Some Labour backbenchers have suggested that they shouldn't put up a candidate for the Richmond by-election. Others - and I agree with them - have said that that would look too much like a stitch-up. It would be better to field a candidate, but not do much campaigning.

 

The Lib Dems will repeat the tactic adopted in Witney and run a strongly pro-EU campaign. They agree with Goldsmith on Heathrow, so they can't differentiate themselves from him on that. However, Goldsmith supported a Leave vote whereas over 70% of Richmond voters supported Remain. I would hope they also remind people of Goldsmith's racist mayoral campaign.

 

It is in the Tories' best interests to get the contest out of the way as soon as possible, so a late November or early December by-election seems likely.

UKIP have announced that they will not be fielding a candidate and will be backing Goldsmith. Whether Goldsmith welcomes that backing may become apparent later.

With Goldsmith resigning following the Heathrow decision does anyone else think this could spiral into an early GE next year as the Tories eat each other up? They only have a majority of 11 now.

Edited October 27, 20168 yr by Steve201

So Goldsmith is the UKIP candidate? Clearly no need for UKIP in the UK now that the Tories have adopted their manifesto. Expect a not so subtle BNP-esque demonstration of what it truly means to be far right for UKIP's 2020 campaign.

Edited October 27, 20168 yr by Harve

With Goldsmith resigning following the Heathrow decision does anyone else think this could spiral into an early GE next year as the Tories eat each other up? They only have a majority of 11 now.

It might, but not for that reason.

So Goldsmith is the UKIP candidate? Clearly no need for UKIP in the UK now that the Tories have adopted their manifesto. Expect a not so subtle BNP-esque demonstration of what it truly means to be far right for UKIP's 2020 campaign.

 

No, he is not.

No, he is not.

It's an easy mistake to make. He looks, sounds and acts like an UKIP candidate.

No, he is not.

He's the UKIP-endorsed candidate, so for all intents and purposes...

so with all the gutless parties backing out totally afraid of giving the locals democratic choices it's left to the Libdems to become the official opposition to a shoo-in candidate.

 

Cowards.

As anticipated, the by-election will be on 1 December. The Lib Dems have select a local woman as their candidate, thereby resisting the temptation to choose one of the bigger names from their list of ex-MPs.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/n...-brexit-process

 

Even a Brexiteer Tory can have shame. Anyway, this means a by-election in Sleaford and North Hykeham, although this is a Tory safe seat, so I doubt the Tories will lose a MP should they decide to field a new candidate in the constituency.

The odds in the Richmond by-election haven't changed much for over a week. Goldsmith is the odds-on favourite with Sarah Olney (Lib Dem) at 5/2. The Lib Dem strategy of concentrating on the EU (given that the main candidates all agree on Heathrow) looks to be having some success.

The last figures I heard were:

 

IND 46.7

LD 43.3

LAB 9.5

 

which suggests the Lib Dems could do it! Here's hoping. : )

Result of Richmond Park is expected about 0200-0230. Polls have now closed and turnout less than 50% apparently.

 

Let's hope the cold stopped the elderly from voting for Zac. :D

Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrats) - 20,510

Zac Goldsmith (Independent) - 18,638

 

Zac humiliated for the second time in 2016! Haha, brilliant. Sarah Olney swells the Lib Dem contingent in Parliament by 12.5%, they now have 9 MPs. The Tory majority also falls from 12 to 10.

 

Edited December 2, 20168 yr by Doctor Blind

And the embarrassment for the Lib Dems of having no female MPs is at an end. I suspect Goldsmith's racist Mayoral campaign weakened his support. The Lib Dems' good performance in Witney helped to boost morale which, in turn, led to last night's result.

It looks like the Lib Dem strategy of being the 'protest vote party' a la 2005 + 2010 has paid off - becoming the pro-EU party in the face of the public obviously won them the vote, and if a few more byelections crop up in Remain areas, they could swell their ranks even more.

Brilliant to see the back of this twat and to see that his little stunt backfired spectacularly

It looks like the Lib Dem strategy of being the 'protest vote party' a la 2005 + 2010 has paid off

 

Can anybody aim to be a 'protest vote party'? The Lib Dems do have a fixed set of policies that haven't dramatically changed, so can't really see them chasing the "protest" vote.

 

The reason they fell from grace in 2015 was because few of those policies could not be realised when they were a very small part of the government. When they did get something through (cutting the lowest rate of tax etc.) the Tories pretended it was their idea...and then blamed the Lib Dems for being complicit in voting along with them on really shitty decisions (tuition fees etc.)

 

- becoming the pro-EU party in the face of the public obviously won them the vote,

 

They've always been pro-EU. Maybe their voice is getting stronger somewhere?

 

and if a few more byelections crop up in Remain areas, they could swell their ranks even more.

 

Here's hoping. The Tories have a very slender majority. Just another 8 by-elections to go...

Edited December 2, 20168 yr by richie

Can anybody aim to be a 'protest vote party'? The Lib Dems do have a fixed set of policies that haven't dramatically changed, so can't really see them chasing the "protest" vote.

 

The reason they fell from grace in 2015 was because few of those policies could not be realised when they were a very small part of the government. When they did get something through (cutting the lowest rate of tax etc.) the Tories pretended it was their idea...and then blamed the Lib Dems for being complicit in voting along with them on really shitty decisions (tuition fees etc.)

 

But their success, in my mind, in 2005 & 2010 has been as a result of taking a strong stand on an issue that has provided divisive and making it appear to be the core aim of the party. If you were to ask 'the man on the street', in 2005 you would have said that the Lib Dems were the party of opposition to the Iraq War (and to a lesser extent, to the opposition of ID cards), and in 2010, there were the party opposed to tuition fees - in the latter case, I had friends from home who changed their polling area from NI to the uni towns they were studying in in England/Scotland for the sole reason that the Lib Dens were standing there + had promised to stop the hike in tuition fees. I know that they had many other policies, but in the eye of many people, the party were defined by those key issues.

 

They've always been pro-EU. Maybe their voice is getting stronger somewhere?

 

 

Being pro-EU party didn't matter one jot when a) we were safely in the EU, and b) there was no realistic possibility that we were going to leave. The vote in June changed everything. It seems that politics is realigning between the pro-EU and anti-EU sides, and as the Liberal Democrats are now the biggest Great Britain-wide party that have made staying in the EU their central plank (now that the Conservatives are more or less firmly behind triggering Article 50, and Labour have more or less gone the same way), they are in the biggest position to benefit from the votes of the 48% of Remainers by making it their key policy to "the man on the street". It worked in Richmond, and it'll work in other by-elections in other Remain-majoirity territories.