I see "transport expert" Christian Wolmar has been chosen as Labour
candidate next month's Richmond Park by-election. He also stood to be
Labour's candidate for London mayor, where he came fifth out of six
candidates, so this is an improvement, and he now does get to take on Zac
Goldsmith. But his chances of becoming an MP are low (Labour only had 12.3%
of the vote last time).

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/richmond-park-byelection-labour-nominates-transport-expert-christian-wolmar-to-stand-against-zac-a3388081.html

In message
-septe
mber.org, at 17:10:41 on Sat, 5 Nov 2016, Recliner
remarked:

But his chances of becoming an MP are low (Labour only had 12.3%
of the vote last time)

"Slim to none" is a more realistic description.

However, prospective MPs have to "earn their wings" contesting
impossible seats, before being offered a safe seat some years later.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 17:10:41 on Sat, 5 Nov 2016, Recliner
remarked:

But his chances of becoming an MP are low (Labour only had 12.3%
of the vote last time)

"Slim to none" is a more realistic description.

However, prospective MPs have to "earn their wings" contesting
impossible seats, before being offered a safe seat some years later.

Yes, and by standing, he'll split the pro-Remain vote, thus pretty much
guaranteeing that Zac keeps his seat; otherwise the LDs might have had a
chance of winning the seat back.

On 05/11/2016 21:32, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 17:10:41 on Sat, 5 Nov 2016, Recliner
remarked:

But his chances of becoming an MP are low (Labour only had 12.3%
of the vote last time)

"Slim to none" is a more realistic description.

However, prospective MPs have to "earn their wings" contesting
impossible seats, before being offered a safe seat some years later.

Yes, and by standing, he'll split the pro-Remain vote, thus pretty much
guaranteeing that Zac keeps his seat; otherwise the LDs might have had a
chance of winning the seat back.


Is Goldsmith standing as the official tory candidate or as an independent?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 05/11/2016 21:32, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 17:10:41 on Sat, 5 Nov 2016, Recliner
remarked:

But his chances of becoming an MP are low (Labour only had 12.3%
of the vote last time)

"Slim to none" is a more realistic description.

However, prospective MPs have to "earn their wings" contesting
impossible seats, before being offered a safe seat some years later.

Yes, and by standing, he'll split the pro-Remain vote, thus pretty much
guaranteeing that Zac keeps his seat; otherwise the LDs might have had a
chance of winning the seat back.


Is Goldsmith standing as the official tory candidate or as an independent?

Theoretically the latter, but in effect, both:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-zac-goldsmith-heathrow-by-election-a7380126.html

In article , (Graeme
Wall) wrote:

On 05/11/2016 21:32, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-
september.org, at 17:10:41 on Sat, 5 Nov 2016, Recliner
remarked:

But his chances of becoming an MP are low (Labour only had 12.3%
of the vote last time)

"Slim to none" is a more realistic description.

However, prospective MPs have to "earn their wings" contesting
impossible seats, before being offered a safe seat some years later.

Yes, and by standing, he'll split the pro-Remain vote, thus pretty much
guaranteeing that Zac keeps his seat; otherwise the LDs might have had a
chance of winning the seat back.

Is Goldsmith standing as the official tory candidate or as an
independent?

He claims to be an Independent but he appears to have active endorsements
from the Conservative Party and from UKIP.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 17:10:41 on Sat, 5 Nov 2016, Recliner
remarked:

But his chances of becoming an MP are low (Labour only had 12.3%
of the vote last time)

"Slim to none" is a more realistic description.

However, prospective MPs have to "earn their wings" contesting
impossible seats, before being offered a safe seat some years later.

Yes, and by standing, he'll split the pro-Remain vote, thus pretty much
guaranteeing that Zac keeps his seat; otherwise the LDs might have had a
chance of winning the seat back.


I see Wolmar has had to start his campaign by defending the decision not to
back the LD candidate instead. He skates around why it's better to let
Goldsmith win:
"Why would we deliberately opt out of a three-week high profile campaign
which gives us an opportunity to demonstrate our renewed unity [Huh?] and
our distinctive ideas?"

http://labourlist.org/2016/11/richmo...-and-lib-dems/

But once he's lost, he has to go back to earning his living as a supposedly
impartial railway journalist and author, which won't be helped by phrases
like, "people should be turning their backs on this vicious and nasty
government".

On 07/11/2016 09:39, Recliner wrote:
Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 17:10:41 on Sat, 5 Nov 2016, Recliner
remarked:

But his chances of becoming an MP are low (Labour only had 12.3%
of the vote last time)

"Slim to none" is a more realistic description.

However, prospective MPs have to "earn their wings" contesting
impossible seats, before being offered a safe seat some years later.

Yes, and by standing, he'll split the pro-Remain vote, thus pretty much
guaranteeing that Zac keeps his seat; otherwise the LDs might have had a
chance of winning the seat back.


I see Wolmar has had to start his campaign by defending the decision not to
back the LD candidate instead. He skates around why it's better to let
Goldsmith win:
"Why would we deliberately opt out of a three-week high profile campaign
which gives us an opportunity to demonstrate our renewed unity [Huh?] and
our distinctive ideas?"

http://labourlist.org/2016/11/richmo...-and-lib-dems/

But once he's lost, he has to go back to earning his living as a supposedly
impartial railway journalist and author, which won't be helped by phrases
like, "people should be turning their backs on this vicious and nasty
government".


Last thing I'd do is turn my back on them, not without a kevlar jacket
anyway.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 17:10:41 on Sat, 5 Nov 2016, Recliner
remarked:

But his chances of becoming an MP are low (Labour only had 12.3%
of the vote last time)

"Slim to none" is a more realistic description.

However, prospective MPs have to "earn their wings" contesting
impossible seats, before being offered a safe seat some years later.

Yes, and by standing, he'll split the pro-Remain vote, thus pretty much
guaranteeing that Zac keeps his seat; otherwise the LDs might have had a
chance of winning the seat back.


I see Wolmar has had to start his campaign by defending the decision not
to
back the LD candidate instead. He skates around why it's better to let
Goldsmith win:
"Why would we deliberately opt out of a three-week high profile campaign
which gives us an opportunity to demonstrate our renewed unity [Huh?] and
our distinctive ideas?"

http://labourlist.org/2016/11/richmo...-and-lib-dems/

But once he's lost, he has to go back to earning his living as a
supposedly
impartial railway journalist and author, which won't be helped by phrases
like, "people should be turning their backs on this vicious and nasty
government".

I really do hate the way that lefties bandy about personal abuse just
because they disagree with someone's political position.

Look, it's fairly simple here. The Tory party aren't (despite your claims
otherwise) making these choices (to cut spending) that they make because
they are pre-disposed to be "nasty" people. They are making them because
they *genuinely* believe that, for the economic good of the country, it's
the right thing to do - and in the current state of the country's finances
doing what's right for the economy trumps doing what is socially the right
thing to do.

And the reality of (basic maths) is that,

1) the alternative of putting up taxes on the rich collects such a tiny
amount of money it's hardly worth doing
and
2) costs cutting by government is bound to have a greater effect on the
worst off members of society because, making use of the things that
government provides, is a much larger part of a poor person's life than that
of a rich person.

If you disagree on the fundamentals of someone's policy you have to have a
convincing argument that that policy is wrong. Calling them names because
of the unavoidable consequences of that, well founded [1], policy is not a
vote winner in my book.

tim

[1] it must be well founded because so far you haven't put up an argument
against it. You seem to think that name calling suffices here. It doesn't

FTAOD "you" in the above refers to no person in particular here

On 07/11/2016 12:14, tim... wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...

Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe

mber.org, at 17:10:41 on Sat, 5 Nov 2016, Recliner
remarked:

But his chances of becoming an MP are low (Labour only had 12.3%
of the vote last time)

"Slim to none" is a more realistic description.

However, prospective MPs have to "earn their wings" contesting
impossible seats, before being offered a safe seat some years later.

Yes, and by standing, he'll split the pro-Remain vote, thus pretty much
guaranteeing that Zac keeps his seat; otherwise the LDs might have had a
chance of winning the seat back.


I see Wolmar has had to start his campaign by defending the decision
not to
back the LD candidate instead. He skates around why it's better to let
Goldsmith win:
"Why would we deliberately opt out of a three-week high profile campaign
which gives us an opportunity to demonstrate our renewed unity [Huh?] and
our distinctive ideas?"

http://labourlist.org/2016/11/richmo...-and-lib-dems/


But once he's lost, he has to go back to earning his living as a
supposedly
impartial railway journalist and author, which won't be helped by phrases
like, "people should be turning their backs on this vicious and nasty
government".

I really do hate the way that lefties bandy about personal abuse just
because they disagree with someone's political position.

Look, it's fairly simple here. The Tory party aren't (despite your
claims otherwise) making these choices (to cut spending) that they make
because they are pre-disposed to be "nasty" people. They are making
them because they *genuinely* believe that, for the economic good of the
country, it's the right thing to do - and in the current state of the
country's finances doing what's right for the economy trumps doing what
is socially the right thing to do.


So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being
about the worst possible thing you could do for the economy.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.