Richmond Park by-election.
Discussion
Skii said:
brenflys777 said:
The new Richmond MP just had a car crash interview withJulia Hartley-Brewer on Talk Radio.
JHB asked the obvious questions - when's the 2nd by-election? Why is a 4% by-election win a 'clear majority' but not in the referendum, etc.. Some attempt to answer, then she stopped talking and a LibDem press officer said she had to go to another interview!
http://talkradio.co.uk/news/new-richmond-park-mp-s...
JHB asked the obvious questions - when's the 2nd by-election? Why is a 4% by-election win a 'clear majority' but not in the referendum, etc.. Some attempt to answer, then she stopped talking and a LibDem press officer said she had to go to another interview!
http://talkradio.co.uk/news/new-richmond-park-mp-s...
Edited by brenflys777 on Friday 2nd December 11:47
ClaphamGT3 said:
I tend to agree with this. It is this sentiment that could just see Corbyn in Downing St in 2020 (or before).
I have been a Tory all my adult life but Theresa May's Tory party has never felt less like my party. I - and a large number of people that I know, are erring much more towards the Lib Dems. I don't think that it is entirely unreasonable to envisage the situation where a shift of the of the middle class professional Tory vote to the Lib Dems and shift of the more working class Tory vote towards UKIP or labour could see Corbyn in Downing St, albeit probably as head of a Lib Dem/Labour coalition
Tory lead in polls reaches record levels (and has been much higher since the replacement of Cameron by May)I have been a Tory all my adult life but Theresa May's Tory party has never felt less like my party. I - and a large number of people that I know, are erring much more towards the Lib Dems. I don't think that it is entirely unreasonable to envisage the situation where a shift of the of the middle class professional Tory vote to the Lib Dems and shift of the more working class Tory vote towards UKIP or labour could see Corbyn in Downing St, albeit probably as head of a Lib Dem/Labour coalition
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/29/conserv...
Yes the realignment in politics will continue, but for every affluent, virtue signaling, middle class voter they lose they seem to be picking up more than one from the working class.
don4l said:
Zigster said:
Well, Brexit hasn't actually happened yet. We have no idea what the outcome will look like because Pokerface May isn't telling - Brexit means Brexit, etc. So even if it doesn't change that we leave the EU, it might make May think more carefully about what the country looks like post Brexit.
In the "We won!" obsession of the 52%, there seems to be a lack of comprehension that the 48% wanted something very different and you can't just ignore that.
Why not?In the "We won!" obsession of the 52%, there seems to be a lack of comprehension that the 48% wanted something very different and you can't just ignore that.
Isn't that the reason that we have democracy?
This is good news, because it would indicate that as far as the EU is concerned, the UK is already no longer a member of the `club'
It seems that Mrs May, by not letting out details of exactly what the UK will do regarding Brexit, is doing no different to the what the EU is doing regarding its negotiating position.
The only difference is that the anti UK remoaners, and the labour party are whingeing at what Mays government is doing, but not at the EU leaders, who are doing exactly the same as Mrs May in this matter.
kingston12 said:
brenflys777 said:
The new Richmond MP just had a car crash interview withJulia Hartley-Brewer on Talk Radio.
JHB asked the obvious questions - when's the 2nd by-election? Why is a 4% by-election win a 'clear majority' but not in the referendum, etc.. Some attempt to answer, then she stopped talking and a LibDem press officer said she had to go to another interview!
http://talkradio.co.uk/news/new-richmond-park-mp-s...
Truly frightening. How can the Lib dems have spent so much on this campaign and put in such a lightweight candidate?JHB asked the obvious questions - when's the 2nd by-election? Why is a 4% by-election win a 'clear majority' but not in the referendum, etc.. Some attempt to answer, then she stopped talking and a LibDem press officer said she had to go to another interview!
http://talkradio.co.uk/news/new-richmond-park-mp-s...
Edited by brenflys777 on Friday 2nd December 11:47
If I was a member of the Richmond Park electorate who had voted for her, I'd be demanding that the election be re-run. If that is the best she can do (& I'm guessing the excuse will be she was over-tired due to her victory.) then god help her when she stands up to do her first speech. If she had that interview before the election I would say that her chances would have diminished quite considerably.
Is that the best that the Lid-Dems could do? Because if it is, then god help them too.
don4l said:
Zigster said:
Well, Brexit hasn't actually happened yet. We have no idea what the outcome will look like because Pokerface May isn't telling - Brexit means Brexit, etc. So even if it doesn't change that we leave the EU, it might make May think more carefully about what the country looks like post Brexit.
In the "We won!" obsession of the 52%, there seems to be a lack of comprehension that the 48% wanted something very different and you can't just ignore that.
Why not?In the "We won!" obsession of the 52%, there seems to be a lack of comprehension that the 48% wanted something very different and you can't just ignore that.
Isn't that the reason that we have democracy?
HoHoHo said:
I know it's not about looks but feck me, she fell out of the ugly tree and had a feast in the way down 
She's got more gums than Bassets!
What does her looks (good or bad) have to do with the matter?She's got more gums than Bassets!
I agree she was woeful during the Julie Hartley Brewer interview. But how would you like it if someone talked about the appearance of your wife or your daughter in those terms on a public forum?
EddieSteadyGo said:
What does her looks (good or bad) have to do with the matter?
I agree she was woeful during the Julie Hartley Brewer interview. But how would you like it if someone talked about the appearance of your wife or your daughter in those terms on a public forum?
+1. She is a MP, not a glamour model, so physical assessment is inappropriate.I agree she was woeful during the Julie Hartley Brewer interview. But how would you like it if someone talked about the appearance of your wife or your daughter in those terms on a public forum?
hyphen said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
What does her looks (good or bad) have to do with the matter?
I agree she was woeful during the Julie Hartley Brewer interview. But how would you like it if someone talked about the appearance of your wife or your daughter in those terms on a public forum?
+1. She is a MP, not a glamour model, so physical assessment is inappropriate.I agree she was woeful during the Julie Hartley Brewer interview. But how would you like it if someone talked about the appearance of your wife or your daughter in those terms on a public forum?
hyphen said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
What does her looks (good or bad) have to do with the matter?
I agree she was woeful during the Julie Hartley Brewer interview. But how would you like it if someone talked about the appearance of your wife or your daughter in those terms on a public forum?
+1. She is a MP, not a glamour model, so physical assessment is inappropriate.I agree she was woeful during the Julie Hartley Brewer interview. But how would you like it if someone talked about the appearance of your wife or your daughter in those terms on a public forum?
Surely there are standards to be kept here, even among MPs?? Even Diane Abbot is more attractive 
Biker 1 said:
hyphen said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
What does her looks (good or bad) have to do with the matter?
I agree she was woeful during the Julie Hartley Brewer interview. But how would you like it if someone talked about the appearance of your wife or your daughter in those terms on a public forum?
+1. She is a MP, not a glamour model, so physical assessment is inappropriate.I agree she was woeful during the Julie Hartley Brewer interview. But how would you like it if someone talked about the appearance of your wife or your daughter in those terms on a public forum?
Surely there are standards to be kept here, even among MPs?? Even Diane Abbot is more attractive 
Pan Pan Pan said:
With your final statement I really think you need to see a doctor, an optician, or get your Labrador checked out asap
It's the PH equivilence of beetlejuice - mention "she who must not be named" three times and techiedave appears with his "cherished w
k bank of images"I didn't fully quote for obvious reasons
don4l said:
Why not?
Isn't that the reason that we have democracy?
That's a simplistic understanding of democracy. Democracy runs the risk of being a "tyranny of the majority". For example, one could argue that the ban on fox hunting is an example of a large majority imposing their will unfairly on a small minority, because the majority aren't affected one way or the other by fox hunting, whereas it means a great deal to those who would like to hunt. Clearly there are plenty of other arguments to be made about the pros and cons of fox hunting, but it nonetheless illustrates the idea of a tyranny of the majority.Isn't that the reason that we have democracy?
Where the country is split pretty evenly on an issue, and Brexit is a very good example of that, the government ought to look for an outcome that pisses off as few people as possible. They rule for the nation, not a specific group of voters.
oyster said:
Don't worry.
CaptainSlow is being deliberately obtuse by suggesting that 2+2 does actually equal 5.
More importantly forgetting 3 key things:
1. Goldsmith was held in very high regard in that constituency.
2. It wasn't a single issue election - so comparing percentage votes against a different single issue election is pointless.
3. There would likely have been a chunk of Tory Remain voters who would still rather vote for Goldsmith than countenance voting for the Lib Dems.
Not at all.CaptainSlow is being deliberately obtuse by suggesting that 2+2 does actually equal 5.
More importantly forgetting 3 key things:
1. Goldsmith was held in very high regard in that constituency.
2. It wasn't a single issue election - so comparing percentage votes against a different single issue election is pointless.
3. There would likely have been a chunk of Tory Remain voters who would still rather vote for Goldsmith than countenance voting for the Lib Dems.
This is as close to a one issue election you'll get. The Lib Dems are saying it, the media are saying it, it seems the only people that disagree are you and James Goldsmith, the latter has now found out he was wrong and got his P45.
As I and others have said that this is a swing from 30% to 46% on a Pro-Brexit viewpoint. This may be due to a change is feeling on the subject or the popularity of JG, or maybe a result of lower turnout.
B'stard Child said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
With your final statement I really think you need to see a doctor, an optician, or get your Labrador checked out asap
It's the PH equivilence of beetlejuice - mention "she who must not be named" three times and techiedave appears with his "cherished wk bank of images"I didn't fully quote for obvious reasons
Although he may switch allegiances to the Liberal democrats, given the outcome of this by election.
Biker 1 said:
B'stard Child said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
With your final statement I really think you need to see a doctor, an optician, or get your Labrador checked out asap
It's the PH equivilence of beetlejuice - mention "she who must not be named" three times and techiedave appears with his "cherished wk bank of images"I didn't fully quote for obvious reasons
Although he may switch allegiances to the Liberal democrats, given the outcome of this by election.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff