Forum Topic

Shameful behaviour of a candidate

Purposely didn't post this until after 10pm but I was very unimpressed with a Brentford Conservative candidate today.  I was outside within our development with a couple of fellow residents and our concierge when two individuals carrying a plethora of leaflets wandered past us (already on private land) into what was to them a dead end because beyond us was only a fob controlled access into a private residential block.I politely pointed out to them that they couldn't get in the building to drop off leaflets, and then the silly talk began.  Who am I ?.  Was I Labour ?.  Was I obstructing them ?.  No, we're not trying to leaflet, we're just going over there to where the door is.  Err, I'm a resident, this is our concierge, no I'm not Labour, you're on private land and I'm politely pointing out that behind us is a dead end apart from a door you can't enter, so your efforts might be more fruitful elsewhere.Apparently this individual is (a) going to report me to Hounslow Counncil, for quite what I've no idea, and (b) as of 18.30 tonight was a Brentford Councillor, which was news for me given there's current Brentford Conservative Councillors for this ward.So in the space of a couple of minutes said candidate trespassed, was aggressive towards four potential constituents, and lied about being a Councillor.Needless to say he didn't get my vote, and if that's how a candidate thinks its acceptable to behave, I hope he didn't get yours.

Adam Beamish ● 2662d16 Comments

Raymond.you started off well in identifying the problems, but a bit like Karl Marx I am not sure all the solutions you propose will work that well in practice.Univeral suffrage does not require the payment of taxes to be able to vote and we probably have enough fines of various kinds already without bringing in any more.As regards political campaigning there has been an election of some sort in the Borough pretty much every year (general, local, london assembly, by-election, EU parliament, referendum) plus single-issue campaigns like Heathrow and controversial planning applications that local activists engage in. Activity over the next twelve months will, I expect, be focused around Brexit and by this time next year the london Mayoral 2020 campaigns will start cranking-up.

Joseph Gerald Bourke ● 2651d

This is an interesting discussion that has spawned from Adams initial comments and maybe ought to have a different topic heading.Personally I think the system does need a serious overhaul.  Too many things are not right and end up to the detriment of the quality and clear picture of whom and how things get run.It's not really in the interests of any party to be the "one party state" of any district especially if it is to the detriment of all voters or permanent residents.But it is also up to to other parties to get out there and be heard and seen not just for a few weeks before elections but for most of the 4 years.  We need to know candidates and see what they can do as individuals working locally.One thing can be said for a few of our elected local ones is that they did put in local effort a fair while before being elected for the first time. But that's not the norm.But changes need to be made.1. Postal votes system is open to abuse and flawed. It needs to be tightened up and made easier to verify by independent examiners.2. Should those Students who are not all year round residents and not paying Council Tax be allowed to vote in wards where they do not contribute?Should they not vote in their family home ward?  It distorts the electorate who are full residents and council tax payers.  It is a very high figure in some wards locally in both Ealing and Hounslow and a lot of effort has been concentrated on them by certain parties in preference over full residents.  3. Manifestos should be published on the same day by all parties, well in advance and dropped instead of leaflets.  And open to discussion well in advance. Not just a few days before and election.4. Should a fine be issued to those who do not vote without good reason?Look at what some sacrifice in some places to be able to vote.Look what happens if you park a car for a few mins and forget to pay. And that is something that does not have long term consequences. Voting does.

Raymond Havelock ● 2652d

That is a well articulated post from Phil Andrews.The electoral reform society is running a campaign against one party councils https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/.  The argument being that councils under the long term control of a single party (Conservative, Labour or Libdem - there is already an STV system in Scotland) make poorer procurement decisions and have a higher risk of corruption arising.There was a conservative candidate from Dagenham and Redbridge arguing for a change to proportional voting for local elections on the Sunday politics program today. Having campaigned in that area of London, I can understand where he is coming from.

Joseph Gerald Bourke ● 2652d

So I understand that in Canada that candidates and/or their foot soldiers would be able to enter a block of flats and leaflet.  Not everybody wants to live in such a completely controlled environment and it isn't good for democracy if people are deterred from taking part.

Philippa Bond ● 2653d

The right to vote was hard won, but surely implies the right not to vote too?I see absolutely no benefit in compelling everybody to vote, unless the object of the exercise is to kid ourselves that everyone is suddenly engaged with the process.  Let's be clear - people who vote because they have to are no more interested in the system than people who don't vote when doing so is optional.  This must be pretty obvious and self-evident to everybody, so just what is achieved by pretending otherwise?Some non-voters are lazy, but there will be those who reject the whole system as a point of principle, which is their right.  Forcing these people to vote, even if they are able to spoil their ballot papers, deprives them of that right.As for the "none of the above" option usually touted by proponents of compulsory voting, this would only have any meaning if winning candidates were disqualified from taking their seats in the event of them being beaten by those who chose it.  Otherwise it has no power, is singularly pointless and is really an insult to the intelligence of us all.On those occasions when I was elected to the council, even when I had a good majority, it was only ever with the votes of a minority of those eligible to vote.  I wish it had been otherwise, but I would have been even less happy to have been elected on the votes of people who had drawn my name from a hat or tossed a coin.If the system wishes voters to engage with it then it needs those who represent it to make themselves worthy and to earn the trust of the electorate.  Maybe a bit more honesty and sincerity could help things along, and a little less of the wheeler-dealing and spin which they for some reason seem to think impresses and excites us all.Politicians should make us want to vote for them, not make us have to.

Phil Andrews ● 2653d

I am not sure if I support it or not. I would want to be confident that enough thought had been put into avoiding unintended consequences.Finding a way of removing the boost in vote share if one is at the top of the list would help.Having a reopen nominations vote is another. This would allow people to reject all candidates, in a way that spoiling ballot papers does not.If I had one chance to improve elections, I would focus on getting rid of first past the post.

Christopher Gillie ● 2654d

You can spoil your paper in Australia so you don't actually have to vote for a candidate, but you do have to appear at the ballot, which I agree with. There are quite a few countries (26?)where voting is compulsory.I also think it should be here.

Keith Iddon ● 2654d

In Australia whoever comes first on the ballot paper gets a big boost because a lot of people who do not care about voting only vote in order to avoid a fine.If the position on the ballot paper were randomised that would eliminate this effect, but make counting votes really difficult.

Christopher Gillie ● 2654d

Maybe we should all have to vote as they have to in Australia?  The opting out of society isn't good.

Philippa Bond ● 2654d

"so to annoy people is a very strange election strategy,"Well  maybe - but it didn't seem to make any difference here did it? And a lot of us have been annoyed for a very long time!

Vanessa Smith ● 2661d

If it is a collective agreement and unanimous, then that is fair enough. In my case it clearly was not, as someone had let us in knowing we were delivering leaflets. For a volunteer who has been buzzed in by a resident and is peacefully delivering leaflets to then be accosted by someone else is a bit rich though.What I find most peculiar and counter productive is that the people you were talking to presumably want people to vote for them, so to annoy people is a very strange election strategy, unless of course they were double agents!

Christopher Gillie ● 2661d

I couldn't agree more, Steve!

Anne England ● 2662d

"first time in 20 years I actually went to vote in a local election 2 hours later,"Well,  good to hear you are finally getting involved as it were.

Steve Taylor ● 2662d

It is a rule, but even then I could have entirely understood his reaction if we'd have been confrontational or rude in our initial dialogue with him.Literally from the second this candidate opened his mouth to when he left everything he said was arrogant, confrontational or rude, combined with childish claims (e.g. no we don't intend to leaflet, we're just going to stand over there...in a dead end on private property whilst carrying a plethora of leaflets) and then the lie that he was a Brentford Councillor.  I was so appalled that for the first time in 20 years I actually went to vote in a local election 2 hours later, purely because I wanted to do my bit to try to ensure someone with that attitude isn't going to get elected.

Adam Beamish ● 2662d

I totally agree with Adam. I tried two years ago to deliver leaflets for a lady who was trying to start up a business and no way could I gain access to where Adam lives. It's the rule. End of.

David Squire ● 2662d

The point is Christopher I (and others) were with our concierge and it is a policy here that canvassers of any kind are not allowed within the blocks, that's not an individual decision by me, that is how our estate operates, end of story.  This candidate was told that in a pleasant manner and could have moved on without any acrimony.One of the reasons people chose to live in places like this is because of the enhanced security they offer and to avoid being disturbed by random callers off the street.I was trying to be helpful and save his time.  For myself, our concierge and the others I was with to be spoken to in the way we were was shameful, particularly when we are this person's potential constituents.Being told I'm being 'obstructive' when someone is trespassing is bizarre in the extreme, and it was very noticeable that the other gentleman with this candidate never said a word and I rather felt for him if he was a fellow candidate.Speaking personally, for me in local politics generally it's all about the individual, not about their political colour, and if a candidate is going to show such a confrontational and arrogant streak for no reason, then there's no way I could ever vote for them.

Adam Beamish ● 2662d

I have come across a similar situation. We explained we were delivering leaflets for the Liberal Democrats and were buzzed into a Block of Flats. When halfway through, we were asked to leave because a resident was unhappy, so we did, but is is a tricky situation.The question is, does the objection by one resident mean all other residents do not get to be contacted by a political party in an election? When one resident controls access to communal corridors, that seems to be going a bit too far.

Christopher Gillie ● 2662d