• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

kmag
Member
(03-20-2017, 10:42 AM)
kmag's Avatar

Originally Posted by Ashes

Doesn't feel like May will go for it. Like what's really the point? All the risk, and none of the glory.

All she'd hasten is Corbyn's exit. And why on earth would she want that?

Because for a number of her ideological crusades (grammar schools, the new school funding settlement) she doesn't have a real working majority. The Tory 'left' are the new awkward squad.

She wants a nice large majority to get on the business of fucking over absolutely everyone (well except for the Tories favoured classes) with the minimum of oversight while talking about "helping" folk.
Ashes
Member
(03-20-2017, 10:51 AM)
Ashes's Avatar

Originally Posted by kmag

Because for a number of her ideological crusades (grammar schools, the new school funding settlement) she doesn't have a real working majority. The Tory 'left' are the new awkward squad.

She wants a nice large majority to get on the business of fucking over absolutely everyone (well except for the Tories favoured classes) with the minimum of oversight while talking about "helping" folk.

Meh. Fair point.

The Tories are as strong as I've ever seen them in the polls, and Labour are in free fall since the referendum.

I reckon that's so because:

a, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn* can't really persuade anyone but socialists to vote for him even if they might agree with some of his policies
b, kinda feels like Brexit voters turned away from labour and are supporting the government who are unshaken in their will to lead the country out of Europe. And large parts of the core labour vote is a supporter of this position.

*feels like I had to write that he was Jeremy Corbyn leader of the opposition.
Last edited by Ashes; 03-20-2017 at 10:54 AM.
QuicheFontaine
Member
(03-20-2017, 10:59 AM)
QuicheFontaine's Avatar

Originally Posted by Ashes

Doesn't feel like May will go for it. Like what's really the point? All the risk, and none of the glory.

All she'd hasten is Corbyn's exit. And why on earth would she want that?

Nah, he'd stay, even after a GE defeat.

Originally Posted by Ashes

Meh. Fair point.

The Tories are as strong as I've ever seen them in the polls, and Labour are in free fall since the referendum.

I reckon that's so because:

a, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn* can't really persuade anyone but socialists to vote for him even if they might agree with some of his policies
b, kinda feels like Brexit voters turned away from labour and are supporting the government who are unshaken in their will to lead the country out of Europe. And large parts of the core labour vote is a supporter of this position.

*feels like I had to write that he was Jeremy Corbyn leader of the opposition.

Regarding point B, I think this is a good point. For all its unpopularity on GAF, being pro-Brexit after the referendum is a vote winner for the Tories. Like, you'd have to be reaaaaaaaallly insane to vote for UKIP now. Why vote for them when you have a party in power carrying out the policy that was their raison d'etre?
Last edited by QuicheFontaine; 03-20-2017 at 11:03 AM.
CyclopsRock
Member
(03-20-2017, 11:09 AM)
CyclopsRock's Avatar
My mum voted UKIP and said she will now vote Tory. So there we go, in a sample of 1 Brexit voters that's 100%.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
(03-20-2017, 11:37 AM)
phisheep's Avatar
If it is to happen on May 4th (same day as council elections), it'll need either a 2/3 majority of the Commons or to go through the Lords as well. the "no-confidence" route won't work as it has a two-week delay built in, and there's only 7 days until an election would have to be announced.

Tories would go for it obviously, so would SNP, LD, presumably DUP? Still needs about 30 Labour votes.

Can't see it happening. Turkeys/Christmas.
Roberto Larcos
Member
(03-20-2017, 11:46 AM)

Originally Posted by phisheep

If it is to happen on May 4th (same day as council elections), it'll need either a 2/3 majority of the Commons or to go through the Lords as well. the "no-confidence" route won't work as it has a two-week delay built in, and there's only 7 days until an election would have to be announced.

Tories would go for it obviously, so would SNP, LD, presumably DUP? Still needs about 30 Labour votes.

Can't see it happening. Turkeys/Christmas.

Or just the repeal of the Fixed Terms Parliament Act - which only requires a simple majority.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
(03-20-2017, 11:48 AM)
phisheep's Avatar

Originally Posted by Roberto Larcos

Or just the repeal of the Fixed Terms Parliament Act - which only requires a simple majority.

Of the Commons yes, but it would have to go through Lords and Royal Assent as well. The timing is difficult.

Edit: Might end up in court too, as it isn't entirely clear whether repeal of the Act would revert to Prime Ministerial discretion.
Last edited by phisheep; 03-20-2017 at 11:52 AM.
Mindwipe
Member
(03-20-2017, 11:50 AM)
Mindwipe's Avatar

Originally Posted by phisheep

If it is to happen on May 4th (same day as council elections), it'll need either a 2/3 majority of the Commons or to go through the Lords as well. the "no-confidence" route won't work as it has a two-week delay built in, and there's only 7 days until an election would have to be announced.

Tories would go for it obviously, so would SNP, LD, presumably DUP? Still needs about 30 Labour votes.

Can't see it happening. Turkeys/Christmas.

It would be very hard for Labour MPs to vote to keep a Tory government in place. I think you'd get 30 rebels. The PLP would also probably see it as an opportunity to get rid of Corbyn no matter the cost.
QuicheFontaine
Member
(03-20-2017, 11:51 AM)
QuicheFontaine's Avatar

Originally Posted by phisheep

If it is to happen on May 4th (same day as council elections), it'll need either a 2/3 majority of the Commons or to go through the Lords as well. the "no-confidence" route won't work as it has a two-week delay built in, and there's only 7 days until an election would have to be announced.

Tories would go for it obviously, so would SNP, LD, presumably DUP? Still needs about 30 Labour votes.

Can't see it happening. Turkeys/Christmas.

I thought you'd said previously that Labour would go for it, on the basis that no self-respecting political party in opposition would pass up the chance of an election?

Otherwise, aren't they basically saying we're not ready / fit to govern?
FreeMufasa
Junior Member
(03-20-2017, 11:55 AM)
FreeMufasa's Avatar


Weeeeeeeeeeeey
jelly
Member
(03-20-2017, 11:59 AM)
jelly's Avatar

Originally Posted by QuicheFontaine

I thought you'd said previously that Labour would go for it, on the basis that no self-respecting political party in opposition would pass up the chance of an election?

Otherwise, aren't they basically saying we're not ready / fit to govern?

Yeah, no party should be against a snap election. It would just confirm they're useless. Should be ready every day to take a seat.
mclem
Member
(03-20-2017, 12:03 PM)

Originally Posted by Roberto Larcos

Or just the repeal of the Fixed Terms Parliament Act - which only requires a simple majority.

Wouldn't they want to avoid being seen to make legislative sleight-of-hand for political gain?

I mean, either the act is good, so it should stay, or it's bad, so it should go. But removing it because it's inconvenient right now can't have good optics, surely?
QuicheFontaine
Member
(03-20-2017, 12:08 PM)
QuicheFontaine's Avatar

Originally Posted by mclem

Wouldn't they want to avoid being seen to make legislative sleight-of-hand for political gain?

I mean, either the act is good, so it should stay, or it's bad, so it should go. But removing it because it's inconvenient right now can't have good optics, surely?

I think it's a reasonable argument to say that the act was good for the duration of the coalition government. It did its job and stopped the coalition falling apart for a full five years. However, coalitions are very rare in our system, so it shouldn't necessarily be in place all the time.

Optics are fine imo.
Jackpot
Member
(03-20-2017, 12:24 PM)
Jackpot's Avatar
There's no such thing as a snap election anymore. In order to get past the FTPA there'd be a pretty big sign-post that we're heading towards an election.

Originally Posted by mclem

Wouldn't they want to avoid being seen to make legislative sleight-of-hand for political gain?

I mean, either the act is good, so it should stay, or it's bad, so it should go. But removing it because it's inconvenient right now can't have good optics, surely?

Pretty much.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
(03-20-2017, 12:37 PM)
phisheep's Avatar

Originally Posted by QuicheFontaine

I thought you'd said previously that Labour would go for it, on the basis that no self-respecting political party in opposition would pass up the chance of an election?

Otherwise, aren't they basically saying we're not ready / fit to govern?

Yeah I did, probably. I'm less sure now with the state of Labour polling and the possibility of a party split. Change my mind sometimes.

In this situation, with only a week to go, I think they'll default to opposing what the Government wants to do, so oppose an early GE. And I suspect that because of that the Tories won't even try it on, as they won't be sure of getting the votes.
Hyams
Junior Member
(03-20-2017, 01:44 PM)
Was listening to the audiobook of Nick Clegg's Politics: Between the Extremes, and he says there's a mechanism within the Fixed Term Parliments Act to allow an early election to be held when there's been a material change in circumstances for the country.

Clegg gives the referendum result as an example of something that would qualify, but I would imagine the triggering on Article 50 would count as well. So it seems a snap election could be held even without repealing the act.

Edit: Further research seems to suggest this is the two thirds majority option y'all have already explored. Ignore me, in that case! (Although I will say Clegg's book is still well worth reading/listening to if you have an interest in UK politics)
Last edited by Hyams; 03-20-2017 at 01:52 PM.
Ashes
Member
(03-20-2017, 01:53 PM)
Ashes's Avatar
Just heard that May will inform the EU of her intentions next week.
So March 2019 it is then.

Edit: I mean it's not really news. But it's officially here now if you know what I mean.
Last edited by Ashes; 03-20-2017 at 02:03 PM.
QuicheFontaine
Member
(03-20-2017, 02:02 PM)
QuicheFontaine's Avatar

Originally Posted by phisheep

Yeah I did, probably. I'm less sure now with the state of Labour polling and the possibility of a party split. Change my mind sometimes.

In this situation, with only a week to go, I think they'll default to opposing what the Government wants to do, so oppose an early GE. And I suspect that because of that the Tories won't even try it on, as they won't be sure of getting the votes.

Ah fair enough. I have a feeling it won't happen either tbh.
mclem
Member
(03-20-2017, 02:20 PM)

Originally Posted by QuicheFontaine

I think it's a reasonable argument to say that the act was good for the duration of the coalition government. It did its job and stopped the coalition falling apart for a full five years. However, coalitions are very rare in our system, so it shouldn't necessarily be in place all the time.

Actually, four years, which is one of the amusing parts - we haven't actually yet even had a 'fixed term' of the duration specified in the Act!

(I am curious why it was designed to run for four years, and then subsequently for five, though. Was it just the aesthetic appeal of having the 5's and 0's be electoral years?)
Mr. Sam
Member
(03-20-2017, 02:23 PM)
Mr. Sam's Avatar
I'm with phisheep's former self - no opposition party could oppose an early election without losing an historic amount of face. However, I'm also with the consensus here that we'll be sticking with our regularly scheduled election programming.
QuicheFontaine
Member
(03-20-2017, 02:38 PM)
QuicheFontaine's Avatar

Originally Posted by mclem

Actually, four years, which is one of the amusing parts - we haven't actually yet even had a 'fixed term' of the duration specified in the Act!

(I am curious why it was designed to run for four years, and then subsequently for five, though. Was it just the aesthetic appeal of having the 5's and 0's be electoral years?)

Eh? There was a GE on 6 May 2010, then another on 7 May 2015. Am I missing something?
Ashes
Member
(03-20-2017, 02:50 PM)
Ashes's Avatar

Originally Posted by QuicheFontaine

Eh? There was a GE on 6 May 2010, then another on 7 May 2015. Am I missing something?

The act was passed in 2011 by the coalition.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
(03-20-2017, 03:09 PM)
phisheep's Avatar

Originally Posted by mclem

(I am curious why it was designed to run for four years, and then subsequently for five, though. Was it just the aesthetic appeal of having the 5's and 0's be electoral years?)

Because there was already a *maximum* term of 5 years for a government (Parliament Act 1911), so the FTPA couldn't extend the coalition beyond that point.

Originally Posted by Ashes

Just heard that May will inform the EU of her intentions next week.
So March 2019 it is then.

Edit: I mean it's not really news. But it's officially here now if you know what I mean.

In that case, no early election. Too high-risk. Tories would be running on "we're the party that does Brexit like you voters wanted", voters are like "but you've triggered it already, so I'll bugger off and vote for someone else ta".
Huw_Dawson
Member
(03-20-2017, 11:52 PM)
Huw_Dawson's Avatar
Labour heading towards an ultimatum, I think. Either they kick out Momentum and trigger a massive civil war, or Momentum succeeds in taking over the party... and there's a massive civil war.

A split seems inevitable now.
Ashes
Member
(03-21-2017, 07:48 AM)
Ashes's Avatar

Originally Posted by phisheep

In that case, no early election. Too high-risk. Tories would be running on "we're the party that does Brexit like you voters wanted", voters are like "but you've triggered it already, so I'll bugger off and vote for someone else ta".

lol.

The funny thing is I just had this conversation with someone. They basically just said, okay, we can forget about international politics again now, and vote against the nasty Tories who are ruining our NHS.

This is democracy in real life I suppose. Sometimes in politics you have to ask exactly the right question at exactly the right time.
Huw_Dawson
Member
(03-21-2017, 01:17 PM)
Huw_Dawson's Avatar
Galloway to stand in Manchester Gorton. Absolute nightmare scenario for Labour.
Roberto Larcos
Member
(03-21-2017, 06:59 PM)

Originally Posted by Huw_Dawson

Galloway to stand in Manchester Gorton. Absolute nightmare scenario for Labour.

He didn't get any traction in the London mayoral race, may be the same here. I think this is the test of whether Galloway may now be considered a spent force.
Huw_Dawson
Member
(03-21-2017, 08:10 PM)
Huw_Dawson's Avatar

Originally Posted by Roberto Larcos

He didn't get any traction in the London mayoral race, may be the same here. I think this is the test of whether Galloway may now be considered a spent force.

Even if he gains little traction, the only people he is taking votes from is Labour. Thus is good for the LDs in the seat.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
(03-21-2017, 08:26 PM)
War Peaceman's Avatar

Originally Posted by Huw_Dawson

Thus is good for the LDs.

This is every single one of your posts.

Joking aside, you are completely correct. Although I feel that Galloway is done. He's spent. All his grandstanding and charisma seems to have gone; he just feels like he is going through the motions.
Mr. Sam
Member
(03-22-2017, 12:11 AM)
Mr. Sam's Avatar
Galloway was always a cretin, now he's just an irrelevant cretin.
Oriel
(03-22-2017, 01:36 AM)
Oriel's Avatar
Good to see Watson standing up to the Momentum thugs trying to turn Labour into a Trotskyite party.
Ashes
Member
(03-22-2017, 04:00 AM)
Ashes's Avatar
I think Labour in general has to rethink its approach to politics. Sometimes you need brighter and better ideas than fairer and socially rewarding ideas. And those things don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Dan27
Member
(03-22-2017, 07:55 AM)
Dan27's Avatar
The thing is, a lot of those behind Momentum are beyond reason - I see a split as inevitable.
Mr. Sam
Member
(03-22-2017, 10:34 AM)
Mr. Sam's Avatar
There's a party for Momentum already - it's called the Socialist Workers Party.

"But nobody votes for the Socialist Workers Party."

Yeah, exactly.
Crab
Famed for his Europa Universalis IV exploits
(03-22-2017, 12:00 PM)
Crab's Avatar
From my experience at CLPs and the like, the average Momentum member isn't very interested in the SWP. It's not the politics they want. If I were to stereotype, they're normally a young woman in her late twenties who has flirted with the Greens in the past and wants, peace, justice, and fairness. There's no real interest in seizing the means of production, etc. Their top priorities are often things like the Human Rights Act or feminist issues, for example, which the SWP is antithetical to.

Of course, that's not to say that there aren't people in Momentum interested in a similar policy overlap to the SWP, and the tragedy of Momentum is that the upper echelons are to an extent staffed by people with an interest in using their young idealist army to pursue a rather different vendetta, but I think the Parliamentary Labour Party made a mistake in the level of hostility it showed to Momentum. They're not Militant, not even especially similar. By reaching out a hand, these young idealists might have been won over, but the PLP is doing its absolute best to push these young idealists into the hands of people stuck in the early '80s.

Instead you get nonsense like this:

Good to see Watson standing up to the Momentum thugs trying to turn Labour into a Trotskyite party.

Which is not really an accurate characterisation of what's happening.
Jackpot
Member
(03-22-2017, 12:45 PM)
Jackpot's Avatar
This HuffPo article on the last PLP meeting is pretty extraordinary.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b00705db51c922

Voices were raised at the weekly meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) on Monday as tempers boiled over at briefings that deputy leader Tom Watson had been ‘reckless’ in raising concerns about the grassroots movement.

In the meeting, former PLP chair Dave Watts confronted communications and strategy chief Seumas Milne to say he was “a disgrace”, while Labour MPs attacked Corbyn’s leadership and rallied to Watson’s defence.

Corbyn was seated uneasily between Watson and Scottish leader Kezia Dugdale. “He stared stonily into the distance and didn’t exchange a word with Tom in the 90 minute meeting,” said one source. “The body language was telling, they were like two skittles not ever touching.”

The issue was raised at a heated meeting of the Shadow Cabinet on Monday and Corbyn and Watson agreed a joint statement afterwards on “the need to strengthen party unity”.

But within minutes, a Labour source briefed that Watson had been “slapped down” by Corbyn - with the support of fellow Shadow Cabinet ministers.

Cabinet ministers felt his intervention was a “reckless” attempt to influence Unite’s own election for general secretary, with Corbyn ally Len McCluskey pitted against challenger Gerard Coyne, the source claimed.

But the mood changed when Labour MP John Spellar got up to raised the negative briefing against Watson, who received loud applause from MPs.

Cryer said the attack on Watson “bore no relation” to the Shadow Cabinet meeting, while an angry Lord Watts tore into Milne. Milne replied that Watts was “abusing Labour party staff”.

Wes Streeting said that the Lansman recording confirmed the worst fears that Momentum was seeking to infiltrate the party to take over selections and deselection.

“Every member of the Shadow Cabinet who failed to speak out should search their consciences as they drive the Labour party off a cliff,” he said.

Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry told Streeting to “calm down”, to which he replied “Don’t tell me to calm down!”

Mike Gapes also pointed to the huge Tory lead in the polls. “How can we turn things round if Theresa May calls an election?” he asked. “What is your strategy?”

Chris Leslie asked Corbyn to explain why he had said it would be “absolutely fine” to hold a second independence referendum.

Former minister Ian Austin - who had been frustrated at not being able to quiz the Labour leader directly - told Corbyn it was time for him to “look in a mirror”. “Having a mandate is one thing, actually being able to do the job is another,” he said. Corbyn was a “so-called leader’, he added.

Former PLP chair Lord Watts asked what Corbyn was doing to stop the anonymous, negative briefing being done in his name.

But when it became clear that the Labour leader was not going to answer specific questions put to him, backbencher Neil Coyle started shouting from the back of the meeting that it wasn’t good enough.

“When are you going to end the backstabbbing briefings by your staff?” he asked. The meeting was then ended amid more shouting.

They spend more time and effort briefing against each other than the Tories. It's like that Monty Python sketch about the Judean People's Front vs the People's Front of Judea.
Maledict
Member
(03-22-2017, 12:51 PM)
Maledict's Avatar

Originally Posted by Crab

From my experience at CLPs and the like, the average Momentum member isn't very interested in the SWP. It's not the politics they want. If I were to stereotype, they're normally a young woman in her late twenties who has flirted with the Greens in the past and wants, peace, justice, and fairness. There's no real interest in seizing the means of production, etc. Their top priorities are often things like the Human Rights Act or feminist issues, for example, which the SWP is antithetical to.

Of course, that's not to say that there aren't people in Momentum interested in a similar policy overlap to the SWP, and the tragedy of Momentum is that the upper echelons are to an extent staffed by people with an interest in using their young idealist army to pursue a rather different vendetta, but I think the Parliamentary Labour Party made a mistake in the level of hostility it showed to Momentum. They're not Militant, not even especially similar. By reaching out a hand, these young idealists might have been won over, but the PLP is doing its absolute best to push these young idealists into the hands of people stuck in the early '80s.

Instead you get nonsense like this:



Which is not really an accurate characterisation of what's happening.

That's been my experience. The rank and file of momentum are young, idealistic middle class people more focused on social equality. However, they are being manipulated and used by the same people who tried to take over labour in the 80s to try and accomplish that decades old goal. And I do literally mean the same people - my borough is ground zero for some of the plotting and conspiracies going on.
Crab
Famed for his Europa Universalis IV exploits
(03-22-2017, 12:56 PM)
Crab's Avatar

Originally Posted by Maledict

That's been my experience. The rank and file of momentum are young, idealistic middle class people more focused on social equality. However, they are being manipulated and used by the same people who tried to take over labour in the 80s to try and accomplish that decades old goal. And I do literally mean the same people - my borough is ground zero for some of the plotting and conspiracies going on.

Mind you, this varies a lot. The upper echelons of Momentum aren't controlled outright by the dinosaurs - the battle for control is ongoing as we speak.
Maledict
Member
(03-22-2017, 12:58 PM)
Maledict's Avatar
Definitely depends on the area. We had Ted frigging Knight trying to stage a comeback!
Crab
Famed for his Europa Universalis IV exploits
(03-22-2017, 01:20 PM)
Crab's Avatar

Originally Posted by Maledict

Definitely depends on the area. We had Ted frigging Knight trying to stage a comeback!

Part of the problem is that the PLP isn't trying to work with the idealists. After Ed Miliband's loss, a lot of people were quite shocked - they didn't seem to understand that the Conservatives were held back in the coalition and what the consequences of a win would be. It was a great opportunity to take on grassroots enthusiasm and channel it towards something - shape the hopes and dreams of a new generation. Instead, the PLP told them to fuck off in no uncertain terms and sent them into the current situation.

At least the Democrats have made some albeit minor steps to incorporate Sanders' following into their midst, even if it's not enough. The Labour Party is just a total shambles. Everyone in it hates everyone else in it and won't work with anyone on anything. Compromise and negotiation is alien. I have no idea how this issue resolves itself. If the right don't accept the McDonnell amendment, or at the very least accept that a leftwing candidate would need to be nominated in a post-Corbyn leadership election, then Corbyn just won't stand down - why would he? We could be stuck in this situation for a decade, even longer.
Last edited by Crab; 03-22-2017 at 01:23 PM.
TimmmV
Member
(03-22-2017, 03:53 PM)
TimmmV's Avatar
Breaking news on the Guardian that there has been a shooting in House of Commons! :/
FlammableD
Member
(03-23-2017, 02:17 PM)
FlammableD's Avatar
Thank christ. This is what I was most worried about tbh
Dan27
Member
(03-25-2017, 12:50 PM)
Dan27's Avatar
Douglas Carswell leaves UKIP

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39393213
JonnyDBrit
Member
(03-25-2017, 12:56 PM)
JonnyDBrit's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dan27

Douglas Carswell leaves UKIP

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39393213

Wasn't he the party's first ever MP actually in Parliament (and probably just because the residents didn't want a change in representative, since he'd been Tory just before)?
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
(03-25-2017, 04:34 PM)
phisheep's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dan27

Douglas Carswell leaves UKIP

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39393213

Well, that'll cut of the Short money funding for UKIP pretty quickly.
Dan27
Member
(04-04-2017, 08:29 PM)
Dan27's Avatar
So Ken Livingstone remains with the Labour party albeit suspended for one year.

I'd love to know the logic behind that decision..
Roberto Larcos
Member
(04-04-2017, 08:42 PM)
Reminder that the deadline for voter registration for the 4th of May local and mayoral elections is Thursday the 13th of April. Make sure you're registered.

In local elections, tiny margins of victory are extremely common. Your vote really does matter.
Huw_Dawson
Member
(04-04-2017, 11:48 PM)
Huw_Dawson's Avatar
Livingstone getting thrown out probably should have happened. A year's suspension is worse than a slap on the wrist but not by much.

Just more deliberate self-harm by Labour. Their Jewish community is going to be very angry at this. But then again that grouping is commonly more centre-ground...
TeddyBoy
Member
(04-08-2017, 10:14 PM)
TeddyBoy's Avatar
I'm not totally sure where to look but how do I check I'm eligible to vote in the mayoral elections?
QuicheFontaine
Member
(04-09-2017, 10:29 AM)
QuicheFontaine's Avatar

Originally Posted by Roberto Larcos

Reminder that the deadline for voter registration for the 4th of May local and mayoral elections is Thursday the 13th of April. Make sure you're registered.

In local elections, tiny margins of victory are extremely common. Your vote really does matter.

I'm all ready to vote for our first Metro Mayor! There's not really been much information about the candidates so far though. I've only received one flyer through the post for the Labour candidate.

Thread Tools