Author: anthony

Who is going to get the anti-lockdown votes on May 6th?

Across the UK there will numerous elections taking place this Thursday 6th May.
These elections will not only be a test of how the public perceives the mainstream parties, but an opportunity for them to vote for anti-lockdown parties too.

London Mayor and Assembly
In London the voter is spoilt for choice in this respect, with five freedom from lockdowns London Mayoral candidates and all of the London wide and London constituency Assembly member elections being contested by such “freedom” candidates. The only danger is that with the Reform Party, UKIP, the Heritage Party, Let London Live and London Real, all standing, it is potentially splitting the vote.
However, that will not happen in eleven of the fourteen London Assembly constituency elections where it is just the Reform party standing.
Electors effectively have four votes:
First and second preference votes for London Mayor, One vote for the 11 London wide Assembly members and One vote for the 14 London Assembly constituency members.

Outside London

Police and Crime Commissioners
As for outside London, there are elections for 35 Police and Crime Commissioners and 4 for Police, Crime and Fire Commissioners.
These all involve the voter having first and second preference votes.
The Reform party are contesting 12 of these and the English Democrats are contesting two, and whilst there are 17 Independent candidates, not all of those are lockdown sceptic, so there is not the wide choice some would like there to be.

Mayoral Elections
There are also 7 Combined Authority Mayoral elections and 5 Single Authority Mayoral elections.
Of these, there are a total of 7 lockdown sceptic party candidates. These are the Reform party, UKIP and the English Democrats. There are also 10 Independent candidates, some of whom have anti-lockdown credentials. However, there are still 4 Mayoral elections where there is no lockdown sceptic choice available. The only option voters have in these areas is to vote for the least bad choice.

Election of 5,000 Local Councillors

Throughout England there are a numerous local elections to vote in at least 5000 Councillors.

There are anti-lockdown “freedom” candidates standing, including the new “Freedom Alliance” party, who are also fielding candidates in Scotland and Wales.
The consensus of opinion is that those who are lockdown sceptic did not have the time to organize for these elections as they were too busy opposing the government’s constantly changing lockdowns agenda.

Many people consider the whole lockdowns scenario to be the new political agenda, replacing other major issues such as the EU, immigration and so on.

Therefore, it is up to electors to choose the “least bad” choice from the four parties who have supported lockdowns- the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats and Greens.
There are many Councillors and candidates of those parties, who although in a minority in their parties, do not support the lockdowns and all their associated policies.

Wales Elections
The situation is slightly different in Wales, where there are elections for the 60 Members of the Welsh parliament. Electors have two votes. One for the constituency they are in (40 Members), and One for the Regional list of candidates ( 20 Members ). With the constituencies, it is first past the post system for a Member to be elected, and with the regional lists, generally 5% plus is needed to ensue election of a Member/s.
The elections there have other issues such as the very status of having a separate Assembly for Wales. The Abolish the Welsh Assembly party is standing in all 5 regions as well as in 23 constituencies.
It is going to be a far from straightforward election.

The lockdown supporting parties, which include the Greens, will be opposed in all the constituencies and all the regional lists by the lockdown sceptic Reform party. So there will be a definite choice for those who oppose the whole concept of lockdowns.
There are others to choose from such as UKIP, the Freedom Alliance, Propel and some Independents, so the outcome will be interesting, especially as a small number in the mainstream parties are lockdown sceptics too.

Scotland Elections
In Scotland, the situation is also less straightforward as there are other issues there too, notably the independence issue. Apart from the SNP, there is the new Alba party, amongst others, on the separatist side. On the pro-UK side there is the new All for Unity party as well as the Abolish the Scottish Parliament party.
There are twenty five parties and many independents standing for the Scottish Parliament.
The elector has two votes:
One for their constituency ( of which there are 73 Members elected)
One for the regional list ( of which there are 8 with 7 each, making 56 Members elected).
There are 15 parties standing in the regional lists and generally a party needs 6% of the votes to obtain one seat or more.
The constant conflict between the SNP government and the three main unionist parties may well be what most influences the voters, but it could well be that the hidden element in this election is the lockdowns issue.
On that issue, every single one of the regions has at least one lockdown sceptic party.
The Freedom Alliance and UKIP are standing in them all, with the Reform party in all but one.
The Reclaim party has one regional candidate.
The Scottish Libertarian party and Scottish Family party have lockdown sceptic credentials to consider.

There are 20 smaller parties standing in the Scottish elections plus the five mainstream ones.
There are 25 Independent standing candidates in either constituencies or the regions and some of them are in the lockdowns sceptic category.
As for the constituencies, there are a small number of lockdowns sceptic candidates, but the vast majority of these contests will be a choice between the standard mainstream party choices. With these, some will not have supported their party’s stance on lockdowns, and this may be a factor in obtaining votes.

Hartlepool By- Election

This result could be influenced by lockdowns issues, but with 16 candidates it is a difficult call.
The electors have a choice of three lockdowns sceptics parties, the Freedom Alliance, the Heritage Party and the Reform Party. There are also five Independents and the North East party and some of these have concerns about lockdowns.
However, it may be that the timing of this by-election is not good, as otherwise it could have been a rallying point for the anti-lockdowns cause, with a well overdue national debate on the whole issue.

Many people believe that the issue of lockdowns and restrictions on freedoms should only come about by means of a national UK wide referendum. Certainly what all parts of the UK suffered during over a year of lockdowns has not been subject to any democratic consent.

However, these local elections have started, people have already put postal votes in, and the results will be out at the end of next week !

The important point to remember is that these elections are very important and that voters should exercise their right to vote !

Anthony Webber
Independent Political Commentator
Founder of the umbrella group, the National Alliance for freedom from lockdowns
07824 444604

London Mayor Elections- who to vote for if you want to elect a freedom loving anti-lockdown candidate

Londoners spoilt for choice with five anti-lockdown candidates

On May 6th London electors will be voting for Members of the London Assembly as well as the new Mayor.

It is pretty apparent that the issue of lockdowns, vaccine passports and associated matters, is a major one for many electors. So much so that they will consider deserting their current party loyalties and lending their votes to what are loosely described as “freedom” candidates.


There are twenty candidates standing for London Mayor of which five have some form of freedom from lockdowns credentials. This makes choosing the right candidate to have your vote a potentially difficult choice to make.

The National Alliance for freedom from lockdowns ( which was set up at the end of November last year to improve co-operation and co-ordination among the numerous local and national anti- lockdown/ freedom groups) felt it was important to try to give some guidance on who to vote for.

All twenty Mayoral candidates were sent an email asking them to complete a brief questionnaire , an opportunity to comment further and the offer of a brief video interview.
It is not unusual in political elections for candidates to not take much notice of such requests, (which some people find quite surprising). Sometimes a candidate has a poorly managed campaign. Sometimes they simply cannot be bothered, sometimes they or an advisor deems it is not worth their time and effort to respond, and sometimes they consider they have other priorities.
However, when a candidate responds, it is clearly a mark of whether they are open to sharing their opinions and indeed open to listening to the opinions of others too.

Of the replies received, one was from Richard Hewison of the Rejoin the EU party.
It was commendable that he had the courtesy to respond, but he did not complete the questionnaire.
(We sent the questionnaire to all the candidates knowing that it was possible some of the non- anti-lockdown candidates may have had at least some favourable views).

The mainstream party candidates, Labour ( the incumbent Mayor Sadiq Khan) did not respond, nor did the Conservative Shaun Bailey, the Green Party’s Sian Berry, or the Liberal Democrat’s Luisa Porritt.
The other candidates who also did not respond were:
Kam Balayev, Renew, Count Biniface for London, Valerie Brown of the Burning Pink Party, Max Fosh, Independent, Vanessa Hudson of the Animal Welfare party, Steve Kelleher of the Social Democratic party, Farah London, Independent, Nims Obunge, Independent, Niko Omilanna, Independent and Mandu Reid of the Women’s Equality party.
The interesting point about these emails to candidates, is that similar ones have been sent to the candidates for Mayor and Police and Police and Fire Commissioner in England and Wales and already replies have been received from candidates, some of which have been in office, who have been prepared to defend their pro-lockdown actions or opinions. So does this mean those who do not reply are lacking a certain degree of courtesy or a disrespect for those they might disagree with?

As far as London is concerned, it was important to offer all Mayor candidates fair media treatment.
We have seen plenty of evidence that much of the mainstream media does not do that at all, and often focuses on a small number of their preferred candidates to the exclusion of the others. If some candidates ignored the offers we sent them, it is their decision. At least they were offered equal treatment to the others.

With regard to the five candidates who offer a freedom from lockdowns perspective, they are:

Piers Corbyn, Let London Live party, Laurence Fox, Reclaim party, Peter Gammons, UKIP, David Kurtens, Heritage party and Brian Rose, London Real party.

All the above mentioned political parties have candidates for the 11 London wide Assembly seats:
Let London Live- 5
Heritage- 6
London Real- 4
Reform- 10 ( Reform have an electoral agreement with Laurence Fox’s Reclaim party)
UKIP- 11
These seats are allocated by a form of proportional representation, with the parties submitting lists of candidates and a party has to obtain at least 5% of London wide votes to gain any seat/s.

There are also for the 14 London constituency seats.
With these, the Reform party is standing in all fourteen and Let London Live in three, so there is a reasonable chance of real change if people get out and vote !

Voters therefore have four votes:
First and second preference votes for London Mayor, One the London wide assembly seats and One for their constituency seat
Details of all the London elections are on:
https://www.londonelects.org.uk/

With regard to the “Freedom” candidates:

Piers Corbyn promptly emailed back his questionnaire together with some further views.
He also took up the offer of a video interview at the Saturday 24th April London Rally, of which the video clips are available as a link at the end of this article.
Laurence Fox did not respond to the offer of a video interview nor was his questionnaire returned to us, despite having had reminders.
Peter Gammons took up the offer of a video interview at the London Rally location ( these video links are available in this article too), and also completed the questionnaire ( added at the end of the article).
David Kurten did not take up the offer of a video interview, but he did return the completed questionnaire.
Brian Rose’s campaign team did respond after reminders, but said there was not the time to take up the offer of a video interview or to complete the questionnaire.

In fairness to all the Mayoral candidates, the National Alliance for freedom have promoted their individual campaigns on social media, when asked, or when we have become aware of them, without fear or favour.

The winner of the London Mayor elections is the candidate who achieves 50% plus of the votes.
It is believed that no candidate will win 50% of the votes with the elector’s first preferences, so the result will very much depend on people’s second preference votes.
For any elector who wants the best chance of a freedom from lockdowns candidate winning, it is logical to vote their first preference vote for their first choice candidate and second preference vote to their next preferred candidate.
So an elector who wants a Mayor who wants an end to all lockdowns, all restrictions, no covid passports and no coercive mass vaccinations and testing, will sensibly choose their first and second preference choices from the list of five given.
It might be difficult to select two of the five candidates but it has to be done.

Factors which will be considerations could be:
Each individual candidate’s integrity, commitment and reliability.
Their personal abilities and capabilities to be an excellent London Mayor.
Their track record on opposing lockdowns and associated issues since their imposition on March 23rd last year.
How determined they are to ensure this never happens again.
How will they work with others opposed to lockdowns to bring them in their Mayoral teams.
Any other relevant factors, such as their perceived chances of winning compared with the other favoured candidates.
Of course it is important to read what they say in their election manifestos ( which are in the online and printed London Assembly elections handbook( link already mentioned in this aticle) as well as on their website and social media pages).

Clearly it would be better if there was just one “freedom” candidate, but that has not happened.
It is therefore up to the electors to choose someone new from our list of five, as any first or second vote given to the mainstream parties, who have brought the misery of pointless lockdowns across London and the rest of the UK, will be seen as an endorsement of their policies by the establishment.
So on this occasion it is important to consider: do any of the lockdown parties deserve a vote from a freedom loving voter ?

See below for links of interviews done and to view the questionnaires sent in:

Piers Corbyn

Short version of interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylVv8udNQrs

Longer version of interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8wTzdlg-Xg

Interview on agriculture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJMBdRrSPFI

Peter Gammons

Short version of interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r187XiKIeF8

Longer version of interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee_dIxxAeB0

Interview part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6tJRmgB_yU

London Mayoral candidates questionnaire responses:-

Piers Corbyn Mayoral questionnaire answers:

1) Do you support vaccine passports or certificates? – No I do not support vaccine passports/certificates for any use – domestic or for international travel.
2) Do you think informed consent is important when rolling out the Covid 19 vaccines? Should it be made clear to people that these vaccines are still in the trial phases? – Absolutely, people should be informed of the adverse reactions and deaths that are being caused by the injections. They should also be informed that some of the injections are in clinical trail phase until 2023.
3) Do you believe the MHRA voluntary yellow card reporting scheme is inadequate for assessing the effects of the covid-19 vaccines ( as only between 3 and 6 reports per thousand are completed) – Yes, the system is inadequate because the recipients are not normally told about the scheme so adverse effects are underreported. I would also question whether the MHRA are a good organisation to be handling this monitoring as they have received funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation.
4) Do you support the government following up the results of all those who have had covid-19 vaccines, including recording all those who have died? – Yes the long-term effects of these injections need to be studied. Also anyone injured or who has died needs to be compensated by the government.
5) Did you support the initial lockdown in 2020? – No. I have been campaigning against all lockdowns since April 2020.
6) Do you support further lockdowns? – No I do not. There is no science to back them up.
7) Do you think the Coronavirus Act should be repealed? When? – Yes this draconian act should be repealed immediately.
8) Are you in favour of mandatory mask mandates? — No, as with lockdowns there is no science behind the mandates. Viruses are too small to be stopped by masks and continued mask wearing builds up bacteria and other toxins which will make people ill.
9) Do you have any further comments to make? – As mayor I would fight to return London to the vibrant city it once was. Our top 5 polices are:
1. NO LOCKDOWNS, NO MASKING – No Covid Rules Ever!
2. SAVE ALL with serious illnesses – cancer, heart disease etc. No serious illness should be left behind!
3. NO VAX PASSPORTS or Testing. No Medical Apartheid.
4. DEFEND COUNCIL HOUSING and end homelessness
5. DEFEND FREE SPEECH, rights of assembly and travel

Peter Gammons Mayoral questionnaire response:

1) Do you support vaccine passports or certificates?

-No. We are told that the vaccine does not stop the spread of Covid and at best only lessens the symptoms, so what is the point of forcing people to have it if they do not want to? It should be the individual’s choice. UKIP is the only major party to oppose vaccine passports. It is governmental bullying. That is why UKIP was started 28 years ago to stand up to the bullying elite in Westminster and they are worse then ever now. We are a libertarian party who believe in minimum government interfering in people’s lives. The Khan controlled Met have even stopped my team from legally campaigning, using ‘Covid’ to threatening us with arrest, even though the ban on campaigning was lifted on March 8th. The mainstream parties are using ‘Covid’ as an excuse to strip people of their rights and civil liberties. Many people have failed to realise that UKIP was not just about Brexit – it was about freedom and democracy – we forced a referendum because we believed the people should decide, not the politicians. Our fight is far from over.


2) Do you think informed consent is important when rolling out the Covid 19 vaccines? Should it be made clear to people that these vaccines are still in the trial phases?
-Most definitely. The risks should be explained and people free to decide if they want it. It is outrageous that politician have protected pharmaceutics companies they own shares in from liability.

3) Do you believe the MHRA voluntary yellow card reporting scheme is inadequate for assessing the effects of the covid-19 vaccines ( as only between 3 and 6 reports per thousand are completed)
-Yes totally inadequate.

4) Do you support the government following up the results of all those who have had covid-19 vaccines, including recording all those who have died?
-The whole ‘died with covid’ has been a big deception.

5) Did you support the initial lockdown in 2020?
-No. Not at all. The government has chosen a totally wrong strategy and ruined the lives of millions, for a virus which does not pose a threat to most people. Figures released today confirm that the average age of fatality from Covid was 82 with just 2 in 1000 who get it dying. An antibody test showed I had Covid last summer and didn’t even know about it, with zero symptoms. From day one, UKIP was the only party to publicly support the Great Barrington Declaration – protect the vulnerable and get everyone else back to normal. One British scientific journal reported this week that up to two-thirds of those who died during the first lockdown caught Covid in hospital.

6) Do you support further lockdowns?
-No. Just look at some of the cost of lockdown: 79 million fewer GP appointments, 4.4 million less cancer diagnosis, 4.6 million waiting treatment, other life threatening diseases undiagnosed and untreated, 6000 more deaths from heart attacks and strokes, 12,000 less heart operations, one in six children now with mental health disorders, suicides rising dramatically, unemployment up by 700,000, one in four businesses bankrupted and £1 billion a day being added to the national debt. Young people are suffering most, their education is being destroyed by the government, over a virus which holds next to no threat to them. They will be the ones having to pay for the billions the Tory’s have passed on to their cronies in underhanded Covid deals.

7) Do you think the Coronavirus Act should be repealed? When?
-Yes, immediately it has just put more power in the hands of the authoritarian government. When liberties are surrendered you can never get them back.

8) Are you in favour of mandatory mask mandates?
-No. There is no evidence they make a scrap of difference.

9) Do you have any further comments to make?

-I hope when people go to vote they will remember that Conservative, Liberal and Labour are equally guilty in supporting lockdown. Vote Peter Gammons for Mayor and UKIP for the London Assembly. We are the only mainline party which has opposed it and openly opposes vaccine passports.

Peter Gammons
UKIP Candidate for Mayor of London


David Kurten’s Mayoral questionnaire answers:

1) Do you support vaccine passports or certificates?
-No
2) Do you think informed consent is important when rolling out the Covid 19 vaccines? Should it be made clear to people that these vaccines are still in the trial phases?
-People should be fully and properly informed that they are experiment gene technologies which are still in clinical trial until 2023, and the manufacturers have no liability is they result in death or severe adverse health effects.
3) Do you believe the MHRA voluntary yellow card reporting scheme is inadequate for assessing the effects of the covid-19 vaccines ( as only between 3 and 6 reports per thousand are completed)
– It is grossly inadequate. The number of deaths and sever adverse health effects is likely to be far higher than those reported by those who know about the system.
4) Do you support the government following up the results of all those who have had covid-19 vaccines, including recording all those who have died?
– They should follow up everyone and halt the injection program immediately on concerns of severe adverse health effects.
5) Did you support the initial lockdown in 2020?
– No
6) Do you support further lockdowns?
– No
7) Do you think the Coronavirus Act should be repealed? When?
– Yes. Immediately
8) Are you in favour of mandatory mask mandates?
– No
9) Do you have any further comments to make?
– Total mortality has been in line with the 20 year average so all the measures have been unnecessary and disproportionate, and should be ended immediately

Final point, use your votes wisely and use your best judgement to pick your best two “freedom” candidates.
And vote in a freedom loving London Assembly too !

Written and researched by Anthony Webber and Nerina Villa
Political Commentator and Film Producer
“Freedom” candidates in the London Mayor elections information production
On behalf of the National Alliance for freedom from lockdowns
anthonywebber@nationalalliance.org.uk

Government issues “caution” covid-19 advice to Christian worshippers for the Easter weekend

Following concern from some of the government’s medical and scientific advisers that some Christians may “overact” to the easing of religious worship restrictions and let “lax standards of compliance become the norm.” the government have issued an urgent cautionary warning to Christian bodies today ( 1^ST April) in England.

It is thought that the other Home countries have done the same.

The letter to the Heads of the Christian denominations, states that “the reminder of the rules,” was not just aimed at Christian Churches, and that similar “clarifications” would be sent to other religions at “appropriate times.”

The message to Christians was being sent because of the Easter weekend and the major significance of this to the Christian faith.

It was felt that “religious enthusiasm may get out of hand resulting in a breaking of government rules on worship.” If this happened, then the government would have no alternative but to enforce penalties on anyone perceived to be breaking such regulations.” To do otherwise,” the letter stated, “would be detrimental to the fight against covid-19.” The letter further said: “It would encourage people to believe they had the right to worship how and when they want, and they should have accepted by now that their own faith feelings always need to be secondary to following the government’s advice.”

A spokesperson from one of the leading Churches said: “ We have stuck rigidly to the regulations imposed on worship, and to intimate we would let the government down now after a year of abstinence, could not be further from the truth. We will comply with whatever the government asks of us.”

They added “For the very restricted indoor services, we reiterate that we will be adhering to only having a singer if they are deemed absolutely essential.”

As for outdoor services, the spokesperson confirmed that there will now be some flexibility and up to 50 persons permitted. However, they said that the “allowing of some communal singing would not be taken advantage of, and would be strictly monitored.” Anyone singing too loudly or being too close to someone would receive a quiet warning. Also, “strict social distancing, family bubbles, criteria would be abided by and  there would be no mingling permitted.”

When the Church spokesperson was asked how they could ensure the “good behaviour of their congregations,” they confirmed that “church covid wardens” had been given training in ensuring their compliance. This included the use of appropriate sign language as social distancing rules meant that they could not personally approach any perpetuators. They would be  “assisted by a necessary police attendance at some Churches.,” “to make absolutely certain” the rules were obeyed.” Trouble is expected in some Scottish Churches where a Court victory recently overturned Nicola Sturgeon’s banning of Church services.

UK Government concern about foot washing breaking coronavirus regulations

The government letter also expressed concern about an activity carried out by a small number of Churches, the act of the washing or bathing of worshippers’ feet.

This is based on the fact that Jesus Christ carried out foot washing of his disciples at the Last Supper ( Maunday or Holy Thursday) to teach them how to be servants. Maundy also means “command” so it was the Lord’s command that his followers carried out such serving.

However, the government letter explicably stated : “This religious act is not permitted, as the washing of feet is a potential breach of the coronavirus regulations.”

“Anyone seen engaging in this unauthorised activity will be advised to desist immediately otherwise they will be fined, and if still non complaint, will be arrested.”

The government letter went on to refer to other events in the Christian Easter weekend, and that those such as the traditional carrying of the Cross to visit to seven Church stations, were not allowed, and there would be serious consequences for those who were “covidiot enough to disobey.”

The Church spokesperson admitted that they had “not made an issue of the government’s instructions” and that it was more important “to do the right thing for the government,” rather than plead for Christian Easter events to return to traditional normality.

Christians not happy with either their leaders or the government, complained that there was also a dark side to Maunday Thursday and it was the night that Jesus Christ was betrayed by Judas Iscariot.

They felt that both their leaders and the government had betrayed them in a similar way, but that they, like Jesus, would rise again in glory, and be free.

They also expressed sympathy with the 300,000 Jewish people in the UK, who have had their Passover between 27^th March and 4^th April, disrupted by the government’s regulations. This event was of significance to Christians too, because it celebrates the anniversary of the Israelites liberation from slavery in Egypt, and much of what Jesus did at that time was related to Passover.

The governments of the four Home countries denied that they were part of a global plan to use covid-19 to reset society so that people were drawn away from adherence to a religious faith to be replaced by obedient adherence to whatever the governments decided. However, they stated that anyone caught making such conspiracy theory comments would be brought in for questioning. If necessary would be put on a re-education course, with the worst offenders being put in rehabilitation camps until they were deemed no longer a danger to the best interests of the public. Religious items such as Bibles would of course be banned, and a new “common purpose” programme would be studied instead.

Anthony Webber

Independent Political Commentator

anthonywebber@cwgsy.net

07824 444604

https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/1406483/government-lockdown-mistakes-imposing-admit-economic-crisis-costs-comment