Elizabeth

#FBPE .🇪🇺Gran.Against Brexit.Eyes wide open now. sometime Director, actor , community theatre. now also @lizhelen.bsky.social

[Elizabeth @floatingaloft]

@IsabelOakeshott @reformparty_uk @TiceRichard No thank you

[Elizabeth @floatingaloft]

@EstherMcVey1 You know it's a waste of money.

[Elizabeth @floatingaloft]

@GordonFielden @MartinRemains @BBCBreaking @BBCNews Sadly not a lot of people will get this

[Gordon Fielden @GordonFielden]

So here is the real news, an explanation.

Today the government has reversed its position on the postponement of local elections in certain areas following legal advice from King’s Counsel. The detail of that advice has not been made public, but the decision raises important questions about both its practical consequences and its consistency with the original reasoning.

The case for postponement was never simply about cancelling elections. It rested on the fact that, in some areas, local government reorganisation is already under way. Existing council structures are due to be replaced by new authorities later in the year, meaning that the bodies being elected this May may soon cease to exist.

If elections now proceed, councillors may be chosen to serve only a short transitional period before the current authorities are dissolved. Further elections would then be required for the successor bodies once the new structures come into force. The result could be a compressed electoral cycle, with voters asked to return to the ballot box again within a relatively short space of time.

This inevitably raises questions of clarity for the electorate and of administrative coherence. Electing representatives to institutions already scheduled for abolition risks confusion, short mandates, and limited continuity of governance during a period of structural change.

The government’s earlier justification for postponement rested in part on the need to avoid unnecessary expenditure and to ensure value for the taxpayer. If elections now take place for councils that will exist for only a matter of months, the public purse will, in effect, fund a short term administration followed by the additional cost of further elections for the replacement authorities. That apparent contradiction invites scrutiny and raises legitimate concerns about consistency, efficiency, and the proper stewardship of public money.

While the legal position may now be clearer to ministers, the democratic and financial implications for the communities concerned remain complex. What began as an argument about orderly transition and fiscal prudence now risks becoming a question of whether the system is asking voters and taxpayers to bear the cost of decisions that sit uneasily with the principles first advanced to justify them.

[Bryan Smith #RejoinEU same handle on BlueSky @BpsmithUk]

Let's get it right, BBC.
Those Councils will all disappear in a year's time or less, due to reorganisation. The votes are a waste of time & money, which councils can't afford after 14yrs of Tory funding cuts.

The councils *asked for* a delay.
All Govt did was agree to allow it.

[Queer Lips of Truth II 🇸🇱🇬🇧 @QLoTII]

I have been told that The British Royal Family has engaged with its lawyers to fight all defamatory statements made by people, maliciously, against members of the family concerning Andrew, Epstein, and more.

The family will keep by its Never Complain, Never Explain mantra but will defend The Crown, the legacy and name of Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, against ALL enemies — foreign and domestic.

As a proud British subject, I agree! Let those American Congress fools focus on their own citizens and politicians and stop trying to incite political instability through lies, in another country.

Fucktards!

[Elizabeth @floatingaloft]

@ClarksonsFarm1 Don't be ridiculous

[Sandy Tregent @SandyofSuffolk]

A fairly long tweet that may be of interest to anyone who's saying they'll stand as a parliamentary candidate for Advance UK or Restore. Or any party really.

Please would my fellow Reformers repost this as it may shatter some delusions and bring certain people back down to planet earth.

The average PERSONAL cost to a UK parliamentary candidate is 11,118. However, this varies widely. In a marginal seat, the PERSONAL cost to a candidate can be between 19,000 and 250,000.

In real life, I know a couple of Tory MPs who were elected in 2024. One of them had an injection of a quarter of a million quid from his landowner father, so he could run a successful campaign. The other had a generous mother who took out an equity release mortgage on her property to fund her offspring's campaign.

I also have a friend who's a Green Party councillor. Just to become a ward councillor, she gathered together a team of volunteers and spent 5,000 of her own money.

Why don't parties fund these campaigns? Because they can't afford to. Fielding 600 candidates in every constituency whose campaigns would cost a minimum of 11,000 each would cost over 6 million pounds. MINIMUM!

And, on top of this, in the 2024 general election, the major political parties spent, in addition to the personal costs mentioned above, 34 million pounds collectively.

As well as the costs, you have to spend time, 18 hours a day, 7 days a week, and gather together an army of volunteers, volunteers like me. I delivered leaflets to every house in my village, approximately 1,300 properties. My constituency has 44,600 properties. As the Yanks say, you do the maths.

Now you may ask, what are the personal costs a prospective candidate has to incur. Here's a random few:

The cost of an agent.
500 pounds deposit.
IT.
Telephone.
Design.
Printing.
PR.
Postage.
Travel.
Hire of venues and stalls.
Merchandise.
Billboards.
Newspaper adverts.

Give this a repost please Reform people. It may curb the pie in the sky tweets of the gobby few who are saying they'll stand as a candidate in a new (or any) political party.

Thanks for reading people.

[Elizabeth @floatingaloft]

@huggan_anas 😂

[Elizabeth @floatingaloft]

@GHWTowler Hmm doesn't mean a thing

[Elizabeth @floatingaloft]

@DavieTobin @reformparty_uk Don't think so

[Elizabeth @floatingaloft]

@dave43law He's fibbing asking for security funding

[Elizabeth @floatingaloft]

@PolitlcsUK What another one?

[Elizabeth @floatingaloft]

@wendlingere49 It's not a GE for years.

[Elizabeth @floatingaloft]

@IsabelOakeshott You mean Dubai? That's where you live I think

[Elizabeth @floatingaloft]

@DawnDawniew62 How uninformed. Careful what you wish. Have you noted the other councils with a reform councillor.

[Viviane: RNLI supporter, no Burnham fan @LaindonFEMINIST]

The growth figures are being reported at 0.1% for the last quarter of 2025. But actually that gives us an annual figure for the year which is 1.3%. This places us as the 4th Country for growth. With US, Canada and Spain ahead of us. It’s not shabby.

[Fr Richard Sutcliffe @richsutcliffe67]

@Peacock2828 @RoyalFamily @Keir_Starmer You’ll have to ask Johnson’s govt as the change to wording happened then. The change to the crown was requested by the King as this is the traditional crown for a King as opposed to a Queen.

[Elizabeth @floatingaloft]

@kellro36 Rot