|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Oct 26, 2016 14:52:34 GMT
mboy and I have been agreeing a bit too much lately so it's good to get back to the old ways... 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". A Lib Dem complaining about another party grabbing the most favourable set of figures to hand to claim that they're the only alternative? Well I never!
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Oct 26, 2016 15:15:02 GMT
The Green Party will also be standing a candidate here-details to follow.
|
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,557
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 26, 2016 15:24:55 GMT
Any proper poll should have options which allow everyone to answer. This one doesn't; there should be a "something else" option.
|
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Oct 26, 2016 16:25:51 GMT
The Green Party will also be standing a candidate here-details to follow. Zac Goldsmith? |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 26, 2016 16:27:10 GMT
You jest perhaps, but that *might* just have been a possibility before his mayoral mishaps.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Oct 26, 2016 16:32:38 GMT
I really don't think we should stand. Its clearly a put up job or the Tories would be opposing him.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Oct 26, 2016 16:59:01 GMT
So we are going to have a by-election with the two main participants being anti-Heathrow expansion. The purpose being ... ? There's a strong argument that the Conservatives should have put up an official candidate to give locals who want expansion - of whom there will clearly be some, especially those with an interest in business opportunities - a chance to register their views. Heathrow expansion has after all been announced as the government's preferred option, and a by-election has been called on the issue, yet the government is not going to put up a candidate to defend their position. I'm against airport expansion anywhere on emissions grounds but the alternative view is arguable and should be argued IMO. I'm not convinced that airport expansion is arguable without a heavy dose of climate change denial. 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. Surely the populist position on new runways would be to oppose those that negatively affect the constituency in question but support those that are near enough to provide cheap flights but far enough away that the constituency isn't affected. The Lib Dems have fairly consistently been strong on the issue of climate change (well, as much as they've been consistent on anything  ), which makes their stance on this issue much more difficult to portray as populist. 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. She's come out against us standing a candidate, but the decision on whether to stand is made by the local party, and the national party has no power to force the decision. Incidentally, I'm seeing some Greens on social media say this wouldn't be an example of the potential for a progressive alliance because they don't think the Lib Dems are progressive. |
|
|
|
Post by warofdreams on Oct 26, 2016 17:13:02 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. I think the only case is when a party has already stated they won't contest; as I understand, St Clair, the Conservative appointed by the court in 1961, promised to resign if Benn was able to renounce his peerage, but didn't make any promises about whether he would stand again, and I think he would have been fully entitled to do so. Otherwise, another Tory could have stood, and the other parties would have been perfectly justified in contesting the by-election and giving voters a choice - instead Edward Martell stood as a proxy for them, and did well for an independent of the period. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2016 17:33:14 GMT
The Lib Dems have fairly consistently been strong on the issue of climate change (well, as much as they've been consistent on anything ), which makes their stance on this issue much more difficult to portray as populist. Actually, they've pretty consistently supported airport expansion in Aberdeenshire, despite opposing it at a UK level. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Oct 26, 2016 17:55:34 GMT
The Lib Dems have fairly consistently been strong on the issue of climate change (well, as much as they've been consistent on anything ), which makes their stance on this issue much more difficult to portray as populist. Actually, they've pretty consistently supported airport expansion in Aberdeenshire, despite opposing it at a UK level. As I said, "as much as they've been consistent on anything " |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2016 19:22:09 GMT
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. Have the LibDems approached the greens to discuss them giving way? And what have the LibDems offered in return? An alliance - or coalition  - requires both sides to give something... |
|
|
|
Post by thecatman on Oct 26, 2016 19:30:07 GMT
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. Have the LibDems approached the greens to discuss them giving way? And what have the LibDems offered in return? An alliance - or coalition - requires both sides to give something... Indeed. It's amazing that parties wanting to work with the Greens essentially say 'lend us your vote' when offering nothing in return. Where I live the Greens were asked to stand down a candidate in a local election to help Labour, and in return Labour would only deliver one leaflet in the seat of a Green councillor, and not criticise the Green Councillor. What a bad deal! |
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,843 
|
Post by Crimson King on Oct 26, 2016 19:38:02 GMT
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. Have the LibDems approached the greens to discuss them giving way? And what have the LibDems offered in return? An alliance - or coalition - requires both sides to give something... I don't for a moment think we have, or would, or should. But it isn't us who are going on about progressive alliances |
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,689
Member is Online
|
Post by Jack on Oct 26, 2016 19:59:58 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2016 20:32:57 GMT
|
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,714
|
Post by mboy on Oct 26, 2016 20:39:38 GMT
Incidentally, I'm seeing some Greens on social media say this wouldn't be an example of the potential for a progressive alliance because they don't think the Lib Dems are progressive. So this 'progressive alliance' we keep hearing about consists of just Labour and the Green Party, currently polling a combined 31% in the polls. ROFL. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Oct 26, 2016 20:44:15 GMT
"...a woman of relentless optimism..."I hate her already. "It is demonstrable," said he, "that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end. Observe, for instance, the nose is formed for spectacles, therefore we wear spectacles. The legs are visibly designed for stockings, accordingly we wear stockings. Stones were made to be hewn and to construct castles, therefore My Lord has a magnificent castle; for the greatest baron in the province ought to be the best lodged. Swine were intended to be eaten, therefore we eat pork all the year round: and they, who assert that everything is right, do not express themselves correctly; they should say that everything is best.” Only Pangloss can win here! |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Oct 26, 2016 20:45:56 GMT
Given that the local Tories are against Heathrow would someone in favour need to be imposed on the party locally? I know the Tories guard local selection of candidates jealously but surely the vast bulk will support Goldsmith ? I presume you mean in RP, Mike, because I can tell you about plenty of cack-handed candidate selections in the Conservatives! |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Oct 26, 2016 21:06:15 GMT
Incidentally, I'm seeing some Greens on social media say this wouldn't be an example of the potential for a progressive alliance because they don't think the Lib Dems are progressive. So this 'progressive alliance' we keep hearing about consists of just Labour and the Green Party, currently polling a combined 31% in the polls. ROFL. I, for one, never thought the "progressive alliance" was a realistic possibility (which was one of the reasons I didn't give Lucas/Bartley my first preference in our leadership election). But given that a large proportion of the Left still view the coalition period as the Lib Dems selling out any left-wing principles they had, there was always going to be some grassroots opposition to the idea of including you in any such alliance, no matter how sensible doing so would be. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Oct 26, 2016 21:07:09 GMT
Incidentally, I'm seeing some Greens on social media say this wouldn't be an example of the potential for a progressive alliance because they don't think the Lib Dems are progressive. So this 'progressive alliance' we keep hearing about consists of just Labour and the Green Party, currently polling a combined 31% in the polls. ROFL. And Plaid, and Plaid. |
|
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".
), which makes their stance on this issue much more difficult to portray as populist.
- requires both sides to give something...
