Richmond Park by-election.
Discussion
Murph7355 said:
Jimboka said:
Better tell that to the LDs then.
But I doubt you would be so rude when not behind a keyboard......
Whether you or the LibDems wish to cite any change as Brexit related does not necessarily make it so. It's opportunistic whining. Again. (All of which - not just yours - is making this enclave of PH, which used to be a good place for news and reasonable debate a while ago, tedious in the extreme. Little new being added to the debate, just constant tit for tat from both sides).But I doubt you would be so rude when not behind a keyboard......
If I were around you in person sufficiently to have to contend with your bleating, I'd be exactly the same as I am behind the keyboard.
BlackLabel said:
"Put the national interest first"? More like saving themselves from a dire result.
Labour frontbenchers have called on the party not to put forward a candidate to run against Zac Goldsmith in the forthcoming Richmond Park byelection, to give the Liberal Democrats a clear path to try to snatch the seat. Clive Lewis, the shadow business secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, the shadow City minister, and Lisa Nandy, a former shadow cabinet minister, said Labour should “put the national interest first” by doing what it could to reduce the Conservatives’ majority.
Tories doing the same thing for the same and opposite reason, they don't want a shilacking, or to let the LDs win. Labour frontbenchers have called on the party not to put forward a candidate to run against Zac Goldsmith in the forthcoming Richmond Park byelection, to give the Liberal Democrats a clear path to try to snatch the seat. Clive Lewis, the shadow business secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, the shadow City minister, and Lisa Nandy, a former shadow cabinet minister, said Labour should “put the national interest first” by doing what it could to reduce the Conservatives’ majority.
Edited by BlackLabel on Wednesday 26th October 21:15
Already got 4-page newspaper/leaflet type thing through the door from the Libdems yesterday that referred to Tuesday's decision, so while it may have been drawn up in advance, they have mobilised printing and certainly distribution to households very quickly indeed. So it looks like they will be keenly fighting to win back the seat.
I used to live in this area - many people switched to Zac/Tory because we had the highest Council Tax in London. Had to write to him once about planners trying to build unsuitable accommodation in a village and he did reply on the day and the building was eventually stopped. I don't expect that the Heathrow/Brexit issues will change his popularity at a local level - but we will see if people are insane enough to let the LibDems back in!
swamp said:
Zac had no need to resign and force by election; he could have just resigned the whip and carried on as an independent MP.
It is yet another political stunt -- the 5th time he has asked for our vote -- and the last.
Brillo made roughly the same comment on DP, but this costs the taxpayer a few more hundred thousand in pounds.It is yet another political stunt -- the 5th time he has asked for our vote -- and the last.
swamp said:
Zac had no need to resign and force by election; he could have just resigned the whip and carried on as an independent MP.
It is yet another political stunt -- the 5th time he has asked for our vote -- and the last.
Technically resigning the whip can be reversed, but his method cannot, thus assuring a by-election and allowing him to say he stuck to his promise?It is yet another political stunt -- the 5th time he has asked for our vote -- and the last.
kev1974 said:
As a resident I think the LDs will retake the seat. I can't say that Zac has made a lot of difference to the area. Him saying he would resign was a mistake all along, he would be better placed to fight the fight he's on by remaining on the inside of the party. Plus there are other issues that we care about, not just Heathrow!
You reckon? Gonna place a bet?rallycross said:
If my sources(*) are correct its going to be a UkiP win, based on Zak Goldsmith changing party and becoming the new leader of UKiP and standing for re-election as the Ukip candidate for Richmond.
If you lived or worked in Richmond you'd know how crazy adding another runway to Heathrow is going to be, as it is there seems to be a plane overhead every 60 seconds or so and everyone knows how bad traffic is all round West London, it will be even worse with an extra runway at H/R.
All around West London? My daughter lives on The Isle of Dogs, and some days there are planes overhead constantly from 0530-ish in the morning till past 1700 in the evening, never mind every 60 seconds, and so low that you can read the name on the tailplane.If you lived or worked in Richmond you'd know how crazy adding another runway to Heathrow is going to be, as it is there seems to be a plane overhead every 60 seconds or so and everyone knows how bad traffic is all round West London, it will be even worse with an extra runway at H/R.
ATG said:
And what exactly do you think you're bringing to the forum?
Trying to avoid repeating the same tired arguments over, and over, and over regardless of whether a thread warrants it or not?Direct experience and voting history in the constituency in question on this thread?
A general panache, joie de vivre and upbeat attitude about life and love?
Take your pick.
Now, your turn.
rupert the dog said:
rallycross said:
If my sources(*) are correct its going to be a UkiP win, based on Zak Goldsmith changing party and becoming the new leader of UKiP and standing for re-election as the Ukip candidate for Richmond.
If you lived or worked in Richmond you'd know how crazy adding another runway to Heathrow is going to be, as it is there seems to be a plane overhead every 60 seconds or so and everyone knows how bad traffic is all round West London, it will be even worse with an extra runway at H/R.
All around West London? My daughter lives on The Isle of Dogs, and some days there are planes overhead constantly from 0530-ish in the morning till past 1700 in the evening, never mind every 60 seconds, and so low that you can read the name on the tailplane.If you lived or worked in Richmond you'd know how crazy adding another runway to Heathrow is going to be, as it is there seems to be a plane overhead every 60 seconds or so and everyone knows how bad traffic is all round West London, it will be even worse with an extra runway at H/R.
I'm now wondering whether the nutter above who tried to claim that traffic in West London wasn't all that bad had the same misunderstanding as you, as this seems more likely than my previous assumption that he was the MD of Heathrow, and got to fly everywhere in a company helicopter.
ClaphamGT3 said:
Very much to the post above about disruption, unless you have lived in the area since before 1947, I can't really see what you have to complain about
I do live in Richmond and absolutely agree 100%. These kn*bs who moved in last week/month/year and complain about the noise are just that; kn*bs. I hate them in the same way i hate the old sod who moved next to Goodwood race track and has a noise meter in his back garden and monitors the noise. He has the ability to have the track fined/closed for the day if his noise meter is triggered.
Rant over...
7795 said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
Very much to the post above about disruption, unless you have lived in the area since before 1947, I can't really see what you have to complain about
I do live in Richmond and absolutely agree 100%. These kn*bs who moved in last week/month/year and complain about the noise are just that; kn*bs. I hate them in the same way i hate the old sod who moved next to Goodwood race track and has a noise meter in his back garden and monitors the noise. He has the ability to have the track fined/closed for the day if his noise meter is triggered.
Rant over...
I'm assuming that Goodwood had existing noise control regulations in place, and the new neighbour is merely requesting that these be adhered to? As such, it doesn't actually matter whether or not he lived there first. If, on the other hand, he's actually trying to get the permitted noise level reduced below what was there when he moved in, tough, nobody forced him to live there.
I would likewise have no sympathy with people who moved in next to Heathow and then set about trying to get the number of flights reduced, or even people who've moved in since the debate over a third runway started.
People who moved the the area before the debate over a third runway started, on the other hand, have, in my mind, a perfectly valid argument. Imagine someone who lives on the same road as a coach depot. Sometimes it can be a bit of a pain getting in and out of the road if the coaches are moving in and out at the same time, but that's fine, and he knew about the coach depot when he bought the house, so nothing to complain about.
If, though, the coach company announced plans to buy the small park currently between them and his house and use that to expand their business, wouldn't he have cause for complaint? He's lost the park, the coaches are suddenly right on his boundary, and there's much more traffic blocking up his road.
Should he accept that on the grounds that he'd moved in to a road with a coach company on it, or is he entitled to a grievance over the expansion?
GoneAnon said:
He's resigned but the tories won't field a candidate against him? They know that he will vote with the government for pretty much everything else so why risk splitting their vote.
For him, it sounds like a bit of a onvenient way to say how honourable he's being while knowing that he will likely keep his seat and all the perks that go with it.
I agree it does feel a bit like an ego thing for him at the taxpayer's expense so I hope he/they lose.
For him, it sounds like a bit of a onvenient way to say how honourable he's being while knowing that he will likely keep his seat and all the perks that go with it.
I agree it does feel a bit like an ego thing for him at the taxpayer's expense so I hope he/they lose.
He's not doing it because he's honourable. He's doing it because he can't justify his position as the area's MP if he is also part of the Conservative party. Resigning allows him to become the figurehead of the anti-expansion movement for years to come without the constant criticism that he's a member of the party who allowed it to happen.
It's a clever move by Goldsmith but please let's not pretend he's doing it for anything other than his own personal agenda.
What also makes me chuckle is people say how he's "always" been against the expansion of Heathrow. Of course he is, you're never going to win that seat if you are pro-expansion!
MrBarry123 said:
He's not doing it because he's honourable. He's doing it because he can't justify his position as the area's MP if he is also part of the Conservative party. Resigning allows him to become the figurehead of the anti-expansion movement for years to come without the constant criticism that he's a member of the party who allowed it to happen.
It's a clever move by Goldsmith but please let's not pretend he's doing it for anything other than his own personal agenda.
What also makes me chuckle is people say how he's "always" been against the expansion of Heathrow. Of course he is, you're never going to win that seat if you are pro-expansion!
If resigning was giving him an option of switching from a party unlikely to be elected to one more likely to do so, giving him more of a chance at a Cabinet post then fair enough, but what can he possibly hope to gain here? No independent MP ever hangs on for more than an election or so, and then where does he go?
I'm not saying you're wrong, but if you're right, I can't wait to see what he's going to pull out of the hat!
I agree with you in that he'll achieve little politically as an independent MP and he obviously has grand ambitions (London mayoral candidate etc.).
My guess will be that he'll use it as a platform to gain exposure and ultimately will return to the Conservatives once concessions have been inevitably been made on the development of Heathrow.
For him it's a bargaining chip at the moment and I don't for a moment believe he'll remain as an independent until 2020.
My guess will be that he'll use it as a platform to gain exposure and ultimately will return to the Conservatives once concessions have been inevitably been made on the development of Heathrow.
For him it's a bargaining chip at the moment and I don't for a moment believe he'll remain as an independent until 2020.
ATG said:
Murph7355 said:
Jimboka said:
Better tell that to the LDs then.
But I doubt you would be so rude when not behind a keyboard......
Whether you or the LibDems wish to cite any change as Brexit related does not necessarily make it so. It's opportunistic whining. Again. (All of which - not just yours - is making this enclave of PH, which used to be a good place for news and reasonable debate a while ago, tedious in the extreme. Little new being added to the debate, just constant tit for tat from both sides).But I doubt you would be so rude when not behind a keyboard......
If I were around you in person sufficiently to have to contend with your bleating, I'd be exactly the same as I am behind the keyboard.
Jimboka said:
ATG said:
Murph7355 said:
Jimboka said:
Better tell that to the LDs then.
But I doubt you would be so rude when not behind a keyboard......
Whether you or the LibDems wish to cite any change as Brexit related does not necessarily make it so. It's opportunistic whining. Again. (All of which - not just yours - is making this enclave of PH, which used to be a good place for news and reasonable debate a while ago, tedious in the extreme. Little new being added to the debate, just constant tit for tat from both sides).But I doubt you would be so rude when not behind a keyboard......
If I were around you in person sufficiently to have to contend with your bleating, I'd be exactly the same as I am behind the keyboard.
Kermit power said:
People who moved the the area before the debate over a third runway started, on the other hand, have, in my mind, a perfectly valid argument.
The 1978 Aviation White Paper identified Heathrow having restricted capacity, amending it a year later to say capacity was virtually exhausted.So, pre-1979 is the magic year then. They do of course have the option of moving at any time (as does everyone who moved there post 1979).
I moved near Gatwick in 2005, and I'd have no problems with additonal runways here. I point out * to anyone complaining about the noise that the airport was first proposed in 1953, and perceived "loss in value" of their home (which appears to be 99% of the issue) is just swings and roundabouts, because their house was cheaper to buy in the first place.
(* but only via the internet of course)
Ian
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff