EXCLUSIVE: "God Decides When We Die" Says Green At Church Election Event - Who Decides To Exclude General Election Candidates? The Vicar?

 

The Vicar? Yes. Sadly in this case, this has actually happened. But the explanations for it, and the circumstances, are not too clear. So for the benefit of Sotonians, for fairness and for democracy, we've tried to find out, directly from those involved.

We are impartial and do not support any particular candidate.

The Vicar, Dan Clark, was the organiser at the Churches Together 2024 General Election hustings event where candidates were asked questions by the public. It was held by Churches Together at St. James' Church by the Park in Shirley. 

The Vicar excluded two candidates. So the public could not ask them questions. You may ask why and for what reasons? Please read on...

Green Candidate Speaks on Assisted Dying

At that hustings, the Green candidate for Southampton Test, who we understand is a Christian, when asked about assisted dying, said:

"God decides when we die.".

Readers will be pleased to know that "God" doesn't decide how Southampton Independents conducts our investigations, or how we treat candidates fairly and impartially. But we do these things anyway.

Did "God"'s representative for Churches Together decide who could be asked questions at the hustings? Read on...

Candidate Complains

Ms Barbour's rival, Maggie Fricker, is the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition Candidate for Southampton Test at the 2024 General Election. Unlike Ms Barbour, she answered our questions about the election. Ms Barbour refused to answer any questions. Despite this snub of Southampton residents, we have given her the right of reply to this article.

Maggie Fricker
TUSC Candidate for Southampton Test
at the 2024 General Election
Photo: Used with permission M Fricker

Ms Fricker has complained, as reported by Jason Lewis of the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS), about her treatment at the hustings event in Shirley.

Shirley, the location is a coincidence (geddit?). [As Airplane's Frank Drebin said, "don't call me Shirley".].

Yet surely enough, Shirley happens to be the exact same Council ward that the Labour Candidate Satvir Kaur has represented since 2011.  Maybe "God" meant it? Or it was just a coincidence?

Amongst other questions answered by Councillor Kaur at the event was assisted dying, a highly emotive and controversial topic. You've seen some of what the Green had to say on this highly emotive, complex and controversial topic. Other candidates answered two, as in the LDRS report.

Other topics were also covered by the four other candidates that were allowed to answer questions by the Reverend Clark.

Vicar Excludes Two Candidates From Hustings

But not the TUSC candidate Ms Fricker, and not the Workers Party of Great Britain candidate, Wajahat Shaukat. 

Instead, she was asked to read a short statement, but not participate like the others were allowed to, on the Panel.

She protested, saying:

“As a shop steward and a working class woman, I do have some experience of middle class men not respecting my right to speak.”

Have other candidates experienced similar treatment by Churches Together and Dan Clark? Yes. Our own candidate Andrew Pope did before the 2017 General Election.

What Happened at the 2017 General Election?

When Southampton Independents stood Mr Pope as its candidate in 2017, he sat on the panel at the hustings organised by Churches Together. But not without a great deal of anxiety of exclusion by the same organiser.

Andrew Pope speaking to BBC in 2017
when a councilor on Southampton City Council
Image: Southampton Independents

Leading up to the event, Mr Pope's Election Agent had to ask and ask again, and chase, for Mr Clark to confirm that the Southampton Independents candidate would be on the Panel. The Reverend had seemed evasive over an extended period of time. Standing for Parliament is a busy and stressful time, and candidates are volunteers after all.

Doubt was cast on this by Mr Clark over a continued period of time, who claimed that it was depending on the number of candidates and the delay in response had been because he was away. Yet Mr Pope's involvement was in doubt.

No mention was made in 2017 on the polls, like it has been recently given as the reason by Mr Clark for exclusing the two candidates the 2024 event. 

Different reasons were given between 2024 and 2017. In 2017, it turned out that 5 candidates were nominated, so Mr Pope was "allowed" to take part, having been in doubt about being excluded. 

 

The Law and Regulator

Both of the reasons given by the Reverend Clark for potential exclusion in 2017 and actual exclusion in 2024, may or may not be deemed "impartial" by the Regulator of hustings, the Electoral Commission. Since the 2017 election, the Elections Act 2022 has been passed by Parliament.

Churches Together provides guidance to those organising hustings. 

Has Mr Clark followed it? Was the guidance clear or accurate? We have asked him.

At the 2017 hustings, there were five candidates. At the 2024 hustings, there were five candidates on the Panel, but two were excluded according to one poll, claimed Mr Clark. 

In reality, according to the LDRS report, one could not attend, Wajahat Shaukat for the Workers Party of Great Britain, although as you will see, the reasons seem to not be clear or consistent. We have asked Mr Shaukat for comment.

The other candidate could attend (Ms Fricker) but was not allowed to sit on the Panel. So it would have only been six candidates instead of five.

 

Other Hustings Events in Southampton in 2024

The hustings at Oasis Academy Mayfield for Southampton Itchen candidates included all six candidates.

Yet Ms Fricker was still excluded from the 2024 Churches Together hustings. And the circumstances surrounding Mr Shaukat remain less than clear.

We have asked the Rev Clark to respond and hoped that his response would not echo the Green candidate that "God" decides who can be asked questions.

The Vicar Responds

Rev Clark told us:

"Wajahat (the Workers party candidate in this election) would have come if he had been on the panel. It was only because he wasn’t on the panel that he thought it best to arrange for someone to speak on his behalf rather than organising childcare."

So the Rev Clark has confirmed that he had excluded Mr Shaukat.

Yet the Daily Echo article, taken from a syndicated piece written by Jason Lewis of the  LDRS, states that:

"The hustings at St James’ by the Park on Monday, June 24, featured a question time panel with the candidates from the five parties polling the highest – Conservative, Green, Labour, Liberal Democrat and Reform UK."

and

"Workers Party candidate Mr Shaukat was unable to attend the meeting due to childcare commitments, the vicar said."

Mr Shaukat has indicated that it was not that simple and he is composing a written response. We have also notified Mr Lewis, in case the Daily Echo piece has been modified from his original.

So which was it? Either? Or both? What was the sequence of decisions or rationale given to candidates? Was it impartial? Was the event to be non-selective, or selective? Were the reasons impartial?

 

The Rev Clark has tried to clarify:

 “Having organised successful Southampton Test hustings events in 2017 with all 5 candidates (including 2 independents) and one in 2019 with all 6 candidates (including 1 independent), the feedback from the audience in 2019 was that having as many as 6 candidates on the panel felt too much - it led to a lot of repetition, and meant that the audience weren’t able to hear as much from those they perceived to be the ‘main candidates’. It also meant we covered fewer topic questions. 

"Based on that feedback, I decided to limit the number of panellists this time to 5. I waited until after the nominations deadline had passed (so I knew for sure who was standing), then checked the polls. Because there were 7 candidates standing overall, I contacted the candidates of the 2 parties polling lowest and explained that they were welcome to bring literature for people to take, and were welcome to make a short speech in the final part of the evening to put their pitch, but would not be on the panel fielding the questions.”

 

We await a response from Mr Shaukat, the other candidate that was excluded from the hustings Panel, and a second response to further questions sent to the Rev Clark.

Meanwhile, our approach to covering the 2024 General Election is to be impartial and fair to all candidates, and to challenge them all as a free public service. Southampton residents value our service and we can see it in our website figures.

We offered Katherine Barbour the right of reply on her comments. Southampton Green Party's Media Officer declined to comment.

Why Southampton Independents Is Covering the 2024 General Election

Southampton Independents recommends no particular candidate in the 2024 General Election. We publish this information and the information about the other candidates to help inform Southampton residents for their vote, or for them to choose not to vote or to positively spoil their ballot by writing "none of the above". It's your choice. 

The other candidates standing in Southampton Test are listed here. 

Tell us what you think by getting in touch. 

EXCLUSIVE IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW: Reform Candidate says Tories "on the verge of imploding... Reform wants a launch pad"

 

Alex Culley Reform UK Candidate for Southampton Itchen
Photo: Alex Culley

 

Andrew Pope, himself a twice Parliamentary Candidate for Labour in 2015 and then Southampton Independents in 2017, interviewed Alex Culley at Ocean Village, Southampton. Mr Culley is the Reform UK candidate at the 2024 General Election for the Southampton Itchen Constituency, which covers the East of the City.

The Conservatives are "on the verge of imploding" says Mr Culley, and Reform want to be the "actual opposition". Reform are seeking a "launch pad" for the next election, regardless of the number of seats they eventually win at the Election on the 4th July. Polls are predicting that they will win seats.

According to Mr Culley, Reform thinks that the Tories have not done Brexit properly, failed to curb mass immigration or use our new found sovereignty for our advantage. Mr Culley says that the UK should leave the European Convention of Human Rights to deal with illegal migration, and that Reform is not a climate change-denying party. 

We provide the responses below so that you can make up your own minds.

 

Reform Surges In The Polls

At the time of writing (21st June), it is true in the BBC "Tracker" poll of polls that Conservative support has dropped since the Election was called, and the support for Reform has increased since Nigel Farage announced his candidacy in Clacton and took the leadership of Reform. For balance, support for the Liberal Democrats has also increased, and the support for Labour has decreased about the same amount as for the Tories.

Mr Culley says that this General Election is to give Reform a "launch pad" for the next election cycle, which may be in 2029. Mr Culley's "civilisational moment", as he sees it, agreeing with Professor Matt Goodwin, applies to our country but it also applies to the Conservative Party, he says.

Mr Culley says that donors sitting behind the Conservatives will be deciding who to back now. He thinks that people who remain in the Conservative Party are thinking that "this brand is so tarnished. It's tarnished probably for a generation."

The interview was conducted before the allegations surfaced into Conservative candidates betting on the election date, which the Prime Minister Rishi Sunak described in the BBC Question Time programme on 20th June as making him "incredibly angry". 

For context, Sunak's campaign has been beset with controversy and mistakes, including him leaving the D-Day 80th Anniversary commemorations in Normandy early, repeated accusations of dodgy figures on Labour's tax plans, and asking a group of Welsh voters if they were looking forward to the football to bemused silence (Wales did not qualify for the 2024 European Championships).

When answering our six basic questions sent to all candidates, Mr Culley said that the country is in a "civilisational moment". 

A Civilisational Moment for Our Country and The Conservative Party

Asked to explain what he meant by the "civilisational moment", Mr Culley says:

"I think for quite some time now, I have felt personally that our country is changing in ways which have not really received (a) democratic consent to the level of change that we've seen in terms of the mass immigration (b) secondly the level of debt that we are taking on. 

And the reason why I think that's serious is because when I've been to one of the hustings, they were all talking about promising the earth to everybody but very little on how we are going to pay for it. And my concern is that I really don't want this country to become another Argentina. 

So I'm sitting at home thinking there are two things: there is cultural change and to be clear, it's not a personal thing. And in Matt Goodwin's book, he wrote a book about National Populism. He says that most national populists are decent people. They are equated with extreme far right people sometimes, but that's not true. 

Most of them have legitimate concerns about the levels of change, the pace of change, the ability to integrate, the things like the large scale protests that we have had going on and how that's disrupted lives and some of the intimidation that's been around it. That is concerning a lot of people too. 

What is taught in our schools, there is some thinking out that there has been a capture of our institutions by certain ideologies, usually left-wing ideologies, or what I call postmodernist ideologies.

And that's happened really without any democratic consent. No-one's voted for that, that has come from the ground up into institutions and that is affecting how our children see themselves, how they see this country.

And all of these things coming together - our economic malaise, the large-scale migration and some of this ground up activism. It's almost like a chain reaction coming together and it is changing this country in profound ways and in my view, not for the better."

Credibility Gaps In All Manifestoes On Tax, Spending and Debt

Mr Culley says that:

"the other parties, including at the recent hustings, promise to spend your money without explaining what that means. That means tax rises or more debt".

For balance, Mr Culley was challenged on potential gaps in the Reform UK contract as there are also gaps in the other party manifestoes, despite the party's claims to be fully costed and funded. The BBC's Economics Editor Faisal Islam has argued that "voters are being taken for fools" in his analysis of the manifestoes, lacking in "credibility".

Asked specifically about the Labour Manifesto, Mr Culley thinks that:

"The Labour approach is to say as little as possible which they can be hung on because they see the polls as telling them they are in a winning position so let's not say anything that could create a problem for ourselves."

 

Reform Is Insurgent Unlike The Westminster Parties

Bearing in mind that both Labour candidates have failed to reply to our requests for interview and failed to answer the six basic questions, Mr Culley's assessment seems to be accurate. 

Yet all candidates, not just the Labour ones, for the Westminster parties (Lib Dems, Greens, Labour, Conservatives) have also refused to answer or respond, with the exception of the Conservative candidate for Southampton Test, Ben Burcombe-Filer. 

This is consistent with the view that candidates from the Westminster parties put themselves and their party first, and Southampton residents a distant last.

Will Reform be the same, if they get seats at Westminster? It is hoped not and that they will continue to be insurgent.

 

The Tories Have Not Done Brexit Properly

So moving on to everyone's favourite topic (or at least one of Reform UK's), Brexit!

Reform UK is currently an insurgent party at Westminster with no members of Parliament. This may change on 4th July. Reform was previously the Brexit Party, which won the 2019 European Elections. So if Brexit has not been done properly, in what ways have the Tories failed? Mr Culley says that it is in three ways:

1. "We have still got part of our country in the customs union, with Northern Ireland and effectively a border in the Irish Sea splitting our people apart and it's exacerbated tensions in that region
   
2. The Tories haven't really taken the opportunity to de-regulate or regulate smartly. I work in financial regulation myself, so it's my area of expertise. The rule book has not really moved at all, we're trimming around the edges. There are certain people in unaccountable organisations. I'm talking about quangos which really are really trying to keep the rule book as aligned as possible in the hope that we will some day have a launch pad to re-join.
   
3. The Tories haven't used our new found sovereignty to really deal with the migration crisis. Now I know that it's important to be clear about this. We voted to leave the European Union. We didn't vote to leave the European Convention on Human Rights. They are two different things. They are kind of in the some orbit, but they are different things. That wasn't on the ballot paper. But it's become quite clear that we still haven't realised all of the benefits. We've been able to put a brake on the free movement of people within Europe but we haven't been able to extract ourselves from the European Convention of Human Rights. And that is frustrating our ability to deal with illegal migration. We need to do something about that. You can try and reform it and look what happened to David Cameron when he tried to reform the EU. He was effectively blown out. Or you could say we will leave it and we will try and put something in place which is better or more suitable to our national needs."
   

 

Should Our Domestic Rights And Freedoms Be Sacrificed?

When asked what Reform UK would replace our membership of the European Convention of Human Rights with, Mr Culley says:

"In our (Reform UK) Contract, we talk about a British Bill of Rights. The basis of human rights today and the European Convention in particular comes from actually, British jurisprudence. We had the Magna Carta. Through history, we gradually through a process of evolution, derived more freedoms, more rights.

We of course believe that human rights are important. Say for example freedom of speech, which paradoxically come under quite a lot of strain in recent years, particularly in places like Scotland. But also here in England as well. 

So we do believe that everybody should be treated fairly. And we definitely believe that there should be something. But I think our premise is the European Convention of Human Rights was drafted after a specific event, World War II, and the world has changed a lot since then. 

Movement of people is a lot easier, the world has shrunk. The nature of political conflict has changed. At the end of World War II, we had atomic weapons but now we've got fully armed nuclear powers facing off against each other. And that has changed how conflict operates. Most conflict now happens by proxy. And that's why the Ukraine war was very unusual. It was quite a shock to a lot of people. We didn't expect to see war in Europe again.

So I think our point is laws are synthetic constructs, they should change over time. In ancient civilisations they had legal codes that represented the way their society operated at the time. But we wouldn't look to cut-and-paste those now, because society has changed. So that's our perspective, we certainly think in terms of basic treatments, it doesn't matter who you are, where you are from, everybody should be treated equally.

That's what we want. That's the way of achieving a better outcome."

Is Reform A Climate Change-Denying Party?

In Mr Culley's answers to our six basic questions, it appeared to be that Reform Uk is a climate change-denying party. Was Mr Culley's response misunderstood?  Mr Culley said:

"I think you may have misunderstood that point, with the greatest of respect.

At the beginning of our Contract, we say that climate change is a fact. The climate has always been changing since the dawn of time. 

Richard Tice made the analogy towards King Canute. Funnily enough we are sitting near Canute Road right now. 

Regardless of all this effort that we're putting in, to try and get what I call fractional gains in terms of limiting CO2 emissions. What we're saying is, we need to have an honest discussion about the cost-benefit analysis or the cost-benefits of some of the measures that we're undertaking.

So I think in August last year, this is on the Internet so you can find it, there were about 1600 to 1900 scientists and professionals, two Nobel Prize winners included, who said look there is no 'climate emergency'."

When challenged again, based on his previous answers to our questions, on whether he believes there is climate change, Mr Culley said:

"There is climate change. That's clear in the Contract. But the climate has always been changing. That's our point. And I think our point also is that these things are not completely settled. All science is contested. Karl Popper said if you don't have arguments based on evidence where somebody can advance evidence which is contrary to the evidence that you advanced, we are no longer talking about science, we are talking about cult. We're talking about religion. What we want to have is an honest discussion about how much the measures we're taking are costing the British public. How much of an impact is it going to have globally in emissions anyway, considering that we're only contributing about 1% of the global emissions and be honest to people about how much that's impacted their energy bills. And public services because they've got to keep their lights on. It makes everything more expensive."

When asked if Reform UK believes whether man-made climate change is real or not, Mr Culley said:

"We believe that it's made a contribution. But we believe that it's not the only factor at stake. This contribution in our view is contested as to how much and how big it is. We're not sitting in a basement at our computer saying we're a denying cult. That's not our position."

The Reform UK leaflet obtained from Mr Culley refers to "cheaper energy" and does not mention climate change explicitly. It asks for voters to "send a message to Westminster" and to vote for:

• A Plan to Stop the Boats
• Net Zero Immigration
• Cheaper Energy
• Lower Taxes
  

 

An In-Depth Interview

So, there you have it, an in-depth interview from an insurgent Reform UK party.

There was a whole host of other topics that could have been discussed in the interview, but time did not allow.

We would like to thank Alex Culley for taking the time for the interview and for answering our six basic questions in full.

Hopefully this in-depth interview, and the other answers and non-answers on the Southampton Independents will better inform Southampton residents on their vote. It is offered as a free public service.

 

Why Southampton Independents Is Covering the 2024 General Election

Southampton Independents recommends no particular candidate in the 2024 General Election. We publish this information and the information about the other candidates to help inform Southampton residents for their vote, or for them to choose not to vote or to positively spoil their ballot by writing "none of the above". It's your choice.

The other candidates for Southampton Itchen, with their answers, are here. 

 

ANOTHER Green Candidate Refuses to Answer Questions - Katherine Barbour Green Party Candidate for Southampton Test

It's 2 out of 2 for the Green Candidates in the 2024 General Election in Southampton. And a 100% fail on democracy and leadership.

To add to the Southampton Itchen Green candidate Neil Kelly refusing to answer our basic questions, the Southampton Test Green candidate Katherine Barbour has also refused to answer our basic questions, sent to her on behalf of Southampton residents.

We have asked the exact same questions of all candidates*. They are designed to inform residents on their vote. You can see the answers across this website. They are:

1. Why are you standing in this General Election?
2. Why are you standing for the <insert party or independent here>?
3. What will you do in the first 100 days if elected?
4. What do you think are the best top 5 policies of your party?
5. What do you think are the top 5 issues that Southampton people want addressed, and what do you intend to do about them?
6. What track record do you have of winning campaigns?

But they have been refused by Ms Barbour and Mr Kelly.

So who is Katherine Barbour?

According to Ms Barbour's register of interests at Southampton City Council, Ms Barbour is a yoga teacher.

She has been a City Councillor for just over a year. It took her eight years to be elected over seven elections. Between 2015 and 2022 inclusive, Barbour stood and was not elected six times as a council candidate for Southampton City Council. Ms Barbour’s record in local elections is as follows:

2015 Green Woolston not elected
2016 Green Woolston not elected
2017 no local election
2018 Green Portswood not elected
2019 Green Portswood not elected
2020 no local election
2021 Green Portswood not elected
2022 Green Portswood not elected
2023 Green Portswood elected

Eventually, Ms Barbour was elected in 2023 in the all-out elections on the new ward boundaries for the ward of Portswood. She came top of the 3 candidates that were elected. The other two elected were Labour candidates with shorter terms. Ms Barbour pushed out the other Labour councillor, Gordon Cooper.

So perhaps whilst you may admire Ms Barbour’s persistence, it took a long time, eight years and six failed elections. 

Green Duplicity on Labour's Portswood Broadway Proposals

Plus let’s not forget, Ms Barbour's election as the first Green Councillor came after a significant intervention on the ground in the Portswood ward from Southampton Independents over the Council’s unpopular plans for Portswood Broadway, as well as our media work. 

So let's look at this issue as an example of Green Party confusion, indecision and seeming duplicity.

Our work listened to and represented the views of residents and businesses. We often heard criticism of Labour councillors and the Labour Council during our work in the area. 

There was almost universal opposition including on the doorsteps to the Labour Council's plans, however they were cooked up and whomever was involved in cooking them up. That’s why in the interests of democracy, we opposed it loudly, as that is the democratic thing to do.

Despite asking them directly at the time, what the Green Party’s stance on the Broadway proposals was, it was difficult to tell. Greens did seem to pass the buck between each other in an example of indecision and lack of leadership. 

Likewise, in a Daily Echo report, the views of the two party representatives Mr Spottiswoode and Ms Barbour seemed to contradict each other. Ms Barbour’s view seemed to both agree and disagree with the proposals too, but under the headline “Southampton Green Party slams Broadway proposals”. It was all very confusing. 

Readers will have to decide for themselves, but this yoga-like contortion of a position seems like the typical duplicity of party politicians, something all too common. It's just Green duplicity instead of Labour. Lib Dem or Tory duplicity.

And that is just one example of Green Party indecision, duplicity and lack of leadership. 

Southampton's First Green Councillor

Nevertheless, Ms Barbour was elected. Whether she survives for long as a councillor, only time will tell. Surely she should answer questions from voters, as is claimed on the Green Party website. Yet she has not answered ours.

Would you agree that the questions asked of Ms Barbour that she has refused to answer are basic questions for any serious Parliamentary Candidate? When chased, Ms Barbour claimed that she was waiting to see if other candidates were going to answer. 

The Greens Lack Answers and Lack Leadership

What leadership is this? It is the leadership of a follower, not a leader. Politics requires leadership and Ms Barbour has failed this basic test, as has Mr Kelly.

But the Greens cannot even decide who their leader is. They have two - called "co-leaders". It's unconventional. And indecisive, just like their view of the Portswood Broadway proposals and their inability to answer the most basic of questions for Southampton people to make a decision on their vote.

Why Southampton Independents Is Covering the 2024 General Election

Southampton Independents recommends no particular candidate in the 2024 General Election. We publish this information and the information about the other candidates to help inform Southampton residents for their vote, or for them to choose not to vote or to positively spoil their ballot by writing "none of the above". The choice is yours.

 The other candidates for Southampton Test are here.

Green Party 2024 General Election Candidate Neil Kelly Refuses Questions from Southampton Itchen

Neil Kelly Southampton Itchen Candidate
Image: Screenshot of website

We would like to tell you about Neil Kelly, but there is little information available.

Southampton Independents is interviewing the candidates for the 2024 General Election. We are holding them to account and informing Southampton residents. Candidates are answering our questions.

But not all of them. The Green Party Candidate Neil Kelly has refused to be interviewed. 

Questions were sent to him, as they have been sent to other candidates, but none of them have been answered by the Green Party Candidate for Southampton Itchen. This is odd, considering that the Southampton and District Green Party website asks for questions to be sent. 

That is exactly what we have done. Yet, they have refused to answer.

So who is Neil Kelly? We would like to show a photo of him, but the Green Party has not sent us a photo, although we have asked for that, too. So the above image is a screenshot of the website. The local Green Party website is pretty much the total of material that is available about this candidate, apart from a rather amateurish Facebook account.

Amongst social media, there only appears to be this Facebook account for Mr Kelly's candidacy and nothing else. This is in stark contrast to other candidates who use social media to campaign.

Neil Kelly has stood as a council candidate over many years for Southampton City Council, and many times, but has never been elected.

Kelly has stood for:

• Labour
• Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC)
  
• Green Party

We have offered Mr Kelly a right of reply to the other information that we have discovered.

Mr Kelly has been asked why he thinks he was not elected. He has also been asked about the lack of social media for him, despite being a candidate for public office. And he has also been asked about Green Party candidates being dropped after probes into online posts.

We waited some time for a response from Mr Kelly or Southampton and District Green Party, but only received refusals.

Why Southampton Independents Is Covering the 2024 General Election

Southampton Independents recommends no particular candidate in the 2024 General Election. We publish this information and the information about the other candidates to help inform Southampton residents for their vote, or for them to choose not to vote or to positively spoil their ballot by writing "none of the above". It's your choice.

The other candidates for Southampton Itchen, with their answers to our questions, are here.