From Olympians to Love Island stars: The famous faces standing in the local elections in your area
Local councillors are usually obscure figures, passionate local activists hoping to improve their areas or ambitious party loyalists wanting to climb the electoral ladder.
But among the thousands of councillors standing across the country on Thursday, a few names stand out.
From Olympians to ousted ex-MPs, The Independent looks at how the main parties are hoping star power will help their candidates over the line in one of the most unpredictable sets of local elections in British history.
Stiliyan Petrov
Stiliyan Petrov, the son of an ex-Aston Villa and Bulgaria captain of the same name, is standing for Reform UK in the May local elections.
His father is Bulgaria's most capped player and he hopes to represent Nigel Farage 's party in Lapworth & West Kenilworth, Warwickshire.
'I decided to stand for election because I think it's time the working-class people and the youth of this country have a voice that'll actually represent them,' the ex-professional footballer's son said.
James Cracknell
James Cracknell is standing for a seat on Oxfordshire County Council.
The double Olympic gold medal-winning rower is standing as a Conservative for Henley, having previously attempted to become the area's MP.
He was awarded an OBE for 'services to sport' in the 2005 New Year Honours list and is promising to help Henley 'get its buzz back', according to the local Conservatives.
As a rower, he has made holding water companies to account over river cleanliness a key issue he is fighting on.
Luke Campbell
Reform UK's candidate for the Hull and East Yorkshire mayoral election is also an Olympic gold medalist.
The boxer is swapping his gloves for the chance to represent the region as the first head of the new combined authority.
He is the favourite to win, according to a recent More in Common poll, in what promises to be one of the closest results of the night as Reform, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and Labour all stand a chance.
Mr Campbell, who won gold at the London 2012 Olympics, said Hull and East Yorkshire has 'given me everything' and that he now wants to fight for the region in return.
Ollie Williams
The Love Island star is hoping to strike it lucky with voters and win a Reform UK seat on Cornwall council.
Ollie Williams appeared on the ITV dating show in 2020, but left after just three days claiming he had feelings for another woman.
The 29-year-old sparked fury among viewers as photos emerged of him posing beside dead animals, leading to suggestions he was 'trophy hunting'.
He has avoided the limelight in the years since his appearance on the ITV show, but is now standing for Reform in the Lostwithiel and Lanreath ward.
'Our freedom of speech and society has been eroded for far too long and it's time to act,' he declared.
Arron Banks
Self-styled 'Brexit bad boy' Arron Banks co-founded the Leave.EU campaign alongside now Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice.
The long-standing Farage supporter is now running to become the West of England mayor for his party.
Announcing his candidacy at Reform's local election launch in Birmingham, he called on people to 'vote Banksy for Bristol'. As well as close ties to Mr Farage, Mr Banks has a history of ties to Donald Trump and was pictured with him after the US Presidential election in 2016. He has cited Mr Trump's success as being the result of connecting with voters on an emotional level.
Mr Banks and Mr Farage drew the interest of Robert Mueller as part of his investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election. Mr Banks described the investigation as a 'witch hunt'.
Mr Banks also made headlines after the tragic murder of Labour MP Jo Cox in 2016. At the time, he commissioned a controversial poll on whether her murder had affected public opinion on voting.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Calm down, Mr Sarwar - don't get too enthusiastic over Hamilton result
While the Labour win was indeed a surprise, it did not indicate a fundamentally different political environment than the one we had previously thought we were in, based on Scottish polling. As other analysts have pointed out since – including Ballot Box Scotland's Allan Faulds, who in these pages provided a sobering corrective to the wild narrative swing that took place last weekend – this was a by-election victory full of caveats. Read more I won't recount all of those caveats, but it suffices to say that going into the by-election, national polling suggested that, based on a proportional swing model, the SNP would win 33.7% of the vote, Labour 28%, and Reform UK 19.2%. The actual results were SNP on 29.4% (a 4.3-point gap), Labour on 31.6% (a 3.6-point gap), and Reform UK on 26.1% (a 6.9-point gap). As far as the SNP and Labour go, the polls had their results within the margin of error for a model of this kind. The only party that significantly outperformed their polling was Reform UK. As Dr Eoghan Kelly, a postdoctoral researcher on the Scottish Election Study team, found by extrapolating the result in Hamilton to the whole of Scotland, if the result were replicated in next year's Holyrood elections then Labour would come third, with 23 seats to Reform UK's 26 seats and the SNP's 49. There's a lot more work for Scottish Labour to do to get back into power in Scotland, and this one by-election win isn't sufficient to suggest otherwise. As we are all reminded before by-elections, and as most of us seem to forget in their aftermath, we cannot draw grand conclusions from them about national politics. But Hamilton was, nevertheless, a shot across the SNP's bow, and not least because it pointed to significant fragility in the supposed SNP leads in what will be closely contested constituencies next year – putting at risk the projected, disproportionate plurality of seats the SNP are expected to win by dint of dominating the constituency results. Let's take a few widely cited models to sketch out where we expect these three parties to end up if the polls do not change dramatically by next May (which they might). Ballot Box Scotland currently expects the SNP to win 59 seats, Labour to win 21, and Reform UK to win 15; Professor Sir John Curtice's latest projection for the Sunday Times had the SNP on 54, Labour on 20 and Reform on 18, and Dr Kelly's model (using my poll averages as inputs) suggests the SNP on 62 seats, Labour on 16, and Reform on 17. My model would have the SNP on 60 seats, Labour on 17, and Reform on 17. The Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election was called after the death of SNP MSP Christina McKelvie (Image: PA) Read more by Mark McGeoghegan: Historically, a party winning the SNP's current level of constituency and regional list support would only win around 47 seats, even short of Professor Curtice's relatively low projection of 54. The SNP's projected overperformance is entirely a result of the split unionist vote, meaning that the SNP can win as little as a third of the constituency vote nationally while sweeping the vast bulk of Scotland's 73 constituency seats. However, if they failed to win those excess constituency seats, they would not be compensated for them with regional list seats, which are allocated proportionally. So, how fragile is this constituency boost? And what does it mean if more close contests, like Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse, slip through the SNP's grasp? My model suggests that a swing of under 5% from the SNP to Labour, compared to current polling, is needed for the SNP to lose a further eight constituency seats. A further two are vulnerable to the Liberal Democrats in the same way, and six to the Conservatives. The swing from the SNP to Labour in Hamilton was, compared to the modelled result, around four points – enough to flip eleven of those 16 close seats. In other words, if the unmodelled swing away from the SNP in Hamilton is replicated elsewhere next May, the SNP would win eleven fewer seats than expected. Only a couple more would be needed to bring them down to the 47-seat mark. Why does this matter? Even with 54 seats, the SNP would likely be able to govern as a minority requiring the support of only one other party, likely the Greens or Liberal Democrats, to pass budgets and legislation. At 47 seats, they would need at least two partners unless Labour or Reform backed them, making the 2026-31 Scottish Parliament the first without a realistic two-party majority since 2011. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. Voters constantly tell us that they want politicians to work together, and establishing a more consensual style of politics has long been a lofty and distant goal of Scotland's political class. And it's an outcome our politicians should be preparing for in the background ahead of next year's elections. Of course, the respective leaders won't admit it in public, least of all John Swinney, as he pushes to secure a big enough minority to rely on the Greens and Liberal Democrats. Still, such an outcome looks much more likely today than it did two weeks ago. The Hamilton by-election result neither indicated that John Swinney's days as First Minister are numbered nor that Anas Sarwar is on track for Bute House. But it did send an obvious signal: the SNP's position is far more fragile than we thought, and little swings in local areas could dramatically change the complexion of the Scottish Parliament next year. Mark McGeoghegan is a Glasgow University researcher of nationalism and contentious politics and an Associate Member of the Centre on Constitutional Change. He can be found on BlueSky @
New Statesman
2 hours ago
- New Statesman
Greta Thunberg knows what she's doing
Photo by Anders Wiklund/AFP There's something about Greta Thunberg that provokes hot-blooded fury among a certain demographic. The rage the 22-year-old activist from Stockholm regularly incurs is on a similar level to that often incited by the Montecito-based Duchess of Sussex, Meghan Markle. The latest act which the founder of Skolstrejk för Kilmatet ('Fridays for Future') has undertaken was boarding a vessel chartered by the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, which attempted to transport humanitarian aid to Gaza through the current partial Israeli blockade. On Monday, the boat carrying Thunberg and other activists was intercepted by Israeli forces who boarded the vessel before accompanying it back to shore. The Israeli government has since deported Thunberg. Various predictable charges have been hurled at Thunberg (who guest-edited this magazine in 2022). Enraged critics have said that her participation was just a publicity-stunt or that she put herself in needless danger just to make a point. The Israeli foreign ministry nicknamed the British-flagged Madleen Yacht, which carried Thunberg and 12 others across the sea from Sicily, the 'selfie-yacht' when announcing that it had been seized. One article in the New York Post accused Thunberg of pretending to be in handcuffs after arriving in France following her deportation. Countless posts on X have mocked Thunberg, or have called her 'self-righteous', with one post going so far as to call her a 'useful idiot'. Google searches for 'Greta Thunberg' peaked at 6am on 9 June, reaching the top of Google Trends maximum searches. What all of the vitriol fails to acknowledge is that this attention is the result Thunberg's actions were intended to attract. She is, after all, an activist. One wonders how those spitting with fury over what they deem to be Thunberg's 'irresponsible' publicity stunt would have said about the resistance — armed and otherwise — used by anti-apartheid campaigners in South Africa under the leadership of the now-beloved Nelson Mandela. One imagines many of the same people who are probably furiously rage-posting about Thunberg on X are doing so from a home bedecked with kitschy posters bearing slogans such as 'It Always Seems Impossible Until It Is Done' (a phrase made popular by Mandela) or 'Be the Change you Want to See in the World', often attributed to Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi certainly didn't make his name by keeping quiet – he devoted his life to peaceful civil disobedience in order to secure India's independence. In other words, he spent much of his life pissing people off. That is what activism is. And what to make of the charge against Thunberg that by boarding the flotilla, she was irresponsibly and needlessly putting her life in danger? Has everyone forgotten the Suffragettes? Emily Davidson stepped out in front of the King's horse at the 1913 Epsom Derby, killing herself and seriously injuring a jockey, with the aim of securing universal suffrage (Votes for Women!). This scene is now celebrated and Davidson is honoured; children are taught about it in school. Davidson's activism was dangerous and daring (and could have caused more injuries besides) but it achieved its desired result. Thunberg's journey on the Madleen, though perhaps personally reckless, has succeeded in keeping the desperate need for aid in Gaza at the top of the news agenda. An eleven-week blockade in the region, which was partially lifted by the Israeli government at the end of May, has left vulnerable Palestinian children and families starving. As of 4 June, 57,000 people have died in this war. That more outrage has been expressed online over a 22-year-old Swedish woman attempting to help those who are suffering is a damning indictment of where we are. The world's best-known campaigner has never hidden who she is or what she believes in. Yet she will always be a clueless teenager in the eyes of her detractors; someone to be seen, not heard. But Greta Thunberg has other ideas, and she won't go quietly. She is, after all, an activist. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Related
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Why does Nigel Farage get to play British politics on easy mode?
In today's rundown, discontented Britain, politics is supposed to be hard. Deep national problems need to be solved, but voters are impatient and often contemptuous of politicians. Past mistakes are rarely forgiven. Promises are treated with scepticism. The costs of policies are scrutinised and often resented. Attempts to set out priorities, such as the government's spending review this week, face endless questioning. Disagreements inside political parties, meanwhile, are seen as signs of weakness and division. MPs with outside interests are seen as greedy and uncommitted. As for the minority who survive these pressures long enough to have a significant career – the electorate usually grows bored with them. Few retain its interest beyond a dozen or so years. Nigel Farage first became an elected politician in 1999. Since then, disillusionment with his profession has intensified to probably unprecedented levels. Yet few, if any, of the unforgiving rules of British politics seem to apply to him, or to his latest vehicle, Reform UK. They appear to be playing politics on easy mode. His Commons appearances are infrequent, his extracurricular activities prolific, his party's internal culture chaotic and its plans to 'fix' Britain largely theoretical and uncosted. His one concrete policy achievement is Brexit, now widely considered disastrous or disappointing. In a country often said to have had enough of metropolitan privilege, he is a wealthy, privately educated southern Englishman who used to work in the City of London. In a country supposedly sick of political rancour, he consistently falls out with colleagues. In a country that supposedly wants politicians to be more modest and better at apologies, his public manner is self-satisfied and unrepentant. Yet since winning only five seats at last year's election, Reform UK has increasingly dominated the political conversation. Farage's constant speeches and press conferences, complete with self-congratulatory smiles and jokes, receive huge coverage for a tiny Westminster party. Few Labour or Tory policies feel designed without actual or potential Reform voters in mind. And as the traditional main parties have fallen back in the polls, Reform has overtaken them. Winning power has become a possibility. No new British party has ever done this. Even Labour, with the trade union movement behind it, took a quarter of a century from its foundation to reach government. Why is Reform seemingly finding politics so easy? The usual way of explaining its rise is through the troubled state of the country, the main parties' inadequacies and Farage's talent for exploiting political and social crises. These have all played a big part, but so have less examined factors. The design of our political system is one of them. Supposedly hostile to new parties, it can, in fact, be too hospitable to them if their popularity is not yet reflected in parliament, and they can, therefore, avoid taking on tricky Commons roles. Because Reform is not the official opposition, Farage doesn't have to ask regular prime minister's questions, and doesn't have to build a coherent critique of the government – and thus also expose himself to its potentially damaging counterattacks. While Kemi Badenoch struggles to rubbish Keir Starmer's government, and Starmer rubbishes past Tory governments in reply, Farage can sit back, seemingly above the Westminster squabbles many voters dislike. An MP for just a year, he barely has a Commons or constituency record that opponents can attack. He and Reform can act as the opposition in an amorphous and potent rather than narrowly parliamentary sense: as a repository for the hopes and fantasies of a wide range of voters that the country can be rescued – 'reformed' – by a radically different government. Something a little like this has happened before, with the creation and brief ascendancy of the Social Democratic party (SDP) in the early 1980s. Allied with the Liberals, the SDP won byelections and surged ahead of Labour and the Tories in the polls. Some predicted the SDP would replace Labour, as some predict Reform will replace the Tories now. Yet unlike Reform, the SDP had been founded by familiar Commons figures, all former Labour ministers, and this connection to the mainstream meant that its fresh, insurgent feel could not be sustained. Its popularity faded. Less associated with Westminster, Reform may prove harder for the established parties to suppress or co-opt. Farage also enjoys an advantage not available to the SDP: strong rightwing media support. In order to get the politics it wants, or to obstruct the politics it doesn't want, this historically dominant part of the media almost always backs a rightwing party. With the Tories' deep unpopularity, poor current leadership and terrible recent record in government, Reform seems a better prospect. While it presents itself as a revolt against the established order, in reality its anti-immigration and anti-diversity policies seek to protect or restore traditional social structures. It's an easy cause for conservative journalists to support. What might make Reform's life harder? Possibly, having to run the councils it won in May's local elections, during a period of tight public spending. Yet given Reform's ability to evade responsibility, it's also possible that problems at its councils will be blamed on the government instead. Farage may finally start to age, politically speaking, as he becomes more of a Westminster fixture, and also engages with – or ignores – the problems of his deprived constituency, Clacton in Essex. His 21 years as a member of the European parliament to an extent preserved his novelty – like his movement's metamorphosis from the UK Independence party to the Brexit party to Reform UK – since few Britons followed its proceedings. Now, as a purely domestic politician, he gets more constant publicity. Although he seems to relish it, it could bring overexposure. In the most recent polls, Reform's popularity had stopped rising. But waiting for him and his party to lose their novelty is a risky and passive strategy for Reform's opponents, with the next election at most four years away. Anxious Labour activists and election strategists increasingly talk about promoting a 'stop Reform' message. Yet with Labour having weakened its anti-Reform credentials by sometimes echoing its language and policies, that message might only resonate with enough voters if Labour forms some kind of electoral alliance with more consistently anti-Reform forces: the Greens and Liberal Democrats, perhaps even Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party and leftwing independents. That would be uncharted territory for the tribal Labour party. But with Reform enjoying an ascendancy that our political and electoral systems never anticipated, we are in uncharted territory already. Andy Beckett is a Guardian columnist
