brad465
Established Member
This is what happens when a party is hastily setup before key elections: the nutters turn up.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Super Thursday - Elections 2021
- Thread starter KashmireHawker
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
daodao
Established Member
Why? Homophobia is widespread, and endorsed by most major religions, but kept under wraps as it is now non-PC, illegal if there is actual discrimination and criminal if there is actual abuse. The SNP and Green support for alternative sexual lifestyles may hinder them in this election.
One result that might cause shock waves would be the new Scottish Labour leader winning the Glasgow Southside constituency.
Those who really want Scottish independence are presumably hoping that Alba win enough seats to hold the balance of power.
Please note that these are merely observations from afar and that I am not endorsing any particular view.
Last edited:
eMeS
Member
I'm in Milton Keynes, and today I received the election leaflet from the resident Labour Party. The key message I picked up was that Council Tax is being kept low for MK relative to neighbouring authorities.
"Council Tax increase in 2021
2.5% rise for MK,
7% for nearby Thames Valley PPC,
4.99% for West Northants,
4.95% for Central Beds
4% for Bucks".
What I don't know is what the base figure is for an average home.
I was disappointed to find nothing about transport other than "Invest £25m on improving redways, cycling and green transport." Not a hint about trialling more modern transport systems which I've seen trailed in the Press, and no mention of the discarded electric scooters now littering MK, but there is mention of introducing litter wardens.
"Council Tax increase in 2021
2.5% rise for MK,
7% for nearby Thames Valley PPC,
4.99% for West Northants,
4.95% for Central Beds
4% for Bucks".
What I don't know is what the base figure is for an average home.
I was disappointed to find nothing about transport other than "Invest £25m on improving redways, cycling and green transport." Not a hint about trialling more modern transport systems which I've seen trailed in the Press, and no mention of the discarded electric scooters now littering MK, but there is mention of introducing litter wardens.
KashmireHawker
Member
Knowing the attention that Hartlepool, Scotland and Wales are getting; I am very pleased The New Statesman have picked up the importance - of my neck of the woods: The West Midlands!
We are the 2nd biggest Mayoral area in the UK and with an annual Budget of £830 Million, the West Midlands Combined Authority has a lot to play with.
Not the most enthusiastic campaign, but a bellwether electorally; knowing Andy Street won by 3,776 Second Preference Votes in 2017!
We are the 2nd biggest Mayoral area in the UK and with an annual Budget of £830 Million, the West Midlands Combined Authority has a lot to play with.
Not the most enthusiastic campaign, but a bellwether electorally; knowing Andy Street won by 3,776 Second Preference Votes in 2017!
Its mayoral election should be a nail-biter. In 2017, the Tory candidate Andy Street beat Labour’s Siôn Simon by 50.4 per cent to 49.6 per cent, and the election came down to just 4,000 votes. This time round, Street is facing a challenge from the former New Labour Treasury minister Liam Byrne. With Labour victories in London and Manchester about as certain as anything gets in politics, the West Midlands should make for a genuinely close competition, and the biggest opportunity for an upset.
Why everyone – especially Labour – should be watching the West Midlands mayoral election
In Mother Tongue, his 1990 book on the history of the English language, Bill Bryson claimed that the French have an expression, “être de Birmingham”, which translates roughly as “to be bored to death”. Attempts to find a second source for this claim have, alas, mostly uncovered internet forums...www.newstatesman.com
75A
Established Member
Had an interesting letter through the door yesterday, a posh blue envelope that looked like it was hand written. addressed to Mr & Mrs .....
Inside on matching paper, again appearing to be hand written with the usual twaddle about the election.
Who was it from, the local Tories?
No
The Lib Dems or as we call them. The Raving Confused Party.
Inside on matching paper, again appearing to be hand written with the usual twaddle about the election.
Who was it from, the local Tories?
No
The Lib Dems or as we call them. The Raving Confused Party.
Last edited:
KashmireHawker
Member
From here in WM: IT IS CLOSE...
When second preference votes from the LIb Dems Jenny Wilkinson, Greens Steve Caudwell and others, Mr Street is still ahead 52 per cent to 48 per cent."
Tories' Andy Street on course to win West Midlands for Boris Johnson in 'red wall' mayoral contest, poll shows
The West Midlands contest for mayor next month is an electoral touchstone on whether Boris Johnson can hold the red wall against Labourwww.telegraph.co.uk
birchesgreen
Established Member
52-48? Sounds familiar? 
KashmireHawker
Member
52-48? Sounds familiar?
Oh yes...
However, a straight reversal of 50.4%-49.6% (which was the 2017 Mayoral Result), will do me very nicely!
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Hmmm....
Telegraph said:
If he gets 52% on the first round, then there won't be a 2nd round! He'll have won outright on the first round. I would think that, if that poll is correct within the margin of error then he's basically won: The usual 3% margin of error gives him minimum 49% on the first round, which is so close to 50% that it'd be very strange if he didn't get over it on the 2nd round. Obviously depends on that poll being correct though.
KashmireHawker
Member
In theory, you would be correct and would be a serious shock.
And everyone, would be extremely surprised - IF either Andy or Liam wins in the first round, knowing there are 5 candidates this year and out of the 6 who ran in 2017, four of them saved there £5000 Deposit with 5% or more of the vote and which is why, the end result was just a 0.8% win.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Yes, I just checked out the 2017 figures and I'm inclined to agree. Then Andy (Tory) had 42% of first preferences, Labour was on 41% and the LibDems+Greens between them had 11%. UKIP had 6% - if (plausibly) that almost all goes to the Tories, that puts them on 48%. Set against that, IIRC the 2017 local elections were basically a landslide for the Tories. Right now they are ahead in the polls nationally but not as much as in May 2017, so you'd expect some swing to Labour.
And could the LibDem+Green vote also collapse, as that poll seems to suggest? I'm not sure how well they did in the 2017 local elections; certainly the LibDems did very badly in the general election a month later, so there doesn't seem much scope for them to go down further. Seems a bit unlikely though.
So yes - if that poll is correct - it would appear a surprisingly good result for the Tories.
I've received my postal vote today.
It comes as no surprise that the wording on the "Instructions for voting by post" are unchanged from 2016, and therefore as bad as they were then. I complained to our local returning officer, the Electoral Commission ("Your complaint has been noted with us, as you’re not the first person to email us about this subject.") and Vera Baird who at the time was talking about trying to reduce the number of spoiled ballots.
My specific complaint was and is that the instructions tell us to cast a vote for our first choice AND second choice candidates. This goes on to say that first and second choices "should be different", however what is definitely not stated is that there's no requirement to vote for a second choice candidate.
Of course, the local returning officer simply said something along the lines of "I'm just doing what I'm told to do, I have no choice".
As before, I do not want to vote for any second choice candidate, and I haven't, but it's only because of other research that I've done that I know my vote is valid without this second choice vote. But I suspect that, out of the few people who actually vote, a significant number of them will vote for a second choice candidate because they think that they have to, not because they want to.
I don't really think anyone is bothered about these sorts of issues, it's just a process and boxes (of other sorts) have to be ticked so that people can be seen to be doing their jobs.
So the instructions continue to be incomplete and unhelpful, and so we will continue to see spoiled ballots as a result.
EDIT This is the PCC election using the Supplementary Vote system (https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/voter/types-elections/police-and-crime-commissioners, which correctly states "You don't have to mark a second choice" so why don't the instructions with the postal vote say this also?), which is the only vote I have in the current round of local elections.
It comes as no surprise that the wording on the "Instructions for voting by post" are unchanged from 2016, and therefore as bad as they were then. I complained to our local returning officer, the Electoral Commission ("Your complaint has been noted with us, as you’re not the first person to email us about this subject.") and Vera Baird who at the time was talking about trying to reduce the number of spoiled ballots.
My specific complaint was and is that the instructions tell us to cast a vote for our first choice AND second choice candidates. This goes on to say that first and second choices "should be different", however what is definitely not stated is that there's no requirement to vote for a second choice candidate.
Of course, the local returning officer simply said something along the lines of "I'm just doing what I'm told to do, I have no choice".
As before, I do not want to vote for any second choice candidate, and I haven't, but it's only because of other research that I've done that I know my vote is valid without this second choice vote. But I suspect that, out of the few people who actually vote, a significant number of them will vote for a second choice candidate because they think that they have to, not because they want to.
I don't really think anyone is bothered about these sorts of issues, it's just a process and boxes (of other sorts) have to be ticked so that people can be seen to be doing their jobs.
So the instructions continue to be incomplete and unhelpful, and so we will continue to see spoiled ballots as a result.
EDIT This is the PCC election using the Supplementary Vote system (https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/voter/types-elections/police-and-crime-commissioners, which correctly states "You don't have to mark a second choice" so why don't the instructions with the postal vote say this also?), which is the only vote I have in the current round of local elections.
Purple Orange
On Moderation
Yes homophobia is still widespread unfortunately, but just to kindly point out one thing, being anything other than heterosexual is not an “alternative sexual lifestyle”. I read your comment and I can tell your point of view is coming from a completely good place, but if you’re born as someone who is gay, bi or trans, there is no alternative. Your lifestyle is what it is, but your sexual orientation (like eye colour, skin colour or who your biological parents are) is just an accident of birth that is just a part of you.
75A
Established Member
Ours came yesterday, 4 letters because we've not only got to vote for the local (Hinckley & Bosworth) Council but also for the Leicestershire Police Commisioner. Why on earth we have to vote for the top copper using the antiquated County system is way beyond me. It's just a line on a map, farcical in extremis.
birchesgreen
Established Member
Laurence Fox is polling the same as Count Bin Face in London, be hilarious if he got less votes.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
I just got my London elections pamphlet with statements from all the candidates. Rather surprised to discover no less than 17 different candidates for Mayor of London - representing just about every fringe imaginable. Even Piers Corbyn is standing, on a platform of (surprise...) ending all lockdowns. Slightly amused that the UKIP candidate is called Peter Gammons! For a few seconds I thought it was a brave attempt to take ownership of the term, in the same way that the gay rights movement managed to take ownership of words like 'queer' - then I realised it really was his name!
20 Candidates running, but 3 of acknowledge that they're joke candidates (to varying extents) and didn't pay £10k to publish their mini-manifesto in the pamphlet. The BBC interviews with the candidates was enlightening on them though:
Count Binface, Count Binface for Mayor of London
IMAGE COPYRIGHTCOUNT BINFACE
Like many Londoners, I looked at the list of candidates in 2021 and I thought "this is looking like a rubbish election".
And you know, rubbish is kind of my thing. So I thought, 'why not throw my bin into the ring?'.
My plan is to put London on the map.
London's pigeons also need sorting out. They've been getting away with too much for too long.
But I suppose my biggest platform is about improving London's transport, improving London's cleanliness and making sure once this whole Covid nastiness is out of the way we can "build back better". That slogan is mine!
One of my key platforms is to finish Crossrail. People are saying I'm mad to even attempt it but that railway needs to be built, no matter what.
-----
Max Fosh, Independent
IMAGE COPYRIGHTMATT CROCKETT
I am running to beat Laurence Fox.
I don't think I would be a good mayor at all. I don't think I have the expertise or the political knowledge to become London mayor.
But I am running nonetheless, to beat the aforementioned Laurence Fox.
I also want to increase the voter turnout from the younger demographic between 18-25. In the UK, we are lagging behind in terms of young people voting in comparison to our neighbours on the continent.
If I was elected London mayor, which I know I'm not going to, I would listen to all of the scientists and people from industry to try and get us the best solution to get us out of Covid-19.
I understand that I have absolutely no chance of winning.
----
Niko Omilana, Independent
Should I be London mayor? What a stupid question - of course, I should.
The system is broken for young people and I am the only man who can fix it.
We are not taken seriously and it makes me sick.
I have more knowledge, strength and integrity than any other candidate.
The people who run this country are unserious, and that comes from someone wearing children's glasses.
But I am taking action now. I have a message to our prime minister on behalf of every young person in our nation: "Boris Johnson, shush."
The biggest threat to our country is our prime minister.
If a man who cannot even comb his hair properly is running our nation, then we truly have no hope.
London under me will have equal opportunity.
Gammons really is an unfortunate name, but I did have to chuckle when I saw that the UKIP mini-manifesto was right next to the "rejoin the EU" candidate's one!
102 fan
Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2007
- Messages
- 769
'Gammons really is an unfortunate name, but I did have to chuckle when I saw that the UKIP mini-manifesto was right next to the "rejoin the EU" candidate's one!'
Would you say Black would be an unfortunate name for an Afro Caribbean candidate, or is ok to label white people in such a manner?
Would you say Black would be an unfortunate name for an Afro Caribbean candidate, or is ok to label white people in such a manner?
Class465pacer
Member
Here is the latest polling from Savanta ComRes:
Khan (Labour) 42%
Bailey (Conservative) 28%
Porritt (Lib Dem) 8%
Berry (Green) 6%
Omilana (Independent) 5%
Rose (London Real) 2%
London (Independent) 2%
Fox (Reclaim) 1%
Gammons (UKIP) 1%
Hewison (Rejoin EU) 1%
Kurten (Heritage) 1%
Binface (Count Binface Party) 1%
Obunge (Independent) 1%
Fosh (Independent) 1%
Reid (Women's Equality) 1%
All others less than 1%
After transfers, Khan is at 61% and Bailey at 39%
Khan (Labour) 42%
Bailey (Conservative) 28%
Porritt (Lib Dem) 8%
Berry (Green) 6%
Omilana (Independent) 5%
Rose (London Real) 2%
London (Independent) 2%
Fox (Reclaim) 1%
Gammons (UKIP) 1%
Hewison (Rejoin EU) 1%
Kurten (Heritage) 1%
Binface (Count Binface Party) 1%
Obunge (Independent) 1%
Fosh (Independent) 1%
Reid (Women's Equality) 1%
All others less than 1%
After transfers, Khan is at 61% and Bailey at 39%
nlogax
Established Member
I could happily vote for Count Binface.
I had another batch of election bumph through the letterbox again today; exactly the same set of leaflets that I received two days ago, including the hateful rubbish from the Scottish Family Party.
Any party who claims to have green policies should be hanging their heads in shame for delivering the same leaflet more than once, and that's all of you (including the Green Party!) The Alba Party is the only one so far which has only delivered one.
So far I've heard from the SNP, Labour, Tories, Reform UK, Greens, Scottish Socialists, UKIP and the nutjob Family Party. I've seen nothing from the LibDems. I assume they'll be standing for the constituency as well as on the list, but I've no idea who their candidate is.
Any party who claims to have green policies should be hanging their heads in shame for delivering the same leaflet more than once, and that's all of you (including the Green Party!) The Alba Party is the only one so far which has only delivered one.
So far I've heard from the SNP, Labour, Tories, Reform UK, Greens, Scottish Socialists, UKIP and the nutjob Family Party. I've seen nothing from the LibDems. I assume they'll be standing for the constituency as well as on the list, but I've no idea who their candidate is.
d9009alycidon
Member
Down here in Ayrshire things have been extremely quiet, only one leaflet (from the SNP) through the door, no posters up on lampposts no canvassing either in person or by phone, near apathy in fact!
I was so put out by their leaflet I actually looked up their manifesto and it was even more breathtakingly disgusting than I'd expected. And I note that the leaflet was printed in Essex, which is hugely trivial but I do like to see how the parties do at keeping that money close to home.
Other than them I've had leaflets from the SNP, Labour, the Greens, and an independent with a silly platform I can't be bothered remembering. Nothing from the Tories as yet, which is a bit of a contrast to December 2019 when I got so many I could have used them to heat the flat.
Labour seem to have sunk a fortune into Instagram ads as it's there's I'm seeing the most of, by far. Credit to Sarwar for going in hard, but I have to say that the red bus is not forming positive associations with me, at all
Interestingly I also notice that Mr Johnson has quietly cancelled his pre-poll visit to Scotland. Apparently "the pandemic is making these visits more challenging than they would be otherwise."
Funnily enough, I also took a few moments to check out their manifesto.
I got as far as "women get paid less because they're weaker and should know their place (at home raising children)" and "children should be seen and not heard and aren't disciplined hard enough (beaten, presumably) at school" before I decided I'd seen enough. Those weren't the exact words used, obviously.
Leaving aside the LGBTQ+ issues, which according to some are "alternative lifestyles", it all came across as "faither kens best" and it makes me shudder to think that anyone would consider voting for them.
www.scottishfamily.org/manifesto
Read it and weep!
Our lib dem leaflet did introduce the candidate, but made it clear they were second on the regional list and that was the best way to get them elected. Short of explicitly saying "vote Labour in the constituency" it couldn't have been clearer
brad465
Established Member
I do wonder how much of a "shy-Tory" effect will apply to next week's elections, but not in terms of underestimating Tory support, but underestimating support for anyone who isn't Tory or Labour, or more specifically, is against all the restrictions. I doubt support for anti-restrictions groups will blow the whole thing away, if there's such a thing, but we may see levels like 10% more than expected going elsewhere can cause surprising results in places.
I think it's reasonable to assume that 10-20% of votes will be more difficult to predict in the current environment than is usually the case. I would guess that this will just lead to a drop in the turnout, but it will be interesting to see certainly.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
I think Labour are edging into dishonest campaigning mode. Remember all the fuss Labour (rightly) kicked up at during the 2019 general election when the Tories temporarily changed their CCHQPress Twitter handle to factcheckUK - thereby falsely implying it was non-partisan.
Well, look what we have here... https://iwillvote.org.uk/ - a Labour site that does mention Labour in the text of the pages, but has a URL and overall branding that falsely gives the impression of neutrality. In principle, exactly the same as what Labour complained about the Tories doing last time.
Meanwhile Sadiq Khan has literature that claims that voting for anyone other than him in the London Mayoral elections could let the Tories in. That is of course misleading to the point of being false because the election uses the supplementary vote system - which means you can put anyone down as your first preference without any risk of letting in another candidate on less than 50% of the vote. I've been very undecided about which way to vote in London, but I think with that bit of dishonesty, Sadiq has now lost my vote for both 1st and 2nd preference.
Well, look what we have here... https://iwillvote.org.uk/ - a Labour site that does mention Labour in the text of the pages, but has a URL and overall branding that falsely gives the impression of neutrality. In principle, exactly the same as what Labour complained about the Tories doing last time.
Meanwhile Sadiq Khan has literature that claims that voting for anyone other than him in the London Mayoral elections could let the Tories in. That is of course misleading to the point of being false because the election uses the supplementary vote system - which means you can put anyone down as your first preference without any risk of letting in another candidate on less than 50% of the vote. I've been very undecided about which way to vote in London, but I think with that bit of dishonesty, Sadiq has now lost my vote for both 1st and 2nd preference.
Attachments
Meanwhile Sadiq Khan has literature that claims that voting for anyone other than him in the London Mayoral elections could let the Tories in. That is of course misleading to the point of being false because the election uses the supplementary vote system - which means you can put anyone down as your first preference without any risk of letting in another candidate on less than 50% of the vote. I've been very undecided about which way to vote in London, but I think with that bit of dishonesty, Sadiq has now lost my vote for both 1st and 2nd preference.
Well, there is the slightest hint of truth in there - for the other 2 votes happening in the GLA elections, there are no supplementary votes. That said, if they were referring to those elections it wouldn't be "vote for me"...
That said, I think after getting the same letter (rather bizarrely addressed to just me and my sister, I fear they're misinterpreting the electoral register!!) I won't be putting Sadiq as my 2nd preference - probably going to be Porrit/Berry, though I don't know which order as yet
I think you're stretching it a bit with iwillvote. The branding doesn't say labour, but it's mentioned repeatedly in the text, and the site doesn't make any claims any candidates whatsoever. It's absolutely nothing like the Tories trick where they created themselves a blue-ticked "fact check" site and used it to lie about Labour.I think Labour are edging into dishonest campaigning mode. Remember all the fuss Labour (rightly) kicked up at during the 2019 general election when the Tories temporarily changed their CCHQPress Twitter handle to factcheckUK - thereby falsely implying it was non-partisan.
Well, look what we have here... https://iwillvote.org.uk/ - a Labour site that does mention Labour in the text of the pages, but has a URL and overall branding that falsely gives the impression of neutrality. In principle, exactly the same as what Labour complained about the Tories doing last time.
Meanwhile Sadiq Khan has literature that claims that voting for anyone other than him in the London Mayoral elections could let the Tories in. That is of course misleading to the point of being false because the election uses the supplementary vote system - which means you can put anyone down as your first preference without any risk of letting in another candidate on less than 50% of the vote. I've been very undecided about which way to vote in London, but I think with that bit of dishonesty, Sadiq has now lost my vote for both 1st and 2nd preference.
- Status