This is turning into a complete farce. Zac Goldsmith made a grandiose pledge he never thought he'd have to honour about stepping down as a Tory MP if Heathrow expansion got the go ahead and so triggered a by-election, choosing to stand for re-election as an independent candidate. The Tories then decide not to field a candidate as they believe that Goldsmith is still a good local MP and they wouldn't want to get in the way of his service to the local community (how public spirited of them, obviously no deals struck there.) Now there are suggestions that Labour won't field an MP because they believe that it would split the vote against Goldsmith and they'd rather let the Lib Dems have a free run at it.

So we have all the public expense and disruption of a by-election that is purely a means of allowing Goldsmith to save face and remain as a Tory MP in all but colour of rosette, and the official opposition potentially declining to field a candidate in as open a condemnation as you're ever likely to see of the FPTP system that they refused to oppose when there was a referendum on it 5 years ago (when of course it suited them to retain the system.)

I'm sure no rules are being broken, but politics in this country just seems to be sinking lower by the day. There isn't even any real attempt to conceal contempt for the electorate any more.

You almost sound surprised by it all...

Politics, eh? About time we had another post so that everyone can express their extremely biased views.

The Richmond seat could only be won by either conservative or Lib-Dem. Labour not competing will boost the Lib-Dem chances. Both the Lib-Dem and Goldsmith are anti-Heathrow expansion, so the very reason why ZG resigned won't be tested by the electorate in the by-election.

Of course, putting up an "official" Conservative against Zak will split the vote and almost certainly result in Lib-Dem win. So, again, the anti-Heathrow vote will win.

You only need to visit Richmond to see how low the planes are over the town as they descend to land at H'row. Of course, even worse over Hounslow.

If you know anything much about Zak Goldsmith you'll know how serious he is about his environmentalism.

He'll make an excellent independent.

Zac goldsmith and Eddie howe .

You never see them in the same room together.

Mmmm........

Rowls wrote:If you know anything much about Zak Goldsmith you'll know how serious he is about his environmentalism.

He'll make an excellent independent.

Then maybe he should stand as a Green?

And disown his long-held economic beliefs and adopt a protectionist, anti-trade, quasi-socialism?

What sense would that make?

Rowls wrote:And disown his long-held economic beliefs and adopt a protectionist, anti-trade, quasi-socialism?

What sense would that make?

About as much sense as resigning as an MP rather than just leaving the party?

Rowls wrote:If you know anything much about Zak Goldsmith you'll know how serious he is about his environmentalism.

He'll make an excellent independent.

Not the point, as well you know. If the Tories aren't standing against him it's because he's to all intents and purposes still a Tory.

Well the constituents can take it up with, erm, their local MP.

At the ballot box.

Rowls wrote:Well the constituents can take it up with, erm, their local MP.

At the ballot box.

Or we could choose not to waste time & money on what is transparently nothing more than a face saving exercise for an incumbent MP.

Well, he made the promise to the electorate and was elected.

You can call it "face saving" if you want. 'Keeping his electoral promise' also works.

By-elections cost a pittance in terms of government budgets but I am glad to see people concerned about public expenditure. I hope to see further evidence of this thriftiness and conservative streak in future debates about public spending.

They reckon around a quarter of a million, so not a huge expense but certainly money that could be put to better use. Presumably a school / other public facility will be out of commission for a day or two as well - again, an inconvenience more than anything but a wholly unnecessary one for the sake of some political grandstanding. If Goldsmith wants to stand down, that's fine. Both major parties refusing to field a candidate would be a farce.

On the subject of promises though, I suspect the "No ifs, no buts..." promise that Cameron made is the one that will live longer in the memory.

If you vote for a Green, then you're voting for a single-issue party. Politics go much deeper than that.

Rowls wrote:If you know anything much about Zak Goldsmith you'll know how serious he is about his environmentalism.

He'll make an excellent independent.

Shame his views on racism are somewhat different.

Was about to post the same.

The Tory campaign v Sadiq Khan through Goldsmith was totally reprehensible

Yes. Zak Goldsmith is a well known racist.



Anyway, must dash - it's my first day off after 13 successive (successful) shifts.

I'm going out for a pint!

ontario claret wrote:If you vote for a Green, then you're voting for a single-issue party. Politics go much deeper than that.

Maybe once but I think the Greens now campaign on a much wider platform of social issues than just the environment.

If you want to vote for a true socialist (which is what Green initiatives are), then vote for the real thing, not a surrogate.

Rowls wrote:If you know anything much about Zak Goldsmith you'll know how serious he is about his environmentalism.

He'll make an excellent independent.

Or Conservative, it would seem. So much for his principled resignation from the party.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39721421

Will he have time with all those Bollywood films he watches?

Rowls wrote:If you know anything much about Zak Goldsmith you'll know how serious he is about his environmentalism.

If he was that serious about it he wouldn't have been a member of the Conservative Party. A few years ago Cameron appointed a Climate Change skeptic as his Environment minister. Fracking, badgers, trying to sell off state-owned woodland. Cameron telling his aides to "get rid of all that green crap". MPs actively trying to scrap environmental legislation. You can't be an environmentalist and a Tory.

What do Conservative voters know about the countryside or the environment eh?

I'm sure Jeremy Corbyn and his Islington chums could teach us all a thing or two about what choice cuts of meat are best for feeding urban foxes.

Oh, and watching Countryfile too! That's important for the environment.

Whats changed so that Goldsmith can stand with a straight face Rowls?

One thing you can say about the Tory party is that pragmatism ALWAYS comes before principles.

That's why they can always stay far more united than the Labour party.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Whats changed so that Goldsmith can stand with a straight face Rowls?

I'm not his spokesman.

Spijed wrote:One thing you can say about the Tory party is that pragmatism ALWAYS comes before principles.

That's why they can always stay far more united than the Labour party.

Not ALWAYS but you're very correct in the difference here. Pragmatism is key trait.

I'd nearly always pick a pragmatic politician over a dogmatic and ideological one.

Rowls wrote:Not ALWAYS but you're very correct in the difference here. Pragmatism is key trait.

I'd nearly always pick a pragmatic politician over a dogmatic and ideological one.

That's why the one's who want a hard Brexit are willing to put up with MP's like Ken Clarke. They know it'll be another Tory seat despite many of them privately wanting him to be kicked out of the party.

Weak Rowls weak

Of course, you could just have said that nothing has changed, but that would mean admitting that at least one Conservative has absolutely no moral fibre what so ever.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Weak Rowls weak

Of course, you could just have said that nothing has changed, but that would mean admitting that at least one Conservative has absolutely no moral fibre what so ever.

Very poor argument. Moral fibre includes having the ability to accept you've cocked up rather than carrying on in the wrong direction.

Ever been in a car with a driver who refuses to turn round even though everybody knows the turning's been missed? See that driver?

That's you, that is.

Like the party you back Rowls, you know that it doesn't matter, he'll get in anyway.

Who cares that he said he'd resign unless the 3rd Runway got shelved?

That was, like, YEARS ago.

It doesn't really matter that he turned into Norman Tebbit during the London mayoral election?

Like, who CARES?

Zak is Strong and stable, and that all that matters

All I'll say about Zac is that he is the son of a billionaire, he no doubt went to either Eton or Harrow and I believe he used to be one of those non-dom types.

So, for what its worth, I wouldn't give him the smell off my crap. He strikes me as your typical upperclass moron who is so blinded by his own arrogance that he no doubt firmly believes that the idea of a meritocracy was made for him because he is just, well, wonderful.

I so hope the Lib Dem woman gives him a good spanking. He'll like that.

Lancasterclaret wrote:It doesn't really matter that he turned into Norman Tebbit during the London mayoral election?

This news to me. It'd be interesting to know what Norman Tebbit thinks of this?

Or would it be interesting to know what Zak Goldsmith thinks of inside Norman Tebbit.

It's soooo confusing isn't it.

Whisper it quietly Rowls, but rumour has it that Tebbit is a bigoted old *******.

And Zak wasn't afraid of using the fact that Sadiq Khan isn't white to win votes.

The cad!

Lancasterclaret wrote:Whisper it quietly Rowls, but rumour has it that Tebbit is a bigoted old *******.

And Zak wasn't afraid of using the fact that Sadiq Khan isn't white to win votes.

The cad!

Now now. You need to learn the difference between irreverently silly and libellous. See above for the details.

edit - and behave yourself too.

Paul Waine wrote:The Richmond seat could only be won by either conservative or Lib-Dem. Labour not competing will boost the Lib-Dem chances. Both the Lib-Dem and Goldsmith are anti-Heathrow expansion, so the very reason why ZG resigned won't be tested by the electorate in the by-election.

Of course, putting up an "official" Conservative against Zak will split the vote and almost certainly result in Lib-Dem win. So, again, the anti-Heathrow vote will win.

You only need to visit Richmond to see how low the planes are over the town as they descend to land at H'row. Of course, even worse over Hounslow.

I also feel the pain that those privileged, metropolitan, millionaire luvvies have to endure. By living under that inconvenient flight path.

After all. When they purchased their multi million pound homes, Heathrow airport didn't even exist.

Bless their entitled cotton (John Lewis and selfridges) socks!!

Rowls wrote:Now now. You need to learn the difference between irreverently silly and libellous. See above for the details.

edit - and behave yourself too.

I doubt that's libellous, there's the easy defence of it being true.

Not being in London you possibly didn't follow the mayoral election as closely but Goldsmith's embarrassing, destructive campaign really damaged his chances.

Hmmm

RingoMcCartney wrote:I also feel the pain that those privileged, metropolitan, millionaire luvvies have to endure. By living under that inconvenient flight path.

After all. When they purchased their multi million pound homes, Heathrow airport didn't even exist.

Bless their entitled cotton (John Lewis and selfridges) socks!!

Hi Ringo, that's a bit unfair - quoting my comment from last year.

Agree, a lot of wealthy people live in Richmond. Mick Jagger was there (maybe still is). David Attenborough also there.

All change for this new general election, "Zak's Back" as the "extreme wing of the blue rinse Tories" poster stated it.

They all seem to have given up on saying that a 3rd runway at Heathrow is a "bad idea."

In short, all that is wrong with politics and democracy at the moment is summed up by Goldsmith getting the nomination for this seat.

Paul Waine wrote:Hi Ringo, that's a bit unfair - quoting my comment from last year.

Agree, a lot of wealthy people live in Richmond. Mick Jagger was there (maybe still is). David Attenborough also there.

All change for this new general election, "Zak's Back" as the "extreme wing of the blue rinse Tories" poster stated it.

They all seem to have given up on saying that a 3rd runway at Heathrow is a "bad idea."

Hey if I've quoted you pal, it's pure coincidence! I'm not one of those ant like pedants on here who crawl over months old quotes to point score. I can't remember what happened yesterday, never mind last year.

But if there's any outstanding copyright infringement costs or performing rights duties , I'll get my people to contact yours and arrange an immediate BACS transfer.

RingoMcCartney wrote:Hey if I've quoted you pal, it's pure coincidence! I'm not one of those ant like pedants on here who crawl over months old quotes to point score. I can't remember what happened yesterday, never mind last year.

But if there's any outstanding copyright infringement costs or performing rights duties , I'll get my people to contact yours and arrange an immediate BACS transfer.

My usual copyright fee for "last year's quote" is £0.00. Fee for this year's is the same - inflation adjusted.

PS: I was also confused why this by-election thread was back at the top.

I put Breakfast TV on every morning when I wake up, hoping to see a news item on the current health of Norman Tebbit/Baron Tebbit.

There never is one.