Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

Astonishing win in terms of margin. I was surprised that the ex-Labour candidate polled as low as 8%, but I guess word spread about his removal and he was viewed, effectively, as another independent.

Even if he wasn't removed, I think Galloway still wins, so it was a stroke of luck for Starmer in that he can ignore this defeat.

I thought Galloway would be out when the GE rolls around; now I'm not 100% sure. The issue of Gaza is hurting Labour amongst its once almost guaranteed Muslim vote.

I think this result shows that an Islamic party, if led by a brilliant campaigner, is a very viable option for the future. They could stand in areas where the Muslim population is relatively high and maybe win a couple of dozen seats at a GE, being similar to the SNP in terms of insurgency.

lostinwales wrote:

GSC wrote:A lot of moaning about labours vote share, and yes their massive majority owed a lot to the Tory collapse and Reform splitting their vote.

But it was also a nearly perfect exhibition of electioneering and playing the system as devised. Corbyn piled up votes preaching to the converted in safe seats, in what turned out to be pretty useless majorities. From the outset here Labour were targeting seats you wouldn't consider marginals normally. And it paid off in seats rather than heavy majorities.

So yeah this vote share wouldn't really hold up under PR. But a rather pointless notion given this election wasn't fought under PR.

Same with the LDs. Both parties gamed the system for maximum seats, although the real master is obviously PC with 4 seats from what?  200K votes?

Worth also adding that extreme parties get more popular during periods of chaos,  and also the previous government did its best to suppress the wrong kind of voters and push the idea,  deliberate or otherwise, that votes and voter opinions don't count.

So yes,  it was a strange election with a poor turnout,  and way too much money being pushed into social media by mysterious people backing a certain serial chancer. But Labour played the hand they had and played it well.

Definitely true with the Lib Dems, unlike Labour, and Plaid, being a regional party, benefit immensely from FPTP.

What's wrong with advertising on social media? Reform were at a big financial disadvantage compared to the LibLabCon, but presumably they still weren't playing fairly with this disadvantage?

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Very pleased to see Truss gone. I do wonder if she will ever accept any blame for anything, but she may have got the message at last.
Reform must be disappointed, especially after the exit poll. Way down on vote share to the Tories, didn't get anywhere near achieving the goal of wiping them out, and only 4 MPs, same as the Greens. Can't see Farage being much of a voice in Parliament with so few behind him - even 10 or so MPs would have been enough to make a little noise. I reckon he'll probably lose interest in it, having ended up such a little fish. Not enough in it to satisfy his ego.
PR will never happen, as we all know. We've (not me, I've wanted PR for about 30 years) banged on for centuries about having the greatest democracy in the world - can't see it ever changing. It would be hypocritical for the right wing to suddenly want it, after not wanting it before i.e. when the Lib Dems were trying to get it.

Yes, Reform will be slightly disappointed.

On the positive side, they've got four MPs in and they've done better than UKIP in 2015. They've got a foothold and loads of second place seats they can target in 2029. That's the good news..

Reform will be more than happy......All about getting Farage and Tice in there and attacking from second place in 2029 and there are plenty of runner up seats......Greens will be happy  the only "main" party that saw its percentage go up significantly and 4 mps to boot...Also second in quite a few seats for 2029.

Starmer got less votes than Corbyn in 2017 and 2019 which is a surprise and well done Corbyn not easy winning as an Indy..

Interesting recount in Basildon.........Reform, Labour and Conservatives all within 300 or so of eachother......Reform starting it just ahead.

Reform will have to come up with something better than the usual "Immigrants out!" schtick if they're to gain any lasting traction and/or say in anything.

They'll be the ones leading the charge for PR.

We had a referendum on changing our voting system so we need to respect democracy.

Yeah. Torpedoed deliberately by the Tories as part of the coalition that called it. FPTP isn't fit for purpose and Labour and Tories do much of their own internal votes via PR systems. Hypocrites. They deny us a system fit for the modern world in order to perpetuate a load of bollox.

Duty281 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

GSC wrote:A lot of moaning about labours vote share, and yes their massive majority owed a lot to the Tory collapse and Reform splitting their vote.

But it was also a nearly perfect exhibition of electioneering and playing the system as devised. Corbyn piled up votes preaching to the converted in safe seats, in what turned out to be pretty useless majorities. From the outset here Labour were targeting seats you wouldn't consider marginals normally. And it paid off in seats rather than heavy majorities.

So yeah this vote share wouldn't really hold up under PR. But a rather pointless notion given this election wasn't fought under PR.

Same with the LDs. Both parties gamed the system for maximum seats, although the real master is obviously PC with 4 seats from what?  200K votes?

Worth also adding that extreme parties get more popular during periods of chaos,  and also the previous government did its best to suppress the wrong kind of voters and push the idea,  deliberate or otherwise, that votes and voter opinions don't count.

So yes,  it was a strange election with a poor turnout,  and way too much money being pushed into social media by mysterious people backing a certain serial chancer. But Labour played the hand they had and played it well.

Definitely true with the Lib Dems, unlike Labour, and Plaid, being a regional party, benefit immensely from FPTP.

What's wrong with advertising on social media? Reform were at a big financial disadvantage compared to the LibLabCon, but presumably they still weren't playing fairly with this disadvantage?

It's not the use of social media etc. It's the opaque nature of the funding etc, especially given the illegality re. Brexit.

It ought to be noted that PR, which I'm in favour of, would lead to a different sort of campaigning and a different sort of voting. There is no way of knowing if Reform, LDs etc would specifically benefit from it or not. Protest votes may be reduced as people would know their vote might actually count, and thus it would not benefit those parties that currently receive a lot of protest votes.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

GSC wrote:A lot of moaning about labours vote share, and yes their massive majority owed a lot to the Tory collapse and Reform splitting their vote.

But it was also a nearly perfect exhibition of electioneering and playing the system as devised. Corbyn piled up votes preaching to the converted in safe seats, in what turned out to be pretty useless majorities. From the outset here Labour were targeting seats you wouldn't consider marginals normally. And it paid off in seats rather than heavy majorities.

So yeah this vote share wouldn't really hold up under PR. But a rather pointless notion given this election wasn't fought under PR.

Same with the LDs. Both parties gamed the system for maximum seats, although the real master is obviously PC with 4 seats from what?  200K votes?

Worth also adding that extreme parties get more popular during periods of chaos,  and also the previous government did its best to suppress the wrong kind of voters and push the idea,  deliberate or otherwise, that votes and voter opinions don't count.

So yes,  it was a strange election with a poor turnout,  and way too much money being pushed into social media by mysterious people backing a certain serial chancer. But Labour played the hand they had and played it well.

Definitely true with the Lib Dems, unlike Labour, and Plaid, being a regional party, benefit immensely from FPTP.

What's wrong with advertising on social media? Reform were at a big financial disadvantage compared to the LibLabCon, but presumably they still weren't playing fairly with this disadvantage?

It's not the use of social media etc. It's the opaque nature of the funding etc, especially given the illegality re. Brexit.

What opaque nature? Are you alleging impropriety? How come the Electoral Commission are unaware of this, but you are? What's your evidence?

Reminds me of the 2019 European Elections. All the evidence-free conspiracies about the dark money of the Brexit Party, yet the Electoral Commission investigated twice and found nothing.

Illegality re: Brexit? You are again referring to a minor overspend by Vote Leave, due to incorrect advice from the Electoral Commission, in a campaign where Leave were heavily outspent. The official Remain campaign was also fined.

Overall, it's hilarious that Labour have had millions pouring in, they're the next government, not Reform who are a tiny group in the Commons receiving tiddlers, but no one cares about that.

JuliusHMarx wrote:It ought to be noted that PR, which I'm in favour of, would lead to a different sort of campaigning and a different sort of voting. There is no way of knowing if Reform, LDs etc would specifically benefit from it or not. Protest votes may be reduced as people would know their vote might actually count, and thus it would not benefit those parties that currently receive a lot of protest votes.

Almost certain that Reform would benefit from it by plundering the Tory vote, but agree it would be a different campaign, different scrutiny etc.

Dear oh dear. Even the SNP got shafted this time.

The UK Alternative Vote referendum, also known as the UK-wide referendum on the Parliamentary voting system was held Thursday 5 May 2011 in the UK to choose the method of electing MPs at subsequent general elections.  It occurred as a provision of the Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition agreement drawn up in 2010.  It operated under the provisions of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 and was the first national referendum to be held under provisions laid out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

The referendum concerned whether to replace the present "first-past-the-post" system with the "alternative vote" (AV) method and was the first national referendum to be held across the whole of the United Kingdom in the 21C.  The proposal to introduce AV was rejected by 67.9% of voters on a national turnout of 42%.

AV: voters rank candidates.  Repeatedly eliminate candidate with fewest first-place votes and reassign their votes until a 50% threshold is surpassed.

No name Bertie wrote:

AV: voters rank candidates.  Repeatedly eliminate candidate with fewest first-place votes and reassign their votes until a 50% threshold is surpassed.

That's what we have. And also compulsory voting which I believe is a good thing.
The aim is to make everybody feel aware and responsible of their duty as a citizen and also have a say in the eventual outcome. I must say you do feel part of it all on Election day... knowing that there are only a very few conscientious objectors willing to pay the small fine... or ignore it and receive a court summons... or jail time.  

It can get messy though with all the preference deals or 'horse trading' that goes on. Voters may or may not choose to follow the "how to vote" advice given out by a particular party as they go into vote and a party in one electorate might preference the other parties differently to what that same party does in another electorate.

e.g. There may be a different order of preference flows for an ALP candidate in NSW cf. an ALP candidate in WA. For instance, lefties on east coast will strongly oppose a certain mining proposal in WA; those on the left in WA realise their constituents demand such a project... so they'll need to be very careful what they say. It can be a blatantly unapologetic opposite position to their own counterparts on the other side of the continent. The media might also turn a blind eye... depending on where you are located.

This kind of muddies the whole thing. Every vote and preference has an impact towards the final end result... which can sometimes be on a knife-edge when it gets down to the final two contenders.

One party may have a greater primary vote than its main competitor party... but once the preferences begin to flow and candidates are eliminated down to the last two - strange turnarounds can happen!

The winner might have received say 10% less votes in the first round but is declared the winner via these preference flows. These can be 100% transferred to one party, or it can be some tricky deal; like 60% to that party, 30% to those guys and the remaining 10% of our votes to the Hunters, Shooters and Fishers Party. A lot a cynical and mind-boggling stuff goes on without the public's knowledge. Then you might even get a few disputes and court cases as the major parties compete for preference votes.

The closer the winning margin the more often there has to be a re-count. Sometimes even a 3rd count. So it can take forever.
A small booth in Tasmania can take weeks... the staff have to take breaks, have a sleep... weekend counting work is optional... so 'we'll resume counting on Monday'. That sort of thing.

I can imagine in an even more populated, diverse place like the UK...with an even greater plethora of international, national and local issues at stake - a PR or AV system of voting would be great fun to watch.

So be very careful what you wish for.

Some of us complain about the obvious shortcomings of our PR STV (single transferrable vote) system but like you've just experienced; the winner never complains on the day and the losers usually suggest that, besides being "robbed!"... perhaps we should "look at better and fairer ways" of electing candidates and therefore ultimately our governments.

The big positive about FPTP is its simplicity and it follows the "one person, one vote" principle.

A move to PR would also require us to completely change how parliament works. Its easy to say "Reform would have won 80 seats" but which seats? What constituencies do they represent? You'd need to adopt the system we use in Scotland where we have constituency MPs and list MPs, where a party gains MPs not affiliated to a particular seat based on % of the vote (in a nutshell).

We have 129 MSPs in 73 constituencies. There are 650 constituencies across the UK, so you're either going to need to drastically cut the number of constituencies (which would result in less local representation) or end up with about 1000 MPs which is a logistical nightmare.

I hesitantly agree with the idea of compulsory voting - but only if any money recouped in fines would go directly into the public coffers in some capacity.

btw Duty, in Oz:

ALP formed government with 32.58% of votes. -0.76 swing but +3.66 on 2PP (2 party preferred after the preferences were distributed)

LNP had 35.70%... -5.74% swing but -3.66 on 2PP

Greens 12.50%... 1.85 swing

Add the red and the green = 45.08%... so they only needed a few "Others"  - small Independents and Teal preferences to get them over the line.

The 2022 election in Australia was sort of similar to UK 2024 in a sense... but our winner is clinging on with only a 1 seat majority - with the help of the crossbench.
Small target politics (save for the big issue of Immigration and border control) Not much detail but lots of (as yet undelivered) promises were made in the lead up.

Since that time, fractures are starting to appear. Some major ones between ALP, Greens... and now also some Independents and Teals. On very similar issues to the UK.

Cost of living, high immigration, higher inflation and interest rates compared to the UK, housing (we need one dwelling built every 2 minutes to keep up with current demand!), perceived broken promises, then cash handouts to alleviate rising energy bills (which to me is an admission of failure of their promise to keep prices down - and also adds to inflation!) and everything else. It's a long list. Oh, I forgot the hubris and the 'so-out-of-touch-with-reality' with the ordinary Aussie, whilst they all give themselves and those working in the party machine massive pay rises. Haven't they read French history? We're all paying for this and we also note the irony of their behaviour.

Add the conflict in Gaza and an equivocal leadership; pathetically embarrassing behaviour from "each-way Albo". His electorate has a rising Muslim 'voice' along with the nearby electorates of at least 3 of his top Ministers. Ring a bell? So what the Teals did to the LNP last time; the newly proposed The Muslim Vote (TMV) might do the same to the ALP next time. The Teals and Greens might also attack marginal (or even not-so-marginal) seats which will splinter the ALP vote further - same what happened to the Tories with Reform. So it does work both ways.

We've also just had some desecration of war memorials, statues, etc and pro-P banners were draped down the face of Parliament House on Thursday. There's also a backward ALP stance on nuclear (82% renewables by 2030) - so the LNP now has a clear point of major policy differentiation going for a more balanced mix of energy sources. The general public is swinging around to that view as well now.

So it's going to be the opposite of 2022 in 2024 possibly (if there's another interest rate rise in August) or by May 2025. It's quite funny actually. How quickly they are imploding in on themselves. All self-inflicted of course. The LNP has almost backed off from from saying "they'll go early"... because there is no need to do so. It could all fall apart quickly in the coming weeks/months; so all the opposition has to do is hammer home their own policy proposals (with fresh evidence) and watch the caucus split apart on several lines at the same time... as seems to be happening now as the political pressure from all directions steadily builds up.

Samo wrote:A move to PR would also require us to completely change how parliament works.  Its easy to say "Reform would have won 80 seats" but which seats?  What constituencies do they represent?  You'd need to adopt the system we use in Scotland where we have constituency MPs and list MPs, where a party gains MPs not affiliated to a particular seat based on % of the vote (in a nutshell).

Any system with constituencies (ie Scotland or Germany) isn't really PR, it's a hybrid. The basic paradox of running elections is that a 'better' system is necessarily going to be more complex than a simple one, but simpler is generally better.

Pal Joey wrote:...I can imagine in an even more populated, diverse place like the UK...with an even greater plethora of international, national and local issues at stake - a PR or AV system of voting would be great fun to watch.

So be very careful what you wish for.

Some of us complain about the obvious shortcomings of our PR STV (single transferrable vote) system but like you've just experienced; the winner never complains on the day and the losers usually suggest that, besides being "robbed!"... perhaps we should "look at better and fairer ways" of electing candidates and therefore ultimately our governments.

Interesting to hear some perspective on somewhere that runs elections in a proportional fashion.

For me, I'd take a PR system over FPTP whatever complications that generates. The current system in the UK is simply not fit for purpose and disenfranchises millions. Needs to change.

Bad night for the Fash in France.

Samo wrote:Bad night for the Fash in France.

My heart bleeds...

Lots of caveats, but an interesting illustration of a possible PR outcome of the recent GE from the ERS:

The 2024 general election under proportional representation

What's already happening and no doubt will do right up until the next GE is Labour when they fail to sort anything out, be it housing, immigration, NHS etc they'll come up will line "We're having to redo X years of Tories mismanagement".

Now, all parties say this, Tories did when they regained power etc but at some stage when you're given keys to the kingdom you have to take responsibility and make a difference. Excusing failure by blaming opposition is the one thing that really gets on my goat. Fair enough in early days of a parliment as there obviously has to be a time period for adjustment but if we hear it a year from now it won't wash.

Do think it's going to be very tough for Labour, especially with their relatively small margin of victory. There's certainly no guarantee of 10 years. A 2010 swing at the next GE will wipe out their voting lead, and they've inherited a rubbish set of cards to work with.

I suppose a lot depends on whether the Tories can get their act together and rebrand themselves as a potential government in just five years time; as well as whether the SNP can rise off the canvas.

But I'm certainly not expecting miracles from Starmer's administration.

Labour are already making some positive moves and appointments. I think as long as things can be shown to be moving in the right direction they'll win the next GE fairly comfortably, but its the term after that where they need to make real, tangible improvements if they want to stay in power.

mountain man wrote:What's already happening and no doubt will do right up until the next GE is Labour when they fail to sort anything out, be it housing, immigration, NHS etc they'll come up will line "We're having to redo X years of Tories mismanagement".

Now, all parties say this, Tories did when they regained power etc but at some stage when you're given keys to the kingdom you have to take responsibility and make a difference. Excusing failure by blaming opposition is the one thing that really gets on my goat. Fair enough in early days of a parliment as there obviously has to be a time period for adjustment but if we hear it a year from now it won't wash.

I think if you're running a country and dealing with all sorts of macro issues, especially following a cluster**** predecessor Government, you probably need >5 years and it's reasonable to make it clear to the electorate that, yes, it will take time because look at the situation we inherited.

I'd expect to be seeing some evidence of +ve changes into a second term, and the excuses would need to be stopping, but I think changing back to the last bunch of wingnuts in ~5 years time is tantamount to utter irresponsibility by the electorate, should it happen.

Samo wrote:Labour are already making some positive moves and appointments.  I think as long as things can be shown to be moving in the right direction they'll win the next GE fairly comfortably, but its the term after that where they need to make real, tangible improvements if they want to stay in power.

Indeed. More obvious competence in ~48 hours than demonstrated by the last administration over 5 years.

Depends which direction the Tories go. Given the members tend to vote to the right of the parliament party, someone like Kemi or Suella is probably gonna win and be thoroughly unappealing to the general public

navyblueshorts wrote:Lots of caveats, but an interesting illustration of a possible PR outcome of the recent GE from the ERS:

The 2024 general election under proportional representation

The PR outcome appears to more accurately reflect voter sentiment. Haven't got my head around how exactly those numbers were arrived at given the relationships between parties in the UK and therefore how preferences might flow.

But given that outcome; the next step would be the secret deal phase between parties to form larger coalitions. It's tempting to add Reform to the Tories straight away (even though Farage said 'never') and also then look at enticing the other smaller parties to join the conservative-hard-far-right-wing-fascist block. Only joking...  

Duty is probably well familiar with whom might side with whom. For example, would Plaid back Labour? LibDems; it seems like they would add their votes to Labour... but in Oz they might favour the conservative LNP side. I'm assuming the Greens would also go to Labour... but SNP, NI and Others... you'd know the correct affiliations with the major parties better than me. You could end up with a situation where only a dozen or even less seats are required to form a minority government. Or possibly a small majority for say, Labour... close enough to hold power again next time or perhaps falling just short in 2029?

And this would be where the fun... or torture starts. Courting and grovelling to the leaders of the smaller parties; perhaps enticing them with a ministerial role or creating a special position for them, promising to address a particular 'minor issue' policy or amending their own to include aspects of the minor parties policy platforms, etc.

"Oh sure, we promise to give you money to build possum bridges across the motorway... and we'll throw in some wombat tunnels for you too. Now what was that about the spotted golden bell-head frog you were concerned about? OK, looks like we'll need to add another $408,000 for more dingo bait as well"

It's also at this point the ones who voted for the major party might say:

"Hey, what's this? That's not what I voted for! If I knew this sort of thing would have happened beforehand, I wouldn't have voted for them!"

Anyway, they just have to suck it up and accept it if they want to form a minority government - which (from my experience) is the most unproductive and inefficient way of governing (some might say) as the time-consuming negotiation processes drag on (with no real productive actual Government work being done) so time is wasted and friends/enemies can be exposed in public pretty quickly for all to see. It can also lead to division after the deal is signed; so everyone knows it's an unhappy 'marriage'.

On the other hand, others might argue that these small party Independents sort of "keep the bastaards honest" (a famous old Aust. Democrat phrase from the 80s) and on a purely democratic level, more people's views/demands are acknowledged and somehow addressed and therefore that is a 'more representative government'.

It can drive you mad though, watching someone who has only achieved a tiny percentage of the total vote and therefore not properly representative of the vast majority, bang on and on and on to the cameras about some very minor or irrelevant issue (they get addicted to having cameras on them all the time) and shamelessly exercise the balance of power they hold as an individual (under the guise of the Party) -  with mostly demands specific to his/her own electorate. And everyone else can go to buggery...!

To me, this is an abuse of democratic power.
In 2010, Independent Rob Oakeshott gave an infamous 17 minute long speech when we all knew who he was backing. It was so infuriating and annoying to watch.

In the olden days, a dashing guy on a horse probably would have ridden up (behind the cameras) and sliced the head off... midway through the third sentence.  

Labour do have a few things going in their favour - most importantly the Tory party ratings being through the floor. In normal times, detoxifying the party from the Truss, and Boris/Rishi, stain would take more than one parliament - but things are more volatile in politics at the moment so don’t rule it out.

As mentioned it is likely the Tories will lurch right. Which would be a mistake when they need to get votes back from Labour and Libs more than Reform. They finished second to Labour/Libs in plenty of constituencies so win back those votes that count for two really (one off them, one for you) rather than go after Reform.

Badenoch is rightly favourite to be the next leader too, and she is an incredibly prickly interviewee. Which I can’t imagine going down well when some humility is needed.

Labour also have plenty of slack to pick up votes from the left too. Greens and Independents had a great night, and if they can win back some of those votes it could mitigate any losses or holding the current coalition together. Plus not to mention the Reform surge amongst 18-24 never materialised - IIRC they got 12% in that demographic? So votes at 16 will definitely help Labour…

Reform's Phantom Candidates? Hmm....

navyblueshorts wrote:Reform's Phantom Candidates? Hmm....

Duty looks weird... when the AI's had a go at him.

navyblueshorts wrote:Reform's Phantom Candidates? Hmm....

It's been hysterical stuff. One candidate, Matlock I think his name was, was widely believed to be an AI fake, based on an admittedly ridiculous filtered picture he submitted. It ended up with him needing to do an interview to prove his existence! That punctured the story a little.

Many of Reform's candidates would have been paper candidates, so that would explain their lack of visibility.

It's once again a hysterical overreaction from the media. There's been rumours/talk of the Greens and the Lib Dems doing this sort of thing for a while. No one in the media cared. Reform rumoured to have done it? Christ, get the headlines rolling. It's like all the people who are suddenly going to care about how Farage does as an MP, when previously no one cared about how often a MP turned up to Westminster/turned up in their constituency/they voted.

There does need to be greater checks performed on candidates, I agree. ID needs to be checked and the candidate needs to be seen. It's laughable that councils are fastidious about ensuring a candidate gets the required number of nominations from people who live in the relevant electoral area, and that the details of those people are all entered correctly, but in terms of checking the candidate's identity...who cares is the attitude.

It does highlight the ridiculousness of the situation, though. Voters have to bring ID to vote, but candidates don't have to identify themselves to stand and potentially "earn" their party a lot of money.

I feel it's worth investigating and if this was, say, the Communist Party, I'm sure you would too, Duty.

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Reform's Phantom Candidates? Hmm....

It's been hysterical stuff. One candidate, Matlock I think his name was, was widely believed to be an AI fake, based on an admittedly ridiculous filtered picture he submitted. It ended up with him needing to do an interview to prove his existence! That punctured the story a little.

Many of Reform's candidates would have been paper candidates, so that would explain their lack of visibility.

It's once again a hysterical overreaction from the media. There's been rumours/talk of the Greens and the Lib Dems doing this sort of thing for a while. No one in the media cared. Reform rumoured to have done it? Christ, get the headlines rolling. It's like all the people who are suddenly going to care about how Farage does as an MP, when previously no one cared about how often a MP turned up to Westminster/turned up in their constituency/they voted.

There does need to be greater checks performed on candidates, I agree. ID needs to be checked and the candidate needs to be seen. It's laughable that councils are fastidious about ensuring a candidate gets the required number of nominations from people who live in the relevant electoral area, and that the details of those people are all entered correctly, but in terms of checking the candidate's identity...who cares is the attitude.

Has there now? Or has the 'talk' magically begun now that there are questions into Reform's candidates?

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Reform's Phantom Candidates? Hmm....

It's been hysterical stuff. One candidate, Matlock I think his name was, was widely believed to be an AI fake, based on an admittedly ridiculous filtered picture he submitted. It ended up with him needing to do an interview to prove his existence! That punctured the story a little.

Many of Reform's candidates would have been paper candidates, so that would explain their lack of visibility.

It's once again a hysterical overreaction from the media. There's been rumours/talk of the Greens and the Lib Dems doing this sort of thing for a while. No one in the media cared. Reform rumoured to have done it? Christ, get the headlines rolling. It's like all the people who are suddenly going to care about how Farage does as an MP, when previously no one cared about how often a MP turned up to Westminster/turned up in their constituency/they voted.

There does need to be greater checks performed on candidates, I agree. ID needs to be checked and the candidate needs to be seen. It's laughable that councils are fastidious about ensuring a candidate gets the required number of nominations from people who live in the relevant electoral area, and that the details of those people are all entered correctly, but in terms of checking the candidate's identity...who cares is the attitude.

Has there now? Or has the 'talk' magically begun now that there are questions into Reform's candidates?

Yes.

There are no questions into Reform's candidates, at least not legitimate ones. It's the same evidence-free conspiracy that we're used to, similar to the funding 'questions'.

Duty281 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Reform's Phantom Candidates? Hmm....

It's been hysterical stuff. One candidate, Matlock I think his name was, was widely believed to be an AI fake, based on an admittedly ridiculous filtered picture he submitted. It ended up with him needing to do an interview to prove his existence! That punctured the story a little.

Many of Reform's candidates would have been paper candidates, so that would explain their lack of visibility.

It's once again a hysterical overreaction from the media. There's been rumours/talk of the Greens and the Lib Dems doing this sort of thing for a while. No one in the media cared. Reform rumoured to have done it? Christ, get the headlines rolling. It's like all the people who are suddenly going to care about how Farage does as an MP, when previously no one cared about how often a MP turned up to Westminster/turned up in their constituency/they voted.

There does need to be greater checks performed on candidates, I agree. ID needs to be checked and the candidate needs to be seen. It's laughable that councils are fastidious about ensuring a candidate gets the required number of nominations from people who live in the relevant electoral area, and that the details of those people are all entered correctly, but in terms of checking the candidate's identity...who cares is the attitude.

Has there now? Or has the 'talk' magically begun now that there are questions into Reform's candidates?

Yes.

There are no questions into Reform's candidates, at least not legitimate ones. It's the same evidence-free conspiracy that we're used to, similar to the funding 'questions'.

Could you provide link(s) to sources re. the Greens and LibDems doing this, please?

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Reform's Phantom Candidates? Hmm....

It's been hysterical stuff. One candidate, Matlock I think his name was, was widely believed to be an AI fake, based on an admittedly ridiculous filtered picture he submitted. It ended up with him needing to do an interview to prove his existence! That punctured the story a little.

Many of Reform's candidates would have been paper candidates, so that would explain their lack of visibility.

It's once again a hysterical overreaction from the media. There's been rumours/talk of the Greens and the Lib Dems doing this sort of thing for a while. No one in the media cared. Reform rumoured to have done it? Christ, get the headlines rolling. It's like all the people who are suddenly going to care about how Farage does as an MP, when previously no one cared about how often a MP turned up to Westminster/turned up in their constituency/they voted.

There does need to be greater checks performed on candidates, I agree. ID needs to be checked and the candidate needs to be seen. It's laughable that councils are fastidious about ensuring a candidate gets the required number of nominations from people who live in the relevant electoral area, and that the details of those people are all entered correctly, but in terms of checking the candidate's identity...who cares is the attitude.

Has there now? Or has the 'talk' magically begun now that there are questions into Reform's candidates?

Yes.

There are no questions into Reform's candidates, at least not legitimate ones. It's the same evidence-free conspiracy that we're used to, similar to the funding 'questions'.

Could you provide link(s) to sources re. the Greens and LibDems doing this, please?

No, because I'm referring to rumours/talk with people in person, not something that definitively happened. The point was that this was never taken up by the media. But rumours/talk about Reform and it is suddenly investigated by the media (although there's no evidence).

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/article/2024/jul/10/more-fawlty-towers-than-downton-abbey-jacob-rees-moggs-bid-to-become-a-reality-tv-star

Who on earth wants to watch this?

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Reform's Phantom Candidates? Hmm....

It's been hysterical stuff. One candidate, Matlock I think his name was, was widely believed to be an AI fake, based on an admittedly ridiculous filtered picture he submitted. It ended up with him needing to do an interview to prove his existence! That punctured the story a little.

Many of Reform's candidates would have been paper candidates, so that would explain their lack of visibility.

It's once again a hysterical overreaction from the media. There's been rumours/talk of the Greens and the Lib Dems doing this sort of thing for a while. No one in the media cared. Reform rumoured to have done it? Christ, get the headlines rolling. It's like all the people who are suddenly going to care about how Farage does as an MP, when previously no one cared about how often a MP turned up to Westminster/turned up in their constituency/they voted.

There does need to be greater checks performed on candidates, I agree. ID needs to be checked and the candidate needs to be seen. It's laughable that councils are fastidious about ensuring a candidate gets the required number of nominations from people who live in the relevant electoral area, and that the details of those people are all entered correctly, but in terms of checking the candidate's identity...who cares is the attitude.

Has there now? Or has the 'talk' magically begun now that there are questions into Reform's candidates?

Yes.

There are no questions into Reform's candidates, at least not legitimate ones. It's the same evidence-free conspiracy that we're used to, similar to the funding 'questions'.

Could you provide link(s) to sources re. the Greens and LibDems doing this, please?

No, because I'm referring to rumours/talk with people in person, not something that definitively happened. The point was that this was never taken up by the media. But rumours/talk about Reform and it is suddenly investigated by the media (although there's no evidence).

Well, there is the apparently invisible candidates for the recent GE. A bit more than rumour? Time will tell.

Duty281 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/article/2024/jul/10/more-fawlty-towers-than-downton-abbey-jacob-rees-moggs-bid-to-become-a-reality-tv-star

Who on earth wants to watch this?

Not me, but who knows? Could be comedy gold?

Reform have a chief whip

GSC wrote:Reform have a chief whip

Let me guess - Farage?

Another Brexit bonus! Ah....

The lobbying behind a bee-killing pesticide

navyblueshorts wrote:

GSC wrote:Reform have a chief whip

Let me guess - Farage?

Wrong!

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Reform's Phantom Candidates? Hmm....

It's been hysterical stuff. One candidate, Matlock I think his name was, was widely believed to be an AI fake, based on an admittedly ridiculous filtered picture he submitted. It ended up with him needing to do an interview to prove his existence! That punctured the story a little.

Many of Reform's candidates would have been paper candidates, so that would explain their lack of visibility.

It's once again a hysterical overreaction from the media. There's been rumours/talk of the Greens and the Lib Dems doing this sort of thing for a while. No one in the media cared. Reform rumoured to have done it? Christ, get the headlines rolling. It's like all the people who are suddenly going to care about how Farage does as an MP, when previously no one cared about how often a MP turned up to Westminster/turned up in their constituency/they voted.

There does need to be greater checks performed on candidates, I agree. ID needs to be checked and the candidate needs to be seen. It's laughable that councils are fastidious about ensuring a candidate gets the required number of nominations from people who live in the relevant electoral area, and that the details of those people are all entered correctly, but in terms of checking the candidate's identity...who cares is the attitude.

Has there now? Or has the 'talk' magically begun now that there are questions into Reform's candidates?

Yes.

There are no questions into Reform's candidates, at least not legitimate ones. It's the same evidence-free conspiracy that we're used to, similar to the funding 'questions'.

Could you provide link(s) to sources re. the Greens and LibDems doing this, please?

No, because I'm referring to rumours/talk with people in person, not something that definitively happened. The point was that this was never taken up by the media. But rumours/talk about Reform and it is suddenly investigated by the media (although there's no evidence).

Well, there is the apparently invisible candidates for the recent GE. A bit more than rumour? Time will tell.

Time will tell on what? It's just more evidence-free accusations and conspiracies.

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

GSC wrote:Reform have a chief whip

Let me guess - Farage?

Wrong!

It's Lee Anderthal.
Hope he can keep them all in line.

If it does come home, I would imagine that "Reform" would try and deport it again.

Lovely people. Just lovely. A disgusting (but, sadly, typical) example of the bestialisation of a people, along with the consistent narrative of others as subhuman, writ large. Wonder if the dog's name was 'Barry'...

Gaza man with Down's syndrome attacked by IDF dog and left to die

After 8 attempts to get elected as an MP its nice to see Farage decided to bin the Kings speech in favour of getting involved in another countries politics.

As has been mentioned many times before, anyone that thinks that Nigel Farage cares about anyone other than himself, is completely deluded.

https://x.com/bmay/status/1813811772660629877?t=9u2OFlleerXaAzriL9pt3A&s=19

He has friends. American friends.  You won't know them, they went to a different school.  In America.

GSC wrote:https://x.com/bmay/status/1813811772660629877?t=9u2OFlleerXaAzriL9pt3A&s=19

Brilliant. Comedy gold.

GSC wrote:https://x.com/bmay/status/1813811772660629877?t=9u2OFlleerXaAzriL9pt3A&s=19

It baffles me that some people take this idiot seriously.

Pr4wn wrote:

GSC wrote:https://x.com/bmay/status/1813811772660629877?t=9u2OFlleerXaAzriL9pt3A&s=19

It baffles me that some people take this idiot seriously.

Yeah. Baffles me equally that, given his actual importance, he gets as much airtime as he does.