never even been abroad threatened with deportation to Uganda
Kyle Herbert, from Shrewsbury, was astonished to receive the letter which ordered him to leave the country or risk a £5,000 fine, imprisonment and removal by force"
I always thought this was a risk to me if my birth certificate was lost in a fire, but it seems it's a risk for everyone. All the time.
https://twitter.com/TheAndrewF/status/1125320842483838977
Robin Day smoking a cigar.
> > People who don't want the UK to break up need to come up with a coherent plan for constitutional reform pretty quickly.
>
> A Federal UK has been Lib Dem policy for over 100 years, also including HoL Reform and electoral Reform... https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/libdems/pages/4138/attachments/original/1392840156/117_-_Power_to_the_People.pdf?1392840156
>
> That document rules out an English parliament on the grounds that it would be impossible to have a balanced federal UK on that basis, therefore it just emphasises how intractable the problem is.
Create a modern heptarchy and the job's a good'un.
> > @algarkirk said:
> > One example: The right of 500,000,000 million people to live in the UK if they want with only very restricted powers to prevent it?
>
> Well in theory every one of the 330 million Americans can visit the UK at the same time, but it doesn't happen does it?
You could have added that all 67 million British people can simultaneously choose to become hairdressers. This will cause a catastrophic collapse in food and industrial production, and destroy the national defence. Clearly the government needs powers to centrally manage what job each of its citizens will do.
(And @marf_the_cartoonist of course, hi Marf!).
>
>
> Create a modern heptarchy and the job's a good'un.
That works in the context of an independent England (or England and Wales at a stretch) but not if you end up with a state in which a Scottish parliament sits alongside a Mercian parliament and England doesn't exist politically.
So Guildford could get mixed up with the rest of the national decline in the Conservative support (and I note on the News it was). It is (in my opinion) unrelated. It would have happened anyway because of the local stuff (details too long and grubby to go into here). You could argue I have no way of knowing this ( I no longer have any inside knowledge) and clearly national issues helped the LDs to also win seats here.
A quick review of the individual results is a give away that there is more going on here than the national issues.
The Independents weren't able to get candidates for 8 of the seats the Tories did hold onto. The Tories only held 9 seats (losing 26 seats from their 2015 results). They could have been down to just 1 if the Indies were able to fight the missed seats.
When you look at wards most impacted by the local mess the result is breathtaking. Take Ripley (Lovelace). It had never been lost by the Tories. In a by-election just after all this kicked off, a few years ago, they lost it to the LDs who got 70% of the vote and who then held it again in 2015. In 2011 the Tories had held it with 70% of the vote. Quite a swing!
The LD then defected to the Independents and got re-elected this time with 91% of the vote, the Tories got just 9%. LDs stood aside.
70% to 9% is pretty impressive achievement.
Turnout was a good indication as well this time. A seat unaffected by all of this had a 29% turnout, my ward was 55%!
Where the LDs won from the Conservatives the margins were of the more normal type of swing. In the wards the Indies were fighting for the local reasons it was often a massacre.
This rout should have happened in 2015, but the Independents couldn't get their act together then.
Hopefully the scandal here will come to an end and the only loser will be Ian Hislop and Private Eye (although it is clear there will need to be some court action possibly to stop the local plan)
A comment in the online local newspaper says it all:
"There is only one reason why the Conservatives failed in Guildford: 80,000 ignored comments!
Along with a touch of elite arrogance."
FYI the 80,000 refers to the objections to the local plan. To achieve 80,000 in one borough is going some, but the Tories put a huge effort into achieving it.
It should also be made clear that these Tories do not represent the Tory party as a whole. It is local, just local. Two existing Tory councillors and one LD set up the Independents in opposition to the local Tories. None of our Tory councillors (who objected to what was happening) put themselves up for re-election and the neighbouring Tory MP used Parliamentary privilege to make serious allegations about the leader of the Guildford Conservative group.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6995729/Boeing-didnt-tell-airlines-safety-alert-wasnt-on.html
> Mr. 43, that might still work out for Boris, though, as Farage won't be standing in the Conservative leadership contest.
>
> And yeah, that cartoon is just a bit weird.
>
> Does anyone still pay attention to any political cartoons, apart from Matt?
>
> (And @marf_the_cartoonist of course, hi Marf!).
Peter Brookes, Morten Morland, Christian Adams all three draw great political cartoons. all three have produced some exceptional works in the last 12 months.
Matt's format is different but one way or the other, he remains a class act.
Sometimes Steve Bell draws something worth a second glance.
> > @another_richard said:
> > > @Sean_F said:
> > > > @Nigelb said:
> > > > > @hamiltonace said:
> > > >
> > > > > > @Sandpit said:
> > > >
> > > > > > Third? Good piece as always Ms Cyclefree.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I also think iit is a great piece. One point I would add is that the union is being trashed for so called democracy. The issues of Scotland and Northern Ireland in particular are being not just ignored but derided.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > When you take away putting the interests of the economy and of the Union first and, well, being conservative, what do they have left?
> > > >
> > > > Brexit is not a conservative project.
> > > > It is a radical pursuit of an abstract - sovereignty - without any apparent coherent thought about the consequences, let alone planning for the nation’s future.
> > > >
> > > > And yes, an excellent header. I could tell it was a Cyclefree article from the first paragraph.
> > >
> > > There's not a lot a lot about the EU that's small or large C Conservative.
> >
> > The EU is very much an alliance between big government, big business and big culture.
> >
> > There are elements of Conservative support which approve of that.
>
> It's a very old fashioned view of Conservatism. Working class and lower middle class Conservatives now have their own demands, which don't always coincide with those of the Villa Tories.
Which is what upsets Villa Tories.
> Wonderful image from 1979.
>
> https://twitter.com/TheAndrewF/status/1125320842483838977
>
> Robin Day smoking a cigar.
Other people smoking doesn't bother me, but that's an eccentric viewpoint today.
His issue is with democracy in *this* country, not with the EU.
I'm wrestling with a question - why are large numbers of 'Leavers', up north, down south, working class and very much not, inland and coast, affluent suburbs, struggling towns, the bucolic tory shires, why are all these good people, and we are talking many millions, so enthused by the reactionary right wing ex City trader and public schoolboy, Nigel Farage?
I sense that this is the key to what Brexit is about. Not all of this 'left behind' and 'democratic deficit' stuff, which I think is superficial, but what it is REALLY about.
I don't know the precise correct answer, and perhaps there isn't one, but I feel it has a great deal to do with what politics seems to be increasingly driven by these days - IDENTITY.
> > @OblitusSumMe said:
> >
> >
> > Create a modern heptarchy and the job's a good'un.
>
> That works in the context of an independent England (or England and Wales at a stretch) but not if you end up with a state in which a Scottish parliament sits alongside a Mercian parliament and England doesn't exist politically.
When the Mercian and Northumbrian Parliaments decide that their interests are best served working with the Scottish Parliament against whichever region London is in then we have a balance in our governance that is currently lacking.
Tunbridge Wells as well the same happened to the leader David Jukes who had insisted on pushing a local plan forwards that nobody wants.
This is the problem for the Tories..if the population keeps rising we need new houses..those houses have to be built somewhere but the Tory heartlands will not accept this. Its actually more toxic than Brexit in those areas.
>
> Re Guildford:
>
> So Guildford could get mixed up with the rest of the national decline in the Conservative support (and I note on the News it was). It is (in my opinion) unrelated. It would have happened anyway because of the local stuff (details too long and grubby to go into here). You could argue I have no way of knowing this ( I no longer have any inside knowledge) and clearly national issues helped the LDs to also win seats here.
>
> A quick review of the individual results is a give away that there is more going on here than the national issues.
>
> The Independents weren't able to get candidates for 8 of the seats the Tories did hold onto. The Tories only held 9 seats (losing 26 seats from their 2015 results). They could have been down to just 1 if the Indies were able to fight the missed seats.
>
> When you look at wards most impacted by the local mess the result is breathtaking. Take Ripley (Lovelace). It had never been lost by the Tories. In a by-election just after all this kicked off, a few years ago, they lost it to the LDs who got 70% of the vote and who then held it again in 2015. In 2011 the Tories had held it with 70% of the vote. Quite a swing!
>
> The LD then defected to the Independents and got re-elected this time with 91% of the vote, the Tories got just 9%. LDs stood aside.
>
> 70% to 9% is pretty impressive achievement.
>
> Turnout was a good indication as well this time. A seat unaffected by all of this had a 29% turnout, my ward was 55%!
>
> Where the LDs won from the Conservatives the margins were of the more normal type of swing. In the wards the Indies were fighting for the local reasons it was often a massacre.
>
> This rout should have happened in 2015, but the Independents couldn't get their act together then.
>
> Hopefully the scandal here will come to an end and the only loser will be Ian Hislop and Private Eye (although it is clear there will need to be some court action possibly to stop the local plan)
>
> A comment in the online local newspaper says it all:
>
> "There is only one reason why the Conservatives failed in Guildford: 80,000 ignored comments!
>
> Along with a touch of elite arrogance."
>
> FYI the 80,000 refers to the objections to the local plan. To achieve 80,000 in one borough is going some, but the Tories put a huge effort into achieving it.
>
> It should also be made clear that these Tories do not represent the Tory party as a whole. It is local, just local. Two existing Tory councillors and one LD set up the Independents in opposition to the local Tories. None of our Tory councillors (who objected to what was happening) put themselves up for re-election and the neighbouring Tory MP used Parliamentary privilege to make serious allegations about the leader of the Guildford Conservative group.
What was the local plan which caused such opposition ?
Town and county councils should raise much more of their own money, and should have power over more areas of responsibility than they do now.
Things that really can’t be done at county level should be done at State level, and only things that can’t be done at State level should be done at National level - that’s not much more than the Central Bank, Defence and international trade.
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1124632782179794944
Political power should be temporarily granted by the electorate to politicians who are then accountable for their exercise of the power for which they are stewards. It's a wild and crazy notion, I admit.
People need to decide if they want their kids to be able to afford to live in their own neighbourhood, in some parts of England it’s clear that they don’t.
May should have booted out after her useless election in 2017 but the Tories bottled it.
Labour have a minority weakling in Corbyn who only wins if the Tories persist with May.
A decent PM would have created a softish exit, with a clear end point where the UK is independent of the EU. Instead, we face what Olly Robbins described as a 'bridge's to rejoining in the early 2020's, which only a remainer as useless as May would think is a good idea.
Big 1st mover advantage for either main party who gets a new leader with the common touch.
> Re Guildford:
>
> So Guildford could get mixed up with the rest of the national decline in the Conservative support (and I note on the News it was). It is (in my opinion) unrelated. It would have happened anyway because of the local stuff (details too long and grubby to go into here). You could argue I have no way of knowing this ( I no longer have any inside knowledge) and clearly national issues helped the LDs to also win seats here.
>
> A quick review of the individual results is a give away that there is more going on here than the national issues.
>
> The LD then defected to the Independents and got re-elected this time with 91% of the vote, the Tories got just 9%. LDs stood aside.
>
> 70% to 9% is pretty impressive achievement.
>
> Turnout was a good indication as well this time. A seat unaffected by all of this had a 29% turnout, my ward was 55%!
>
> Where the LDs won from the Conservatives the margins were of the more normal type of swing. In the wards the Indies were fighting for the local reasons it was often a massacre.
>
> This rout should have happened in 2015, but the Independents couldn't get their act together then.
>
> Hopefully the scandal here will come to an end and the only loser will be Ian Hislop and Private Eye (although it is clear there will need to be some court action possibly to stop the local plan)
>
> A comment in the online local newspaper says it all:
>
> "There is only one reason why the Conservatives failed in Guildford: 80,000 ignored comments
>
> Along with a touch of elite arrogance."
>
> FYI the 80,000 refers to the objections to the local plan. To achieve 80,000 in one borough is going some, but the Tories put a huge effort into achieving it.
>
> It should also be made clear that these Tories do not represent the Tory party as a whole. It is local, just local. Two existing Tory councillors and one LD set up the Independents in opposition to the local Tories. None of our Tory councillors (who objected to what was happening) put themselves up for re-election and the neighbouring Tory MP used Parliamentary privilege to make serious allegations about the leader of the Guildford Conservative group.
>
> That is also what happened in Tandridge. Massive opposition to the local plan and 4000 new homes on green belt just outside of Godstone.
>
> Tunbridge Wells as well the same happened to the leader David Jukes who had insisted on pushing a local plan forwards that nobody wants.
>
> This is the problem for the Tories..if the population keeps rising we need new houses..those houses have to be built somewhere but the Tory heartlands will not accept this. Its actually more toxic than Brexit in those areas.
The strategic incompetence of the Conservatives means they are now losing the votes of those who want higher house prices as well as those who want lower house prices.
> 70% to 9% is pretty impressive achievement.
>
> Turnout was a good indication as well this time. A seat unaffected by all of this had a 29% turnout, my ward was 55%!
>
> Where the LDs won from the Conservatives the margins were of the more normal type of swing. In the wards the Indies were fighting for the local reasons it was often a massacre.
>
> This rout should have happened in 2015, but the Independents couldn't get their act together then.
>
> Hopefully the scandal here will come to an end and the only loser will be Ian Hislop and Private Eye (although it is clear there will need to be some court action possibly to stop the local plan)
>
> A comment in the online local newspaper says it all:
>
> "There is only one reason why the Conservatives failed in Guildford: 80,000 ignored comments
>
> Along with a touch of elite arrogance."
>
> FYI the 80,000 refers to the objections to the local plan. To achieve 80,000 in one borough is going some, but the Tories put a huge effort into achieving it.
>
> It should also be made clear that these Tories do not represent the Tory party as a whole. It is local, just local. Two existing Tory councillors and one LD set up the Independents in opposition to the local Tories. None of our Tory councillors (who objected to what was happening) put themselves up for re-election and the neighbouring Tory MP used Parliamentary privilege to make serious allegations about the leader of the Guildford Conservative group.
>
> That is also what happened in Tandridge. Massive opposition to the local plan and 4000 new homes on green belt just outside of Godstone.
>
> Tunbridge Wells as well the same happened to the leader David Jukes who had insisted on pushing a local plan forwards that nobody wants.
>
> This is the problem for the Tories..if the population keeps rising we need new houses..those houses have to be built somewhere but the Tory heartlands will not accept this. Its actually more toxic than Brexit in those areas.
The strategic incompetence of the Conservatives means they are now losing the votes of those who want higher house prices as well as those who want lower house prices.
The housing issue and building vast swathes in Tory heartlands is much more of an existential threat than Brexit. These are people who are retired ,semi retired and more often than not professional people who can organise themselves into Independent protest groups. Just the sort of people who are instinctively Tory. They also will not vote in the main LD that's why the Independent route works.
> > @algarkirk said:
> > > @Gardenwalker said:
> > > Mr. B, indeed, if that customs union and backstop nonsense goes ahead.
> > >
> > > Mr. Matt, we'll be able to determine our own domestic laws rather than have them imposed by the EU, and thus able to hold the political decision-makers to account directly, rather than have MPs point to the EU as a scapegoat (which is another reason that scepticism flourished).
> > >
> > > Which domestic laws have been imposed against our will by the EU?
> >
> > One example: The right of 500,000,000 million people to live in the UK if they want with only very restricted powers to prevent it?
>
> Well in theory every one of the 330 million Americans can visit the UK at the same time, but it doesn't happen does it?
And all 65 million UK citizens could choose to live in Luxembourg if they want with ony very restricted powers to prevent it.
> > @algarkirk said:
> > > @Gardenwalker said:
> > > Mr. B, indeed, if that customs union and backstop nonsense goes ahead.
> > >
> > > Mr. Matt, we'll be able to determine our own domestic laws rather than have them imposed by the EU, and thus able to hold the political decision-makers to account directly, rather than have MPs point to the EU as a scapegoat (which is another reason that scepticism flourished).
> > >
> > > Which domestic laws have been imposed against our will by the EU?
> >
> > One example: The right of 500,000,000 million people to live in the UK if they want with only very restricted powers to prevent it?
>
> Well in theory every one of the 330 million Americans can visit the UK at the same time, but it doesn't happen does it?
All 66 million UK citizens can stand on Hammersmith Bridge and surprisingly there is no law against it.
EDIT: Actually all 500 million EU citizens are allowed to stand on Hammersmith Bridge. Disgraceful.
> > @Cicero said:
> > > @algarkirk said:
> > > One example: The right of 500,000,000 million people to live in the UK if they want with only very restricted powers to prevent it?
> >
> > Well in theory every one of the 330 million Americans can visit the UK at the same time, but it doesn't happen does it?
>
> You could have added that all 67 million British people can simultaneously choose to become hairdressers. This will cause a catastrophic collapse in food and industrial production, and destroy the national defence. Clearly the government needs powers to centrally manage what job each of its citizens will do.
A well chosen example of reducto ad absurdum. Unfortunately with Brexit such examples worked. Who can forget Nigel Lawson on Question Time saying 70,000,000 Turks could come and work here and the audible gasps in the audience? Feeding preposterous 'facts' to a dim audience became an art form and it's why we are where we are.
> > @Cicero said:
> > > @algarkirk said:
> > > > @Gardenwalker said:
> > > > Mr. B, indeed, if that customs union and backstop nonsense goes ahead.
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Matt, we'll be able to determine our own domestic laws rather than have them imposed by the EU, and thus able to hold the political decision-makers to account directly, rather than have MPs point to the EU as a scapegoat (which is another reason that scepticism flourished).
> > > >
> > > > Which domestic laws have been imposed against our will by the EU?
> > >
> > > One example: The right of 500,000,000 million people to live in the UK if they want with only very restricted powers to prevent it?
> >
> > Well in theory every one of the 330 million Americans can visit the UK at the same time, but it doesn't happen does it?
>
> All 66 million UK citizens can stand on Hammersmith Bridge and surprisingly there is no law against it.
>
> EDIT: Actually all 500 million EU citizens are allowed to stand on Hammersmith Bridge. Disgraceful.
Well, the police would issue them with a section something order instructing them to go elsewhere and then arrest them at a rate of ~100 per day.
>
> The housing issue and building vast swathes in Tory heartlands is much more of an existential threat than Brexit. These are people who are retired ,semi retired and more often than not professional people who can organise themselves into Independent protest groups. Just the sort of people who are instinctively Tory. They also will not vote in the main LD that's why the Independent route works.
Unaffordable housing will be much more of an existential threat to their communities than new housing.
But I wonder if there is some social snobbery reasons involved.
If you own an expensive house while the average person can't afford to own any house then you might start to feel like the 'lord of the manor' or at least like the gentility Dickens and Gaskell wrote about.
As I said, the issue lies at home.
> > @Cicero said:
> > > @algarkirk said:
> > > > @Gardenwalker said:
> > > > Mr. B, indeed, if that customs union and backstop nonsense goes ahead.
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Matt, we'll be able to determine our own domestic laws rather than have them imposed by the EU, and thus able to hold the political decision-makers to account directly, rather than have MPs point to the EU as a scapegoat (which is another reason that scepticism flourished).
> > > >
> > > > Which domestic laws have been imposed against our will by the EU?
> > >
> > > One example: The right of 500,000,000 million people to live in the UK if they want with only very restricted powers to prevent it?
> >
> > Well in theory every one of the 330 million Americans can visit the UK at the same time, but it doesn't happen does it?
>
> And all 65 million UK citizens could choose to live in Luxembourg if they want with ony very restricted powers to prevent it.
But in practical terms what has happened is that thousands of East European Roma have migrated to Rotherham while the migration from Rotherham to Luxembourg is approximately zero.
> > @dr_spyn said:
> > Wonderful image from 1979.
> >
> > https://twitter.com/TheAndrewF/status/1125320842483838977
> >
> > Robin Day smoking a cigar.
> Other people smoking doesn't bother me, but that's an eccentric viewpoint today.
>
>
You ain't seen nothin' yet!
https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-domaindev-st_emea&hsimp=yhs-st_emea&hspart=domaindev&p=cigarette+comercial+for+strand#id=1&vid=b05da466140c2d7aee31b4631990498b&action=view
> > @timmo said:
> > Re Guildford:
> >
> > So Guildford could get mixed up with the rest of the natio.
> >
> > A quick review of the individual results is a give away that there is more going on here than the national issues.
> >
> > The LD then defected to the Independents and got re-elected this time with 91% of the vote, the Tories got just 9%. LDs stood aside.
> >
> > 70% to 9% is pretty impressive achievement.
> >
> > Turnout was a good indication as well this time. A seat unaffected by all of this had a 29% turnout, my ward was 55%!
> >
> > Where the LDs won from the Conservatives the margins were of the more normal type of swing. In the wards the Indies were fighting for the local reasons it was often a massacre.
> >
> > This rout should have happened in 2015, but the Independents couldn't get their act together then.
> >
> > Hopefully the scandal here will come to an end and the only loser will be Ian Hislop and Private Eye (although it is clear there will need to be some court action possibly to stop the local plan)
> >
> > A comment in the online local newspaper says it all:
> >
> > "There is only one reason why the Conservatives failed in Guildford: 80,000 ignored comments
> >
> > Along with a touch of elite arrogance."
> >
> > FYI the 80,000 refers to the objections to the local plan. To achieve 80,000 in one borough is going some, but the Tories put a huge effort into achieving it.
> >
> > It should also be made clear that these Tories do not represent the Tory party as a whole. It is local, just local. Two existing Tory councillors and one LD set up the Independents in opposition to the local Tories. None of our Tory councillors (who objected to what was happening) put themselves up for re-election and the neighbouring Tory MP used Parliamentary privilege to make serious allegations about the leader of the Guildford Conservative group.
> >
> > That is also what happened in Tandridge. Massive opposition to the local plan and 4000 new homes on green belt just outside of Godstone.
> >
> > Tunbridge Wells as well the same happened to the leader David Jukes who had insisted on pushing a local plan forwards that nobody wants.
> >
> > This is the problem for the Tories..if the population keeps rising we need new houses..those houses have to be built somewhere but the Tory heartlands will not accept this. Its actually more toxic than Brexit in those areas.
>
> The strategic incompetence of the Conservatives means they are now losing the votes of those who want higher house prices as well as those who want lower house prices.
It may be tactical incompetence, but not strategic incompetence.
A strategist would accept taking a hit in a local election, in order to prevent the number of owner occupiers from falling, which would destroy the Conservatives in the long run.
>
> People need to decide if they want their kids to be able to afford to live in their own neighbourhood, in some parts of England it’s clear that they don’t.
They don't mind as long as the kids inherit unaffordable property.
The spirit of Audrey Forbes-Hamilton.
> > @timmo said:
> >
> > The housing issue and building vast swathes in Tory heartlands is much more of an existential threat than Brexit. These are people who are retired ,semi retired and more often than not professional people who can organise themselves into Independent protest groups. Just the sort of people who are instinctively Tory. They also will not vote in the main LD that's why the Independent route works.
>
> Unaffordable housing will be much more of an existential threat to their communities than new housing.
>
> But I wonder if there is some social snobbery reasons involved.
>
> If you own an expensive house while the average person can't afford to own any house then you might start to feel like the 'lord of the manor' or at least like the gentility Dickens and Gaskell wrote about.
There was a huge fuss when Porters Park was built in Shenley, but 15 years on, it's boosted the Conservative vote, locally, rather than undermining it.
> We are where we are as both parties have useless leadership.
>
>
>
> May should have booted out after her useless election in 2017 but the Tories bottled it.
>
>
>
> Labour have a minority weakling in Corbyn who only wins if the Tories persist with May.
>
>
>
> A decent PM would have created a softish exit, with a clear end point where the UK is independent of the EU. Instead, we face what Olly Robbins described as a 'bridge's to rejoining in the early 2020's, which only a remainer as useless as May would think is a good idea.
>
>
>
> Big 1st mover advantage for either main party who gets a new leader with the common touch.
>
> Do you have a reputable link to Olly Robbins saying that please?
ITV reported his overheard conversation in Brussels bar> @TheScreamingEagles said:
> We are where we are as both parties have useless leadership.
>
>
>
> May should have booted out after her useless election in 2017 but the Tories bottled it.
>
>
>
> Labour have a minority weakling in Corbyn who only wins if the Tories persist with May.
>
>
>
> A decent PM would have created a softish exit, with a clear end point where the UK is independent of the EU. Instead, we face what Olly Robbins described as a 'bridge's to rejoining in the early 2020's, which only a remainer as useless as May would think is a good idea.
>
>
>
> Big 1st mover advantage for either main party who gets a new leader with the common touch.
>
> Do you have a reputable link to Olly Robbins saying that please?
https://www.itv.com/news/2019-02-12/exclusive-uk-chief-brexit-negotiator-olly-robbins-warns-mps-the-choice-is-mays-deal-or-extension/
> Re Guildford:
>
>
> The LD then defected to the Independents and got re-elected this time with 91% of the vote, the Tories got just 9%. LDs stood aside.
>
>
>
> 70% to 9% is pretty impressive achievement.
>
>
>
> Turnout was a good indication as well this time. A seat unaffected by all of this had a 29% turnout, my ward was 55%!
>
>
>
> Where the LDs won from the Conservatives the margins were of the more normal type of swing. In the wards the Indies were fighting for the local reasons it was often a massacre.
>
>
>
> This rout should have happened in 2015, but the Independents couldn't get their act together then.
>
>
>
> Hopefully the scandal here will come to an end and the only loser will be Ian Hislop and Private Eye (although it is clear there will need to be some court action possibly to stop the local plan)
>
>
>
> A comment in the online local newspaper says it all:
>
>
>
> "There is only one reason why the Conservatives failed in Guildford: 80,000 ignored comments!
>
>
>
> Along with a touch of elite arrogance."
>
>
>
> FYI the 80,000 refers to the objections to the local plan. To achieve 80,000 in one borough is going some, but the Tories put a huge effort into achieving it.
>
>
>
> It should also be made clear that these Tories do not represent the Tory party as a whole. It is local, just local. Two existing Tory councillors and one LD set up the Independents in opposition to the local Tories. None of our Tory councillors (who objected to what was happening) put themselves up for re-election and the neighbouring Tory MP used Parliamentary privilege to make serious allegations about the leader of the Guildford Conservative group.
>
> That is also what happened in Tandridge. Massive opposition to the local plan and 4000 new homes on green belt just outside of Godstone.
>
> Tunbridge Wells as well the same happened to the leader David Jukes who had insisted on pushing a local plan forwards that nobody wants.
>
> This is the problem for the Tories..if the population keeps rising we need new houses..those houses have to be built somewhere but the Tory heartlands will not accept this. Its actually more toxic than Brexit in those areas.
>
> So it’s all plain NIMBYism then?
>
> People need to decide if they want their kids to be able to afford to live in their own neighbourhood, in some parts of England it’s clear that they don’t.
>
> In one word Yes
Well, sort of, although in defence of Nimbyism, too often the developers build thousands of rabbit hutches but no-one opens more doctors or dentists, or school places and hospital beds, or builds a new reservoir.
Not being a part of the increasingly integrated political structures of the EU (and that includes their imbecilic Parliament).
Not being bound by QMV or policies that favour the EZ
Not having to pay approximately £10bn a year towards EU integration.
Having the freedom to make our own choices, albeit accepting that every choice has a price and nothing is free in this world.
Having elections (EU Parliament apart, naturally) where those elected are able to implement the choices that we have made, be they smart or no. Democracy, in other words.
Having the ability to set plans for agriculture and fish that are actually focused on these isles rather than the Med.
They really haven't gone away. We just focus on the complexities. Should we join a CU? Is it sensible to give the EU the power that gives them over our trade policy? Are the rewards of frictionless trade worth it? Where do we still want to integrate beyond a FTA? What, even if we are not members of the EU, does the countries of Europe do better together? How do we have a virtual border with a SM that we are not a part of?
These are not straightforward questions and a distinctly below average political class is making a right meal of them. It's disappointing but I really don't agree with @Cyclefree's premise.
> > @another_richard said:
> >
> > The strategic incompetence of the Conservatives means they are now losing the votes of those who want higher house prices as well as those who want lower house prices.
>
> It may be tactical incompetence, but not strategic incompetence.
>
> A strategist would accept taking a hit in a local election, in order to prevent the number of owner occupiers from falling, which would destroy the Conservatives in the long run.
The strategic incompetence began earlier when the Conservatives chose to bribe the oldies and drown the young in debt.
The triple locking of pensions together with tripling tuition fees.
Plus the support for higher house prices rather than increased house building.
Thankfully that last has now been reversed.
> Never mind the article, I have questions about the cartoon:
>
> https://twitter.com/telegraph/status/1125154470684442624?s=21
>
> Since when did mice try to trap cats with mousetraps? And what real harm would come to the cat anyway?
Did you not watch much Tom and Jerry? Tez laid the trap, but Jerry swapped the Dutch cheese for Brexit fudge. Tez is not very bright and falls for the trap. Tez can only look forward to a never ending sequence of very painful adventures, and Jerry wins every time!
None of the local plan complaints are particularly surprising - they happen everywhere. People want more housing provided it’s built somewhere else. The independents etc who were elected on the back of complaining about it (other counties as well) will find their room for manoeuvre severely curtailed. I think that positive acting, rather than whining, will be something of a shock (see also Brexit enthusiasts for this problem).
> > @kjh said:
> >
> > Re Guildford:
> >
>
> What was the local plan which caused such opposition ?
It is more complex than just the local plan, which is appalling. For example:
Refusal to share the calculation of housing needs
Cayman Islands Development company wants to build new town. No information available on said company. Only spokesman is a Conservative from White Horse Council (may not be now I guess)
Letter of support from Surrey County Council leader (now gone) to Guildford Borough Council turned out to have been written by developer
Head of Planning resigns with no notice whatsoever (pushed out?)
Councillor responsible on the Executive for planning found guilty of fraud
Previous leader of council (also now resigned and stood down) together with councillor who was found guilty of fraud organised signatures to get local vote on an elected mayor (presumably to get stuff pushed through). Bribed students to collect signatures. Referendum held. 80% against. Less than half voted for than signatures collected which were verified voters!
Conservative MP accuses leader of Russian links in Parliament
Regarding the local plan it is difficult to know where to start, but for instance the new town did not have a school. A primary school was added, but there is no where for any secondary school children to go to school. Just nowhere. There seem to be no plan for cars at all! This was close to the junction of the M25/A3. The pollution levels on the site exceed the maximum allowed and there was no plan to solve that. The same stuff was endemic throughout the whole plan. A 5 year old could tear it apart. Hence 80,000 objections.
There was a strong whiff of something else going on here.
May has held talks with Labour over a three-day second referendum giving voters a choice of Remain, Brexit with a Deal or No Deal if Parliament forced a second referendum either through further indicative votes or a Brexit legislation amendment.
The PM is also said to be ready to offer Labour a temporary Customs Union until the next general election with the winner saving on permanent arrangements
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/05/theresa-may-war-games-second-referendum-questions-case-talks/
> Very good header and all very true, very true. Want to go deeper though, want to get into the 'psyche' of Brexit.
>
> I'm wrestling with a question - why are large numbers of 'Leavers', up north, down south, working class and very much not, inland and coast, affluent suburbs, struggling towns, the bucolic tory shires, why are all these good people, and we are talking many millions, so enthused by the reactionary right wing ex City trader and public schoolboy, Nigel Farage?
>
> I sense that this is the key to what Brexit is about. Not all of this 'left behind' and 'democratic deficit' stuff, which I think is superficial, but what it is REALLY about.
>
> I don't know the precise correct answer, and perhaps there isn't one, but I feel it has a great deal to do with what politics seems to be increasingly driven by these days - IDENTITY.
I think it's the attraction to a plain speaking distinctive personality that taps into widespread diverse concerns. A populist. A successful brand. Trump has it. Corbyn has/had it. Blair had it. Contrast with Mrs May or Vince Cable.
> > @Sandpit said:
> >
> > People need to decide if they want their kids to be able to afford to live in their own neighbourhood, in some parts of England it’s clear that they don’t.
>
> They don't mind as long as the kids inherit unaffordable property.
>
> The spirit of Audrey Forbes-Hamilton.
That worked 50 years ago, but today the kids are not far off retirement before they get their hands on the inheritance.
> > @Sean_F said:
> > > @another_richard said:
> > >
> > > The strategic incompetence of the Conservatives means they are now losing the votes of those who want higher house prices as well as those who want lower house prices.
> >
> > It may be tactical incompetence, but not strategic incompetence.
> >
> > A strategist would accept taking a hit in a local election, in order to prevent the number of owner occupiers from falling, which would destroy the Conservatives in the long run.
>
> The strategic incompetence began earlier when the Conservatives chose to bribe the oldies and drown the young in debt.
>
> The triple locking of pensions together with tripling tuition fees.
>
> Plus the support for higher house prices rather than increased house building.
>
> Thankfully that last has now been reversed.
Indeed many Tory councillors lost their seats to the LDs or local Independents partly through Tory Local Plans for more housing in each authority opposed by LD or Residents' Association Nimbys
> Re Guildford.
>
> None of the local plan complaints are particularly surprising - they happen everywhere. People want more housing provided it’s built somewhere else. The independents etc who were elected on the back of complaining about it (other counties as well) will find their room for manoeuvre severely curtailed. I think that positive acting, rather than whining, will be something of a shock (see also Brexit enthusiasts for this problem).
See my other post. This isn't Nimbys here (well there will be some obviously). Something much bigger was happening.
> > @eristdoof said:
> > > @Cicero said:
> > > > @algarkirk said:
> > > > > @Gardenwalker said:
> > > > > Mr. B, indeed, if that customs union and backstop nonsense goes ahead.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mr. Matt, we'll be able to determine our own domestic laws rather than have them imposed by the EU, and thus able to hold the political decision-makers to account directly, rather than have MPs point to the EU as a scapegoat (which is another reason that scepticism flourished).
> > > > >
> > > > > Which domestic laws have been imposed against our will by the EU?
> > > >
> > > > One example: The right of 500,000,000 million people to live in the UK if they want with only very restricted powers to prevent it?
> > >
> > > Well in theory every one of the 330 million Americans can visit the UK at the same time, but it doesn't happen does it?
> >
> > And all 65 million UK citizens could choose to live in Luxembourg if they want with ony very restricted powers to prevent it.
>
> But in practical terms what has happened is that thousands of East European Roma have migrated to Rotherham while the migration from Rotherham to Luxembourg is approximately zero.
That says a lot about the population of Rotheram
> Dr. Foxy, that assumes the electorate was in favour.
>
> Also, migration rates then were far lower than when Blair decided to 'rub the right's face in diversity'. And before further expansion (yeah, UK politicians were in favour of that too. But the divide between the political class and the electorate is a hallmark of the EU division).
>
> So you are saying the entire problem is with British politicians? If so, how is leaving going to help.
>
> “Mr” Dancer’s response to my simple question was quite revealing.
>
> His issue is with democracy in *this* country, not with the EU.
>
> The starting point should be the idea that power rests as close to the people as possible, and decisions should be made at the most local level.
> Town and county councils should raise much more of their own money, and should have power over more areas of responsibility than they do now.
> Things that really can’t be done at county level should be done at State level, and only things that can’t be done at State level should be done at National level - that’s not much more than the Central Bank, Defence and international trade.
And what can't be done at national level should be done at international level - dealing with climate change, effective taxation of multinationals, defence.
> > @another_richard said:
> > > @eristdoof said:
> > > > @Cicero said:
> > > > > @algarkirk said:
> > > > > > @Gardenwalker said:
> > > > > > Mr. B, indeed, if that customs union and backstop nonsense goes ahead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mr. Matt, we'll be able to determine our own domestic laws rather than have them imposed by the EU, and thus able to hold the political decision-makers to account directly, rather than have MPs point to the EU as a scapegoat (which is another reason that scepticism flourished).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which domestic laws have been imposed against our will by the EU?
> > > > >
> > > > > One example: The right of 500,000,000 million people to live in the UK if they want with only very restricted powers to prevent it?
> > > >
> > > > Well in theory every one of the 330 million Americans can visit the UK at the same time, but it doesn't happen does it?
> > >
> > > And all 65 million UK citizens could choose to live in Luxembourg if they want with ony very restricted powers to prevent it.
> >
> > But in practical terms what has happened is that thousands of East European Roma have migrated to Rotherham while the migration from Rotherham to Luxembourg is approximately zero.
>
> That says a lot about the population of Rotheram
Such as ?
You sir are fake news.
>
> Re Guildford:
>
> So Guildford could get mixed up with the rest of the national decline in the Conservative support (and I note on the News it was). It is (in my opinion) unrelated. It would have happened anyway because of the local stuff (details too long and grubby to go into here). You could argue I have no way of knowing this ( I no longer have any inside knowledge) and clearly national issues helped the LDs to also win seats here.
>
> A quick review of the individual results is a give away that there is more going on here than the national issues.
>
> The Independents weren't able to get candidates for 8 of the seats the Tories did hold onto. The Tories only held 9 seats (losing 26 seats from their 2015 results). They could have been down to just 1 if the Indies were able to fight the missed seats.
>
> When you look at wards most impacted by the local mess the result is breathtaking. Take Ripley (Lovelace). It had never been lost by the Tories. In vote. Quite a swing!
>
> The LD then defected to the Independents and got re-elected this time with 91% of the vote, the Tories got just 9%. LDs stood aside.
>
> 70% to 9% is pretty impressive achievement.
>
> Turnout was a good indication as well this time. A seat unaffected by all of this had a 29% turnout, my ward was 55%!
>
> Where the LDs won from the Conservatives the margins were of the more normal type of swing. In the wards the Indies were fighting for the local reasons it was often a massacre.
>
> This rout should have happened in 2015, but the Independents couldn't get their act together then.
>
> Hopefully the scandal here will come to an end and the only loser will be Ian Hislop and Private Eye (although it is clear there will need to be some court action possibly to stop the local plan)
>
> A comment in the online local newspaper says it all:
>
> "There is only one reason why the Conservatives failed in Guildford: 80,000 ignored comments!
>
> Along with a touch of elite arrogance."
>
> FYI the 80,000 refers to the objections to the local plan. To achieve 80,000 in one borough is going some, but the Tories put a huge effort into achieving it.
>
> It should also be made clear that these Tories do not represent the Tory party as a whole. It is local, just local. Two existing Tory councillors and one LD set up the Independents in opposition to the local Tories. None of our Tory councillors (who objected to what was happening) put themselves up for re-election and the neighbouring Tory MP used Parliamentary privilege to make serious allegations about the leader of the Guildford Conservative group.
At my parents' wedding anniversary yesterday I discovered my father's cousin was telling for the Independents in Guildford on polling day and they won the seat comfortably from nowhere
Yes Nimbys complain about house building, but Guildford was different. There was much more going on. The list I gave was only a small subset.
The greenbelt/housing issue is happening all over the place, but I would be interested to know if any other borough got 80,000 objections or anywhere near it. It is difficult to imagine how such a number was achievable. It takes incredible incompetence (or possibly worse) to achieve that reaction.
> > @Cicero said:
> > > @algarkirk said:
> > > > @Gardenwalker said:
> > > > Mr. B, indeed, if that customs union and backstop nonsense goes ahead.
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Matt, we'll be able to determine our own domestic laws rather than have them imposed by the EU, and thus able to hold the political decision-makers to account directly, rather than have MPs point to the EU as a scapegoat (which is another reason that scepticism flourished).
> > > >
> > > > Which domestic laws have been imposed against our will by the EU?
> > >
> > > One example: The right of 500,000,000 million people to live in the UK if they want with only very restricted powers to prevent it?
> >
> > Well in theory every one of the 330 million Americans can visit the UK at the same time, but it doesn't happen does it?
>
> All 66 million UK citizens can stand on Hammersmith Bridge and surprisingly there is no law against it.
>
> EDIT: Actually all 500 million EU citizens are allowed to stand on Hammersmith Bridge. Disgraceful.
All 66 million UK citizens could march from Sunderland to near Hammersmith Bridge in the name of Brexit.
> > @another_richard said:
> > > @Sean_F said:
> > > > @another_richard said:
> > > >
> > > > The strategic incompetence of the Conservatives means they are now losing the votes of those who want higher house prices as well as those who want lower house prices.
> > >
> > > It may be tactical incompetence, but not strategic incompetence.
> > >
> > > A strategist would accept taking a hit in a local election, in order to prevent the number of owner occupiers from falling, which would destroy the Conservatives in the long run.
> >
> > The strategic incompetence began earlier when the Conservatives chose to bribe the oldies and drown the young in debt.
> >
> > The triple locking of pensions together with tripling tuition fees.
> >
> > Plus the support for higher house prices rather than increased house building.
> >
> > Thankfully that last has now been reversed.
>
> Indeed many Tory councillors lost their seats to the LDs or local Independents partly through Tory Local Plans for more housing in each authority opposed by LD or Residents' Association Nimbys
While Nick Palmer tells us that housing is a big issue to those who can't afford it.
The Conservatives have got themselves into a situation where they are being blamed by both sides.
> > @timmo said:
> > Re Guildford:
> >
> > So Guildford could get mixed up with the rest of the national decline in the Conservative support (and I note on the News it was). It is (in my opinion) unrelated. It would have happened anyway because of the local stuff (details too long and grubby to go into here). You could argue I have no way of knowing this ( I no longer have any inside knowledge) and clearly national issues helped the LDs to also win seats here.
> >
> > A quick review of the individual results is a give away that there is more going on here than the national issues.
> >
> > The LD then defected to the Independents and got re-elected this time with 91% of the vote, the Tories got just 9%. LDs stood aside.
> >
> > 70% to 9% is pretty impressive achievement.
> >
> > Turnout was a good indication as well this time. A seat unaffected by all of this had a 29% turnout, my ward was 55%!
> >
> > Where the LDs won from the Conservatives the margins were of the more normal type of swing. In the wards the Indies were fighting for the local reasons it was often a massacre.
> >
> > This rout should have happened in 2015, but the Independents couldn't get their act together then.
> >
> > Hopefully the scandal here will come to an end and the only loser will be Ian Hislop and Private Eye (although it is clear there will need to be some court action possibly to stop the local plan)
> >
> > A comment in the online local newspaper says it all:
> >
> > "There is only one reason why the Conservatives failed in Guildford: 80,000 ignored comments
> >
> > Along with a touch of elite arrogance."
> >
> > FYI the 80,000 refers to the objections to the local plan. To achieve 80,000 in one borough is going some, but the Tories put a huge effort into achieving it.
> >
> > It should also be made clear that these Tories do not represent the Tory party as a whole. It is local, just local. Two existing Tory councillors and one LD set up the Independents
> >
> > That is also what happened in Tandridge. Massive opposition to the local plan and 4000 new homes on green belt just outside of Godstone.
> >
> > Tunbridge Wells as well the same happened to the leader David Jukes who had insisted on pushing a local plan forwards that nobody wants.
> >
> > This is the problem for the Tories..if the population keeps rising we need new houses..those houses have to be built somewhere but the Tory heartlands will not accept this. Its actually more toxic than Brexit in those areas.
>
> The strategic incompetence of the Conservatives means they are now losing the votes of those who want higher house prices as well as those who want lower house prices.
In Tunbridge Wells the oppositiin was more Jukes' plan to build a huge new very expensive 'white elephant' theatre complex to rival the West End supposedly when the town already has 2 theatres anyway
> > @kinabalu said:
>
> > Very good header and all very true, very true. Want to go deeper though, want to get into the 'psyche' of Brexit.
>
> >
>
> > I'm wrestling with a question - why are large numbers of 'Leavers', up north, down south, working class and very much not, inland and coast, affluent suburbs, struggling towns, the bucolic tory shires, why are all these good people, and we are talking many millions, so enthused by the reactionary right wing ex City trader and public schoolboy, Nigel Farage?
>
> >
>
> > I sense that this is the key to what Brexit is about. Not all of this 'left behind' and 'democratic deficit' stuff, which I think is superficial, but what it is REALLY about.
>
> >
>
> > I don't know the precise correct answer, and perhaps there isn't one, but I feel it has a great deal to do with what politics seems to be increasingly driven by these days - IDENTITY.
>
>
>
> I think it's the attraction to a plain speaking distinctive personality that taps into widespread diverse concerns. A populist. A successful brand. Trump has it. Corbyn has/had it. Blair had it. Contrast with Mrs May or Vince Cable.
>
> Isn’t “plain speaking” synonymous with “common sense”. An inability to reference objective facts and an enthusiasm for simplifying and lying?
Not at all.
"Lock her up" by Trump was plain speaking, but cannot at all be called common sense.
>
> In Tunbridge Wells the oppositiin was more Jukes' plan to build a huge new very expensive 'white elephant' theatre complex to rival the West End supposedly when the town already has 2 theatres anyway
So people wanted more money spent on everyday services rather than a vanity project ?
There's a lesson there.
> Whether or not you agree with Cyclefree's analysis - her header is a finely crafted and extremely well written piece.
Is this what the Like button is for?
> I think it's the attraction to a plain speaking distinctive personality that taps into widespread diverse concerns. A populist. A successful brand. Trump has it. Corbyn has/had it. Blair had it. Contrast with Mrs May or Vince Cable.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Isn’t “plain speaking” synonymous with “common sense”. An inability to reference objective facts and an enthusiasm for simplifying and lying?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Objective facts complicate simple messages. Best ignored or contradicted if you want to be a successful populist.
Making good decisions is complicated by facts and difficult trade-offs. That is why it definitely should not be left to "The People". That's why we have a representative democracy, imperfect though it is.
>
> >
> > I think it's the attraction to a plain speaking distinctive personality that taps into widespread diverse concerns. A populist. A successful brand. Trump has it. Corbyn has/had it. Blair had it. Contrast with Mrs May or Vince Cable.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Isn’t “plain speaking” synonymous with “common sense”. An inability to reference objective facts and an enthusiasm for simplifying and lying?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Objective facts complicate simple messages. Best ignored or contradicted if you want to be a successful populist.
>
> Making good decisions is complicated by facts and difficult trade-offs. That is why it definitely should not be left to "The People". That's why we have a representative democracy, imperfect though it is.
'The People' make decisions complicated by facts and difficult trade-offs throughout their lives.
> > @AlastairMeeks said:
>
> > Never mind the article, I have questions about the cartoon:
>
> >
>
> > https://twitter.com/telegraph/status/1125154470684442624
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Since when did mice try to trap cats with mousetraps? And what real harm would come to the cat anyway?
>
>
>
> I'm not prepared to pay to read that article but you get the comments for free. They are not happy reading for Boris whose previously popular snake oil is comprehensively rejected in favour of the new stronger Farage brand.
>
> On that subject, Boris seems to have bought a new tie:
>
> https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1125298679013879808
And not a letter box in sight.
> > @HYUFD said
> >
> > In Tunbridge Wells the oppositiin was more Jukes' plan to build a huge new very expensive 'white elephant' theatre complex to rival the West End supposedly when the town already has 2 theatres anyway
>
> So people wanted more money spent on everyday services rather than a vanity project ?
>
> There's a lesson there.
Yes especially when it is council taxpayers' money paying for it
This is surely the sort of thing that should be investigated by the DCLG?
> > @HYUFD said
> >
> > In Tunbridge Wells the oppositiin was more Jukes' plan to build a huge new very expensive 'white elephant' theatre complex to rival the West End supposedly when the town already has 2 theatres anyway
>
> So people wanted more money spent on everyday services rather than a vanity project ?
>
> There's a lesson there.
This is going back sometime now and I can't remember where (for some reason I have a borough starting with 'W' in my head), but I recall there was a rock solid Labour council, with I think no Liberals on it, who decided to build Sports centres like there was no tomorrow. As a consequence in the election the Liberals suddenly found they were running the council with no experience whatsoever. Can't remember whether they managed to hack it or not.
> > @Barnesian said:
> >
> > >
> > > I think it's the attraction to a plain speaking distinctive personality that taps into widespread diverse concerns. A populist. A successful brand. Trump has it. Corbyn has/had it. Blair had it. Contrast with Mrs May or Vince Cable.
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Isn’t “plain speaking” synonymous with “common sense”. An inability to reference objective facts and an enthusiasm for simplifying and lying?
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Objective facts complicate simple messages. Best ignored or contradicted if you want to be a successful populist.
> >
> > Making good decisions is complicated by facts and difficult trade-offs. That is why it definitely should not be left to "The People". That's why we have a representative democracy, imperfect though it is.
----------------------------------------------------------
>
> 'The People' make decisions complicated by facts and difficult trade-offs throughout their lives.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"The People" don't. Individuals make small scale decisions for themselves and they live with the consequences.
The 52% (of "The People") were making an enormous decision for the 100%.
> > @HYUFD said:
> > > @another_richard said:
> > > > @Sean_F said:
> > > > > @another_richard said:
> > > > >
> > > > > The strategic incompetence of the Conservatives means they are now losing the votes of those who want higher house prices as well as those who want lower house prices.
> > > >
> > > > It may be tactical incompetence, but not strategic incompetence.
> > > >
> > > > A strategist would accept taking a hit in a local election, in order to prevent the number of owner occupiers from falling, which would destroy the Conservatives in the long run.
> > >
> > > The strategic incompetence began earlier when the Conservatives chose to bribe the oldies and drown the young in debt.
> > >
> > > The triple locking of pensions together with tripling tuition fees.
> > >
> > > Plus the support for higher house prices rather than increased house building.
> > >
> > > Thankfully that last has now been reversed.
> >
> > Indeed many Tory councillors lost their seats to the LDs or local Independents partly through Tory Local Plans for more housing in each authority opposed by LD or Residents' Association Nimbys
>
> While Nick Palmer tells us that housing is a big issue to those who can't afford it.
>
> The Conservatives have got themselves into a situation where they are being blamed by both sides.
It is impossible to appease both young and middle aged people wanting more affordable housing to buy and older NIMBYs I am afraid.
However while the former might switch between Tory and Labour at a general election the latter will largely vote Tory at a general election even if they vote LD or Independent locally
> > @kjh said:
> >
> > Re Guildford:
> >
> > So Guildford could get mixed up with the rest of the national decline in the Conservative support (and I note on the News it was). It is (in my opinion) unrelated. It would have happened anyway because of the local stuff (details too long and grubby to go into here). You could argue I have no way of knowing this ( I no longer have any inside knowledge) and clearly national issues helped the LDs to also win seats here.
> >
> > A quick review of the individual results is a give away that there is more going on here than the national issues.
> >
> > The Independents weren't able to get candidates for 8 of the seats the Tories did hold onto. The Tories only held 9 seats (losing 26 seats from their 2015 results). They could have been down to just 1 if the Indies were able to fight the missed seats.
> >
> > When you look at wards most impacted by the local mess the result is breathtaking. Take Ripley (Lovelace). It had never been lost by the Tories. In vote. Quite a swing!
> >
> > The LD then defected to the Independents and got re-elected this time with 91% of the vote, the Tories got just 9%. LDs stood aside.
> >
> > 70% to 9% is pretty impressive achievement.
> >
> > Turnout was a good indication as well this time. A seat unaffected by all of this had a 29% turnout, my ward was 55%!
> >
> > Where the LDs won from the Conservatives the margins were of the more normal type of swing. In the wards the Indies were fighting for the local reasons it was often a massacre.
> >
> > This rout should have happened in 2015, but the Independents couldn't get their act together then.
> >
> > Hopefully the scandal here will come to an end and the only loser will be Ian Hislop and Private Eye (although it is clear there will need to be some court action possibly to stop the local plan)
> >
> > A comment in the online local newspaper says it all:
> >
> > "There is only one reason why the Conservatives failed in Guildford: 80,000 ignored comments!
> >
> > Along with a touch of elite arrogance."
> >
> > FYI the 80,000 refers to the objections to the local plan. To achieve 80,000 in one borough is going some, but the Tories put a huge effort into achieving it.
> >
> > It should also be made clear that these Tories do not represent the Tory party as a whole. It is local, just local. Two existing Tory councillors and one LD set up the Independents in opposition to the local Tories. None of our Tory councillors (who objected to what was happening) put themselves up for re-election and the neighbouring Tory MP used Parliamentary privilege to make serious allegations about the leader of the Guildford Conservative group.
>
> At my parents' wedding anniversary yesterday I discovered my father's cousin was telling for the Independents in Guildford on polling day and they won the seat comfortably from nowhere
Do you know which ward?
> Those benefits of Brexit:
>
> Not being a part of the increasingly integrated political structures of the EU (and that includes their imbecilic Parliament).
> Not being bound by QMV or policies that favour the EZ
> Not having to pay approximately £10bn a year towards EU integration.
> Having the freedom to make our own choices, albeit accepting that every choice has a price and nothing is free in this world.
> Having elections (EU Parliament apart, naturally) where those elected are able to implement the choices that we have made, be they smart or no. Democracy, in other words.
> Having the ability to set plans for agriculture and fish that are actually focused on these isles rather than the Med.
>
> They really haven't gone away. We just focus on the complexities. Should we join a CU? Is it sensible to give the EU the power that gives them over our trade policy? Are the rewards of frictionless trade worth it? Where do we still want to integrate beyond a FTA? What, even if we are not members of the EU, does the countries of Europe do better together? How do we have a virtual border with a SM that we are not a part of?
>
> These are not straightforward questions and a distinctly below average political class is making a right meal of them. It's disappointing but I really don't agree with @Cyclefree's premise.
The difficulty I see is that agreements on FTA's with the EU (and other countries) will likely make us subject to quite a lot of the EU rules we dislike but in a way which makes the process of agreement much less transparent and democratic.
So that, in reality, we may gain very little in practice in return for losing quite a lot. The point you make on democracy is a good one and there are good democratic arguments for being concerned about the EU's development thus far and its intended future development.
But how democratic are international treaties or ISDN tribunals? If we elect a new government which says it opposes some consequence of an international treaty we will in all likelihood have zero ability to change it. That risks making the disjunction between voters and politicians even worse than it is now rather than better.
The case being made for Brexit is that with one bound we will be free to do what we want. That is wholly unrealistic.
To be fair, it is not the case you make which is considerably more nuanced and thoughtful but I was not tilting at your windmill but at the Faragist one which seems to me to be both unrealistic and dangerous.
> So just to summerise Guildford:
>
> Yes Nimbys complain about house building, but Guildford was different. There was much more going on. The list I gave was only a small subset.
>
> The greenbelt/housing issue is happening all over the place, but I would be interested to know if any other borough got 80,000 objections or anywhere near it. It is difficult to imagine how such a number was achievable. It takes incredible incompetence (or possibly worse) to achieve that reaction.
A planning barrister of my acquaintance says that the level of corruption involved in planning is far more widespread than most people realise.
If we are going to leave we are better off leaving sooner rather than later. If we are going to stay again it is better to be clear that is the plan rather than accept the gridlock and hope things change in the future.
If we leave having another 2-3 years in gridlock now may be the difference between being "post Brexit" in 2027 rather than 2024 - both feel a very along way off but it is still better to be able to move on earlier rather than later.
If we are going to stay we will need to see off possibly a referendum and certainly at least one, maybe more party committed to leave at the next few general elections. To do that will involve improving the lives of leavers in particular and "what really matters to voters". The financial clout to make a start on that is being withheld by the Treasury precisely because we are in limbo, and they need contingency for no deal.
If we decide to remain or accept Mays deal more cash will flow to our public services, companies will be able to make longer term plans, and some political attention can move partly on to housing, jobs, social care, environment.
Yes Brexit will still be the dominant issue regardless of what we choose, but there is a big difference between it taking up maybe 70% of our political efforts (gridlock) or maybe 40% (post decision) - the numbers are obviously arbitrary but it will be at a different level once a decision has been made, and each extra year of gridlock is damage which does not achieve anything.
By making a decision earlier, whilst accepting Brexit creates problems and sucks in political oxygen regardless, we save years at the end of the process, and free up some spare time to sort out other policies during the process.
What she said was that she had been a remainer but that she was also a democrat. If politicians decide that an issue is too big for them to resolve on their own and pass it to the people it is not then open to those same politicians to tell the people that they got the wrong answer.
She went on to point out that over 450 MPs were elected in 2017 supposedly committed to implementing that decision of the people (including all of the members of the CUKs.) She rightly observed that those on both extremes of this debate were getting louder and louder whilst those in the middle were getting quieter.
Personally, I think that the Constitution of the Tory party should be amended so that the next leader can be anyone at all who has a son called Finn.
> >> @DavidL said:
> >
>
> The difficulty I see is that agreements on FTA's with the EU (and other countries) will likely make us subject to quite a lot of the EU rules we dislike but in a way which makes the process of agreement much less transparent and democratic.
>
> So that, in reality, we may gain very little in practice in return for losing quite a lot. The point you make on democracy is a good one and there are good democratic arguments for being concerned about the EU's development thus far and its intended future development.
>
> But how democratic are international treaties or ISDN tribunals? If we elect a new government which says it opposes some consequence of an international treaty we will in all likelihood have zero ability to change it. That risks making the disjunction between voters and politicians even worse than it is now rather than better.
>
> The case being made for Brexit is that with one bound we will be free to do what we want. That is wholly unrealistic.
>
> To be fair, it is not the case you make which is considerably more nuanced and thoughtful but I was not tilting at your windmill but at the Faragist one which seems to me to be both unrealistic and dangerous.
Any trade deal involves compromise and our FTA with the EU will be no exception. There has undoubtedly been a lot of simplistic rubbish on both sides of this debate and we are not finished yet. For me, May's deal was an excellent compromise, not only for the actual departure but as a template for the eventual deal. The addition of a CU will make it less attractive but it will still be better than either no deal or revoke. I just wish they would get on with it. The current uncertainty is the worst outcome of all.
You were pretty quiet about and indeed voted for a campaign that Gove subsequently admitted went too far about whipping fears about Turks.
https://unherd.com/2019/05/are-these-the-last-gasps-of-our-old-political-order/
> I was in the gym yesterday morning so I couldn't hear what she was saying but the subtitles of Ruth Davidson's interview on Marr were seriously impressive. The Tories have missed her, and not just in Scotland.
>
> What she said was that she had been a remainer but that she was also a democrat. If politicians decide that an issue is too big for them to resolve on their own and pass it to the people it is not then open to those same politicians to tell the people that they got the wrong answer.
>
> She went on to point out that over 450 MPs were elected in 2017 supposedly committed to implementing that decision of the people (including all of the members of the CUKs.) She rightly observed that those on both extremes of this debate were getting louder and louder whilst those in the middle were getting quieter.
>
> Personally, I think that the Constitution of the Tory party should be amended so that the next leader can be anyone at all who has a son called Finn.
Ruth Davidson is an excellent Scottish Unionist leader to take on the Nationalists and her support for Deal plus Customs Union is acceptable I would imagine to most Tories or at least most Unionists in Remain voting Scotland.
In Leave voting England and Wales though it may be a different matter, Tories there want a harder Brexit than that
> > @HYUFD said:
> > > @kjh said:
> > >
> > > Re Guildford:
> > >
> > > So Guildford could get mixed up with the rest of the national decline in the Conservative support (and I note on the News it was). It is (in my opinion) unrelated. It would have happened anyway because of the local stuff (details too long and grubby to go into here). You could argue I have no way of knowing this ( I no longer have any inside knowledge) and clearly national issues helped the LDs to also win seats here.
> > >
> > > A quick review of the individual results is a give away that there is more going on here than the national issues.
> > >
> > > The Independents weren't able to get candidates for ssed seats.
> > >
> > > When you look at wards most impacted by the local mess the result is breathtaking. Take Ripley (Lovelace). It had never been lost by the Tories. In vote. Quite a swing!
> > >
> > > The LD then defected to the Independents and got re-elected this time with 91% of the vote, the Tories got just 9%. LDs stood aside.
> > >
> > > 70% to 9% is pretty impressive achievement.
> > >
> > > Turnout was a good indication as well this time. A seat unaffected by all of this had a 29% turnout, my ward was 55%!
> > >
> > > Where the LDs won from the Conservatives the margins were of the more normal type of swing. In the wards the Indies were fighting for the local reasons it was often a massacre.
> > >
> > > This rout should have happened in 2015, but the Independents couldn't get their act together then.
> > >
> > > Hopefully the scandal here will come to an end and the only loser will be Ian Hislop and Private Eye (although it is clear there will need to be some court action possibly to stop the local plan)
> > >
> > > A comment in the online local newspaper says it all:
> > >
> > > "There is only one reason why the Conservatives failed in Guildford: 80,000 ignored comments!
> > >
> > > Along with a touch of elite arrogance."
> > >
> > > FYI the 80,000 refers to the objections to the local plan. To achieve 80,000 in one borough is going some, but the Tories put a huge effort into achieving it.
> > >
> > > It should also be made clear that these Tories do not represent the Tory party as a whole. It is local, just local. Two existing Tory councillors and one LD set up the Independents in opposition to the local Tories. None of our Tory councillors (who objected to what was happening) put themselves up for re-election and the neighbouring Tory MP used Parliamentary privilege to make serious allegations about the leader of the Guildford Conservative group.
> >
> > At my parents' wedding anniversary yesterday I discovered my father's cousin was telling for the Independents in Guildford on polling day and they won the seat comfortably from nowhere
>
> Do you know which ward?
Sorry, cannot remember
UK is a jumped up banana republic, deluded thinking it is powerful instead of a laughing stock.
> > @Cyclefree said:
> > >> @DavidL said:
> > >
> >
> > The difficulty I see is that agreements on FTA's with the EU (and other countries) will likely make us subject to quite a lot of the EU rules we dislike but in a way which makes the process of agreement much less transparent and democratic.
> >
> > So that, in reality, we may gain very little in practice in return for losing quite a lot. The point you make on democracy is a good one and there are good democratic arguments for being concerned about the EU's development thus far and its intended future development.
> >
> > But how democratic are international treaties or ISDN tribunals? If we elect a new government which says it opposes some consequence of an international treaty we will in all likelihood have zero ability to change it. That risks making the disjunction between voters and politicians even worse than it is now rather than better.
> >
> > The case being made for Brexit is that with one bound we will be free to do what we want. That is wholly unrealistic.
> >
> > To be fair, it is not the case you make which is considerably more nuanced and thoughtful but I was not tilting at your windmill but at the Faragist one which seems to me to be both unrealistic and dangerous.
>
> Any trade deal involves compromise and our FTA with the EU will be no exception. There has undoubtedly been a lot of simplistic rubbish on both sides of this debate and we are not finished yet. For me, May's deal was an excellent compromise, not only for the actual departure but as a template for the eventual deal. The addition of a CU will make it less attractive but it will still be better than either no deal or revoke. I just wish they would get on with it. The current uncertainty is the worst outcome of all.
My feeling is that we could end up with an FTA which makes us so subject to so many EU rules but without any input into them that some of us, possibly quite a lot, will wonder what the point of departure was. We will not have Taken Back Control; we may well end up agreeing to FoM as part of an FTA; those other FTAs will come nowhere near what was promised and we will lose the advantages of being in the EU.
Now I may be wrong and you right. But politicians are entitled to ask - and it may be sensible to in this case - the voters to ask whether the proposed WA, if it is the template for a final deal (a pretty big "if" IMO), is the basis on which they want to leave or do they want to change their mind. None of that is an attack on democracy.
> > @DavidL said:
> > I was in the gym yesterday morning so I couldn't hear what she was saying but the subtitles of Ruth Davidson's interview on Marr were seriously impressive. The Tories have missed her, and not just in Scotland.
> >
> > What she said was that she had been a remainer but that she was also a democrat. If politicians decide that an issue is too big for them to resolve on their own and pass it to the people it is not then open to those same politicians to tell the people that they got the wrong answer.
> >
> > She went on to point out that over 450 MPs were elected in 2017 supposedly committed to implementing that decision of the people (including all of the members of the CUKs.) She rightly observed that those on both extremes of this debate were getting louder and louder whilst those in the middle were getting quieter.
> >
> > Personally, I think that the Constitution of the Tory party should be amended so that the next leader can be anyone at all who has a son called Finn.
>
> Ruth Davidson is an excellent Scottish Unionist leader to take on the Nationalists and her support for Deal plus Customs Union is acceptable I would imagine to most Tories or at least most Unionists in Remain voting Scotland.
>
> In Leave voting England and Wales though it may be a different matter, Tories there want a harder Brexit than that
Yesterday you were suggesting in a GE Brexit poll 30% and Tories 13%. Presumably the tory vote at 13% is not very hard Brexity at all?
> I was in the gym yesterday morning so I couldn't hear what she was saying but the subtitles of Ruth Davidson's interview on Marr were seriously impressive. The Tories have missed her, and not just in Scotland.
>
>
>
> What she said was that she had been a remainer but that she was also a democrat. If politicians decide that an issue is too big for them to resolve on their own and pass it to the people it is not then open to those same politicians to tell the people that they got the wrong answer.
>
>
>
> She went on to point out that over 450 MPs were elected in 2017 supposedly committed to implementing that decision of the people (including all of the members of the CUKs.) She rightly observed that those on both extremes of this debate were getting louder and louder whilst those in the middle were getting quieter.
>
>
>
> Personally, I think that the Constitution of the Tory party should be amended so that the next leader can be anyone at all who has a son called Finn.
>
> I think she was talking about you.
>
> You were pretty quiet about and indeed voted for a campaign that Gove subsequently admitted went too far about whipping fears about Turks.
Did you agree with everything in May's disastrous Manifesto? Did you vote Tory nonetheless? Did you do so because on balance that seemed the best thing for the country? So did I.
The proposition that anyone who voted leave had to agree with everything that anyone campaigning for leave said or they could not do so is even more absurd. It really is total nonsense. It was a binary question to which we all brought our own judgment.
Davidson was talking about the current mess which is dominated by loons from the ERG and PV supporters. She was spot on.
It seems obvious to me that if we really want to build loads of houses for commuters they need to be in new towns and/or motorway+good rail corridors. Even better would be to build enough houses in london regeneration projects so that commuting is not needed.
Obviously there will then be nimby opposition in those areas, but it wont be in EVERY area at once which it seems to be now.
> Those benefits of Brexit:
>
> Not being a part of the increasingly integrated political structures of the EU (and that includes their imbecilic Parliament).
> Not being bound by QMV or policies that favour the EZ
> Not having to pay approximately £10bn a year towards EU integration.
> Having the freedom to make our own choices, albeit accepting that every choice has a price and nothing is free in this world.
> Having elections (EU Parliament apart, naturally) where those elected are able to implement the choices that we have made, be they smart or no. Democracy, in other words.
> Having the ability to set plans for agriculture and fish that are actually focused on these isles rather than the Med.
>
> They really haven't gone away. We just focus on the complexities. Should we join a CU? Is it sensible to give the EU the power that gives them over our trade policy? Are the rewards of frictionless trade worth it? Where do we still want to integrate beyond a FTA? What, even if we are not members of the EU, does the countries of Europe do better together? How do we have a virtual border with a SM that we are not a part of?
>
> These are not straightforward questions and a distinctly below average political class is making a right meal of them. It's disappointing but I really don't agree with @Cyclefree's premise.
Amazing how these airy fairy benefits and principles fall to dust north of Berwick.
>Yes Nimbys complain about house building, but Guildford was different. There was much more going on. The list I gave was only a small subset.
>The greenbelt/housing issue is happening all over the place, but I would be interested to know if any other borough got 80,000 objections or anywhere near it. It is difficult to imagine how such a number was achievable. It takes incredible incompetence (or possibly worse) to achieve that reaction.
In West Lancashire, Labour took a drubbing from Local Independents over the local plan proposals losing 4 seats, but there were less than 2000 representations here. I'm not doubting the Guildford figure was many times higher than that, but 80,000 is an almost impossible number to be believable. Were Russian bots active?
> Mr. Glenn, ha.
>
> The lesson is that giving away power is a lot easier than reclaiming it.
>
> It's one reason I'm so concerned about the censorious nature of modern politics.
>
> Reclaiming allegedly lost power to be net less powerful hardly seems like a good or sensible trade.
>
> Mr. Glenn, ha.
>
> The lesson is that giving away power is a lot easier than reclaiming it.
>
>
> As we’ll discover after we have left the EU.
>
>
>
> It should be pretty clear by now that should we remain in the EU we will have no power whatsoever.
>
> The ship has sailed.
>
> Mr. Glenn, ha.
>
> The lesson is that giving away power is a lot easier than reclaiming it.
>
> It's one reason I'm so concerned about the censorious nature of modern politics.
>
> Reclaiming allegedly lost power to be net less powerful hardly seems like a good or sensible trade.
>
> Mr. Glenn, ha.
>
> The lesson is that giving away power is a lot easier than reclaiming it.
>
>
> As we’ll discover after we have left the EU.
>
>
>
> It should be pretty clear by now that should we remain in the EU we will have no power whatsoever.
>
> The ship has sailed.
>
> You what? We would retain every power and right conferred on each and every member by the EU constitution, and would continue to enjoy the further soft power we gain from our relative economic and military pre eminence. What ship has sailed, and where to? Good metaphors should clarify rather than obfuscate.
>
> UK is a jumped up banana republic, deluded thinking it is powerful instead of a laughing stock.
It would be a good thing if we lost all our powers to the EU. They couldn't possibly wield them as incompetently as we do.
Humph......
> The proposition that anyone who voted leave had to agree with everything that anyone campaigning for leave said or they could not do so is even more absurd. It really is total nonsense. It was a binary question to which we all brought our own judgment.
>
>
>
> Davidson was talking about the current mess which is dominated by loons from the ERG and PV supporters. She was spot on.
>
> Did you not think it was possible to predict the current mess based on the undeliverable promises being made by the Leave campaign combined with their xenophobia?
I'm looking forward to Ruth purging the loons from her own sub branch.