Friday 2nd December 2016

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 6:42 am

Morning all.

Well, well, well.

That's the days headlines sorted then.

Why Labour are in real trouble.

I wonder how much of this is progressing Lib Dem Dem and anti Government versus anti Brexit. Ie, how would it compare with the parts of the south west that the Lib Dems traditionally have done well in.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 7:22 am

Radio 4 haven't even bothered to mention Labour, so that may not be the case Stephen.
I've been listening since I woke at 6.25am and have had to log on to the internet to find out that Woolmar lost his deposit.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 7:30 am

yahyah wrote:Radio 4 haven't even bothered to mention Labour, so that may not be the case Stephen.
I've been listening since I woke at 6.25am and have had to log on to the internet to find out that Woolmar lost his deposit.

Just listening to the taxpayers word repeating train spokesman on Today. He's on a hiding to nothing with the increase.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 7:45 am

StephenDolan wrote:Morning all.

Well, well, well.

That's the days headlines sorted then.

Why Labour are in real trouble.

I wonder how much of this is progressing Lib Dem Dem and anti Government versus anti Brexit. Ie, how would it compare with the parts of the south west that the Lib Dems traditionally have done well in.

It certainly looks anti-Brexit. And the West Country is quite Brexitty, so hard to say.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 7:46 am

StephenDolan wrote:Morning all.

Well, well, well.

That's the days headlines sorted then.

Why Labour are in real trouble.

I wonder how much of this is progressing Lib Dem Dem and anti Government versus anti Brexit. Ie, how would it compare with the parts of the south west that the Lib Dems traditionally have done well in.

Labour in Richmond Park:
1,600 members
1,515 votes

I think Labour is in trouble if the Lib Dems can make themselves the home for the 48 percent.

Having Lexiters like Corbyn and McDonnell in charge is not very attractive to that group.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 7:57 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
Labour in Richmond Park:
1,600 members
1,515 votes

I think Labour is in trouble if the Lib Dems can make themselves the home for the 48 percent.

Having Lexiters like Corbyn and McDonnell in charge is not very attractive to that group.

Pretty bloody shocking if those numbers are accurate. How the holy hell can Labour have more members than votes ?! Follow the leader they preach - just not as far as the ballot box.....

Huge result for LDs though - overturning a 23k majority is no mean feat.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 8:13 am

pk1 wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
Labour in Richmond Park:
1,600 members
1,515 votes

I think Labour is in trouble if the Lib Dems can make themselves the home for the 48 percent.

Having Lexiters like Corbyn and McDonnell in charge is not very attractive to that group.
Pretty bloody shocking if those numbers are accurate. How the holy hell can Labour have more members than votes ?! Follow the leader they preach - just not as far as the ballot box.....

Huge result for LDs though - overturning a 23k majority is no mean feat.

Straightforward tactical voting. While Labour supporters elsewhere enjoyed electing Labour MPs during the New Labour years, Labour supporters in the South West helped keep them in power by tactically voting for the Libdems. It will take a while to rebuild that informal alliance, but I see no other way to oust the Tories

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 8:25 am

Willow904 wrote:
pk1 wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
Labour in Richmond Park:
1,600 members
1,515 votes

I think Labour is in trouble if the Lib Dems can make themselves the home for the 48 percent.

Having Lexiters like Corbyn and McDonnell in charge is not very attractive to that group.
Pretty bloody shocking if those numbers are accurate. How the holy hell can Labour have more members than votes ?! Follow the leader they preach - just not as far as the ballot box.....

Huge result for LDs though - overturning a 23k majority is no mean feat.
Straightforward tactical voting. While Labour supporters elsewhere enjoyed electing Labour MPs during the New Labour years, Labour supporters in the South West helped keep them in power by tactically voting for the Libdems. It will take a while to rebuild that informal alliance, but I see no other way to oust the Tories

I buy that for Labour supporters but Labour members voting against a Labour candidate ?
Surely that's the kind of behaviour that got some of them suspended and led to much public wailing in the leadership elections.

nickyinnorfolk · Post by **nickyinnorfolk** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 8:37 am

StephenDolan wrote:Morning all.

Well, well, well.

That's the days headlines sorted then.

Why Labour are in real trouble.

I wonder how much of this is progressing Lib Dem Dem and anti Government versus anti Brexit. Ie, how would it compare with the parts of the south west that the Lib Dems traditionally have done well in.

From the Sky News website of all places:

Richmond Park by-election: Zac Goldsmith's defeat is a Tory disaster

http://news.sky.com/story/richmond-park ... r-10679647" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Olney] beat a high-profile Tory with massive name recognition in his own constituency who won by 23,000 in 2015 and was the Conservative candidate for London mayor.

Short of being a senior Cabinet minister or Opposition spokesman, you can't get more high profile than being one of the big parties' candidate for mayor of the capital.

The piece also points out that it's been a terrible week for Theresa May.

Christian Wolmar is quoted for pointing out that Goldsmith's reputation plummeted as a result of his smear campaign against Sadiq Khan.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 8:38 am

That the Labour vote was squeezed so hard in tactical voting is hardly a surprise.

The actual significance is

1. There is some kind of Lib Dem revival happening, which shows up in the by-elections but not the national polls

2. The by-election result should give them a boost

3. By standing as the party of the 48% the Lib Dems have an opportunity to recover, especially as Labour is so appalling on Brexit.

But, in the end I don't think this will translate into many seats in any GE. Come 2020, the Tories will have big billboards in the South West with Corbyn's face on it, and the voters will vote Tory to keep him out.

nickyinnorfolk · Post by **nickyinnorfolk** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 8:50 am

Willow904 wrote:
pk1 wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
Labour in Richmond Park:
1,600 members
1,515 votes

I think Labour is in trouble if the Lib Dems can make themselves the home for the 48 percent.

Having Lexiters like Corbyn and McDonnell in charge is not very attractive to that group.
Pretty bloody shocking if those numbers are accurate. How the holy hell can Labour have more members than votes ?! Follow the leader they preach - just not as far as the ballot box.....

Huge result for LDs though - overturning a 23k majority is no mean feat.
Straightforward tactical voting. While Labour supporters elsewhere enjoyed electing Labour MPs during the New Labour years, Labour supporters in the South West helped keep them in power by tactically voting for the Libdems. It will take a while to rebuild that informal alliance, but I see no other way to oust the Tories

It's quite evidently an 'anyone but Zac' vote.

The 2015 election however saw Labour supporters abandon their usual tactical vote for the LibDems for pretty obvious reasons, chiefly the behaviour of the likes of Clegg and Alexander.

There was still tactical voting during for example the Eastleigh by-election, memorable for the Tory candidate coming in third after Diane James (whatever happened to her

).

However when the new LibDem MP, Mike Thornton, made his debut the following week at PMQs he asked some lickspittle question which shoehorned in an attack on Labour for being unable to win in the South East. (He knew damn well Labour had never won in Eastleigh, not even in '97.)

It was that kind of thing that enabled the Tories to cannibalise their erstwhile partners. Eastleigh is now represented by a fairly anonymous Tory woman called Mims Davies.

nickyinnorfolk · Post by **nickyinnorfolk** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 8:55 am

Sarah Olney also made her campaign as a stand against Brexit. That's very significant.

nickyinnorfolk · Post by **nickyinnorfolk** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 9:00 am

The Mirror reports that Bob Geldof, whom they say is a 'former friend' of Goldsmith, latched onto the anti Brexit aspect of the LibDem campaign and was chanting 'Zac is crap' - which is a bit immature although not inaccurate ....

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 9:33 am

Good morfternoon.

I'm pleased about the Richmond result.

Edited to add -

I'm not surprised at the result for Labour (it's Richmond, after all). I just hope that they take note of the issues and feelings that were reflected in this by-election and act accordingly.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 9:47 am

Morning all. poor Zac, Not been his year really has it?

Richmond: The facts!

https://excelpope.wordpress.com/2016/12 ... the-facts/

What now for Zac Goldsmith?

In the immediate future he’s going to have to stop attending the House of Commons and calling himself an MP. In the longer term he’s probably going to have to get a different job. Hopefully one he’s good at.

I don't think that anyone who saw that picture of him with a pint during the Mayoral election will forget it in a hurry...

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 9:57 am

Family members taking defeat well I see...

Apparently according to the ES he deleted an earlier on saying the LibDem was "'unimaginably drab'"

Charming chap...

Post by **adam** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 9:57 am

Not sorry at all to see Goldsmith lose - beware the independent minded Tory who you hold out hope might have something better to say.

No enthusiasm at all for a Lib Dem win. Until they confront 2010-15 and stop justifying their decisions on the basis of 'we needed to save the country from the Labour party' I'm just not interested. I gave them my vote in 2010 and they gave it to the conservatives. I understand it's more complicated than that and I am being precious but it is my vote, my name, and I won't take the risk of them doing that with it again.

No surprise at the level of the Labour vote - any byelection where they are the outsider party will be pretty irrelevant.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 10:05 am

Note that the new Lib Dem MP herself acknowledged that Labour minded voters had been so incensed by Goldmith's toxic mayoral campaign that they just wanted him out.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 10:07 am

So well done good folk of Richmond Park for standing up for some basic levels of decency and tolerance in politics. I don't think any more needs saying about this result.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 10:13 am

Good-morning, everyone.

ScarletGas · Post by **ScarletGas** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 10:15 am

Great article by Michael Mansfield on the current nature of our democracy and the reasons for its current sorry mess.

Just a couple of observations both of which have been elucidated well BTL.

Firstly the danger of creating another elite whilst removing another.

Secondly, he, surprisingly given his background,completely overlooks the role of the media and its owners in getting us to this point of crisis.

Not sure if the link will work. If not can some kind soul rectify and advise my error. Thanks in advance.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ople-state" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 10:23 am

I'm happy about the Richmond Park result.

Richmond Park by-election results
Electorate__ 77,243
Turnout__ 41,283 (53.45%, -23.01%)

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... byelection" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Almost half the electorate didn't show, according to this.
Why not?

Post by **adam** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 10:25 am

Have the Lib Dems been campaigning for the Labour candidate in Sleaford and North Hykeham for next Thursday? As well as dealing with 2010-15, I'm not very interested in the idea of a progressive alliance until i see them talking about it when they're not the challenger.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 10:29 am

adam wrote:Not sorry at all to see Goldsmith lose - beware the independent minded Tory who you hold out hope might have something better to say.

No enthusiasm at all for a Lib Dem win. Until they confront 2010-15 and stop justifying their decisions on the basis of 'we needed to save the country from the Labour party' I'm just not interested. I gave them my vote in 2010 and they gave it to the conservatives. I understand it's more complicated than that and I am being precious but it is my vote, my name, and I won't take the risk of them doing that with it again.

No surprise at the level of the Labour vote - any byelection where they are the outsider party will be pretty irrelevant.

I shan't be voting LibDem any time soon, either. I'm just glad that the "Independent" Zac Goldsmith lost for all the reasons that he did.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 10:37 am

adam wrote:Have the Lib Dems been campaigning for the Labour candidate in Sleaford and North Hykeham for next Thursday? As well as dealing with 2010-15, I'm not very interested in the idea of a progressive alliance until i see them talking about it when they're not the challenger.

Hear hear

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 10:38 am

PorFavor wrote:I'm just glad that the "Independent" Zac Goldsmith lost for all the reasons that he did.

(cJA edit)

Agreed

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 10:39 am

adam wrote:Have the Lib Dems been campaigning for the Labour candidate in Sleaford and North Hykeham for next Thursday? As well as dealing with 2010-15, I'm not very interested in the idea of a progressive alliance until i see them talking about it when they're not the challenger.

Sadly all talk of Progressive alliance is hot air. Too much hate on all sides.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 10:42 am

On Friday morning, Farron said the victory proved the Lib Dems presented a “moderate, decent alternative” to the Conservatives and Labour.

“Byelections have a habit of not changing the government, but changing the direction of a government,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today
programme. “There’s two main things that came across on the doorstep throughout the campaign and first was undoubtedly the fact
that people were very concerned about the hard Brexit we were heading towards.

"Nearly a third of Tory voters from the last election who voted to leave in June voted Liberal Democrat yesterday."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... byelection" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(my emphasis)

A third of the Tory Leave voters voted Lib Dem in the Richmond Park contest? Can that be accurate?

Post by **adam** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 10:44 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
adam wrote:Have the Lib Dems been campaigning for the Labour candidate in Sleaford and North Hykeham for next Thursday? As well as dealing with 2010-15, I'm not very interested in the idea of a progressive alliance until i see them talking about it when they're not the challenger.

Sadly all talk of Progressive alliance is hot air. Too much hate on all sides.

This strikes me as very much like that talk the other week of Trump republicans outraged that his opponents were angry with him. Labour and the left have every reason to be deeply and widely distrustful of the lib dems, and will continue to have every reason until the lib dems confront 2010-15.

Historically the lib dems are very good at calling for Labour support when they are the challenger and very slow to go out of their way to support labour candidates when they are the outsider third party.

nickyinnorfolk · Post by **nickyinnorfolk** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 10:48 am

adam wrote:Not sorry at all to see Goldsmith lose - beware the independent minded Tory who you hold out hope might have something better to say.

No enthusiasm at all for a Lib Dem win. Until they confront 2010-15 and stop justifying their decisions on the basis of 'we needed to save the country from the Labour party' I'm just not interested. I gave them my vote in 2010 and they gave it to the conservatives. I understand it's more complicated than that and I am being precious but it is my vote, my name, and I won't take the risk of them doing that with it again.

No surprise at the level of the Labour vote - any byelection where they are the outsider party will be pretty irrelevant.

I didn't hear the Today programme (I don't rate it much) but the author Michael Rosen tweets that Tim Farron was 'more concerned to bash Corbyn than fight for progressive politics'. Disappointed but not surprised.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 10:52 am

On the subject of Michael Rosen, I think we had this yesterday but worth repeating.
http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Concerns about immigration"? Where does that come from?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 10:56 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
adam wrote:Have the Lib Dems been campaigning for the Labour candidate in Sleaford and North Hykeham for next Thursday? As well as dealing with 2010-15, I'm not very interested in the idea of a progressive alliance until i see them talking about it when they're not the challenger.
Sadly all talk of Progressive alliance is hot air. Too much hate on all sides.

(cJA emphasis)

The best we can do is not return hate with hate. Hope, peace, cooperation. It's the only way. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. understood
that and devoted his life to non-violent protest against inequality. His message didn't die when he was killed. His speeches and writing
inspire me. They inspire millions. The compassionate power of the man are an antidote to right-wing demagogues.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 10:57 am

In other election news...

Edit - forgot the crop!

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 11:03 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:In other election news...

I like that a lot. Maybe the UKIP candidate doesn't realise why he's followed. It's not because they like you.

nickyinnorfolk · Post by **nickyinnorfolk** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 11:10 am

gilsey wrote:On the subject of Michael Rosen, I think we had this yesterday but worth repeating.
http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Concerns about immigration"? Where does that come from?

Rosen absolutely spot on there.

Wish he could be a speech advisor for Labour

nickyinnorfolk · Post by **nickyinnorfolk** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 11:12 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:In other election news...

Edit - forgot the crop!

Hilarious

What a plank

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 11:12 am

pk1 wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
Labour in Richmond Park:
1,600 members
1,515 votes

I think Labour is in trouble if the Lib Dems can make themselves the home for the 48 percent.

Having Lexiters like Corbyn and McDonnell in charge is not very attractive to that group.
Pretty bloody shocking if those numbers are accurate. How the holy hell can Labour have more members than votes ?! Follow the leader they preach - just not as far as the ballot box.....

Huge result for LDs though - overturning a 23k majority is no mean feat.

Hard though it is to believe looking at past results, Labour have had a remarkably big membership in Richmond for a long time now.

In past GE's members have voted tactically for the LibDem there, the national party turns a blind eye as long as they don't actively campaign against the Labour candidate.

nickyinnorfolk · Post by **nickyinnorfolk** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 11:22 am

Re talk about progressive alliance, I wonder about the wisdom of fringe parties, like Sandi Toksvig's Women's Equality Party. I'm a woman and absolutely 100% for women's equality. But unless we have PR there's no point having a political party promoting such which is only going to split the progressive vote.

I have to admit I don't subscribe to the Sandi Toksivg National Treasure thing. She was very sneery about Ed Miliband and Labour when she used to present the News Quiz. More recently she's been (like Kate Bush) saying she admires Theresa May. Her admiration seems to centre on Mrs May's possession of lady bits and some nebulous notion that she manages to sound like she knows what she's doing (she so doesn't).

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 11:44 am

And I have to agree with SH on one thing - the "progressive alliance" is a pipe dream, at any rate for the time being.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 11:44 am

nickyinnorfolk wrote:Re talk about progressive alliance, I wonder about the wisdom of fringe parties, like Sandi Toksvig's Women's Equality Party. I'm a woman and absolutely 100% for women's equality. But unless we have PR there's no point having a political party promoting such which is only going to split the progressive vote.

(cJA edit)

Thank you for articulating my own thoughts regarding party alliances and the danger of splitting progressive votes in a
non-proportional representation electoral system. One one hand I'm unable to ask anyone to vote against their conscience
and on the other I recognise, for example, an entire constituency gets a Tory MP with only a quarter voting for that outcome.
Dang, you know?

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 11:49 am

Dear me, IDS really is remarkably dim even for a Tory....

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 11:58 am

ScarletGas wrote:Great article by Michael Mansfield on the current nature of our democracy and the reasons for its current sorry mess.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ople-state" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;?

(cJA edit)

"The media keep saying:

"People are expressing concerns about immigration
People are expressing concerns about immigration
People are expressing concerns about immigration"

...people can only think what they think
based on available information.
The media supply the available information.
They keep saying:

'People are expressing concerns about immigration."

The government laughs quietly to itself:
"People do not blame us for their living standards going down,
they blame immigration."'

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 12:00 pm

adam wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
adam wrote:Have the Lib Dems been campaigning for the Labour candidate in Sleaford and North Hykeham for next Thursday? As well as dealing with 2010-15, I'm not very interested in the idea of a progressive alliance until i see them talking about it when they're not the challenger.

Sadly all talk of Progressive alliance is hot air. Too much hate on all sides.
This strikes me as very much like that talk the other week of Trump republicans outraged that his opponents were angry with him. Labour and the left have every reason to be deeply and widely distrustful of the lib dems, and will continue to have every reason until the lib dems confront 2010-15.

Historically the lib dems are very good at calling for Labour support when they are the challenger and very slow to go out of their way to support labour candidates when they are the outsider third party.

Which is all fine of course.

but without some kind of major shake up, Tory rule stretches as far as the eye can see. Labour isn't going to win power on its own ever again.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 12:05 pm

Forecasting that things can "never" happen is something I hoped might have gone out of fashion after the past year or two.

Post by **adam** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 12:10 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:[Labour isn't going to win power on its own ever again.

(c) 1992

If there is an answer it is in PR, and some kind of accommodation around introducing a proper and appropriate modern electoral system.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 12:14 pm

Chuka Umunna: ‘Remain campaigners must drop calls for new Brexit vote’

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics ... 10601.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Labour are leaving me more appalled every day.
Literally no party to vote for now.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 12:16 pm

Please don't take Chuka's latest bit of opportunism as representing anything other than Chuka.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 12:20 pm

Richmond is a wake-up call for Labour's Brexit strategy
No one made Labour stand in Richmond Park.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/st ... t-strategy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 12:24 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:Richmond is a wake-up call for Labour's Brexit strategy
No one made Labour stand in Richmond Park.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/st ... t-strategy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is the "take" that I am a bit wary of. Not that I disagree that Labour's strategy here could be improved both in style and content, but that really *wasn't* the primary reason for their result. And not only were they right to stand a candidate, IMO the Greens and UKIP should have done so as well.

(I expect the eventual outcome would have been the same)

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 02 Dec, 2016 12:45 pm

Grant Shapps
✔
@grantshapps

Tory rules are crystal clear. If someone stands AGAINST the party, then we contest. It was therefore WRONG not to be on Richmond Park ballot
3:35 AM - 2 Dec 2016

58 58 Retweets
104 (Politics Live, Guardian)

I think that Grant Shapps is right on this (although for all the wrong reasons).

If the Conservatives had fielded a candidate, Zac Goldsmith's chances would, I believe, have been better. And then, if\when he'd won, they'd still have a Conservative MP in Richmond Park. By not fielding a candidate they were publicy admitting that Zac Goldsmith was "their man".