Letter: These pranksters are no joke
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: In the parliamentary constituency in which I live a candidate was allowed to stand for election under the official description "New Labour". The young man's candidature does not appear to have been accompanied by any statement of his views, or his reasons for standing, or by any communication with the electorate.
It is to be presumed that the prankster's aim was to harm the interests of the Labour Party by deceiving and confusing the voters. A candidate calling himself a Literal Democrat probably harmed the Liberal Democrat candidate in a recent election elsewhere.
The new Home Secretary should bring forward legislation to require returning officers to disallow official descriptions of candidates whose aim is to confuse the electorate. This would not disqualify the unusual, the humorously intended or the downright eccentric descriptions which sometimes enliven elections, but it would rule out those not adopted in good faith.
The Rev G W F LANG
London W6
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments