carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,889 
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 25, 2016 22:20:42 GMT
I understand the Lib Dem position is no new runway anywhere. In other words populist nonsense. Then why are you supporting them u daft prat? |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,889
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 25, 2016 22:22:55 GMT
Honestly think Labour is the best option here  Is there no end to your daftness and pratness? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 22:42:40 GMT
Honestly think Labour is the best option here Is there no end to your daftness and pratness? Well I didnt suggest Green. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,889
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 25, 2016 22:49:13 GMT
Is there no end to your daftness and pratness? Well I didnt suggest Green. Not yet Joe! Not yet!! If you are a Conservative and in favour of a new runway why are you not intending to vote Goldsmith? Yes, I know he is anti-runway but in all other respects he is going to be part of the Conservative majority. And the party need it. Why vote LD and enhance the chance of your opponents making a signal advance whilst also weakening the May administration? Why? |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,005
|
Post by Khunanup on Oct 25, 2016 23:00:08 GMT
Well I didnt suggest Green. Not yet Joe! Not yet!! If you are a Conservative and in favour of a new runway why are you not intending to vote Goldsmith? Yes, I know he is anti-runway but in all other respects he is going to be part of the Conservative majority. And the party need it. Why vote LD and enhance the chance of your opponents making a signal advance whilst also weakening the May administration? Why? Why would Joe have any interest in supporting the May administration? A more flaccid group of rank amateurs you're never likely to see. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Oct 25, 2016 23:07:01 GMT
I understand the Lib Dem position is no new runway anywhere. In other words populist nonsense. If I was thinking of a cheap populist policy, it would be build more runways, encourage more airlines by subsidising landing fees and getting rid of air passenger duty. I don't see how 'no new runways' is populist, its saying we need to stop growing air transport, people don't generally like to hear that. It is populist because a large section of the population can be relied upon to oppose any infrastructure project that might inconvenience them while simultaneously expecting improvements to the nation's infrastructure. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,889
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 25, 2016 23:30:51 GMT
Not yet Joe! Not yet!! If you are a Conservative and in favour of a new runway why are you not intending to vote Goldsmith? Yes, I know he is anti-runway but in all other respects he is going to be part of the Conservative majority. And the party need it. Why vote LD and enhance the chance of your opponents making a signal advance whilst also weakening the May administration? Why? Why would Joe have any interest in supporting the May administration? A more flaccid group of rank amateurs you're never likely to see. Because he says he is a Conservative. And because you are very much in error. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,005
|
Post by Khunanup on Oct 25, 2016 23:34:28 GMT
Why would Joe have any interest in supporting the May administration? A more flaccid group of rank amateurs you're never likely to see. Because he says he is a Conservative. And because you are very much in error. Oh, ok then... |
|
|
|
Post by connorw on Oct 26, 2016 8:10:14 GMT
As a Conservative supporter for most of my life, I am torn. On the one hand I want to see Goldsmith punished for doing this (he's foolishly putting his entire political career on the line), but at the same time I don't want to give the Lib Dems an inch. Their polling numbers, at long last, could get a huge boost if they gain this seat. I am too young to appreciate the Conservative landslides of the Eighties and I'll like think I'll see at least one more before I die! Then a further thought occurs: a Lib Dem boost might not necessarily be all at the Conservatives' expense what with the current Labour leadership. You'll see one in 2020 (or whenever the next election is), I'm sure of it! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2016 9:04:44 GMT
I lived in Richmond Park for a while. If Goldsmith stands as an independent, the result will be somewhat unpredictable, though I would expect a Lib Dem gain as the most likely outcome. If he doesn't, I'd lay money on the Lib Dems gaining the seat by a large margin. If Goldsmith stands as an indy, I would bet on him doubling the lib dem vote. I don't know how long since you lived in RP, but its banker central and one of the most right wing seats going. I lived just off Ham Common 2005-7, but still have friends in the area and go back regularly. Richmond isn't right-wing in any sense I would recognise - it's an echo-chamber of flabby middle-class self-congratulation. To slightly qualify my earlier comments about Goldsmith's chances: to win this he has to turn the by-election into a referendum on Heathrow and nothing else, drumming home the idea that voting for any other candidate will blur the message on expansion of the airport. Personally, I don't think he'll be able to do that. |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,692
|
Post by mboy on Oct 26, 2016 9:35:23 GMT
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 26, 2016 10:16:45 GMT
I think the fact the Tories have been so transparent about this makes it at least a possibility, though my gut instinct remains that we should fight any and every election  |
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Oct 26, 2016 11:04:52 GMT
On the other hand, I am uneasy about parties not contesting by-elections as we have a tradition in this country since the 1970s that everyone should be able to vote for all the major parties wherever they live. I even felt ambivalent about Batley and Spen not being contested by the other big parties. ^This. The major parties should be standing in all by-elections, regardless of circumstances, so the people who want to vote for them can do so. I understand some of the reasoning behind not standing in certain by-elections but being able to give your supporters a chance to vote for you is vitally important in a democracy. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 26, 2016 11:16:50 GMT
Looking like Labour are going to put forward a sacrificial lamb candidate now.
|
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Oct 26, 2016 11:21:30 GMT
Looking like Labour are going to put forward a sacrificial lamb candidate now. Know that labour didn't have much of a chance anyway but all this talk of not standing has undermined the potential candidate before the campaign has even got off the ground. |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,692
|
Post by mboy on Oct 26, 2016 11:34:59 GMT
Know that labour didn't have much of a chance anyway but all this talk of not standing has undermined the potential candidate before the campaign has even got off the ground. Good. That's nearly as good as not standing. If Labour do stand, they could do either of two things: either a paper-ish candidate who turns up and goes through the motions; or a spoiler campaign that, for e.g., uses the results of the Mayoral election in all their literature to pretend they are in second and "can win". Anything that makes the latter less likely and the former more likely is good... Also, if the Green Party stand a candidate, let the smug Caroline Lucas never against spout her "progressive alliance" fluffy rhetoric - it should be seen for the ruse it is. |
|
|
|
Post by warofdreams on Oct 26, 2016 13:01:06 GMT
It's up to each party whether to choose to stand, but I don't agree with any moral case for standing aside - here, in Batley and Spen, Haltemprice and Howden, wherever.
Tactically, there can be a good case for not contesting, though it's hard to see how Labour would benefit in this instance. Only possibilities I can think of are either if the party decided they wanted to go for the "progressive alliance" concept, which most of it doesn't, or they were so torn over whether to support Heathrow that it would tear the party apart - and there are much larger issues doing that!
Will be interesting to see if the Labour candidate is pro- or anti-Heathrow expansion and how that affects their vote; I think we can take it as read that they will have opposed Brexit.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,299
|
Post by maxque on Oct 26, 2016 13:17:45 GMT
It's up to each party whether to choose to stand, but I don't agree with any moral case for standing aside - here, in Batley and Spen, Haltemprice and Howden, wherever. Would you agree with the Bristol South East, 1963 moral case? Tony Benn became a peer in 1961 (unwillingly, through inheriting a title), so his seat was vacated. He stood anyways in the by-election and won, but as he was ineligible, the Conservative loser was declared elected. Once the law has been changed, the Conservative MP resigned and Conservatives stood no candidate in the 1963 by-election, as Labour clearly won in 1961. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Oct 26, 2016 14:18:08 GMT
I think the Tories should have stood and I think Labour should too.
I can just about see the logic of parties standing aside in Batley & Spen, on the basis that the GE result should not be subject to interference by a criminal act. But this by-election is part for the normal political process, whereby a mandate is being sought. The public should have the full choice of normal options so long as the parties have the resources to put up candidates.
If Labour chooses not to campaign hard in a constituency where they have little prospect of success and where they do not want to help the government, that is their prerogative, but the public should not be deprived of the option of registering their support for Labour, or indeed their opposition to the LDs and Goldsmith.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 26, 2016 14:48:51 GMT
I think that reasoning helps explain why Labour do look like standing now. And, on balance, I probably agree.
|
|
