Goldsmith "Brexit Casuality"

The good people of Richmond Park have spoken. Zac Goldsmith is totally unfit to represent them, to hold the most prestigious title of MP for Richmond Park.

I find it most pleasurable to be one of the people who believe in the principle of decency, contributing to his political demise.

This man did not only wage a reckless bigoted campaign, he made a dangerous one, given the immense prejudice shown to Muslims in the UK. He taunted his politial opponent in one of the most despicable campaign in modern British political history.

With the help of Cameron, he labeled his decent opponent as a person who supports Islamic extremist. Who supported islamic terrorism. This backfired immensely, rather than the white backlash they had anticipated. Rather than apologise the rich bigoted man continued as if what he had done was normal.

He backed brexit against the wishes of 72% of his constituent, which indicates his out of touch. Then now, he sought to act as the principled person on heathrow, when all his opponent are against it anyway.

The people of Richmond Park were never going to be taken for suckers.

They sent a message to Zac Goldsmith in no uncertain terms, that his lovely and support for Brexit , will carry a painful price.

Once the pain of Brexit start circulating around the British Nerve ending and central nervous system, then there may be a lot more Zac Goldsmith.

However it was imperative that this unfit guy is the first to be booted out.

Indeed. And the long suffering and hapless silent minority are now slightly less under-represented with a new champion to speak up for the common man.

One swallow does not a summer make...

One reason to be sceptical of astrology or the reading of tarots or other forms of divination is that the reader may be reading quite a lot into either something that does not matter at all or something that is relatively straightforward to explain.

Let's have a look at the wider picture of what happened in Richmond Park on Thursday. A sitting Conservative MP lost a seat of which he was the only Conservative MP in the history of that constituency. With the exception of Zac Goldsmith, that constituency has always elected Liberal Democrat MPs (all of who were female, which suggests a very liberal value system as well). It was mentioned on a TV report (which I can't locate) that Richmond voted 70% to remain in the EU. So, the odds of Zac Goldsmith retaining the seat were quite slim to start with.

Indeed, with such strong positives, I would argue that the real question is why did the Lib Dems win with a margin of under 2000.

So, is this bye-election going to signal a change of direction for Brexit? It would be extremely foolish to go that far. As mentioned, that constituency's views were known from the referendum results. But it was the country as a whole that voted for a different result.

It is not an insignificant result, from the viewpoint of reducing the government's extremely narrow Commons majority. But it is not nearly as significant as suggested by others. In the wider scheme of things, it means next to nothing.

What would be much more significant and meaningful in the future direction of Brexit would be next week's Supreme Court hearing on the Miller case appeal by the government. I hope that our moderators learned in the law give us updates and analysis of the hearings, ideally as dispassionately as possible.

Perhaps, you should consider the maths . You mentioned 2000 as plain maths without appreciating that in the last general Elecion, Goldsmith won by a majority of 23,000, and won close of 60% of the vote. Therefore if this lady won by 2000, then it is 25000 swing. If such swing was replicated in a general election, the Lib Dem will swing dozens of lib Dem - conservative marginal seats.

Nothing to do with people not liking Zac Goldsmith? Bremoaners seem to cling to anything.

Obie wrote:
He backed brexit against the wishes of 72% of his constituent, which indicates his out of touch.

I always obey what Obie says but if we go this way then currently at least 250 other MPs in Westminster is not representing their constituents and clearly out of touch, we have to accept this

As before the EU referendum around 150+ MPs support leave and around 500 MPs support remain, where around 400 Constituents voted leave and 250 voted remain.

[his mayoral campaign could be a very very big factor for the swing too]

Obie wrote:You mentioned 2000 as plain maths without appreciating that in the last general Elecion, Goldsmith won by a majority of 23,000, and won close of 60% of the vote.

Rebounding from a period of weakness (the Lib-Dems in the 2015 General Elections) does not mean that you are strong.

Also, being a by-election, the turnout had fallen by a third. Co-incidentally, about 20,000.

None of this detracts from the Lib-Dems win. This is just to merely point out that it was a win that is easily explained given the electoral history of the constituency. It is not a harbinger of new politics, it is a return of the old politics.

Abc499 wrote:
I always obey what Obie says but if we go this way then currently at least 250 other MPs in Westminster is not representing their constituents and clearly out of touch, we have to accept this

As before the EU referendum around 150+ MPs support leave and around 500 MPs support remain, where around 400 Constituents voted leave and 250 voted remain.

[his mayoral campaign could be a very very big factor for the swing too]

Your argument is valid, but in Mr Goldsmith's constituent one third of leave voters voted the Lib Dem, as they do not accept the kind of Brexit that he is advocating, which is the hard form that will cost jobs.


Furthermore Zac Goldsmith does not represent the values and sense of decency possessed by the people of Richmond Park.

Brexit was a major contribution to his demise, but the unpleasantness and unfitness of this person was a huge contribution factor aswell.

secret.simon wrote: Rebounding from a period of weakness (the Lib-Dems in the 2015 General Elections) does not mean that you are strong.

Also, being a by-election, the turnout had fallen by a third. Co-incidentally, about 20,000.

None of this detracts from the Lib-Dems win. This is just to merely point out that it was a win that is easily explained given the electoral history of the constituency. It is not a harbinger of new politics, it is a return of the old politics.

Simon i am not sure how to explain this to you, it may be too complicating.

The Lib dem were on 19% in 2015. Goldsmith had 58%. Now the Lib Dem have close to 50%, so this is what can reasonably be described as a Landslide swing, so i do not get your logic much.

It was a win of a massive proportion, considering that GOldsmith deposit was completely erased, so i don't think it is proper to diminish the significance of this win, which caused an earthquake at Richmond Park.

The difference between your interpretation and mine is the timescale.

You have highlighted the enormous change between the last election and this. I am highlighting the fact that in the entirety of the history of that constituency (which has only existed since 1997), it was the last (2015) election that was the aberration and that this election is merely a return to a historic norm. Hence, that return is not as significant as you suggest.

I have a feeling that our difference of opinion on the EU also stems from differing time horizons. Your focus has been on the recent benefits of the EU and the horrors of the World War just preceding. My time horizon spans a few centuries and looks at entities such as the Holy Roman Empire and the Scandinavian Kalmar Union and I believe that history shows that Europe does not have the common elements required for a long-term successful union.

Different time horizons mean different histories and different conclusions.

I think our differences are very profound.

Please note that Goldsmith first got elected in 2010

I see a 22% swing at a by election as a big deal, but you dont.

I see the EU as a force of good and prosperity, which has enabled Europe nations to maintain peace, prosperity and good relation, and hence ensuring nations coexist and thrive .


Simon with the utmost respect, i think my thinking and yours are fundamentally different and in some respect irreconcilable.

This week's Westminster Hour is well worth a listen. It was broadcast as the results of the Italian referendum were coming in and the programme also covered immigration in some depth.

Of particular interest is an interview with historian David Starkey, whose ideas on the historical interpretation of Europe are not dissimilar to mine. That part of the interview starts at 24 minutes into the MP3. But again, the whole programme is worth a listen.

Why the Richmond Park by-election should be considered an aberration.

MPs won't oppose Brexit because the constituency vote for Leave is far greater than the national vote

...
when the referendum vote is applied to traditional parliamentary constituencies, rather than the total percentages used to calculate the vote, only around 39% of constituency seats voted to Remain.
...
Leave beat Remain by a close 51.9% to 48.1% in the official result of the June referendum.

But now that the result rests with MPs, the parliamentary system has magnified the margin to something closer to 61% to 39%...

Broadly, the research suggests that if a General Election were held now, and there were only two candidates in each constituencies, one for Brexit and one against, the pro-Brexit group would win 61% of the seats, giving them an even more lop-sided majority.

So, kicking the ball into Parliament may not have been as great an idea as originally thought.

What's the significance of that post to my thread.

This amounts to hijacking. You are putting a topic that is irrelevant to what happened at Richmond Park.

I was expounding on the effect that by-elections can have on the constitution of the House of Commons in the Brexit era.