FPT TOPPING said: "Why does Zac appeal so much to the voters of Richmond? What can he actually do for them?"
Zac is a very energetic well-liked local MP. I reckon he has a personal vote of around 10,000.
LibDems lost 11,000 to other third parties and can probably squeeze 8,000 of that back.
Some Tories will switch to the LibDems because of a) LHR b) Brexit (Zac is a Leaver) c) annoyed with Zac for causing a by election and standing as an independent. I reckon 5-8,000 Tories can be persuaded to vote LibDem. This gives a switch of 8,000 plus 10-16,000 to the LibDems,
Zac had a majority of 23,000. This implies that the LibDem could just make it if they can persuade 8,000 Tories to punish the Tory Party for LHR and Brexit. But it is a stretch.
Zac has said he will run as an independent, the local Tories will likely give him a free pass
Can the Tories afford to lose a bit of their majority? An Independent MP can't be relied on.
He could probably be relied upon almost as much as an independent as as a whipped MP; certainly a lot more than a Lib Dem could.
Questions for CCHQ would be:
1. How well would an official Conservative do running against Zac (and against everyone else)? 2. How much would splitting the Con vote risk letting the Lib Dems in? 3. How much of a loss would it be to have Zac returned as an independent?
[edit. 4. What sort of precedent would not running against him set for other potential rebels]
My own solution, if Zac is willing to run with it, would be for the Tories to nominate him again. If he won't, then give him a clear run.
FPT TOPPING said: "Why does Zac appeal so much to the voters of Richmond? What can he actually do for them?"
Zac is a very energetic well-liked local MP. I reckon he has a personal vote of around 10,000.
LibDems lost 11,000 to other third parties and can probably squeeze 8,000 of that back.
Some Tories will switch to the LibDems because of a) LHR b) Brexit (Zac is a Leaver) c) annoyed with Zac for causing a by election and standing as an independent. I reckon 5-8,000 Tories can be persuaded to vote LibDem. This gives a switch of 8,000 plus 10-16,000 to the LibDems,
Zac had a majority of 23,000. This implies that the LibDem could just make it if they can persuade 8,000 Tories to punish the Tory Party for LHR and Brexit. But it is a stretch.
Zac has said he will run as an independent, the local Tories will likely give him a free pass
Can the Tories afford to lose a bit of their majority? An Independent MP can't be relied on.
He could probably be relied upon almost as much as an independent as as a whipped MP; certainly a lot more than a Lib Dem could.
Questions for CCHQ would be:
1. How well would an official Conservative do running against Zac (and against everyone else)? 2. How much would splitting the Con vote risk letting the Lib Dems in? 3. How much of a loss would it be to have Zac returned as an independent?
My own solution, if Zac is willing to run with it, would be for the Tories to nominate him again. If he won't, then give him a clear run.
And yes, I have changed my mind on this.
Zac of course is an "old school" Tory (loaded, OE posho). Most of those have been turfed out. Why this acceptance that he is bigger than the Party? It is positively Banksian.
FPT TOPPING said: "Why does Zac appeal so much to the voters of Richmond? What can he actually do for them?"
Zac is a very energetic well-liked local MP. I reckon he has a personal vote of around 10,000.
LibDems lost 11,000 to other third parties and can probably squeeze 8,000 of that back.
Some Tories will switch to the LibDems because of a) LHR b) Brexit (Zac is a Leaver) c) annoyed with Zac for causing a by election and standing as an independent. I reckon 5-8,000 Tories can be persuaded to vote LibDem. This gives a switch of 8,000 plus 10-16,000 to the LibDems,
Zac had a majority of 23,000. This implies that the LibDem could just make it if they can persuade 8,000 Tories to punish the Tory Party for LHR and Brexit. But it is a stretch.
Zac has said he will run as an independent, the local Tories will likely give him a free pass
Can the Tories afford to lose a bit of their majority? An Independent MP can't be relied on.
The Tories need to fight it, the question is whether the gap year kid decides to stand as an independent.
Yes, the Tories have to stand a candidate. A serving MP quitting or defecting must know he will be challenged by the party machine.
The irony is that when the new runway opens, Zac's constituents will have *fewer* planes flying overhead, as the planned expansion is north of the existing airport.
Nah, they'll choose to not fight on the basis of not giving him a platform.
Why the reverence for Zac, though? Of course they will stand a candidate as the party's purpose is to win elections, the corollary of which is to be able to win votes in parliament.
No reverence, but the facts are that if the party puts up a candidate against him they will likely let the Lib Dems through the middle. Zac can be relied in to vote with the government on most issues and definitely on Brexit, letting him win is the better move for now.
Good. Fuck this dipshit posho Tory Greenie. SAINT Theresa is going for full on, free trading, build Heathrow, build HS2, build Hinkley, build everything, turn the UK into a Singapore with Masterchef fuck-the-Celts, fuck-lefty-eco-wankers superplan. BUILD.
Turn the whole sh*thole into a runway for all we care. All you saddos desperate to get out of the dump.
I'm fairly agnostic on the airport issue though having been told Stansted is woefully underused and looking at Manston with its big runway and the possibility of a link to the HST at Ashford, I think that as with most problems there isn't one solution but many and Government should be looking a them all.
As for the politics, it's interesting we have an airport announcement today after an excoriating editorial in the Currant Bun yesterday which was a strong defence of press freedom against proposals to bring in a form of licensing which were, I believe, first formulated by Amber Rudd's predecessor as Home Secretary. That may still happen today but will be buried by the airports announcements.
Classic media management by Theresa Mail's team and once senses the news media are in charge again - complaints about prevarication over the airport decision and suddenly we have an announcement. Not antagonising the Sun and the Mail is clearly more important than not antagonising members of her own party.
At a local level, Goldsmith has done well as an MP - can he win the seat as an Independent against an official Conservative ? If it was a straight fight, yes. There was no pro-Heathrow Mayoral candidate so we don't know how that would have turned out but if the Conservatives are now the Party of Heathrow expansion that's what they will have to stand on and argue the case and prepare to take a hit in west and north west London if need be.
I'm sure there are plenty on here who will welcome the Heathrow decision (if that's the way it goes) and would be prepared to canvass for a pro-Heathrow candidate if need be.
FPT TOPPING said: "Why does Zac appeal so much to the voters of Richmond? What can he actually do for them?"
Zac is a very energetic well-liked local MP. I reckon he has a personal vote of around 10,000.
LibDems lost 11,000 to other third parties and can probably squeeze 8,000 of that back.
Some Tories will switch to the LibDems because of a) LHR b) Brexit (Zac is a Leaver) c) annoyed with Zac for causing a by election and standing as an independent. I reckon 5-8,000 Tories can be persuaded to vote LibDem. This gives a switch of 8,000 plus 10-16,000 to the LibDems,
Zac had a majority of 23,000. This implies that the LibDem could just make it if they can persuade 8,000 Tories to punish the Tory Party for LHR and Brexit. But it is a stretch.
Zac has said he will run as an independent, the local Tories will likely give him a free pass
Can the Tories afford to lose a bit of their majority? An Independent MP can't be relied on.
The Tories need to fight it, the question is whether the gap year kid decides to stand as an independent.
Yes, the Tories have to stand a candidate. A serving MP quitting or defecting must know he will be challenged by the party machine.
The irony is that when the new runway opens, Zac's constituents will have *fewer* planes flying overhead, as the planned expansion is north of the existing airport.
Nah, they'll choose to not fight on the basis of not giving him a platform.
Why the reverence for Zac, though? Of course they will stand a candidate as the party's purpose is to win elections, the corollary of which is to be able to win votes in parliament.
No reverence, but the facts are that if the party puts up a candidate against him they will likely let the Lib Dems through the middle. Zac can be relied in to vote with the government on most issues and definitely on Brexit, letting him win is the better move for now.
So in summary Zac loses his seat and becomes an outcast while the LibDems win the seat and Heathrow gets built anyway. Mmmm...
FPT TOPPING said: "Why does Zac appeal so much to the voters of Richmond? What can he actually do for them?"
Zac is a very energetic well-liked local MP. I reckon he has a personal vote of around 10,000.
LibDems lost 11,000 to other third parties and can probably squeeze 8,000 of that back.
Some Tories will switch to the LibDems because of a) LHR b) Brexit (Zac is a Leaver) c) annoyed with Zac for causing a by election and standing as an independent. I reckon 5-8,000 Tories can be persuaded to vote LibDem. This gives a switch of 8,000 plus 10-16,000 to the LibDems,
Zac had a majority of 23,000. This implies that the LibDem could just make it if they can persuade 8,000 Tories to punish the Tory Party for LHR and Brexit. But it is a stretch.
Zac has said he will run as an independent, the local Tories will likely give him a free pass
Can the Tories afford to lose a bit of their majority? An Independent MP can't be relied on.
The Tories need to fight it, the question is whether the gap year kid decides to stand as an independent.
Yes, the Tories have to stand a candidate. A serving MP quitting or defecting must know he will be challenged by the party machine.
The irony is that when the new runway opens, Zac's constituents will have *fewer* planes flying overhead, as the planned expansion is north of the existing airport.
Nah, they'll choose to not fight on the basis of not giving him a platform.
Why the reverence for Zac, though? Of course they will stand a candidate as the party's purpose is to win elections, the corollary of which is to be able to win votes in parliament.
No reverence, but the facts are that if the party puts up a candidate against him they will likely let the Lib Dems through the middle. Zac can be relied in to vote with the government on most issues and definitely on Brexit, letting him win is the better move for now.
This assumes that Zac's qualities are uniquely appealing to the people of Richmond. Why (yes I have a bee in my bonnet about this)?
Well of course there's his cash which bankrolls his campaigns and that's not to downplay the importance of resources, just that there must be a slew of Cons candidates who will vote similarly. It would be bizarre of the Cons to tolerate a "friendly" independent as a matter of candidate, constituency, and by-election policy.
FPT TOPPING said: "Why does Zac appeal so much to the voters of Richmond? What can he actually do for them?"
Zac is a very energetic well-liked local MP. I reckon he has a personal vote of around 10,000.
LibDems lost 11,000 to other third parties and can probably squeeze 8,000 of that back.
Some Tories will switch to the LibDems because of a) LHR b) Brexit (Zac is a Leaver) c) annoyed with Zac for causing a by election and standing as an independent. I reckon 5-8,000 Tories can be persuaded to vote LibDem. This gives a switch of 8,000 plus 10-16,000 to the LibDems,
Zac had a majority of 23,000. This implies that the LibDem could just make it if they can persuade 8,000 Tories to punish the Tory Party for LHR and Brexit. But it is a stretch.
Zac has said he will run as an independent, the local Tories will likely give him a free pass
Can the Tories afford to lose a bit of their majority? An Independent MP can't be relied on.
He could probably be relied upon almost as much as an independent as as a whipped MP; certainly a lot more than a Lib Dem could.
Questions for CCHQ would be:
1. How well would an official Conservative do running against Zac (and against everyone else)? 2. How much would splitting the Con vote risk letting the Lib Dems in? 3. How much of a loss would it be to have Zac returned as an independent?
My own solution, if Zac is willing to run with it, would be for the Tories to nominate him again. If he won't, then give him a clear run.
And yes, I have changed my mind on this.
Zac of course is an "old school" Tory (loaded, OE posho). Most of those have been turfed out. Why this acceptance that he is bigger than the Party? It is positively Banksian.
It's more a recognition of special local factors. That it happens to be Zac is to some extent beside the point.
FPT TOPPING said: "Why does Zac appeal so much to the voters of Richmond? What can he actually do for them?"
Zac is a very energetic well-liked local MP. I reckon he has a personal vote of around 10,000.
LibDems lost 11,000 to other third parties and can probably squeeze 8,000 of that back.
Some Tories will switch to the LibDems because of a) LHR b) Brexit (Zac is a Leaver) c) annoyed with Zac for causing a by election and standing as an independent. I reckon 5-8,000 Tories can be persuaded to vote LibDem. This gives a switch of 8,000 plus 10-16,000 to the LibDems,
Zac had a majority of 23,000. This implies that the LibDem could just make it if they can persuade 8,000 Tories to punish the Tory Party for LHR and Brexit. But it is a stretch.
Zac has said he will run as an independent, the local Tories will likely give him a free pass
Can the Tories afford to lose a bit of their majority? An Independent MP can't be relied on.
The Tories need to fight it, the question is whether the gap year kid decides to stand as an independent.
Yes, the Tories have to stand a candidate. A serving MP quitting or defecting must know he will be challenged by the party machine.
The irony is that when the new runway opens, Zac's constituents will have *fewer* planes flying overhead, as the planned expansion is north of the existing airport.
Nah, they'll choose to not fight on the basis of not giving him a platform.
Why the reverence for Zac, though? Of course they will stand a candidate as the party's purpose is to win elections, the corollary of which is to be able to win votes in parliament.
No reverence, but the facts are that if the party puts up a candidate against him they will likely let the Lib Dems through the middle. Zac can be relied in to vote with the government on most issues and definitely on Brexit, letting him win is the better move for now.
So in summary Zac loses his seat and becomes an outcast while the LibDems win the seat and Heathrow gets built anyway. Mmmm...
If all the leading candidates are anti-LHR3 then we probably have another election on Brexit to look forward to.
I'm fairly agnostic on the airport issue though having been told Stansted is woefully underused and looking at Manston with its big runway and the possibility of a link to the HST at Ashford, I think that as with most problems there isn't one solution but many and Government should be looking a them all.
As for the politics, it's interesting we have an airport announcement today after an excoriating editorial in the Currant Bun yesterday which was a strong defence of press freedom against proposals to bring in a form of licensing which were, I believe, first formulated by Amber Rudd's predecessor as Home Secretary. That may still happen today but will be buried by the airports announcements.
Classic media management by Theresa Mail's team and once senses the news media are in charge again - complaints about prevarication over the airport decision and suddenly we have an announcement. Not antagonising the Sun and the Mail is clearly more important than not antagonising members of her own party.
At a local level, Goldsmith has done well as an MP - can he win the seat as an Independent against an official Conservative ? If it was a straight fight, yes. There was no pro-Heathrow Mayoral candidate so we don't know how that would have turned out but if the Conservatives are now the Party of Heathrow expansion that's what they will have to stand on and argue the case and prepare to take a hit in west and north west London if need be.
I'm sure there are plenty on here who will welcome the Heathrow decision (if that's the way it goes) and would be prepared to canvass for a pro-Heathrow candidate if need be.
FPT TOPPING said: "Why does Zac appeal so much to the voters of Richmond? What can he actually do for them?"
Zac is a very energetic well-liked local MP. I reckon he has a personal vote of around 10,000.
LibDems lost 11,000 to other third parties and can probably squeeze 8,000 of that back.
Some Tories will switch to the LibDems because of a) LHR b) Brexit (Zac is a Leaver) c) annoyed with Zac for causing a by election and standing as an independent. I reckon 5-8,000 Tories can be persuaded to vote LibDem. This gives a switch of 8,000 plus 10-16,000 to the LibDems,
Zac had a majority of 23,000. This implies that the LibDem could just make it if they can persuade 8,000 Tories to punish the Tory Party for LHR and Brexit. But it is a stretch.
Zac has said he will run as an independent, the local Tories will likely give him a free pass
Can the Tories afford to lose a bit of their majority? An Independent MP can't be relied on.
He could probably be relied upon almost as much as an independent as as a whipped MP; certainly a lot more than a Lib Dem could.
Questions for CCHQ would be:
1. How well would an official Conservative do running against Zac (and against everyone else)? 2. How much would splitting the Con vote risk letting the Lib Dems in? 3. How much of a loss would it be to have Zac returned as an independent?
My own solution, if Zac is willing to run with it, would be for the Tories to nominate him again. If he won't, then give him a clear run.
And yes, I have changed my mind on this.
Zac of course is an "old school" Tory (loaded, OE posho). Most of those have been turfed out. Why this acceptance that he is bigger than the Party? It is positively Banksian.
It's more a recognition of special local factors. That it happens to be Zac is to some extent beside the point.
So let Richmond Cons choose a candidate whose views match their own. Surely there would be one at least on the candidate list.
I'm fairly agnostic on the airport issue though having been told Stansted is woefully underused and looking at Manston with its big runway and the possibility of a link to the HST at Ashford, I think that as with most problems there isn't one solution but many and Government should be looking a them all.
As for the politics, it's interesting we have an airport announcement today after an excoriating editorial in the Currant Bun yesterday which was a strong defence of press freedom against proposals to bring in a form of licensing which were, I believe, first formulated by Amber Rudd's predecessor as Home Secretary. That may still happen today but will be buried by the airports announcements.
Classic media management by Theresa Mail's team and once senses the news media are in charge again - complaints about prevarication over the airport decision and suddenly we have an announcement. Not antagonising the Sun and the Mail is clearly more important than not antagonising members of her own party.
At a local level, Goldsmith has done well as an MP - can he win the seat as an Independent against an official Conservative ? If it was a straight fight, yes. There was no pro-Heathrow Mayoral candidate so we don't know how that would have turned out but if the Conservatives are now the Party of Heathrow expansion that's what they will have to stand on and argue the case and prepare to take a hit in west and north west London if need be.
I'm sure there are plenty on here who will welcome the Heathrow decision (if that's the way it goes) and would be prepared to canvass for a pro-Heathrow candidate if need be.
I remember pre-RyanAir days when Stansted used to deal with just one plane at a time. It always seemed a most civilised way to run an airport.
This assumes that Zac's qualities are uniquely appealing to the people of Richmond. Why (yes I have a bee in my bonnet about this)?
Well of course there's his cash which bankrolls his campaigns and that's not to downplay the importance of resources, just that there must be a slew of Cons candidates who will vote similarly. It would be bizarre of the Cons to tolerate a "friendly" independent as a matter of candidate, constituency, and by-election policy.
Well he has a majority of 23,000 so clearly the people of Richmond have taken to him. In 2010 he won the seat as a marginal vs the Lib Dems, there must be some element of personal vote. Knowing the type of people that live in Richmond, Zac is one of them.
Millennial Voters 18-30 - GenForward/Uni of Chicago - Sample 843 Likely Voters 1-14 Oct
All - 18-30 - Clinton 60 .. Trump 19 African A - Clinton 80 .. Trump 4 Asian A - Clinton 74 .. Trump 9 Hispanic - Clinton 63 .. Trump 14 White A - Clinton 52 .. Trump 26
This assumes that Zac's qualities are uniquely appealing to the people of Richmond. Why (yes I have a bee in my bonnet about this)?
Well of course there's his cash which bankrolls his campaigns and that's not to downplay the importance of resources, just that there must be a slew of Cons candidates who will vote similarly. It would be bizarre of the Cons to tolerate a "friendly" independent as a matter of candidate, constituency, and by-election policy.
Well he has a majority of 23,000 so clearly the people of Richmond have taken to him. In 2010 he won the seat as a marginal vs the Lib Dems, there must be some element of personal vote. Knowing the type of people that live in Richmond, Zac is one of them.
Zac is a Eurosceptic, environmentalist, social liberal. Two of those three go down very well in Richmond.
As an independent (and with no Conservative standing), he should win Richmond. The issue for the government is that - while he'll be a reliable voice on Brexit - he's not really a May-ite.
This assumes that Zac's qualities are uniquely appealing to the people of Richmond. Why (yes I have a bee in my bonnet about this)?
Well of course there's his cash which bankrolls his campaigns and that's not to downplay the importance of resources, just that there must be a slew of Cons candidates who will vote similarly. It would be bizarre of the Cons to tolerate a "friendly" independent as a matter of candidate, constituency, and by-election policy.
Well he has a majority of 23,000 so clearly the people of Richmond have taken to him. In 2010 he won the seat as a marginal vs the Lib Dems, there must be some element of personal vote. Knowing the type of people that live in Richmond, Zac is one of them.
Yes I don't doubt it but the LDs were wiped out all over. This was just easy and in spades. Which is not to say they wouldn't win if Zac was gone, just that as @Moses points out above, if the LDs win LHR goes ahead anyway.
Richmond voters face the same dilemma as disgruntled Cons voters everywhere: TINA.
This assumes that Zac's qualities are uniquely appealing to the people of Richmond. Why (yes I have a bee in my bonnet about this)?
Well of course there's his cash which bankrolls his campaigns and that's not to downplay the importance of resources, just that there must be a slew of Cons candidates who will vote similarly. It would be bizarre of the Cons to tolerate a "friendly" independent as a matter of candidate, constituency, and by-election policy.
Well he has a majority of 23,000 so clearly the people of Richmond have taken to him. In 2010 he won the seat as a marginal vs the Lib Dems, there must be some element of personal vote. Knowing the type of people that live in Richmond, Zac is one of them.
I suspect his majority largely reflects the woes of the LibDems in a non-held seat last time, where all the other non-Tory parties started from a very low base. Results in previous LibDem non-held target seats were pretty similar - for example Winchester, Newbury.
On matters American, I've revisited the EV map and having looked at some of the latest State polls, it's annoying as someone else has said not to have any recent polling from half a dozen or so potentially interesting state contests.
At the moment, I have it 322-216 to HRC and that includes giving Trump AZ, UT, OH and IA as well as all the 2012 Romney states bar NC which I think HRC will win to compensate partly for her losses of OH and IA.
That for me is as good as it is for Trump unless something fundamental and/or revolutionary occurs in the next 14 days. On the upside for HRC, if she wins AZ, OH and IA and McMullin wins UT, that would be 357-175.
If you want HRC to be over 400 EVs, she needs TX and GA and while she's close in recent polls, I can't see it at the moment. Add in Alaska and she would be at 414. That is for me her absolute maximum unless there are things happening in the Dakotas or Montana that aren't being picked up in any polls but I don't consider that likely.
Let me stress I think HRC will struggle to get to 350 EVs but it's possible but it will need a further implosion of the Trump campaign. Senate control for the Democrats is looking increasingly likely but Congress should stay Republican though with a much reduced majority.
Plenty of time for things to change, further revelations to be revealed etc, etc.
I can't help notice that those who think that the Conservatives must stand a candidate against Zac are all LibDems, and therefore might not be entirely impartial.
FPT TOPPING said: "Why does Zac appeal so much to the voters of Richmond? What can he actually do for them?"
Zac is a very energetic well-liked local MP. I reckon he has a personal vote of around 10,000.
LibDems lost 11,000 to other third parties and can probably squeeze 8,000 of that back.
Some Tories will switch to the LibDems because of a) LHR b) Brexit (Zac is a Leaver) c) annoyed with Zac for causing a by election and standing as an independent. I reckon 5-8,000 Tories can be persuaded to vote LibDem. This gives a switch of 8,000 plus 10-16,000 to the LibDems,
Zac had a majority of 23,000. This implies that the LibDem could just make it if they can persuade 8,000 Tories to punish the Tory Party for LHR and Brexit. But it is a stretch.
Zac has said he will run as an independent, the local Tories will likely give him a free pass
Can the Tories afford to lose a bit of their majority? An Independent MP can't be relied on.
He could probably be relied upon almost as much as an independent as as a whipped MP; certainly a lot more than a Lib Dem could.
Questions for CCHQ would be:
1. How well would an official Conservative do running against Zac (and against everyone else)? 2. How much would splitting the Con vote risk letting the Lib Dems in? 3. How much of a loss would it be to have Zac returned as an independent?
[edit. 4. What sort of precedent would not running against him set for other potential rebels]
My own solution, if Zac is willing to run with it, would be for the Tories to nominate him again. If he won't, then give him a clear run.
And yes, I have changed my mind on this.
Smacks of weakness. Why as a Tory backbencher, would you ever take the whip? A Tory independent has the best of both worlds.
Millennial Voters 18-30 - GenForward/Uni of Chicago - Sample 843 Likely Voters 1-14 Oct
All - 18-30 - Clinton 60 .. Trump 19 African A - Clinton 80 .. Trump 4 Asian A - Clinton 74 .. Trump 9 Hispanic - Clinton 63 .. Trump 14 White A - Clinton 52 .. Trump 26
This assumes that Zac's qualities are uniquely appealing to the people of Richmond. Why (yes I have a bee in my bonnet about this)?
Well of course there's his cash which bankrolls his campaigns and that's not to downplay the importance of resources, just that there must be a slew of Cons candidates who will vote similarly. It would be bizarre of the Cons to tolerate a "friendly" independent as a matter of candidate, constituency, and by-election policy.
Well he has a majority of 23,000 so clearly the people of Richmond have taken to him. In 2010 he won the seat as a marginal vs the Lib Dems, there must be some element of personal vote. Knowing the type of people that live in Richmond, Zac is one of them.
Zac is a Eurosceptic, environmentalist, social liberal. Two of those three go down very well in Richmond.
As an independent (and with no Conservative standing), he should win Richmond. The issue for the government is that - while he'll be a reliable voice on Brexit - he's not really a May-ite.
If the party is looking for Mayites then there's not much chance of finding anyone to stand who fits the bill. She isn't the most popular figure in the party.
I think they'd rather have a friendly independent who will vote with them than give the Lib Dems a platform to rebuild themselves in West and South West London.
FPT TOPPING said: "Why does Zac appeal so much to the voters of Richmond? What can he actually do for them?"
Zac is a very energetic well-liked local MP. I reckon he has a personal vote of around 10,000.
LibDems lost 11,000 to other third parties and can probably squeeze 8,000 of that back.
Some Tories will switch to the LibDems because of a) LHR b) Brexit (Zac is a Leaver) c) annoyed with Zac for causing a by election and standing as an independent. I reckon 5-8,000 Tories can be persuaded to vote LibDem. This gives a switch of 8,000 plus 10-16,000 to the LibDems,
Zac had a majority of 23,000. This implies that the LibDem could just make it if they can persuade 8,000 Tories to punish the Tory Party for LHR and Brexit. But it is a stretch.
Zac has said he will run as an independent, the local Tories will likely give him a free pass
Can the Tories afford to lose a bit of their majority? An Independent MP can't be relied on.
He could probably be relied upon almost as much as an independent as as a whipped MP; certainly a lot more than a Lib Dem could.
Questions for CCHQ would be:
1. How well would an official Conservative do running against Zac (and against everyone else)? 2. How much would splitting the Con vote risk letting the Lib Dems in? 3. How much of a loss would it be to have Zac returned as an independent?
My own solution, if Zac is willing to run with it, would be for the Tories to nominate him again. If he won't, then give him a clear run.
And yes, I have changed my mind on this.
If he's the official Conservative candidate, and it is the official policy of the government to support Heathrow, then I think there is the very real risk the LibDems win.
Millennial Voters 18-30 - GenForward/Uni of Chicago - Sample 843 Likely Voters 1-14 Oct
All - 18-30 - Clinton 60 .. Trump 19 African A - Clinton 80 .. Trump 4 Asian A - Clinton 74 .. Trump 9 Hispanic - Clinton 63 .. Trump 14 White A - Clinton 52 .. Trump 26
I expect Millennial voter turnout to be down on 2008 and 2012 without Obama on the ticket and back to 2004 levels. Millennials also preferred Sanders to Hillary. Not many will vote for Trump but more than average may vote for Stein or Johnson
This assumes that Zac's qualities are uniquely appealing to the people of Richmond. Why (yes I have a bee in my bonnet about this)?
Well of course there's his cash which bankrolls his campaigns and that's not to downplay the importance of resources, just that there must be a slew of Cons candidates who will vote similarly. It would be bizarre of the Cons to tolerate a "friendly" independent as a matter of candidate, constituency, and by-election policy.
Well he has a majority of 23,000 so clearly the people of Richmond have taken to him. In 2010 he won the seat as a marginal vs the Lib Dems, there must be some element of personal vote. Knowing the type of people that live in Richmond, Zac is one of them.
Zac is a Eurosceptic, environmentalist, social liberal. Two of those three go down very well in Richmond.
As an independent (and with no Conservative standing), he should win Richmond. The issue for the government is that - while he'll be a reliable voice on Brexit - he's not really a May-ite.
If the party is looking for Mayites then there's not much chance of finding anyone to stand who fits the bill. She isn't the most popular figure in the party.
I think they'd rather have a friendly independent who will vote with them than give the Lib Dems a platform to rebuild themselves in West and South West London.
FPT TOPPING said: "Why does Zac appeal so much to the voters of Richmond? What can he actually do for them?"
Zac is a very energetic well-liked local MP. I reckon he has a personal vote of around 10,000.
LibDems lost 11,000 to other third parties and can probably squeeze 8,000 of that back.
Some Tories will switch to the LibDems because of a) LHR b) Brexit (Zac is a Leaver) c) annoyed with Zac for causing a by election and standing as an independent. I reckon 5-8,000 Tories can be persuaded to vote LibDem. This gives a switch of 8,000 plus 10-16,000 to the LibDems,
Zac had a majority of 23,000. This implies that the LibDem could just make it if they can persuade 8,000 Tories to punish the Tory Party for LHR and Brexit. But it is a stretch.
Zac has said he will run as an independent, the local Tories will likely give him a free pass
Can the Tories afford to lose a bit of their majority? An Independent MP can't be relied on.
He could probably be relied upon almost as much as an independent as as a whipped MP; certainly a lot more than a Lib Dem could.
Questions for CCHQ would be:
1. How well would an official Conservative do running against Zac (and against everyone else)? 2. How much would splitting the Con vote risk letting the Lib Dems in? 3. How much of a loss would it be to have Zac returned as an independent?
[edit. 4. What sort of precedent would not running against him set for other potential rebels]
My own solution, if Zac is willing to run with it, would be for the Tories to nominate him again. If he won't, then give him a clear run.
And yes, I have changed my mind on this.
Smacks of weakness. Why as a Tory backbencher, would you ever take the whip? A Tory independent has the best of both worlds.
Unique circumstances over Heathrow. An MP who could resign and win as an independent is in a rather different position from one who's been (and who would only ever be) elected because he or she was wearing a blue rosette. Same goes for any other party.
In my not-very-well-informed opinion, a second runway at birmingham and linking HS2 into heathrow would solve the capacity problem.
Treat BHX, LHR and MAN as an integrated airport with HS2 providing airside transfers.
That doesn't really work, because HS2 is not going to have stops at the individual Terminals in Heathrow, and shuttling people to another station (Airside) and then onto a special Airside carriage, and then transporting them Airside again at Birmingham is far too complex.
On matters American, I've revisited the EV map and having looked at some of the latest State polls, it's annoying as someone else has said not to have any recent polling from half a dozen or so potentially interesting state contests.
At the moment, I have it 322-216 to HRC and that includes giving Trump AZ, UT, OH and IA as well as all the 2012 Romney states bar NC which I think HRC will win to compensate partly for her losses of OH and IA.
That for me is as good as it is for Trump unless something fundamental and/or revolutionary occurs in the next 14 days. On the upside for HRC, if she wins AZ, OH and IA and McMullin wins UT, that would be 357-175.
If you want HRC to be over 400 EVs, she needs TX and GA and while she's close in recent polls, I can't see it at the moment. Add in Alaska and she would be at 414. That is for me her absolute maximum unless there are things happening in the Dakotas or Montana that aren't being picked up in any polls but I don't consider that likely.
Let me stress I think HRC will struggle to get to 350 EVs but it's possible but it will need a further implosion of the Trump campaign. Senate control for the Democrats is looking increasingly likely but Congress should stay Republican though with a much reduced majority.
Plenty of time for things to change, further revelations to be revealed etc, etc.
That's basically my view. I think Hilary will be below 350 but if she is over 350 then she will actually be over 400.
FPT TOPPING said: "Why does Zac appeal so much to the voters of Richmond? What can he actually do for them?"
Zac is a very energetic well-liked local MP. I reckon he has a personal vote of around 10,000.
LibDems lost 11,000 to other third parties and can probably squeeze 8,000 of that back.
Some Tories will switch to the LibDems because of a) LHR b) Brexit (Zac is a Leaver) c) annoyed with Zac for causing a by election and standing as an independent. I reckon 5-8,000 Tories can be persuaded to vote LibDem. This gives a switch of 8,000 plus 10-16,000 to the LibDems,
Zac had a majority of 23,000. This implies that the LibDem could just make it if they can persuade 8,000 Tories to punish the Tory Party for LHR and Brexit. But it is a stretch.
Zac has said he will run as an independent, the local Tories will likely give him a free pass
Can the Tories afford to lose a bit of their majority? An Independent MP can't be relied on.
He can be relied on more than a LD.The local Tory executive committee has already said they will not put forward a Tory candidate against Zac I believe. May will allow Zac to have his tantrum without wasting party funds against him
I can't help notice that those who think that the Conservatives must stand a candidate against Zac are all LibDems, and therefore might not be entirely impartial.
FPT TOPPING said: "Why does Zac appeal so much to the voters of Richmond? What can he actually do for them?"
Zac is a very energetic well-liked local MP. I reckon he has a personal vote of around 10,000.
LibDems lost 11,000 to other third parties and can probably squeeze 8,000 of that back.
Some Tories will switch to the LibDems because of a) LHR b) Brexit (Zac is a Leaver) c) annoyed with Zac for causing a by election and standing as an independent. I reckon 5-8,000 Tories can be persuaded to vote LibDem. This gives a switch of 8,000 plus 10-16,000 to the LibDems,
Zac had a majority of 23,000. This implies that the LibDem could just make it if they can persuade 8,000 Tories to punish the Tory Party for LHR and Brexit. But it is a stretch.
Zac has said he will run as an independent, the local Tories will likely give him a free pass
Can the Tories afford to lose a bit of their majority? An Independent MP can't be relied on.
He could probably be relied upon almost as much as an independent as as a whipped MP; certainly a lot more than a Lib Dem could.
Questions for CCHQ would be:
1. How well would an official Conservative do running against Zac (and against everyone else)? 2. How much would splitting the Con vote risk letting the Lib Dems in? 3. How much of a loss would it be to have Zac returned as an independent?
[edit. 4. What sort of precedent would not running against him set for other potential rebels]
My own solution, if Zac is willing to run with it, would be for the Tories to nominate him again. If he won't, then give him a clear run.
And yes, I have changed my mind on this.
Smacks of weakness. Why as a Tory backbencher, would you ever take the whip? A Tory independent has the best of both worlds.
On matters American, I've revisited the EV map and having looked at some of the latest State polls, it's annoying as someone else has said not to have any recent polling from half a dozen or so potentially interesting state contests.
At the moment, I have it 322-216 to HRC and that includes giving Trump AZ, UT, OH and IA as well as all the 2012 Romney states bar NC which I think HRC will win to compensate partly for her losses of OH and IA.
That for me is as good as it is for Trump unless something fundamental and/or revolutionary occurs in the next 14 days. On the upside for HRC, if she wins AZ, OH and IA and McMullin wins UT, that would be 357-175.
If you want HRC to be over 400 EVs, she needs TX and GA and while she's close in recent polls, I can't see it at the moment. Add in Alaska and she would be at 414. That is for me her absolute maximum unless there are things happening in the Dakotas or Montana that aren't being picked up in any polls but I don't consider that likely.
Let me stress I think HRC will struggle to get to 350 EVs but it's possible but it will need a further implosion of the Trump campaign. Senate control for the Democrats is looking increasingly likely but Congress should stay Republican though with a much reduced majority.
Plenty of time for things to change, further revelations to be revealed etc, etc.
That's basically my view. I think Hilary will be below 350 but if she is over 350 then she will actually be over 400.
Likewise, and I reckon TX for example presents some value. I notice it has come in a touch or two since I bet on it going Dem. Now at 7/2 on BF.
I can't help notice that those who think that the Conservatives must stand a candidate against Zac are all LibDems, and therefore might not be entirely impartial.
So you're arguing for the same kind of thing that David Davis did - resign your seat on a matter of principle, fight and win a by-election and then what ?
Goldsmith's view on Heathrow expansion is crystal clear and was in his 2015 election address - there's not a scintilla of ambiguity.
The other side of this is how many other Conservatives would support him in the Lobby if an amendment opposing Heathrow expansion were to be submitted. Enough to overturn the Government majority perhaps ?
I can't help but notice all those making snide anti-LD comments are probably far more worried about the LDs than they appear.
I'm fairly agnostic on the airport issue though having been told Stansted is woefully underused and looking at Manston with its big runway and the possibility of a link to the HST at Ashford, I think that as with most problems there isn't one solution but many and Government should be looking a them all.
As for the politics, it's interesting we have an airport announcement today after an excoriating editorial in the Currant Bun yesterday which was a strong defence of press freedom against proposals to bring in a form of licensing which were, I believe, first formulated by Amber Rudd's predecessor as Home Secretary. That may still happen today but will be buried by the airports announcements.
Classic media management by Theresa Mail's team and once senses the news media are in charge again - complaints about prevarication over the airport decision and suddenly we have an announcement. Not antagonising the Sun and the Mail is clearly more important than not antagonising members of her own party.
At a local level, Goldsmith has done well as an MP - can he win the seat as an Independent against an official Conservative ? If it was a straight fight, yes. There was no pro-Heathrow Mayoral candidate so we don't know how that would have turned out but if the Conservatives are now the Party of Heathrow expansion that's what they will have to stand on and argue the case and prepare to take a hit in west and north west London if need be.
I'm sure there are plenty on here who will welcome the Heathrow decision (if that's the way it goes) and would be prepared to canvass for a pro-Heathrow candidate if need be.
I remember pre-RyanAir days when Stansted used to deal with just one plane at a time. It always seemed a most civilised way to run an airport.
Can't find confirmation online, but I believe in the early days of Heathrow check-in was on Knightsbridge, from where you were chauffeured to your plane.
Assuming we get Heathrow expansion, it's the obvious choice and lets just get on with it.
I use Birmingham Airport quite a bit, but would use it alot more if there was a greater range of routes. It seems to me a very underutilised facility considering it has excellent fast rail links to London and the NW, as well as to its own hinterland. Surely encouraging a bit more long and medium haul from Birmingham would be a good use of investment.
Until they sort out flights from all local airports to Heathrow I'll stick to via Schiphol - its the 25 minutes from arrival at MME to departure time that is the winner for me,
Yes, KLM have a much better network from British regional airports than BA, as do Emirates for long haul. It's a symptom of LHR being completely full, and something BA would hope to address with the new runways.
Or BA could use regional airports. I don't want to have to go to the south of London or beyond to fly somewhere. Manchester or E Mids would do fine. And those extra flights from the north and midlands would be beneficial to Londoners and those in the SE, cutting down on noise pollution there.
If they spent the money improving regional airports and more routes then there would be no issue for more expansion at Heathrow, but as it is not in their DNA to spend money outside London they will opt for the worst possible option. Make London an even bigger sh**hole and make people outside have to travel there to get onward flights. An absolutely mental policy.
Good. Fuck this dipshit posho Tory Greenie. SAINT Theresa is going for full on, free trading, build Heathrow, build HS2, build Hinkley, build everything, turn the UK into a Singapore with Masterchef fuck-the-Celts, fuck-lefty-eco-wankers superplan. BUILD.
Turn the whole sh*thole into a runway for all we care. All you saddos desperate to get out of the dump.
Someone needs to pay for you lot malkie
Hmmmm , LOL, I think they may be better employed cleaning toilets. Anyone with more than one brain cell woudl be improving regional airports and routes from there rather than funnelling everything into London. I know they are desperate to have all the money spent there but at some point the penny will need to drop.
Comments
I'm fairly agnostic on the airport issue though having been told Stansted is woefully underused and looking at Manston with its big runway and the possibility of a link to the HST at Ashford, I think that as with most problems there isn't one solution but many and Government should be looking a them all.
As for the politics, it's interesting we have an airport announcement today after an excoriating editorial in the Currant Bun yesterday which was a strong defence of press freedom against proposals to bring in a form of licensing which were, I believe, first formulated by Amber Rudd's predecessor as Home Secretary. That may still happen today but will be buried by the airports announcements.
Classic media management by Theresa Mail's team and once senses the news media are in charge again - complaints about prevarication over the airport decision and suddenly we have an announcement. Not antagonising the Sun and the Mail is clearly more important than not antagonising members of her own party.
At a local level, Goldsmith has done well as an MP - can he win the seat as an Independent against an official Conservative ? If it was a straight fight, yes. There was no pro-Heathrow Mayoral candidate so we don't know how that would have turned out but if the Conservatives are now the Party of Heathrow expansion that's what they will have to stand on and argue the case and prepare to take a hit in west and north west London if need be.
I'm sure there are plenty on here who will welcome the Heathrow decision (if that's the way it goes) and would be prepared to canvass for a pro-Heathrow candidate if need be.
Well of course there's his cash which bankrolls his campaigns and that's not to downplay the importance of resources, just that there must be a slew of Cons candidates who will vote similarly. It would be bizarre of the Cons to tolerate a "friendly" independent as a matter of candidate, constituency, and by-election policy.
I remember pre-RyanAir days when Stansted used to deal with just one plane at a time. It always seemed a most civilised way to run an airport.
All - 18-30 - Clinton 60 .. Trump 19
African A - Clinton 80 .. Trump 4
Asian A - Clinton 74 .. Trump 9
Hispanic - Clinton 63 .. Trump 14
White A - Clinton 52 .. Trump 26
Obama beat Romney 67 - 30
Obama beat McCain 66 - 31
http://genforwardsurvey.com/assets/uploads/2016/10/Horse-Race-Report-_-Final.pdf
As an independent (and with no Conservative standing), he should win Richmond. The issue for the government is that - while he'll be a reliable voice on Brexit - he's not really a May-ite.
Richmond voters face the same dilemma as disgruntled Cons voters everywhere: TINA.
At the moment, I have it 322-216 to HRC and that includes giving Trump AZ, UT, OH and IA as well as all the 2012 Romney states bar NC which I think HRC will win to compensate partly for her losses of OH and IA.
That for me is as good as it is for Trump unless something fundamental and/or revolutionary occurs in the next 14 days. On the upside for HRC, if she wins AZ, OH and IA and McMullin wins UT, that would be 357-175.
If you want HRC to be over 400 EVs, she needs TX and GA and while she's close in recent polls, I can't see it at the moment. Add in Alaska and she would be at 414. That is for me her absolute maximum unless there are things happening in the Dakotas or Montana that aren't being picked up in any polls but I don't consider that likely.
Let me stress I think HRC will struggle to get to 350 EVs but it's possible but it will need a further implosion of the Trump campaign. Senate control for the Democrats is looking increasingly likely but Congress should stay Republican though with a much reduced majority.
Plenty of time for things to change, further revelations to be revealed etc, etc.
Treat BHX, LHR and MAN as an integrated airport with HS2 providing airside transfers.
This guy went to a Republican Utah GOTV session for Trump, is this what they are normally like:
https://mobile.twitter.com/daveweigel
I think they'd rather have a friendly independent who will vote with them than give the Lib Dems a platform to rebuild themselves in West and South West London.
Goldsmith's view on Heathrow expansion is crystal clear and was in his 2015 election address - there's not a scintilla of ambiguity.
The other side of this is how many other Conservatives would support him in the Lobby if an amendment opposing Heathrow expansion were to be submitted. Enough to overturn the Government majority perhaps ?
I can't help but notice all those making snide anti-LD comments are probably far more worried about the LDs than they appear.
Make London an even bigger sh**hole and make people outside have to travel there to get onward flights. An absolutely mental policy.
Jared Wyand
If you make this go viral, Trump will win. It's 4 minutes that makes the choice in this election crystal clear.
#EarlyVoting https://t.co/UOgqSfet6a