Labour has chosen a counsellor who hopes to become a councillor in the Westbourne and Poets’ Corner by-election in six weeks’ time.
The party picked Samantha Parrott, known as Sam, at a selection meeting this evening (Friday 21 March).
The party said: “We’re delighted to announce Samantha Parrott as our Labour candidate for the Westbourne and Poets’ Corner election on Thursday 1 May.
“Samantha has been a resident of the area for over 20 years and deeply values our community’s vibrant character.
“Samantha and the team have already been out on the doorstep speaking with residents.”
She has been a counsellor for 20 years, having previously worked in marketing and customer services within the telecoms and IT industry in London.
In her professional profile, she said: “I left to become a full time counsellor when I moved from London to Brighton. I love living and working in Brighton.”
She has a post-graduate diploma in psychodynamic counselling from Goldsmiths, in London.
The by-election has been called after the resignation of Leslie Pumm earlier this month.
He cited health grounds, having been elected as a Labour councillor in May 2023.
NOTE This story has been corrected to say that the candidate has been a resident of the area for over 20 years, not the ward. This was a mistake by a colleague not the candidate. She lives in the area covered by the branch that includes Westbourne and Poets’ Corner ward.
No experience or background in politics. Nepotism, friends of friends but mainly selected as no threat to the cabal of 5 or so people running the city.
Is it not concerning that that our elected councillors are so in hope of promotion that they have forgot what representation of their residents is about. What has happened to democracy in our city?
What are you on about?
They, the candidates, are literally participating in the democratic process by standing. I’m not sure how you can expect them to have political experience if they’re not allowed to get elected by standing in a council by election?
It’s great to see that so far we have a lawyer, a counsellor and an accountant throwing their hats in the ring. Those are skills the city could hopefully benefit from. Democracy is alive and well in Brighton & Hove.
How do you expect people to get experience in politics when you seem to be saying people like councillors can only be elected if they already have experience in politics?
Being a councillor seems to be majority about how to talk to people. Her experience as a counsellor for 20 years would probably serve her well here, right? You claim Nepotism here incorrectly, but have you seen the conservative candidate who is married to a sitting councillor?
Another Londoner. As you know a lot about the council and its processes why not confess you are a sitting councillor promoting Labour. I have heard that the Greens have declared a husband of a sitting councillor but seen nothing about the Conservatives. How would you know?
“Samantha has been a resident of the ward for over 20 years”
Another Londoner? I know reading is hard but do try reading past the headline
Primarily John, such a self declaration would be a lie.
That’s the GREEN PARTY who are fielding the husband (71 yr old Geoff Shanks) of a sitting councillor (Sue Shanks), not a Conservative. Both the Greens and the Labour groups have a sense of entitlement to the Ward in the way they speak. The neglect of the city by the Green Party should not be forgotten, Labour are compulsive liars – riding a wave of anti-Tory sentiment with a manifesto written by the Brothers Grimm.
ah another labour landlord here to protect us all (google her, she has rental properties). Just what the large number of people screwed over by dodgy landlords need
Perhaps they’ve chosen her so she can simply learn Labour’s lines and repeat them parrott fashion.
Labour seem to like that these days, complicit backbenchers happy to simply agree this version of Labour’s Tory policies.
Cathy, why don’t you stand then. Nah to much hassle, easier to winge for not apparent reason in the local newspaper. Lol what are your policies?
If you’re interested Dave, my policies would be to tax people on high incomes more rather than taking disability benefits away from disabled people and winter fuel allowance away from the elderly.
Interesting that another comment mentions this candidate is a landlord, if true, she’ll fit right in with Labour who seem to like to profit from accumulating assets and getting nice portfolios of rental properties.
It’s a bit sad that bullying by social media has taken over this site.
This is a new candidate, and one of many you can choose to vote for at this by-election.
Surely that is part of the democratic process?
You can choose who you vote for on the basis of what they say, or because of the party they represent.
I will of course admit my own bias here. The fact is, for those of us who have lived in Brighton and Hove for decades, is that Labour of all the parties have done the best job.
There is still a lot to be done, and in the face of a failing economy, and a world seemingly on the brink of war. But you might remember how the Greens, before they were ousted, wanted to close all the public toilets.
They didn’t do it though, they published their budget papers in good time to allow public scrutiny, listened to feedback and amended their own budget to remove the proposal. They were quite open about it all, making clear the cuts that year were quite savage and there were hideous proposals they had to consider because of Tory cuts.
Like many people I think the proposal was dreadful, and arguably they shouldn’t have even proposed it – but they did remove it from the budget. Labour just seem to plough on with their unwelcome cuts – locally they are tone deaf to people not wanting devolution they are pushing, they were tone deaf on closing St Bart’s school and the baby room at Bright Start. The have screwed over tenants at New England House who they are turfing out, they cut down trees without a licence in Holligdean, they are looking to close libraries. Nationally the list of dreadful and harmful policies is endless in only 8 months – winter fuel allowance, the 2 child benefit cap not being amended, the national insurance problems many charities face, and very soon their assault on some of the most vulnerable people in the country via their welfare reforms.
Good to see you admit your bias – but surely you must be able to see Labour are acting just like Tories. They are being cruel and callous.
Trev, where is the money coming from to pay for all this stuff you talk about mate?
The council is pretty much broke, so it the country due to 14 years of serious incompetence and fraud from the top. Don’t get me wrong, pip is a kick in the teeth for some, but there is widespread misuse by a lot of people who simply need a kick up the backside and paying them to stay home isn’t remotely helpful. From seeing it first hand, giving alcoholics and addicts of other substances loads of money to get help, doesn’t actually help them because if they were that inclined they probably wouldn’t be addicts in the first place, the money would be far better spent treating them and their issues. Equally a lot of under 25s signed off with anxiety, paying them to stay home isn’t help. Maybe that money could be spent on work placements to get them out of the house and back into society, so they can have a normal life. This idea that people should be written off for life and have money thrown at them is borderline madness.
New England house should have been demolished years ago but at the same time there are several tower blocks across the city the council is spending millions on to fix with the same problems, that’s a priority over new England because they are residential. Unless of cause you want us to pay even more tax?
A wealth tax would raise about £24 billion. That would be better than targeted disabled people imo.
On residential blocks the council is ‘fixing’ – it’s decades of non-action on their part which has left so many residents living in dangerous buildings. They are doing it now because new post-Grenfell legislation means they have to because the new Building Safety Regulator actually checks they are meeting their legal duties. When there were very few proper checks and less regulation faults in housing stock was not always fixed as it should have been. At the moment the regulator has only check a tiny proportion of the council’s stock, so I anticipate many more issues coming to light – like the eight blocks on the Bristol Estate the fire service inspected and said were hazardous just the other day.
It’s not a good news story that the council is ‘fixing’ housing defects – its a shameful legacy of derugulation, with the current Labour Government crowing about removing ‘red tape’. It’s precisely the watering down of regulation that has left people living in dangerous homes and less regulation means local councils, and other organisations, will be able not being scrutinised in the way that they should – which protects us all.
If tax means that we have a fairer society where those hardest up aren’t so screwed over, then yes, more tax is good – but the Govt could start at the top with a wealth tax on those with more than enough to manage with paying a bit more tax.
That’s just the age of the buildings. They just need some panels updated from what I heard.
The sixth largest economy in the world is “broke”.
Ha ha……..
Another Labour follwer falls to the pull of lying and making things up as long as they can push their agenda, Sad Billy.
Any scrutiny or accountability is bullying now, is it? Get over yourself. Being in politics is being in the public eyes. I have never heard or seen this candidate before at a door step etc. It is a group of 5 ppl who runs the city. Any cllr with backbone resigned or quit.
You kind of fell on your own sword there, Sue.
Just because you’ve never heard of somebody doesn’t mean they won’t be a good candidate.
I hadn’t heard of all the other candidates standing either.
Opportunistic? Yes, a good candidate for type of party. Billy boy.
Sue please name this ‘group of five’.
“Samantha has been a resident of the ward for over 20 years and deeply values our community’s vibrant character.” – what nonsense, she doesn’t live in Westbourne. She lives down the road from us in Wish ward.
Ooh – looks like Brighton & Hove Labour just got caught telling a bare-faced lie to the media and the electorate. Either that or their candidate lied to them? Or maybe both are clueless about the geography of the city? Hoping there will be a hustings. Popcorn time.
Depends on which road she lives on and where the actual ward boundary is drawn. ‘down the road’ isn’t accurate enough.
Wish and Westbourne share the same boundary and one side or a road can be in one ward and t’other in the other ward
Easy enough to put her post code for her address – since you know it – into the ‘councillor finder’ to confirm.
https://democracy.brighton-hove.gov.uk/mgFindMember.aspx
Well…..she’s not a councillor so that won’t help much but point taken about which ward she lives in. The Wish/Westbourne boundary is quite complicated and a lot of people think they’re in one when they’re actually in the other. Labour will not look good if they’ve not been honest about where she lives…..just as people claiming this will look a bit silly if it’s not true.
If it’s the case of one side of the road or another, that’s a really inconsequential aspect. Makes absolutely no difference to their capabilities.
It’s not. We and she are closer to Portslade than Westbourne. The statement that she lives in the ward is just a lie, not a misunderstanding about boundaries.
What I mean though, on a theoretical level, does it make a significant difference if they live in the ward or next to the ward, or just in the city?
What does matter is honesty – something not being shown by Labour here
Nobody is saying someone living in Wish can’t represent the residents of Westbourne. Fortunately for Labour, no one is claiming Parrott lives in Leicester.
The issue here is that Labour are sending press releases to the media claiming something about their candidate that (allegedly) is not accurate.
You would have thought that Labour would have learnt their lesson after the previous fiasco.
New Labour = Old Tory
Why is Hove voting in the local elections as I n understand it the rest of the city are not?
Or do we all get to finally sort this council out?
This is a by-election for a vacated seat, Kevin.
is anyone stupid enough to vote Labour again after last year?