Richmond Park by-election.
Discussion
jonnyb said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
RYH64E said:
Ironically, the reason for the referendum being called in the first place was an attempt to placate the eurosceptic wing of the Conservative Party and head off the threat of UKIP, however it looks to have created more divisions than it healed. There's now a significant percentage of long standing Conservative voters, myself included, whose vote can no longer be relied upon.
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
I have been a life long conservative voter, no longer.
There is a strong working class electorate that vote tory but they are not servicing them. They could secure their vote with a few cheap (in both senses of the word) policies but they refuse. It's a big risk, and not one that is likely to pay off.
One problem for the tories is that brexit will dominate the next few years. My assumption (not based on evidence just talking to people) that the subject is over for many of those who voted remain. All I want is the best deal for the country. It won't be a factor in the next election unless the terms are dreadful.
One positive from my point of view is the plummet in the labour vote. I've voted labour in the past, but this is not the party I voted for then.
Piersman2 said:
Am I missing something?
If the inference from the Lib Dems and the BBC is that this was turned into a Brexit/Remain vote, it doesn't look good for the remainers.
During the referendum 70% voted remain.
Last night the Lib Dems won the seat with 50%.
That's a 20% drop in support for remaining.
Apparently.
Why are the Lib Dems and the BBC trumpeting this as a tidalwave of support for a non-hard Brexit? (Whatever that is actually supposed to mean)
ETA - I notice a few others above have asked the same question.
It's the echo chamber and confirmation bias. First the triggering leaving Friday morning (Cameron lie, he never expected or planned on losing), then they try to get us to believe hard Brexit is really really bad, then they say it enough, that some people drift (and the only need a 2% swing) into okay a soft Brexit then, then it will become softer, they'll hope that some economic downturn will pop up, just waiting, waiting for "events dear boy" and just enough people will get bored of being frustrated and then that can be used as a pretext to push a remain vote through parliament. And we remain.If the inference from the Lib Dems and the BBC is that this was turned into a Brexit/Remain vote, it doesn't look good for the remainers.
During the referendum 70% voted remain.
Last night the Lib Dems won the seat with 50%.
That's a 20% drop in support for remaining.
Apparently.
Why are the Lib Dems and the BBC trumpeting this as a tidalwave of support for a non-hard Brexit? (Whatever that is actually supposed to mean)
ETA - I notice a few others above have asked the same question.
Edited by Piersman2 on Friday 2nd December 09:39
It's Orwellian.
EddieSteadyGo said:
I think you are over analysing the significance of public opinion towards 'Brexit' in this constituency for three reasons;
Possibly, but still interesting.EddieSteadyGo said:
The real conclusion here is that Zac Goldsmith overestimated his "personal" vote.
And now we can all see he acted in a self important and pompous way. If he had fought as a Conservative, he would have won.
Agreed, he is a fool. I don't think he would have won as a Tory either. By-elections are known to be protest votes against the Government so combined with a Pro-Brexit stance he was onto a hiding. The bigger surprise would have been if he had won.And now we can all see he acted in a self important and pompous way. If he had fought as a Conservative, he would have won.
CaptainSlow said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
I think you are over analysing the significance of public opinion towards 'Brexit' in this constituency for three reasons;
Possibly, but still interesting.EddieSteadyGo said:
The real conclusion here is that Zac Goldsmith overestimated his "personal" vote.
And now we can all see he acted in a self important and pompous way. If he had fought as a Conservative, he would have won.
Agreed, he is a fool. I don't think he would have won as a Tory either. By-elections are known to be protest votes against the Government so combined with a Pro-Brexit stance he was onto a hiding. The bigger surprise would have been if he had won.And now we can all see he acted in a self important and pompous way. If he had fought as a Conservative, he would have won.
It would have only needed to create just over a 2% increase in turnout for him to have won. That would have been pretty easy to achieve.
jonnyb said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
jonnyb said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
RYH64E said:
Ironically, the reason for the referendum being called in the first place was an attempt to placate the eurosceptic wing of the Conservative Party and head off the threat of UKIP, however it looks to have created more divisions than it healed. There's now a significant percentage of long standing Conservative voters, myself included, whose vote can no longer be relied upon.
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
I have been a life long conservative voter, no longer.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if (highly unlikely I know) a few key Tories crossed the floor and joined the Lib Dems. Osborne setting out a centre-right Lib Dem agenda could really put the cat amongst the pigeons.....
Let's be realistic... come the election there won't be a viable alternative for people who want a stable, pro business, low/ish tax government.
As on the other side will be Corbyn threatening to inflict his version of Cuban style socialism.
My hope would be to force a re run of the 2010 coalition government, probably one of the best governments I have seen.
EddieSteadyGo said:
The reason I suggest he would have won had he accepted the Conservative ticket, is that he would have benefited from the full force of the Conservative electoral machine.
It would have only needed to create just over a 2% increase in turnout for him to have won. That would have been pretty easy to achieve.
Possibly, I'd suggest that being on the Tory ticket would have been more of a liability than a benefit for a by-election in this particular constituency at this time. It would have only needed to create just over a 2% increase in turnout for him to have won. That would have been pretty easy to achieve.
eta
We'll never know.
Piersman2 said:
Am I missing something?
During the referendum 70% voted remain.
Last night the Lib Dems won the seat with 50%.
That's a 20% drop in support for remaining.
Seems obvious to me too, the media seem to be living in opposite world, if any part of this result is going to be attributed to the referendum, then from the maths (same constituency, same voters), it's a huge drop in support for remain.During the referendum 70% voted remain.
Last night the Lib Dems won the seat with 50%.
That's a 20% drop in support for remaining.
jonnyb said:
Wow!
Alistair Campbell would be proud of that level of spin!
It's no more or less spin than Olney's victory speech. There is nothing more concrete to substantiate her claims (nor what Farron///ajd spout for the rest of the month). Alistair Campbell would be proud of that level of spin!
I lived in Richmond for 8yrs across 2 stints under both colours of MP. As CaptainSlow notes, it would have been far more surprising had Goldsmith won.
It's a shame he didn't - it would have been a hammer blow to the LibDems.
Hopefully Olney will focus on local issues more than busying herself with trying to derail Brexit. When I was last there (last year) the high street was looking depressing, a process that started in 2010. It was a fantastic place to live.
Murph7355 said:
jonnyb said:
Wow!
Alistair Campbell would be proud of that level of spin!
It's no more or less spin than Olney's victory speech. There is nothing more concrete to substantiate her claims (nor what Farron///ajd spout for the rest of the month). Alistair Campbell would be proud of that level of spin!
I lived in Richmond for 8yrs across 2 stints under both colours of MP. As CaptainSlow notes, it would have been far more surprising had Goldsmith won.
It's a shame he didn't - it would have been a hammer blow to the LibDems.
Hopefully Olney will focus on local issues more than busying herself with trying to derail Brexit. When I was last there (last year) the high street was looking depressing, a process that started in 2010. It was a fantastic place to live.
Kingston was always the better place to live and you know it!
Our section of river is much nicer!
iphonedyou said:
I'd posit the people of Naples give not a fig, in all honesty.
And please, don't use the word 'elite' without knowing what it means. It's becoming as devalued as 'racist'.
I doubt Naples gives a fig also, expressions of the day and tongue in cheek, you must learn to restrain yourself though, you're not getting any younger.And please, don't use the word 'elite' without knowing what it means. It's becoming as devalued as 'racist'.
Edited by iphonedyou on Friday 2nd December 09:11
jonnyb said:
Ha!
Kingston was always the better place to live and you know it!
Our section of river is much nicer!
Kingston?! I'd rather live in Surbiton Kingston was always the better place to live and you know it!
Our section of river is much nicer!
In all seriousness, Kingston did seem to be on an upwards trajectory and Richmond down to me.
(Still a long way to go before you'd volunteer to live in the former over the latter though
If only for Maki on Kew Rd). CaptainSlow said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
The reason I suggest he would have won had he accepted the Conservative ticket, is that he would have benefited from the full force of the Conservative electoral machine.
It would have only needed to create just over a 2% increase in turnout for him to have won. That would have been pretty easy to achieve.
Possibly, I'd suggest that being on the Tory ticket would have been more of a liability than a benefit for a by-election in this particular constituency at this time. It would have only needed to create just over a 2% increase in turnout for him to have won. That would have been pretty easy to achieve.
eta
We'll never know.
In this particular by-election, the Lib Dems got a very high proportion of their vote out, plus they persuaded Green and Labour votes to back then on a tactical basis. This combined equates to circa 20,000 votes, so similar to 2015.
On the Conservative side, they have around 30,000 people in the constituency naturally inclined to vote Conservative.
Zac just didn't do a good enough job of getting them out to vote. As I mentioned above, if he had used the Conservative party machine to increase turnout to just 56%, he would have won.
EddieSteadyGo said:
CaptainSlow said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
The reason I suggest he would have won had he accepted the Conservative ticket, is that he would have benefited from the full force of the Conservative electoral machine.
It would have only needed to create just over a 2% increase in turnout for him to have won. That would have been pretty easy to achieve.
Possibly, I'd suggest that being on the Tory ticket would have been more of a liability than a benefit for a by-election in this particular constituency at this time. It would have only needed to create just over a 2% increase in turnout for him to have won. That would have been pretty easy to achieve.
eta
We'll never know.
In this particular by-election, the Lib Dems got a very high proportion of their vote out, plus they persuaded Green and Labour votes to back then on a tactical basis. This combined equates to circa 20,000 votes, so similar to 2015.
On the Conservative side, they have around 30,000 people in the constituency naturally inclined to vote Conservative.
Zac just didn't do a good enough job of getting them out to vote. As I mentioned above, if he had used the Conservative party machine to increase turnout to just 56%, he would have won.
El stovey said:
CaptainSlow said:
El stovey said:
Look this is pointless. She's obviously not pro Brexit. This isn't a pro Brexit result.
FFS, I haven't said she is Pro-Brexit, she and her party are Pro-Remain!!!!CaptainSlow said:
Rubbish.
As this was a 70% Remain area it actually swung towards a Leave candidate. So a clear statement that the people of Richmond Park have moved towards a Leave view. A clear statement that the country wants a Hard Brexit.
As this was a 70% Remain area it actually swung towards a Leave candidate. So a clear statement that the people of Richmond Park have moved towards a Leave view. A clear statement that the country wants a Hard Brexit.
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.
It's quite clear to me that the people of Richmond didn't know what they were voting for.
Maybe they were 'low information' voters, seduced by BBC, Guardian and Economist propaganda, brainwashed by demagogues like Branson, Geldof and Blair. Can we trust people like this with the big decisions affecting us all, like who sits in parliament?
We need a second vote, a chance to get it right. The country needs saving from this kind of person.
Also:
Maybe they were 'low information' voters, seduced by BBC, Guardian and Economist propaganda, brainwashed by demagogues like Branson, Geldof and Blair. Can we trust people like this with the big decisions affecting us all, like who sits in parliament?
We need a second vote, a chance to get it right. The country needs saving from this kind of person.
Also:
Edited by Mark Benson on Friday 2nd December 11:35
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff