[Closed] Zac Goldsmith

Thanks for that insight, especially 1) which hasn't been widely reported in the news.

Probably because it's not true. Goldsmith took the seat in 2010 with a comfortable majority, and increased it further in 2015.

7 % swing to win it in 2010 16% in 2015

The lowest the LibDems polled in the constituency before 2015 was Sarah Kramer in 2010 at 42.8% vote share. In 2015 they lost more than half their vote and ended up with 19.3%. That is an extraordinary swing in a General Election by any definition. Goldsmith is the only Tory MP the constituency has ever had.

For me Tony Blair's worst mistake was not to push hard for PR when he had the post-landslide opportunity to do so.

Generally speaking, people winning landslide victories under first-past-the-post haven't been overly keen on PR for some strange reason.

I may be corrected, but I'm pretty sure no party has won an outright majority of the popular vote in modern (say, post 1945) general elections in the UK.

Well der!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3343589.stm

"The issue was discussed behind the scenes between former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown and Tony Blair before the 1997 election - but ruled out after Labour won by a landslide."

I can't find a source, but as TB was about to speak to the crowd from their doorstep, immediately after the 1997 election Cherie mouthed something like "don't let this weaken your resolve..." thought. They guy's just won so what can she mean? Temptation to get stuff done in a majority was too strong (albeit they didn't get all that much done at first).

(and on tactical voting, I did say I'd try.)

Off to a good start then

shes just following in zacs car crash interview footsteps, tbf he usually sticks around to the end and keeps on digging

I am sure you constantly attacking [corbyn] as cult of personality liberal metropolitan elite and part of the Islington set who are out of touch with normal working class northern folk is in no way helping that scenario occur

Binners may have some influence in sweary northern pubs where he is regarded as a serial quaffer in muddy clothing, but putting Corbyn's desperate lack of appeal down to that is a bit much.

You may have to accept that his particular brand of militant trotskyism was not that well received in the 70's. It's even more out of touch now.

People have always been tickled by extremists; left or right, but the way forward is middle. BNP, UKIP, Tories; all look foolish after a while.

If the Libs are rehabilitating themselves after the Coalition, labour should rightly be scared.

The lowest the LibDems polled in the constituency before 2015 was Sarah Kramer in 2010 at 42.8% vote share. In 2015 they lost more than half their vote and ended up with 19.3%. That is an extraordinary swing in a General Election by any definition. Goldsmith is the only Tory MP the constituency has ever had.

It was a considerably smaller swing than the one back to the Lib Dems one year later...and Goldsmith had a comfortable majority in 2010

You may have to accept that his particular brand of militant trotskyism was not that well received in the 70's. It's even more out of touch now.

I suspect anyone describing Corbyn as a militant Trot is much more familiar with ridiculous hyperbole than they are with political history.

Hyperbole? In Politics?

Unpossible.

I really wouldn't read too much into Richmond. 70% Remain and if I lived there I wouldn't have voted for Zac given his ludicrous egotistical resignation. I do not believe his loss will make any difference to Brexit so I would not have voted on Brexit grounds for him.

EDIT: quality find Ninfan 🙂

Remainers want a second Referendum on the deal as it will surely be rejected, Remainers will vote no and half the leavers will think the deal is either too soft or too hard. It's bound to be 66/33 whether its a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit.

putting Corbyn's desperate lack of appeal down to that is a bit much

but the way forward is middle

That Sarah Olney interview is hilarious! 😀

So it's all my fault, is it?

I'm flattered, but I think you're building my part up a bit. Jezza doesn't need my help to end up as popular as a fart in a lift 😆

oops double post!

Rockape63 - Member
That Sarah Olney interview is hilarious!

and she still managed to beat Zac!!

I really wouldn't read too much into Richmond.

Mandy Rice Davies alert!

Off to a good start then

and she still managed to beat Zac!!

indeed, but its still hilarious! That Interviewer laid a beautiful trap and she dived into it! 🙂

It was a considerably smaller swing than the one back to the Lib Dems one year later...and Goldsmith had a comfortable majority in 2010

He had a majority of 6.9% so a swing of 3.5% would lose it. Generally anything with a majority of less than 10% (i.e. 5% swing to lose) is regarded as a marginal, so hardly comfortable.

Bigger swings are much more common in by-elections as parties are able to throw a lot of resources at them, which the Lib Dems did. The swing in 2015 was very big for a GE where smaller swing are typical. Obviously the Labour collapse in Scotland gave rise to some extraordinary swings.

his ludicrous egotistical resignation

aka keeping his word. Nick Clegg made a similar statement, Goldsmith replied reasonably that had the Lib Dems kept their word re tuition fees they might have a few more MPs.

So it's all my fault, is it?

What has happened to this place its dumbed down considerably of late.....not you too Binners Not you 😥

That Sarah Olney interview is hilarious!

Goldsmith replied reasonably that had the Lib Dems kept their word re tuition fees they might have a few more MPs

He had a majority of 6.9% so a swing of 3.5% would lose it. Generally anything with a majority of less than 10% (i.e. 5% swing to lose) is regarded as a marginal, so hardly comfortable.

According to he House of Commons library, Richmond Park was the 132nd most marginal seat in the 2010 election by percentage, or 185th by number of votes. It's not noteworthy.

Bigger swings are much more common in by-elections as parties are able to throw a lot of resources at them, which the Lib Dems did. The swing in 2015 was very big for a GE where smaller swing are typical. Obviously the Labour collapse in Scotland gave rise to some extraordinary swings.

The result yesterday was the 20th largest swing ever recorded in a UK by-election. It's significant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_by-election_records#Largest_swings

"when is the second by-election to be held?"

The answer is; Thursday 7 May 2020. If the good fork of Richmond find that she has made huge impossible promises then they can vote again.

Well done Sarah.

So nearly 80% were less marginal and more comfortable.

Goldsmith was sitting MP with the highest increase in his majority in 2015.

The point I am making is the performance by the LIb Dems, though obviously very good, was not out of line with their historical performance in the seat which has always been between 40 and 50% vote share except in 2015. This is very different from some of the other by-election swings where a party has come from no where. For instance in Bermondsey the LIberals had not won more than 13% of the vote since the War when they won 68% to put Simon Hughes into parliament.

So nearly 80% were less marginal and more comfortable.

If you wish to describe the 132nd constituency on the list as "marginal" that's up to you.

The point I am making is the performance by the LIb Dems, though obviously very good, was not out of line with their historical performance in the seat which has always been between 40 and 50% vote share except in 2015.

This is very different from some of the other by-election swings where a party has come from no where. For instance in Bermondsey the LIberals had not won more than 13% of the vote since the War when they won 68% to put Simon Hughes into parliament.

and she still managed to beat Zac!!

Just shows Remoaners will vote for anyone 😉

Crikey a Lib Dem win ... 😯

Now the Lib Dem wants to change the world. 😆

I chose it because it is an extreme example and I remembered it, but it is hardly news that the LibDems fight dirty. The "newspaper" election leaflets they were sending out in Richmond Park were quite clearly intended to portray independence. The articles referred to the paper's reporters!

My definition of a marginal is consistent with the BBC's[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25949029 ] Here[/url]

That is the thing we learned from this year various elections, it doesn't matter how many lies and deceptions are used to win. It all count.

The other point you miss in your analysis of context was that he was fighting as an independent, whilst the Tories didn't oppose him, they also didn't bus in 1000 activists. The Lib Dems had far more resources.

The other point you miss in your analysis of context was that he was fighting as an independent, whilst the Tories didn't oppose him

he's a multi-millionaire, I'm sure he didn't need Tory central office to fund his campaign, and the fact that the Tories didn't field a candidate, made a bit of a mockery of the "Independent" idea

Election spending is severely restricted and does not make up for boots on the ground. The LibDems can use their existing stock whereas he had to create new stock within spending limits.

but it is hardly news that the LibDems fight dirty

The party's popularity went up after the Paddy Pants Down incident, the LibDems can be too nice !

@cchris speaking of lies have you listened to Hollande's address ? You'd wonder how given his huge list of achievments his approval rating was a basement level 4% and he was way down the list of left side candidates.

The party's popularity went up after the Paddy Pants Down incident, the LibDems can be too nice

no , did not see it . my fransat box is not working anymore and no point changing it now .
Hollande lacks total charisma . i never understood how he got elected in the first place .
Valls might appeal to the working class .

mefty - Member
Election spending is severely restricted and does not make up for boots on the ground. The LibDems can use their existing stock whereas he had to create new stock within spending limits.

It's not like this by-election was a secret, the candidates positions were well known before anyone started knocking on doors or handing out flyers

Admittedly Zas reprehensible display at the mayoral elections, his pro brexit stance, voting for disability cuts and failure to stop Heathrow expansion must v have made him an easy target for lib drm canvassers tho!

[quote=jambalaya ]Remainers will vote no and half the leavers will think the deal is either too soft or too hard. It's bound to be 66/33 whether its a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit.

Sounds like an excellent use of democracy - because the alternative to having a vote is therefore having a deal which only satisfies a minority of the electorate. I'm pleased to see you finally admit that hard Brexit (which is what we appear to be heading towards) is something which most people oppose.

It's good to hear the confidence that the Brexit Buch still have, at this point there will be a board somewhere in whitehall with 3 sets of names on it, Yes, No and needs bribed. One just went from Yes to No.
If TM knew she had the numbers then should wouldn't be chasing around the courts at the moment. If there is a hint of not having the numbers then the price of the maybe's just went up. All sorts of local issues will be coming up in conversation like hospital funding and roads, not a fan of HS2 and want it realigned through some Lib Dem area's lets talk...

Brexit Buch

Majority

I'm pleased to see you finally admit that hard Brexit (which is what we appear to be heading towards) is something which most people oppose.

@racer my belief

Hard Brexit - rejected 66/33
Soft Brexit - rejected 66/33
No Brexit - already rejected 52/48

In the theoretical Ref 2 I would vote against soft Brexit as once A50 is triggered we are guaranteed a hard Brexit in 2019 if we have not agreed anything.

As per the numerous links everyone on the Remain side said a Leave vote would mean hard Brexit oitside THE single market. Yes that's what we voted for,

[quote=jambalaya ]

Brexit Buch

37%

Hard Brexit - rejected 66/33
...
As per the numerous links everyone on the Remain side said a Leave vote would mean hard Brexit oitside THE single market. Yes that's what we voted for,

You seem confused