Well, he said he would if Heathrow went ahead, and he has gone and done it. I hope you don't mind if I sit back and enjoy it from my seat in the grim, North. I would have voted for expansion for Blackpool or John Lennon myself. Plenty of capacity and anything is better than the planned fracking.
The one fact we can assume from the situation though, is that Tory HQ in London has had plenty of time to consider what to do if Prime Minister May chose tarmac over the sexy, old Etonian.
Many of you here, no doubt, had already guessed they would shoot Zac's fox by not standing against him. Just a little disagreement amongst the sixth form boarders, nothing to get the whole school worried, don't you know. United front. With, 'Neat solution old chap' echoing down the quad.
But what a chance for the Labour Party, up the ante, and also not stand a candidate? Interesting. Take some faux, outraged, moral high ground and bring it straight back to pure 'Blue on Blue' fire. (Always assuming the electorally challenged, Lib Dems, play with a straight bat). Now, even a very average cavalry commander, in battle, seeing utter disorder in the enemy ranks would simply turn his horses around and charge straight through the gap.
But Labour's top brass in Parliament, is cursed by senior commanders who have long records of persistent, misjudged, half-hearted, confused failure when fantastic opportunties present themselves.
So take the wisdom of serial offender, Staff Officer, Tom Watson here:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/26/labour-frontbenchers-urge-party-not-to-contest-richmond-park-byelection
In short, faced with heaping pain on the enemy, all Watson can contribute is the lazy idea, that Labour is a 'national party' and focus on the old internal issue of always fielding a candidate no matter what.
So the question is, how many here agree or disagree with Jabber the Hut above: Labour is still a 'National Party' and we can show this ideal in any way we like, except by winning a general election?
Debate Magazine
