No it doesn't mean that Heathrow has won. The two leading candidates were both anti Heathrow so that took it away as an issue in the election.
It's what Goldsmith said. Who knows? Heathrow management have sensibly declined to comment.
Goldsmith intended this to be a by-election about Heathrow expansion. What he failed to realise is that Heathrow expansion is not an electoral issue and does not shift votes. Anyone doubting this should look at election results in the area, and ask themselves why
no anti-Heathrow group has ever put up a candidate for election.
Also bear in mind that Richmond is a wealthy area and, consequently, its residents travel a lot and widely, mostly to/from Heathrow (where possible). They, like everyone else, get pissed off with the delays, the queues to take off and land, and the fact that every flight to/from Heathrow takes at least 30 minutes longer than it should (because of the delays). Like the rest of us, they also get pissed off with having to traipse accross to Gatwick for destinations not available at Heathrow.
A rich vocal minority bang on about noise, but it is a minority and a tiny one at that. Rest assured that if the situation was so bad in Richmond, house prices would not be as eye-wateringly high as they are, and the rich and famous would not choose to live there.
There is also the hypocritical environment lobby including the Lib-dems and the Greens who, by implication, are happy with the status quo at Heathrow. By opposing expansion and improvement, they appear to believe that the unnecessary pollution caused by the existing levels of delays is fine and dandy.
Their arguments do not stand up to scrutiny and, funnily enough, no one has bothered to explain how to make Heathrow "better not bigger", a mindless slogan often trotted out by some local MPs (and ex-MPs of course).
Goldsmith should have known all this, he grew up in the area and still lives there.
The opportunist and fanatically pro-EU Lib-Dems attempted to make it a referendum on brexit and that backfired as well, because it's several months too late.
In the end if the by-election turned out to be a referendum, it was a referendum on "Zac-zit" and unnecessary by-elections, by-elections on cold days, and by-elections in December. With the Conservatives not bothering to field a candidate, the Lib-Dems were the only party capable of taking advantage of the situation, nothing more, nothing less.
The question if the by-election had been a referendum:
Should Zac remain in Parliament as MP for Richmond?
Should Zac leave Parliament as the former MP for Richmond?
The Sun, uncharacteristically, had a reasonable summary of the outcome:
"It might not have been the reason the by-election was won or lost, but the reason we had a contest in the first place was Heathrow. Zac Goldsmith had said he would resign if the west London airport got the go-ahead to expand, and that's exactly what he did when it was given the green light to build a new runway last month.
But although the woman who defeated him is also anti-Heathrow, the fact the former Tory ran on an explicit anti-Heathrow protest ticket and lost will be a boost to Theresa May's hopes of getting this through. And the removal of one of the most vocal campaigners from the House of Commons means that the long-awaited attempts to build a third runway are a little bit closer."
Richmond Park had, of course, elected Lib Dem MPs for many years before Zac came along. Sarah Olney may also turn out to be a vocal campaigner, but the difference would be that she's not doing it from within the governing party.
As would Goldmith, had he been re-elected.
Pity the fares are so high - I now regularly travel via AMS or CDG long-haul as the cost of Business out of LHR is getting so steep
Business pax love Heathrow and are prepared to pay these steep prices, hence the carriers all want to be at Heathrow.