Richmond Park By-Election: Zac Goldsmith's horrid London Mayoral Campaign should be lightning rod for rallying progressive support behind a challenger

Zac Goldsmith, once the darling of 'decent' liberal conservatism, chose the low road against Sadiq Khan in London. Photograph: Zac Goldsmith MP at 'A New Conversation with the Centre-Right about Climate Change' in 2013 from the Policy Exchange (License) (Cropped)

Zac Goldsmith's promise to resign should the Government go ahead with plans for Heathrow expansion was triggered on Tuesday. Theresa May's Ministry gave the go ahead to Heathrow plans, triggering a by-election in Goldsmith's Richmond Park constituency (BBC, 2016).

Goldsmith will nominally stand as an Independent, but with the Conservatives not standing a candidate against him - for the clear tactical reason of knowing Goldsmith will vote with them on most issues and so wish to avoid splitting the conservative vote - he remains a pro-Government candidate.

For the main opposition in the area, the Liberal Democrats, facing a conservative support split between two Tory candidates would have been a gift. But as it is, the seat remains one of the best opportunities the party will get to demonstrate its 'Lib Dem Fightback'.

The Richmond Park constituency was in fact a liberal seat from 1997 until 2010, when an upsurge in people voting in the constituency tipped it into Conservative hands. Goldsmith defended his seat with an increased majority in 2015.

Yet that defence came under peculiar circumstances. The Lib Dem's general collapse found its way to Richmond Park, where the party lost around half of its support, to the benefit of all the other challengers.

But, regardless of the party voters chose in 2015, the constituency as a whole still seems to be pretty liberal in its make up. At the referendum, going against the Eurosceptic Goldsmith, the area voted by 75,000 to 33,000 in favour of Remaining in the European Union (Dixon, 2016).

What should go a long way towards advancing the challenge of the Liberal Democrats is that certainly no progressive should be giving Goldsmith any consideration after the horrid London Mayoral campaign run his name - with its blatant racial profiling and anti-Muslim attempts to smear Khan as a friend to extremists (Jones, 2016).

In fact, that makes Richmond Park look like the kind of idealistic rallying point for which a Progressive Alliance is intended to represent. Some sort of united progressive stand against the overwhelming majority of Tory policies that Goldsmith still represents and his disgusting divisive tactics in the London campaign would be entirely justified.

With the Lib Dems as the clear sole challenger - it being formerly their seat, the seat being very pro-EU and the Lib Dems sharing the anti-Heathrow expansion position of Goldsmith and Richmond constituents - their candidate would ideally, and tactically, be the focus of allied progressive support against Goldsmith.

Certain Labour MPs have certainly expressed their openness to such an arrangement (Casalicchio, 2016). Sian Berry, Green Member of the London Assembly and their 2016 Mayoral Candidate, has already stressed that she won't let anyone forget Goldsmith's divisive campaign in London (Berry, 2016).

However, officially, Labour have said they will stand their own candidate. But that does not necessarily mean that they ultimately will- or that, having stood a candidate, they will necessarily campaign as hard as they could.

For the Lib Dems themselves, this is clearly a great opportunity. While they will need a huge 19% swing, they achieved that at Witney - and in Witney they showed how thin the Conservative majorities are were they benefit previously from the fall out from the Coalition.

For progressives more widely, the Richmond Park by-election is the first clear chance they've had to significantly defeat the Government at the polls. Local council and Mayoral defeats have been waved away with excuses. But a progressive topping the poll at this by-election would be a serious indicator that the Tory majority was even more tenuous than it already seems.

However Goldsmith and the Government may try to make sure the 'Independent' label sticks, Goldsmith stand with the Government majority on the rest of its programme. Rallying to defeat his candidacy would be a definitive rejection of the Government's policies. It would also demonstrate that even the largest Tory majorities are far from safe when a new election comes around.

Witney by-election suggests Tory support is soft and their majority vulnerable

In hindsight, the Coalition Agreement now almost looks like the first move in a patient five year Conservative strategy to move on the  Liberal Democrats and try to absorb their support. But the gains they made amongst liberals are beginning to look very soft.

By-elections are often tricky to decipher. For instance, sitting governments usually do poorly and lose ground - so that can not necessarily in itself be taken as an indicator of impending defeat at a general election.

However, there are a few things that the Witney by-election, triggered by the resignation of former Prime Minister David Cameron shows us about the state of British politics.

First of all, and of some importance, it is a reminder of just how thin the government majority really is. Cameron & Osborne, and now May, have governed like they have a majority of one hundred and thirty seats, not a narrow thirteen - showing little regard for how divisive their policies actually are.

It takes only a minor disagreement with just a few disgruntled MPs for the path toward Tory goals to be blocked - a clear indicator that, majority or no, the government should be far more respectful of political opinion far broader than the narrow and unrepresentative majority the party holds.

However the second observation is perhaps the most alarming for the Conservatives. Their advantage is not just thin, but also soft. Their majority was attained in 2015 by crushing their former coalition partners the Liberal Democrats, claiming credit for Liberal Democrat policies while specifically targeting their electoral campaign at their seats.

But governing as a majority, unfettered by the Lib Dems, seems to have, perhaps, stripped away the blinkers from those thought that the Conservative & Unionist Party had adopted a gentler, more decent and more liberal way - rather than being restrained by Liberal Democrats in endless policy battles.

And in Witney, it would seem that a significant number of liberals, on the fence between the Tories and the Lib Dems, went over to the Lib Dems - in fact, an entire third of Tory support went over to the Lib Dems, cutting the majority in the seat from twenty five thousand to just five thousand.

What could that mean for British politics more broadly?

David Cameron's former majority, in his recently resigned seat of Witney, has been reduced from 25,000 to just 5000 by his former Coalition partners the Liberal Democrats. Photograph: Prime Minister David Cameron - official photograph by Number 10 (License) (Cropped)

Since 2010, it has been abundantly clear that the easiest way to achieve a progressive government in the near future will be through a coalition. And the only way to make up those numbers would be for whoever is strongest against the Conservatives in a particular area to take the lead.

The strategic position of the Liberal Democrats and their support makes them invaluable to putting progressives over the top and into government. The party is the main opposition to the Conservatives in thirty six constituencies - with a particular concentration in the South West - and that number does not include Witney were the party was third along with at least four others were they also fell below second in 2015.

Local election gains, along with a steady rise in party membership, have been all that the Liberal Democrats have so far had to encourage them that a 'Lib Dem Fightback' is under way. The Witney result might be the strongest signal yet - though, even if an election is just around the corner, it is far too early to read much into whether the Liberal Democrats can recover, not least because turnout at by-elections is often far below a general election turnout.

But their result - even if other progressive parties didn't fair as well (Labour fell to third and the Greens took only four percent) - should give progressives some hope, as voters abandoning the Conservatives for the Liberals is one necessary condition for toppling the Tory majority.

That makes for one front in the coming contest, though with some further assembly still required. Work must now be done to ensure that when an election campaign begins in earnest, progressives have opened up a number of other fronts and are ready to take on the Tories.

Oldham will be the first preview of who is winning the political battles in the public eye

Oldham will host the first by-election of this parliament, triggered by the death of Labour MP Michael Meacher. It will be a set piece political event that might just offer some small insights into whether party ideas are capturing the public imagination. Photograph: Oldham Town Hall by Mikey (License) (Cropped)

On Wednesday the Conservative fiscal plan for the next four and a half years was laid out by the Chancellor. Complete with politically considered back tracks and U-turns, George Osborne's spending review laid out the cuts, caps, and the phasing out and shifting of burdens that we should expect.

Yet, even with all of this information now on the table, the question of how to oppose the Conservative approach is putting Labour in a bind. Labour are trying, though not too hard, to avoid fall into a civil war - the result of which would almost be that the New Labour faction would be forced to leave the party and could even taking a majority of Jeremy Corbyn's party MPs with them.

These events are all very poignantly timed, as the first test for all sides - an important trial run, almost - is coming on the 3rd December in the form of the Oldham West and Royton by-election. From its result, it will be admittedly difficult to extrapolate anything particularly substantial.

Not until April, and the National Assembly and London Mayoral elections will we see a full appraisal of the response of the country to the election of a Conservative majority, its policies on human rights and austerity, and Jeremy Corbyn's new approach as leader of the Labour Party. Yet next Thursday's by-election might just provide a small preview.

Voters in Oldham will be the first to pass direct comment on what was, effectively, Osborne's third budget of the year. Those that turn out at the polls for the by-election will get a chance to say what they think of the Chancellor's offerings.

Despite the fact that the focus for most people will be on the headline of Osborne's likely-to-be-popular U-turn on Tax Credits (BBC, 2015) - and the U-turn on cuts to police budgets that he tried to pass off as a Labour idea - there were other policies to be found in the spending review.

These policies include the gradual phasing out of tax credits, to be replaced with the less supportive universal credit (Allen et al, 2015); a new cap on housing benefit (Cross, 2015); and the replacement of grants for student nurses with loans (Sims, 2015).

According to the assessment by the independent Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS), the poorest will be the most heavily impacted by these changes (Allen et al, 2015) - although that is disputed by Conservatives. Critics have also been sure to point out that austerity is far from over (Wearden, 2015). Further cuts or tax rises may even be necessary if Osborne's gamble on the OBR's positive outlook fails to pay off (Peston, 2015).

Osborne's domestic reforms also appear to match the ideas in his recent speech laying out his plan for the European Union - another issue that may well be on voters' minds. For the Conservatives, the aim is clearly for a deregulated EU that is for business (Sparrow, 2015), rather than citizens - reserving free movement only for trade and money.

Leading the progressive opposition at this point should be the Labour Party. However, Jeremy Corbyn's opposition to intervention in Syria (Wintour, 2015), at least in the present terms and under the present conditions, is proving to be just the latest opportunity for a divide to open up between Corbyn, along with his supporters, and the party's mainstream - particularly in the parliamentary party.

It doesn't seem to be helping to quell the dissent of the few - at the moment, at least - in the Labour Party who support intervention, that even Conservative commentators are saying that the UK's most powerful role right now may well be diplomatic rather than military (Davis, 2015).

There is also the likelihood of a hugely significant event on Tuesday, just days before the by-election, when NHS doctors go on strike, to be followed by two more days of action later in December, if renewed negotiations do not achieve enough ground (Tran, 2015).

Politically, ideologically, there is a lot of pressure building. Yet it won't all be about objective analysis of the impact of policies. Politics is also a contest over the popular perception fought in, and often with, the media. In that game, the Conservatives have tended to fare best, and Osborne has managed to make all of the headlines about how he is protecting, for now at least, those already in the system.

What it is essential for progressives to get across, and rally support behind, is that this is something the Chancellor has only achieved through the shifting of burdens and letting new entrants be hit by the deepest cutbacks (Allen et al, 2015, Cross, 2015). Yet it is always difficult to make heard the narrative based on those who will be hurt in theory, when up against a narrative of those will not now be hurt in the present.

As for other progressive opposition parties, like the Greens and the Liberal Democrats, they will just want to be heard and to see a decent turnout. They both risk being drowned out by the larger narratives coalescing around the two big parties, yet there is room for them to still make an impact. For the Greens, the UN climate change summit in Paris puts the environment and clean energy in the public eye (Vaughan, 2015), while the Lib Dems have been vocal in their opposition to the government over human rights and the rights of refugees (Riley-Smith, 2015) - a key pillar in their plan for a 'Lib Dem Fightback'.

However, set piece events like Thursday's by-election only offer a snapshot impression of where the different factions and parties are, relative to each other, and who is hearing the message sent out by who. The big question - which will likely only be answered in subtle shades of grey - will be whether Osborne has succeeded in getting out the message he wants heard, and whether Corbyn's approach can produce in terms of practical results.