How I voted at the General Election

Having received my postal votes, although I had tried to cancel this arrangement. So this is how I voted. I have mocked up a ballot paper to indicate how I voted.

As you can see I voted for Jonathan Salt. 

Vandals target UKIP posters

St Neots News and Crier - 22/04/2010 digital edition

So vandals are targeting UKIP posters. This is wrong. UKIP has the right to display posters and even has the right with those enormous 8ft by 4ft billboard.

I always feel UKIP has a bit of a chip on their shoulder thinking everyone has it in for UKIP. I would suggest there is a general level of vandalism of political banners and not UKIP being singled out.

May 6: District's date with destiny

The Hunts Post St Neots - 21/04/2010 digital edition

Ian MacKellar misses the elephant sitting in the room in the District Elections and that is the £6.1 million of cuts needed to balance the budget. I know the Hunts Post likes the Conservatives but not mentioning the financial mess the District Council is wrong!

Also, what is wrong with this article:

There are 52 seats - not 53. There are 17 seats up for grabs. 12 are Conservative. 3 Liberal Democrat. 1 UKIP and 1 Independent.

Also the article states: "....they have been in complete disarray over car parking charges, which in most cases doubled overnight after persistent dithering at Cabinet level." This is simply untrue. Car Park charges haven't doubled. Where have they? The persistent "dithering" wasn't the Cabinet but was a result of this useless council set up imposed by this useless Labour Government.

2009 County and Euro Elections analysis

The 2009 Euro Elections were held in tandem with the County elections. This gave a chance to compare local election results where few parties stand to the Euros where many parties stand. This analysis can show where voters moved from the main parties to minor parties.

The County results were roughly the following: Conservative: 23,950 Liberal Democrat: 14,150 UKIP: 3,900 Labour: 2,984 Green 1,440 Others: 566	At the Euro elections: Conservatives: 16,543: (-7,407) Liberal Democrat: 6,498 (-7,652) Green: 3,332 (+1,892) Labour: 2,421 (-563) UKIP: 10,422 (+6,522) Others: 7,812
The difference between the two elections are as follows: Conservatives: -7407: Liberal Democrat: -7,652 Green: +1,892 Labour: -563 UKIP:  +6,522 Others: +7,246	The others are: BNP: +2,377 ED: +930 UKF: +1,354 Animals Count: +343 Christian Party: +656 Jury Team: +226 No to EU: +482 Libertas: +354 Socialist Labour: +280 Independent: + 332 OMRLP: -566

Conservatives: They lost a large minority of their support between the local elections and the Euros. I would suggest much of this support went to UKIP. But not all. Some went to the Jury Team, Libertas, UK First and the BNP.

Liberal Democrats: A total disaster as their local vote didn't translate into their Euro vote. 54% of their local support went elsewhere at the Euros. Some of the vote went Green but many others must have voted UKIP or even BNP.

Labour: This was a bad election for Labour who were beaten into 5th place in the Euros behind the Greens and not much in front of the BNP. The loss in Labour vote is not explained by a transfer of voters to the BNP. It can be explained by the transfer of votes to other left wing parties.

UKIP: They did very well at both local and Euro elections. With the Euro vote UKIP is the number 2 party behind the Conservatives.

At the Euro elections the Conservatives got 35% of the vote. The Liberal Democrats failed translate their local vote to their national vote. It was UKIP gaining support for both Conservatives and Liberal Democrats which saw its vote rise to become the second party in terms of votes.


In conclusion: At the General Election the electors vote to return a candidate to Parliament. It is obvious that if you vote for Djanogly you vote for this expenses scandal tarnished candidate. Voting for the UKIP candidate you will be voting for change in Parliament. I say vote UKIP.

What constitutes "living in the Consituency"?

With the up coming elections there is one question candidates either like to dodge or shout about. This is usually about where they reside or live. Most try to have a connection with the Constituency they want to represent. So what does "live in the constituency" actually mean?

For instance on Djanogly's website he says: ".... live in the constituency together with their son and daughter". Another instance is Labour candidate Anthea Cox who used an address in St Ives in a letter to Hunts Post.

To Djanogly this means to live in Huntingdon 3 days a week. Friday to Sunday. I don't know whether this is every week as they must have holidays etc. But Djanogly doesn't have a mortgage on his Alconbury house.

As Djanogly and his family live in their London home during the week in their very large 4 storey semi detached house (valued in the millions). I take it as said his children go to school in London. With a connection with The Hampstead Theatre where they purchased a seat. With their accountants in London and Djanogly used to work in London as a partner in the solicitors SJ Berwin LLP. Their business (it seems to be from mail order to property ownership) is also based in London.

With Jonathan Djanogly recorded as being on the electoral roll twice in London (and in Huntingdon). Once for his London home and once as a business elector in the City. With his parents also living in London/Marlow it rather makes his house in Alconbury look more like a weekend country retreat.

So does Jonathan Djanogly actually "live" in the constituency? The answer is YES. "Live" in this context means effectively a weekend retreat or secondary home. It can also be said that Djanogly lives in London and this is his primary residence.

To Mayor or Not to Mayor? That is the election!

Apparently, Huntingdonshire District Council messed up the on whether we wanted an elected Mayor or not by holding the consultation early and not wide enough. Yes, the Huntingdonshire DC missed out on involving THE PUBLIC. Now we have a second chance to decide on whether we want to have an elected Mayor.

So would an elected Mayor be better for Huntingdonshire? My answer is it could be. Instead of having a party person in charge we could have an Independent or a person from a minor party elected by Huntingdonshire to run the Council on our behalf.

If things go wrong we would have someone to blame and if things go right then we have someone to praise. This would mean better accountability of the elected Mayor. At least we would be likely to know whom he or she is rather than the faceless party hack we have at the moment. I don't know who the current Leader of the Council is and I do read the local press and District Council propaganda.

What an elected Mayor won't do is make the electorate come out and vote. It hasn't done this elsewhere.

At the moment we have a Council which is being less than honest with residents about how bad the situation is with the budget deficit. We cannot hold these people to account until the elections in May. Even then it will be an election with a third of the seats up for election so it unlikely the Conservatives will lose control. There are 13 Conservative seats up for re-election. With 37 seats out of 52, the Conservatives need to lose 12 seats to lose control. Even if the Liberal Democrats win all the Conservative seats up for grabs they cannot win control of the Council. What we can look forward to is a hung council with no party able to push through the reforms needed. An elected Mayor looks good from this point of view.

In conclusion, I'm in favour of having an elected Mayor for Huntingdonshire (though shouldn't it be an elected Sheriff?) as we need better local Government than we currently have and we need a way of circumventing the current electoral arrangements to try and ensure it is THE PUBLIC has its say.