|
|
Post by islington on Jun 20, 2024 18:45:24 GMT
Although much of Brixton itself was never in the parliamentary constituency so called (incuding for example Railton Road), too much is excluded from this seat to justify the use of 'Brixton' without the 'Hill' qualifier. For that reason I agree with š“āā ļø Neath West š“āā ļø here that plain Clapham should have been adopted as the name. If Brixton really must be namechecked in a constituency name then just draw the sodding boundaries so you have a seat encompassing the whole area (which wouldn't be difficult to do but, as I say, has never actually happened) Exactly.
Brixton is a compact and familiar part of urban London, the whole of which was included in the two-member Lambeth constituency 1832-1885. But since then we have had as many as nine comprehensive (i.e. all-UK) sets of boundary revisions, yet it has been beyond the wit of all these Commissions to get the whole of Brixton in the same seat. Even when (1918-1974) there was a seat actually called 'Brixton', substantial parts were left out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 20, 2024 18:56:49 GMT
I suppose. But the east side of Brixton Hill only in 1997, I think. I took it that the Brixton Hill name referred to areas on both sides of the A23 rather than just the former Brixton Hill/Town Hall ward. The various MRPs are quite varied as to whether they think the Lib Dem 2019 vote will hang around for very distant second places in the Lambeth seats or whether the demographics and fading of Brexit means Greens will be runner up. The old Town Hall ward did extend East of Brixton Hill in the North, to include the St Matthew's estate (but yes this wouldn't have included that side of the shopping district you mentioned in your subsequent post) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2024 10:16:36 GMT
This seat was one of two Lib Dem second places in London, along with the the more obvious Bermondsey and Old Southwark. They were only just behind the Greens (who were 2nd in most central/eastern London seats both sides of the river) and way behind Labour, but I do wonder if this is a result of the groundwork they did in Vauxhall in 2017 (due to Kate Hoey, which definitely had an effect in 2019 even when she was gone) and in Streatham in 2019 (due to technically being the incumbent party).
|
|
|
|
Post by rogerg on Jul 6, 2024 15:29:13 GMT
Chukka did next to nothing locally to help the Lib Dems in Lambeth in his time as a Lib Dem MP - his thoughts were already elsewhere. In fairness I don't think he wanted to campaign against the local Labour people he'd worked closely with in Streatham for years. None of the parts of Vauxhall that came into this seat had any real history of Lib Dem activity and 2017 is ancient history. I think it's just that this seat has some of the posher bits of Lambeth where Labour are not so totally dominant and the Lib Dems captured that vote and got councillors elected in 2022 and are a smidgeon stronger here now. Despite the second place, it is still very hard seeing this becoming a credible Lib Dem target anytime soon. The attention is sure to be back on Bermondsey.
|
|
Adam
Non-Aligned
Posts: 82
|
Post by Adam on Jul 8, 2024 7:43:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 8, 2024 8:41:38 GMT
What offence? The idiotic author of that article appears not to understand the concept of having paper candidates in hopeless seats. Not having a social media presence is not on offence as far as I know. Indeed, not having one seems to be eminently sensible for Reform UK candidates, for whom any and every innocuous post is going to be poured over by bad faith actors like Hope not Hate in order to try and generate faux outrage
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 8, 2024 8:45:31 GMT
I see 'Byline Times' is literally in the same stable as the Canary and does appear to push far left conspiracy theories.
|
|
batman
Labour
Posts: 12,359 
Member is Online
|
Post by batman on Jul 8, 2024 9:04:02 GMT
I saw more than 3 posters in the constituency on one day. 4 for Labour & one for the Lib Dems. If I'd visited more of the constituency I would undoubtedly have seen more
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 8, 2024 10:58:09 GMT
What offence? The idiotic author of that article appears not to understand the concept of having paper candidates in hopeless seats. Not having a social media presence is not on offence as far as I know. Indeed, not having one seems to be eminently sensible for Reform UK candidates, for whom any and every innocuous post is going to be poured over by bad faith actors like Hope not Hate in order to try and generate faux outrage The insinuation is not merely that they have outrageously provoked everybody by not flaunting themselves on Twitter and Tiktok, but that they might not even exist as real people at all - or might not have been properly nominated. That is of course rubbish. But it does remind me of a theoretical possibility that I have sometimes thought about: what if a candidate is nominated properly, their agent hands in the nomination papers, the candidate doesnāt appear at hustings or interviews or at the count, and is then elected? I have been at various counts where some of the candidates just havenāt been there, and sometimes I havenāt ever found out what they look like. What if the invisible candidate is elected? They go along to the council offices or the House of Commons and say āHere I am, Iām the new MPā. There is no official way of checking that the person presenting himself is actually the candidate. What if two different people each come forward claiming to be the candidate? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2024 11:00:28 GMT
Clapham Common and Abbeville Village, and to a lesser extent Clapham Town are fairly decent areas for the Lib Dems and have Lib Dem Councillors (at least in the former). There are lots of One Nation Tories in Clapham who voted for Johnson in 2008 and 2012. It had Tories representing it on the council until 2022. Islington is Clapham for people who read books. Too many Durham graduates and airheads live in Clapham and the stations are far too busy for my taste. Highgate > Clapham.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 8, 2024 11:07:12 GMT
What offence? The idiotic author of that article appears not to understand the concept of having paper candidates in hopeless seats. Not having a social media presence is not on offence as far as I know. Indeed, not having one seems to be eminently sensible for Reform UK candidates, for whom any and every innocuous post is going to be poured over by bad faith actors like Hope not Hate in order to try and generate faux outrage The insinuation is not merely that they have outrageously provoked everybody by not flaunting themselves on Twitter and Tiktok, but that they might not even exist as real people at all - or might not have been properly nominated. That is of course rubbish. But it does remind me of a theoretical possibility that I have sometimes thought about: what if a candidate is nominated properly, their agent hands in the nomination papers, the candidate doesnāt appear at hustings or interviews or at the count, and is then elected? I have been at various counts where some of the candidates just havenāt been there, and sometimes I havenāt ever found out what they look like. What if the invisible candidate is elected? They go along to the council offices or the House of Commons and say āHere I am, Iām the new MPā. There is no official way of checking that the person presenting himself is actually the candidate. What if two different people each come forward claiming to be the candidate? Parliamentary authorities prepared 650 envelopes addressed to "Member of Parliament" which were sent to Returning Officers, and formally handed over to the newly elected (or re-elected) MPs immediately after the declaration. Byelection winners seem to come in with a piece of paper verifying their election which they present to the House of Commons Clerk when they are being introduced. If a candidate didn't turn up to the count then I would expect some care would be taken to ensure the documents went to the right person. However it is not unprecedented for two different people to turn up, both claiming to have been elected - it used to happen in the 18th century when there were a lot of disputes about elections in the smaller and more corrupt boroughs. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 8, 2024 12:34:38 GMT
If a candidate didn't turn up to the count then I would expect some care would be taken to ensure the documents went to the right person. However it is not unprecedented for two different people to turn up, both claiming to have been elected - it used to happen in the 18th century when there were a lot of disputes about elections in the smaller and more corrupt boroughs. I suppose thatās the 18th century equivalent of rebellious states in the USA having disputes about certifying rival slates of electors for the Electoral College. |
|
Adam
Non-Aligned
Posts: 82
|
Post by Adam on Jul 8, 2024 13:13:24 GMT
The serious offence would be if the candidate didnāt exist at all but was created by AI, as is being alleged on social media.
|
|
stb12
Top Poster
Posts: 8,365
|
Post by stb12 on Jul 8, 2024 13:23:44 GMT
The serious offence would be if the candidate didnāt exist at all but was created by AI, as is being alleged on social media. That seems a bit far fetched, I canāt imagine Farage and Tice having such difficulty finding paper candidates that they would resort to something bizarre like that |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jul 8, 2024 13:35:06 GMT
The serious offence would be if the candidate didnāt exist at all but was created by AI, as is being alleged on social media. That seems vanishingly unlikely if you'll excuse the word play. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jul 8, 2024 15:56:34 GMT
What offence? The idiotic author of that article appears not to understand the concept of having paper candidates in hopeless seats. Not having a social media presence is not on offence as far as I know. Indeed, not having one seems to be eminently sensible for Reform UK candidates, for whom any and every innocuous post is going to be poured over by bad faith actors like Hope not Hate in order to try and generate faux outrage The insinuation is not merely that they have outrageously provoked everybody by not flaunting themselves on Twitter and Tiktok, but that they might not even exist as real people at all - or might not have been properly nominated. That is of course rubbish. But it does remind me of a theoretical possibility that I have sometimes thought about: what if a candidate is nominated properly, their agent hands in the nomination papers, the candidate doesnāt appear at hustings or interviews or at the count, and is then elected? I have been at various counts where some of the candidates just havenāt been there, and sometimes I havenāt ever found out what they look like. What if the invisible candidate is elected? They go along to the council offices or the House of Commons and say āHere I am, Iām the new MPā. There is no official way of checking that the person presenting himself is actually the candidate. What if two different people each come forward claiming to be the candidate? Ringing the changes on the plot to the early soviet film 'Lieutenant Kije' with music by the young Prokofiev. |
|
|
|
Post by london(ex)tory on Jul 8, 2024 16:28:27 GMT
Sorry to disappoint you all but Mark is very much a real person. Heās currently recovering from pneumonia which is why he wasnāt at his count.
|
|
|
|
Post by london(ex)tory on Jul 8, 2024 21:56:41 GMT
Sorry to disappoint you all but Mark is very much a real person. Heās currently recovering from pneumonia which is why he wasnāt at his count. And a little while ago he appeared on GB News to show heās a real chap. Itās ludicrous we should have to go through this pathetic line of attack - Iām not surprised from the cranks at Byline Times but honestly the Guardian should know better. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 8, 2024 22:03:19 GMT
Sorry to disappoint you all but Mark is very much a real person. Heās currently recovering from pneumonia which is why he wasnāt at his count. And a little while ago he appeared on GB News to show heās a real chap. Itās ludicrous we should have to go through this pathetic line of attack - Iām not surprised from the cranks at Byline Times but honestly the Guardian should know better. Well we have some of the more unhinged Lib Dem posters on here regularly accusing Reform supporting and other right wing or free thinking posters of being Russian bots. It's like they're so unable to cope with the idea that people might hold views they don't like, they find it easier to pretend they aren't real. |
|
observer
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,528
Member is Online
|
Post by observer on Jul 8, 2024 22:07:37 GMT
Sorry to disappoint you all but Mark is very much a real person. Heās currently recovering from pneumonia which is why he wasnāt at his count. And a little while ago he appeared on GB News to show heās a real chap. Itās ludicrous we should have to go through this pathetic line of attack - Iām not surprised from the cranks at Byline Times but honestly the Guardian should know better. They're afraid to talk about mass immigration, job losses, energy costs, downward wage pressure, the printing of money which leads to unaffordable housing. They're afraid they will lose working class support. So they obsess about nonsense. It's why Labour and LD lost votes despite the Tory collapse. They're clearly not learning |
|
