Zak Goldsmith ... ha ha

Fretwired

Bet Zak's wishing he'd kept his mouth shut .. what a twat. The only downside is having to listen to the odious Tim Farron gloating.

octatonic

It wasn't much of a surprise,
LD's were always going to get a big swing as the last pro-Europe party in a constituency that is overwhelmingly Remain.
I am chuffed though.

Fretwired

I think the Lib Dems will get a shock down the line if they position themselves as a Remain party. I'm sorry to say this but I think we're close to riots and violence and I think there will be a surge in UKIP support.

octatonic

I think it would be more of a problem for the Conservatives and Labour as they have MP's to lose.
The LD's are in the enviable position of having little to lose, a lot to gain and being the last major party for remain could pick up a lot of seats.
I agree though, I think UKIP will do very well in the next GE if the Tories don't deliver some sort of  immigration reform.

Moe_Zambeek

Tim Farron really is a numpty. Not as much as Zac, obviously, who got what he deserved!

ICBM

Fretwired said:

I think the Lib Dems will get a shock down the line if they position themselves as the Remain party.

I think everyone else will.

Fretwired said:

I'm sorry to say this but I think we're close to riots and violence and I think there will be a surge in UKIP support.

Possibly. But I think UKIP may be a spent force once Farage disappears off to the US, new leader or no new leader.

octatonic said:

I think it would be more of a problem for the Conservatives and Labour as they have MP's to lose.
The LD's are in the enviable position of having little to lose, a lot to gain and being the last major party for remain could pick up a lot of seats.

Exactly. It's by far their best strategy to redeem themselves - although if anything, they need to be more overt about it.

What I hope Zac Goldsmith now does is redoubles his efforts to block the expansion of Heathrow. It was his mistake to make it the reason for the by-election, when there was no argument between the candidates about it.

Antique_Guitars

I'm glad because he is complete scum that guy. That's roughly the area I am from originally so I know all about the idiot 

Snap

I think the expansion of Heathrow is a good idea actually.

Fretwired

Snap said:

I think the expansion of Heathrow is a good idea actually.

I think a lot of people who voted think so as well - Heathrow provides lots of highly paid jobs. When the BBC went to interview people there were plenty supporting the building of a third runway.

octatonic

In a classic example of NIMBYism I am for Heathrow expansion but I wouldn't be if I lived 50 miles east of where I do now.

scrumhalf

When are we going to have the re-election?

FX_Munkee

octatonic said:

I think it would be more of a problem for the Conservatives and Labour as they have MP's to lose.
The LD's are in the enviable position of having little to lose, a lot to gain and being the last major party for remain could pick up a lot of seats.
I agree though, I think UKIP will do very well in the next GE if the Tories don't deliver some sort of  immigration reform.

It would be a clever strategy for them, as they'd be the main beneficiary of the Remain voters with the Leave voters split between the other parties. I think UKIP is done now though.

crunchman

Fretwired said:

Snap said:

I think the expansion of Heathrow is a good idea actually.

I think a lot of people who voted think so as well - Heathrow provides lots of highly paid jobs. When the BBC went to interview people there were plenty supporting the building of a third runway.

The LibDem candidate is anti-Heathrow expansion as well.  That's why it became a chance for the Remoaners to vote against Zac.  If she'd been pro-expansion Zac would have won by a landslide.

If the local residents were so in favour of Heathrow, why are all the local MPs against it?  Because they wouldn't still have their seats if they came out in favour.  It was another of the reasons Ann K££n (aka Mrs Expenses) lost her seat in my constituency in 2010 - she had voted in favour of Heathrow to hold on to her minor cabinet post.

If you are in favour of Heathrow expansion you need to look at the facts around it a bit more carefully.

Apart from the economic reasons (which Osborne's fig leaf commission definitely based on very dodgy assumptions) there is also the safety aspect.  You don't want planes landing and taking off over built up areas.  If an accident (or terror incident) happens there will be a lot more casualties on the ground.  A terror incident is also a lot more likely at Heathrow.  If terrorists do manage to sneak a SAM into the country, it would be a lot harder to spot someone in a back garden in Hounslow than someone in a field near Gatwick, or a boat on the Thames at Boris Island, where they would stick out like a sore thumb.

Even on the economic argument, apart from the fact the that the figures are wrong in the first place, it will cost a massive amount more to build than is currently being accounted for.  There will be so much disruption and protest that it will take years longer and cost billions more to build - because so many people who live locally know how stupid an idea it is.

octatonic

FX_Munkee said:

octatonic said:

I think it would be more of a problem for the Conservatives and Labour as they have MP's to lose.
The LD's are in the enviable position of having little to lose, a lot to gain and being the last major party for remain could pick up a lot of seats.
I agree though, I think UKIP will do very well in the next GE if the Tories don't deliver some sort of  immigration reform.

It would be a clever strategy for them, as they'd be the main beneficiary of the Remain voters with the Leave voters split between the other parties. I think UKIP is done now though.

As far as I can tell (I'm a party member so see a fair bit of information on it) this is the strategy.

I don't think UKIP is done, but they have a big job ahead if they want to transition from right wing fringe to being a major force.
They will have to distance themselves from the loonies, be more organised and a lot more centrist if they want to pick up disillusioned Labour voters, who they need very badly.

If you look at how many votes UKIP got in the last GE- it was something like 3.8 million votes across the nation, nearly double the LD's, but because of FPTP it came pretty much to nought.

FX_Munkee

octatonic said:

FX_Munkee said:

octatonic said:

I think it would be more of a problem for the Conservatives and Labour as they have MP's to lose.
The LD's are in the enviable position of having little to lose, a lot to gain and being the last major party for remain could pick up a lot of seats.
I agree though, I think UKIP will do very well in the next GE if the Tories don't deliver some sort of  immigration reform.

It would be a clever strategy for them, as they'd be the main beneficiary of the Remain voters with the Leave voters split between the other parties. I think UKIP is done now though.

As far as I can tell (I'm a party member so see a fair bit of information on it) this is the strategy.

I don't think UKIP is done, but they have a big job ahead if they want to transition from right wing fringe to being a major force.
They will have to distance themselves from the loonies, be more organised and a lot more centrist if they want to pick up disillusioned Labour voters, who they need very badly.

If you look at how many votes UKIP got in the last GE- it was something like 3.8 million votes across the nation, nearly double the LD's, but because of FPTP it came pretty much to nought.

I don't think UKIP can distance itself from the loonies, when the members trying to run it seem to be mainly made up of them.
The reason UKIP got so many votes was a form of protest against the ruling establishment, that ship has sailed.
The next unifying cause to vote for will likely be the direction we're heading over Brexit, hence a big chance for the LD's.

Fretwired

crunchman said:

Fretwired said:

Snap said:

I think the expansion of Heathrow is a good idea actually.

I think a lot of people who voted think so as well - Heathrow provides lots of highly paid jobs. When the BBC went to interview people there were plenty supporting the building of a third runway.

The LibDem candidate is anti-Heathrow expansion as well.  That's why it became a chance for the Remoaners to vote against Zac.  If she'd been pro-expansion Zac would have won by a landslide.

Zak was never going to win. He managed to upset loyal Tories many of whom decided to kick him in the crutch and either stayed at home or voted Lib Dem. It was a by-election not a GE so you get odd results. The Lib Dems got their vote out and persuaded Labour voters to vote for them and some Tories stayed away. The Lib Dems will get kicked at the GE if the Tories put up a decent candidate. The turnout was far lower than the GE with over 12,000 fewer votes cast, and many of those were Tories who hate Zak for what he's done.

Heard the Lib Dem winner's speech and wanted to vomit. What a muppet. Which pond did they find her in ... British politics is seriously short of talent.

Snap

crunchman said:

Fretwired said:

Snap said:

I think the expansion of Heathrow is a good idea actually.

I think a lot of people who voted think so as well - Heathrow provides lots of highly paid jobs. When the BBC went to interview people there were plenty supporting the building of a third runway.

The LibDem candidate is anti-Heathrow expansion as well.  That's why it became a chance for the Remoaners to vote against Zac.  If she'd been pro-expansion Zac would have won by a landslide.

If the local residents were so in favour of Heathrow, why are all the local MPs against it?  Because they wouldn't still have their seats if they came out in favour.  It was another of the reasons Ann K££n (aka Mrs Expenses) lost her seat in my constituency in 2010 - she had voted in favour of Heathrow to hold on to her minor cabinet post.

If you are in favour of Heathrow expansion you need to look at the facts around it a bit more carefully.

Apart from the economic reasons (which Osborne's fig leaf commission definitely based on very dodgy assumptions) there is also the safety aspect.  You don't want planes landing and taking off over built up areas.  If an accident (or terror incident) happens there will be a lot more casualties on the ground.  A terror incident is also a lot more likely at Heathrow.  If terrorists do manage to sneak a SAM into the country, it would be a lot harder to spot someone in a back garden in Hounslow than someone in a field near Gatwick, or a boat on the Thames at Boris Island, where they would stick out like a sore thumb.

Even on the economic argument, apart from the fact the that the figures are wrong in the first place, it will cost a massive amount more to build than is currently being accounted for.  There will be so much disruption and protest that it will take years longer and cost billions more to build - because so many people who live locally know how stupid an idea it is.

And people for the argument will argue that the figures the other side are using are wrong too.

It makes sense, IMO on so many levels. The impact on local residents is tough, and easy for anyone no living there to make light of. However, if you want expanded airport capacity with easy access to the capital, something has to give. Its either a new airport or more at Gatwick, and Gatwick is an arse to get to and from. LHR has all the infrastructure, and tbh as a regular user, its one of the better airports in the world.

Planes land and take off over built up areas all over the world. The anti terror argument IMO bears no relevance to the location of the airport at all. You don't decide on the location of an airport based on the tiny possibility that someone will blow a plane up at or near to the airport. That's like basing your decision on whether or not to leave the house on the remote possibility that you might trip on a pavement or walk under a bus.

The economic arguments, all the ones that I have read, from all quarters, are pretty convincing.

Besides, we can debate all we like: its happening

Fretwired

FX_Munkee said:

octatonic said:

FX_Munkee said:

octatonic said:

I think it would be more of a problem for the Conservatives and Labour as they have MP's to lose.
The LD's are in the enviable position of having little to lose, a lot to gain and being the last major party for remain could pick up a lot of seats.
I agree though, I think UKIP will do very well in the next GE if the Tories don't deliver some sort of  immigration reform.

It would be a clever strategy for them, as they'd be the main beneficiary of the Remain voters with the Leave voters split between the other parties. I think UKIP is done now though.

As far as I can tell (I'm a party member so see a fair bit of information on it) this is the strategy.

I don't think UKIP is done, but they have a big job ahead if they want to transition from right wing fringe to being a major force.
They will have to distance themselves from the loonies, be more organised and a lot more centrist if they want to pick up disillusioned Labour voters, who they need very badly.

If you look at how many votes UKIP got in the last GE- it was something like 3.8 million votes across the nation, nearly double the LD's, but because of FPTP it came pretty much to nought.

I don't think UKIP can distance itself from the loonies, when the members trying to run it seem to be mainly made up of them.
The reason UKIP got so many votes was a form of protest against the ruling establishment, that ship has sailed.
The next unifying cause to vote for will likely be the direction we're heading over Brexit, hence a big chance for the LD's.

Not sure. The far right is on the rise in UK and immigration is up again and shows no sign of abating. May is seen as being too cautious on Brexit and the Lib Dems and Blair are trying to get us to remain - this will boost support for UKIP. I can see UKIP making major inroads into the Labour heartlands in the north. Paul Nuttall has the common touch and if they can get policies the working class like then I think they could get 30+ MPs.

crunchman

The problem for the LD's is that they want a "soft" Brexit which will include freedom of movement.  This is essentially no Brexit at all.  This won't wash with the majority of the population.  May knows this.  The people of Richmond Park, who are mostly the elites who are doing very well out of the current system, still haven't realised how much the rest of the country despises what they stand for.

Fretwired

crunchman said:

The problem for the LD's is that they want a "soft" Brexit which will include freedom of movement.  This is essentially no Brexit at all.  This won't wash with the majority of the population.  May knows this.  The people of Richmond Park, who are mostly the elites who are doing very well out of the current system, still haven't realised how much the rest of the country despises what they stand for.

They soon will when their houses are burnt and their cars are smashed .. up the workers .. :-) :-)

That's why I think UKIP will do well - they are a party of protest and there's plenty to protest about. The London elite don't understand how despised they are in the rest of the country - if I were running the Remain campaign I'd tell Blair to shut up as he's the epitome of the privileged elite who think they know best and lecture the rest of us.

ICBM

Snap said:

I think the expansion of Heathrow is a good idea actually.

It's an idiotic idea. The infrastructure around it and the airspace above it can barely cope with the existing traffic at the moment. The last thing it needs is more.

I'm pretty I've seen a study showing that new runways at Gatwick *and* Stansted could be built for the same money as one at Heathrow, without the enormous disruption to the M25/M4 area. This would also provide *more* new jobs.