Following UKIP’s endorsement of Zac Goldsmith in the Richmond Park by-election, Tim Farron commented:
Zac Goldsmith claimed Brexit has nothing to do with this by-election. The very public endorsement he has picked up from the party of Nigel Farage nails that lie.
Zac Goldsmith was already the Conservative Party candidate. Now he is also the UKIP candidate. His campaign is the Nigel and Zac show.
UKIP’s website expressly states that it is vital for supporters of Hard Brexit to defeat the Liberal Democrats in Richmond Park, and praises Zac Goldsmith for being ‘fully committed to getting Britain out of the European Union’.
This by-election presents a golden opportunity to defeat one of the leading Brexiteers who is determined to even take Britain out of the Single Market. He might be able to afford the huge damage this would do to our economy, but many people in Richmond Park are worried about the effect on their jobs and livelihoods as a result of the Conservative government playing Russian roulette with the British economy.
Zac Goldsmith can get as many hard-right candidates to give him a clear run as he likes: he knows he faces a major battle with a Liberal Democrat party determined to keep Britain open, tolerant and united.
* Newshound: bringing you the best Lib Dem commentary in print, on air or online.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lord Bonkers: "Something less terrible than the truth"
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Reform under water
Tom Reeve
Nonconformistradical
Mark Johnston
expats
Chloe
33 Comments
Quite possibly the most stupid thing UKIP could have done under the circumstance, as it is excellent fodder for us to squeeze soft Tory votes with.
Perfect!
I suspect UKIP are worried about being humiliated in a very pro-Remain constituency whilst they are in the middle of a very public meltdown, and are using Goldsmith’s Brexitism (is that a thing yet?) as an excuse to stay out of it. They probably won’t do anything much to support him, so it’s unlikely to put any Tories off as such. (Doesn’t stop our candidate using it against him, of course, as much as you like.)
Was it in 2010 or 2015 that Channel 4 thought there were problems with his expenses?
2010. He was cleared by the Electoral Commission at their most spineless. I do wonder whether the Labour Party fine may be a precursor to action by the Commission on the 34 Tory constituencies in 2015 that stand accused of over-spending.
I was there this afternoon & its a lovely place, lots of autumn leaves, clouds of parakeets & a gorgeous sunset. I reccomend it to everyone who can get there. Lets all have fun & stop Brexit.
This is excellent news. Didn’t realise that Ukip had endorsed Zac Goldsmith. I might even consider renewing my lapsed Ukip membership for a couple of years.?
Zac,.. is a bit of a posh boy for sure, but I think he sort of,.. gets it.? His re-call of MPs idea was absolutely spot on. Of course Nick Clegg was his greatest enemy, which makes Zac all the more alluring.?
If I get the time I might even go down to help out Zac in his efforts to make a difference,…. just for the hell of it.
Good luck in Richmond.
If this doesn’t make Tim confident enough to commit one of the big guns, nothing will.
@ JDunn,
Zac Goldsmith may have been correct on the Recall Bill, but so was Caroline Lucas, and she ‘got it earlier than Goldsmith.
Apparently 73% of constituencies voted to leave the EU but 73% of MPs wanted to remain. [Garry Gibbon C4 News]. Also, there is no appetite for another referendum or any sign that if another was held – the result would be any different.
If this is true – is there any long-term benefit to the Party to focus its efforts on trying to reverse this decision – and particularly at the expense of an environmental issue? When there is little doubt that these, including climate change/global warming, are going to be the big issues of the future – and matters where the Party was once considered ahead of its rivals.
It will be tough to remove Zac. MPs do tend to get re-elected when they do this. But if Brexit becomes a bigger issue than Heathrow then he’s toast.
I think the biggest problem is not Zac Goldsmith – he’s damaged goods after his London Mayor campaign – it’s whether you can handle being joint favourites to win the seat. A seat with a large remain majority, that you have won in three out of the last five elections is as good as it gets for the Lib Dems. The pressure is on, it will be interesting to see how Tim Farron and the party handle it.
MQBlogger: Not always. Bruce Douglas-Mann lost to the Conservatives when he resigned to seek re-election after switching from Labour to the SDP in 1982 (generating that rarest of rare political events, a by-election gain by a governing party). There aren’t actually many other examples. The two Tory MPs who defected to UKIP and successfully defended their seats in by-elections were riding the crest of a wave of popularity of their new party. Zac Goldsmith might have been able to rely on a personal vote, but his Mayoral campaign and result (particularly in his own constituency) suggests he may have squandered this.
Brexit is bound to be a bigger issue than Heathrow. As the Lib Dems also oppose Heathrow airport expansion, we are going to push Brexit in our campaign. The Heathrow decision cannot be considered in isolation anyway.
Apparently 73% of constituencies voted to leave the EU but 73% of MPs wanted to remain. [Garry Gibbon C4 News]. Also, there is no appetite for another referendum or any sign that if another was held – the result would be any different.
If this is true – is there any long-term benefit to the Party to focus its efforts on trying to reverse this decision
______________________________________________
If you believe something is right then yes it is right to fight for it. If the electorate voted to mandate we all jumped off a cliff, would you still argue we shouldn’t campaign against it even if it was at ” particularly at the expense of an environmental issue”; by the way wanting to remain in the EU does more for environmental issues than will be done once we are out.
@frankie 28th Oct ’16 – 10:28am
“If you believe something is right then yes it is right to fight for it.” This is a difficult argument to sustain – ‘at what cost’ must surely enter the equation. Is remaining in the EU, for instance, worth the extinction of LD as a mainstream party?
“wanting to remain in the EU does more for environmental issues than will be done once we are out” – what is the basis of this claim?
Polling day is Thursday 1 December 2016. 7 am – 10 pm.
There will be an election special on BBC TV this time, which there was not for Witney.
Weather is good at the moment.
People often ask “What is the best time to go?”
Please do not think about it too much.
The correct answer is “Early”.
The London Evening Standard has published the 1st Poll of the campaign & we are up 10% before we start, broadly in line with our performance in Local byelections.
My guess is that this will be the last Poll The Standard publishes as their desire for News is overtaken by their wish to protect Zac. Certainly We should expect Tory leaflets to keep republishing this Poll as though it were new. We should keep an eye out for new Polls which, mysteriously, never arrive in The Media.
Betfare have Goldsmith 51% and us 49% ! (according to Mike Smithson)- great campaign material,that.
John Roffey
I suggust you read
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/environment/environmental-protection/opinion/politicshome/80207/potentially-even-harder
just a snippet
Once we have ‘left’ the EU, we may well find it even harder than it is today to hold the Government to account on, say, urban air quality or the state of our bathing beaches.
This whole question of how to replace the EU-derived supranational element in the current rule-book with an effective alternative, is surely something for the Law Commission to look at urgently, if it is not already doing so.
and that’s from a Tory
John Roffey,
Some more light reading, Point 2 makes a good point
https://greenallianceblog.org.uk/2016/10/05/what-the-great-repeal-bill-means-for-the-governments-environment-plans/
That the government won’t be held to account on its own commitments
We now know the government’s intention is for the UK to no longer be subject to the European Court of Justice. Post Brexit the UK will therefore need its own independent empowered institutions to hold government to account on its own legal commitments. ClientEarth’s legal challenge against the government on its failure to meet air quality standards, which has been linked to the early deaths of 40,000 UK citizens every year, shows only too well the need for strong and independent checks on government.
If we assume similar vote changes in Richmond Park to those in Witney, we get a tie with both Tories & us around 40% or a little more. Its right on the edge & what each of us does could tip that balance.
@frankie 28th Oct ’16 – 3:18pm & 5.07pm
frankie:
I do of course acknowledge that the Tories do not place environmental issues very high on their list of priorities – in fact it is already accepted that the UK is unlikely to meet its internationally agreed targets with regard to climate change even before the Paris agreement was ratified. However, I was a politically aware before we joined the EU and I am confident that the newly unfettered democratic process will ensure that we do play our full part once the Brexit process is complete [also that our courts will ensure that human rights are observed once we have left the ECJ].
I do however believe that the LDs would have a chance of returning to their former status as an important part of the UK’s political landscape if they adopted climate change and other environmental issues as key policies – instead of risking their very survival, as a mainstream party, by trying to overturn the Brexit decision of the people. Once Article 50 is triggered next Spring – and negotiations are in process – although those who voted leave or remain are likely to maintain their views – it will be an issue that is no longer of any great significance to the electorate by the time of the next GE. They will have moved on to other issues of greater importance in 2020 – and climate change and environmental issues are very likely to feature strongly by then.
I am sure LD members are very aware that the 6-8% support shown in the polls [which has not really changed since the 2015 GE despite a change in leadership and a strong focus on overturning Brexit] is the level at which political parties feel fortunate to have a single MP – the current number was attained immediately following the coalition when the Party and its representatives had a great deal of media exposure – this is very unlikely to be the case in the lead up to the 2020 GE.
Although it is to be expected that LD Party members posting on LDV feel obliged to look on the bright side, I am inclined to believe that hard nosed realism – rather than blind optimism – is more likely to lead to success and the reality is that the Party, based on the available information, is very unlikely to have any great success in Richmond. If this is the case it will be an example of how environmental issues trump voters wishes to remain in the EU – given that nearly 70% of Richmond voters wanted to remain in the EU.
cont.
@frankie 28th Oct ’16 – 3:18pm & 5.07pm cont.
From UK Polling:
“The Evening Standard have published a new BMG poll of the Richmond Park by-election, suggesting a significantly less exciting race than some people thought (and than the Lib Dems hoped). Topline voting intention figures are:
GOLDSMITH (Ind) 56% (down 2 from the Con share in 2015)
OLNEY (Lib Dem) 29% (up 10 from the LD share in 2015)
LABOUR 10% (-2)
OTHER 5% (-5)”
If this poll does prove to be more or less accurate – I very much hope it will be taken as a an omen that the Party is on the wrong track and that it should, grudgingly, accept the EU Referendum result – for apart from environmental issues – this change does offer a number of other opportunities where the Party could flourish and recover many of the seats it lost in 2015 – at least in England.
If the Party cannot take Richmond – it is unlikely to win any other seat at the 2020 GE based on overturning the result of the EU Referendum – its existing seats will. however, be very vulnerable to other parties who have chosen to adapt to reality.
John Roffey
The question is really not so much about acceptance of the referendum but what kind of access Britain will have to the single market.
That poll, of course, accompanies a soft-focus puff piece on Zac in yesterday’s Evening Standard. Taken in the immediate aftermath of his publicity-stunt resignation, perhaps it would be expected to show him to be popular. But it’s only the start of the campaign and there is all to play for. Lib Dems have taken seats in by-elections starting at much lower levels of support.
Exactly, Alex Macfie. That poll is not a bad place from which to start at this stage in a by-election.
The Evening Standard also quoted Goldsmith as saying something to the effect that he wanted the by-election to focus on Heathrow and that the LibDems would not divert it into a debate about Brexit. If that’s what he wants, he should not have accepted endorsement from UKIP; he can’t have it both ways. Tim Farron’s comment is spot on.
Manfarang 29th Oct ’16 – 7:55am
I appreciate that the issue that TF is pursuing is access to the single market – however it is clear that Theresa May intends to ensure that we have control of our boarders – hence what is termed Hard Brexit. TM [or Cameron] can hardly be blamed if the EU will not allow access to the single market without freedom of movement – as this would solve the problem for both parties.
As has been pointed out – it is more to the advantage of the EU member nations to maintain this reciprocal arrangement in terms of trade since the UK buys more from the EU than it buys from us – and the refusal [so far] to countenance a special relationship for the UK, given the circumstances, is not rational. It must be assumed that TM has been given assurances that such an arrangement will be forthcoming eventually – given the Nissan commitment to the UK. For she has given no indication of having a reckless nature [as was the case for Cameron] in fact quite the reverse.
Nevertheless – this is not the key point of my post. Despite success at Witney and even if the Party does do well in Richmond – unless the Party’s poll rating increases substantially – it will be in danger of losing its existing seats in 2020. At a by-elections the Party can mount a huge campaign – this kind of endeavour is not possible in all [or even many] constituencies at a GE.
So, unless the Party can maintain a poll rating in the high teens – all of this frantic activity at these by-elections will have been for nothing. However, if the energy thus expended is used instead to develop those policies that could bring the Party’s poll rating to this level – if it would accept ‘Hard Brexit’ will be the end result – it would have a chance or obtaining more than the previously anticipated 30 seats – a number that would allow the Party to once again play a full part in UK politics.
Alex Macfie 29th Oct ’16 – 7:57am & Nick Collins 29th Oct ’16 – 10:11am
Alex & Nick – I think my response to Manfarang also applies to your posts.
John Roffey: Doing well in by-elections is PART of working to increase our national poll rating. Lib Dems tend to spike in opinion polls immediately after a by-election victory, then fall back but to slightly higher than they were before. We currently have the classic mid-term problem that voters tend to forget we exist. However, local by-election results show that we can do well when we campaign and the Lib Dems are put to voters as an option on the ballot paper. This is also why we tend to substantially increase our local poll rating during a parliamentary by-election campaign, and (less spectacularly) our national poll rating during a general election campaign. This did not work in the 2010–2015 Parliament, because then we were part of the government, and people knew we existed and knew they didn’t want to vote for us. But now we are back in opposition, the old rules are tending to apply once again.
I don’t know where you get the 30 seats from. A general election is not likely any time soon, and any prediction is therefore pretty pointless (this is also why national opinion poll ratings have little significance right now). What we can say is that there is absolutely no point in Lib Dems occupying the already crowded Hard-Brexit-is-inevitable territory. It would not be convincing and would mean that voters who did not want hard Brexit (or any Brexit) would not have any voice. We increase our level of support by campaigning on the policies we actually believe in. And part of this campaigning is working frantically in parliamentary by-elections, since these provide the publicity needed to demonstrate on a national level that we still exist
Alex Macfie 29th Oct ’16 – 1:54pm
Alex – here is the polling record of the Party since the 2015 GE [http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2] – do you think it bears out what you assert? In May 2015 the Party received 7.9% of the vote – looking at these polls I think any objective observer would expect the Party to register around the same percentage in 2020 – if no significant change were made to the Party’s strategy. 7.9% of the vote in 2020 will endanger the seats of all current MPs – UKIP only managed to retain its single MP with 12.6% of the vote in 2015.
The 30 seats was the number that had been anticipated at the 2015 GE in the months leading up to the election – and led to PA offering to eat his hat if they were what they turned out to be. This event does highlight the Party’s capacity for self delusion – which appears to be as deeply engrained as ever.
If you have read my posts above – I asked whether clinging to a policy of ‘Soft Brexit’ is worth the Party being no longer within the mainstream [with 1 or two MPs or even none] – particularly as it becomes more and more obvious that this will not be the case.
You ask ‘What we can say is that there is absolutely no point in Lib Dems occupying the already crowded Hard-Brexit-is-inevitable territory’. This ‘crowd’ is the Tories and UKIP and I think you would agree that UKIP is primarily a threat to the Tories [and Labour in some circumstances] – however, the ‘Soft Brexit’ crowd is far larger – Labour, the Greens and the national parties who are the very parties that the LDs are likely to win votes from – if its policies were more appealing to the electorate generally and by accepting ‘Hard Brexit’ it would clearly distinguish it from these rivals.
John Roffey: We have not had a Lib Dem parliamentary by-election victory in this Parliament yet, so there is no way that any polling evidence since the latest GE can confirm or refute what I wrote about how our polls are affected. And again, national opinion polls are not a very reliable indicator of a party’s standing at this stage in the electoral cycle, especially where the Liberal Democrats are concerned. Votes in actual electoral contests matter a lot more, as they reflect party strength on the ground where elections are actually being fought. BTW I have not looked at your link. I don’t have to for the reason I have just given.
Adopting a Hard Brexit stance? Why would the Lib Dems want to adopt something that is similar to UKIP and Tory policy? Again it would not be convincing because it is not what the Lib Dems believe in, and it would alienate most of those voters who might consider voting for us. You forget that beside “Hard Brexit” and “Soft Brexit” supporters , there is another group, “No Brexit”, which only the Lib Dems (and perhaps also Greens) are making any effort to woo. Why would we not want to attract the votes of “the 48%” whom no-one else in the political mainstream is making any sort of attempt to woo, when it is exactly what we believe in? And you suggest that we should adopt a policy that puts us in an already crowded political territory, among company we really do not want to be associated with?!? I don’t know whether you simply misunderstand the Lib Dem party and its vote, or you are trying to give duff advice. The latter is possible as I really doubt you wish the Lib Dems well, so it’s probably best to just ignore your suggestions about the best electoral strategy for us. Another possibility, of course, is that you want to drive all parties towards the anti-EU side, and make sure there is no pro-EU voice in UK politics.
Alex Macfie 29th Oct ’16 – 5:01pm
Alex – if you read my posts above you will see that I am fully aware how important membership of the EU is to many Party members – that is why I use the term ‘grudgingly accept’ Hard Brexit – because it is almost certainly going to be the reality. By accepting this it would put the Party a some steps ahead of its rivals by allow it to take advantage of the new circumstances – which I genuinely believe are circumstances in which the Party could flourish.
TF and other Christian members of the Party might understand the point I am trying to get across through what I understand is known as the Serenity Prayer:
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
You don’t get to decide what cannot be changed John Roffey. Part of politics is to seek to change things.