The TV debates have made the media complicit in the greatest change to the UK's constitution - turning the UK's constituency, parliamentary electoral system into the largest electoral college in the world. This semi-codifies the UK's elected dictatorship. That suits party politicians down to the ground, of course, as it maintains the status quo, and will encourage the next government to believe they have an even stronger mandate to force through whatever measures their party machine will roll over and comply with.
The electorate are being confused into believing that their vote is for a leader, when in fact on May 6th they will be voting for a constituency MP.
The expenses scandal and all previous parliamentary conduct scandals in the UK have demonstrated the importance of assessing the character of individual constituency candidates - one of the reasons all applicants for endorsement by the Independent Network are assessed against The Bell Principles. If the electorate continue to be encouraged to vote on the basis of the media performance of a party leader, the colour of their ties, their corporate brand, the dumming down of politics in the UK will be complete.
The task has become even harder for independents, who must remind voters that they're voting for a constituency MP. Gaining share of the media's attention has become even more difficult. National media will always be a challenge, but the even sharper focus on the three main parties in the UK during this election means that candidates must look to local media. Call radio phone-ins, try to work constructively with local media - offer them good content and comment, campaign positively about your candidacy and reasons to vote for an independent, offer a different perspective. Make sure they know that independents are the only true alternative to party politics, no matter what the smaller political parties say.
Local hustings are also taking their steer from the national media's concentration on the three main parties, so organise a hustings of all the candidates excluded from local hustings. Invite the media to attend, maybe encourage a local radio presenter, Justice of the Peace or other impartial person to moderate the session. If the media won't show, record the session yourselves and place it on the internet so that you can distribute it and give the local electorate an opportunity to hear from all contenders in the election.
Televised debates in the UK are nothing new. Parliament has been televised for years and the electorate has seen the pitiful performance of the main parties and their leaders for some time. The TV debates of the 2010 General Election are simply symptomatic of the public's despair at the conduct of MPs - the Punch and Judy, yah-boo politics that show the UK's MPs behaving like a bunch of school children in a playground, teasing, bullying and caring more about gaining cheap shots than constructive discussion of the UK's problems and opportunities.
Showing posts with label independent candidates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label independent candidates. Show all posts
Friday, 16 April 2010
Tuesday, 9 March 2010
Sick of the Drama
As the Observers revelations broke about Prime Minister Brown's worst kept secret of his violent streak broke and the unleashing of the "forces of hell" upon Chancellor Darling; we ask the question, why are we governed by a bunch of bullies? When are our elected representatives going to be in the papers for doing some positive?
Brown's temper really isn't the problem and it's really unlikely that he would've unleashed the, so called, forces of hell on our dear Darling. He has denied absolutely any accusation of his bullying. The real crisis is the continuous scandals surrounding Parliament and the complete disillusionment of the public with politics.
The Tories and the LibDems can laugh at this current mishap which has engulfed number 10 and reap the benefits of our beleaguered political system. They have even been as brazen to ask for an inquiry into the working practices at number 10. The original story which promoted the current bullying allegation emerged in September 2008 in the Times. This was typical Westminster stuff, say the wrong thing and suffer the consequences. The problem is that nobody seems to criticising these practices? Darling got it right back in 2008 and predicted the worst recession since 1929, yet he was to suffer because he didn't toe the Party line.
In the last year we have had scandal after scandal from our elected representatives. From the email scandal surrounding Damian McBride last year to the revelations that one of the Tory’s wealthiest donors doesn’t pay UK tax. There is something seriously wrong with our current political system and we deserve better public representatives.
Last September, the former independent MP Martin Bell presented the Bell Principles to supporters of the IN and they were unanimously adopted. The Bell Principles are a code of conduct for elected representatives that include key values for politicians such as transparency and treating opponents with respect. We would have a very different Parliament if all MPs signed up to these principles.
Some people criticise independents for not having any real policies, but many of the independents we’ve been talking to have been debating current issues and have come up with some unique and innovative ideas. Independent politicians are arguably ahead of their party candidates, they don’t have to simply toe the party line and therefore need to debate issues and consult the public.
The next general election provides a unique opportunity for independents to get elected. Independent MPs will still attract controversy, but maybe they could move politics back into debating policy, rather than nonstop scandals.
Brown's temper really isn't the problem and it's really unlikely that he would've unleashed the, so called, forces of hell on our dear Darling. He has denied absolutely any accusation of his bullying. The real crisis is the continuous scandals surrounding Parliament and the complete disillusionment of the public with politics.
The Tories and the LibDems can laugh at this current mishap which has engulfed number 10 and reap the benefits of our beleaguered political system. They have even been as brazen to ask for an inquiry into the working practices at number 10. The original story which promoted the current bullying allegation emerged in September 2008 in the Times. This was typical Westminster stuff, say the wrong thing and suffer the consequences. The problem is that nobody seems to criticising these practices? Darling got it right back in 2008 and predicted the worst recession since 1929, yet he was to suffer because he didn't toe the Party line.
In the last year we have had scandal after scandal from our elected representatives. From the email scandal surrounding Damian McBride last year to the revelations that one of the Tory’s wealthiest donors doesn’t pay UK tax. There is something seriously wrong with our current political system and we deserve better public representatives.
Last September, the former independent MP Martin Bell presented the Bell Principles to supporters of the IN and they were unanimously adopted. The Bell Principles are a code of conduct for elected representatives that include key values for politicians such as transparency and treating opponents with respect. We would have a very different Parliament if all MPs signed up to these principles.
Some people criticise independents for not having any real policies, but many of the independents we’ve been talking to have been debating current issues and have come up with some unique and innovative ideas. Independent politicians are arguably ahead of their party candidates, they don’t have to simply toe the party line and therefore need to debate issues and consult the public.
The next general election provides a unique opportunity for independents to get elected. Independent MPs will still attract controversy, but maybe they could move politics back into debating policy, rather than nonstop scandals.
Wednesday, 10 February 2010
What's The Alternative?
MPs have voted in favour of a referendum which will give the public the chance to choose which voting system will be used in elections of the future. A big problem is that we will only get this referendum if the Labour Party wins the next election, as the Conservatives will likely strike it off the agenda.
The Labour Party wants to introduce Alternative Voting (AV) a system of preference voting. If no one achieves a majority of votes, the candidate with the fewest is eliminated and their 2nd preference votes are redistributed at full value to the remaining candidates. This is repeated until one candidate obtains a majority of votes. Resulting in a single winner, this wouldn’t change the make-up of Parliament at all and would achieve very little in terms of electoral reform, though it could provide some interesting results.
This could technically mean that some candidates could win seats simply by being the 2nd preference (provided they have enough 1st preference votes to ensure they are not eliminated instantly). This could be a crucial step from changing the perception that any other vote than a party vote is a ‘wasted vote.’
What AV means for independents is a sort of mixture of good and bad. Technically it should make independent candidates more electable as people will be more confident of either placing an independent as their 1st or 2nd preference without the fear of wasting their vote. Although some independents may not receive enough 1st preference votes and will be eliminated, therefore the benefit of having them as your 2nd choice is negated.
The Liberal Democrats were in staunch favour of Single Transferrable Vote (STV), an addition to the referendum which failed to receive the support of Parliament. STV is the predecessor to AV and a system which aims to provide a more proportionally representative result. Like AV it is a preferential voting system: although in this system candidates do not have to reach a majority, only achieve percentage of votes which is calculated by a formula called ‘Droop Quota.’
STV reduces the dominance of Parties in the electoral process and results in a more accurate account of what the electorate want. STV provides proportionality by transferring votes to minimise waste, and therefore minimises the number of unrepresented or disenfranchised voters. Although, this system is quite radical for the UK, it could be a giant leap in the right direction in creating a Parliament more representative of the electorate.
STV was rejected on the grounds that if the MP to constituency link was broken, our political system will be forever damaged, it was too radical. It was rejected because it was too expensive and too complex.
Independents would benefit a lot from STV as it would effectively destroy the 1 MP - 1 Constituency and open Parliament up to be far more reflective of what the public demands.
The Conservatives want to stick with First Past the Post (FPTP), an electoral system which we currently use in the UK. Currently a candidate can become elected if he receives the majority votes, even if that totals at 20% of the vote. This creates a system in which some constituencies have overwhelmingly not voted for their current MP, but because of the voting distribution they are stuck with them. FPTP arguably creates more wasted votes than any other system. It’s unlikely the Conservatives will want to change anything, as it seems very possible FPTP will win them a reasonable majority in Parliament.
A big problem for FPTP is that it excludes some from voting, as in affect their vote will be a wasted vote. FPTP often ensures than non-political party or minor party votes are ‘wasted’ as traditional parties hold a grip on constituencies across the country. It also makes for a very unrepresentative MP, in many cases MPs are elected on less that 50% of their constituent’s votes and this is a major issue as some simply feel disenfranchised. This results in ‘tactical voting’, exclusion of the electorate and prevention of independents or minor parties being made credible choices.
Some criticisms of AV and STV are that they cost far too much and that the systems can be too complex for humans to calculate effectively on polling day, leading to the over-reliant use of computers.
In Pierce County, Washington, USA, election officials outlined costs of $3,291,340 to implement AV in 2008. This included costs for new software and equipment, voter education, testing and additional ballot printing and postage costs. Staff also had to be paid for the extra time they spent checking the ballots and scanning them into the computers.
So we have a potential referendum in October 2011 to change the electoral system to AV or remain with FPTP. AV should prove more effective for independent candidates but ultimately this choice is with the voter. MPs have given you the choice of a bias system or a slightly less biased system… enjoy.
The Labour Party wants to introduce Alternative Voting (AV) a system of preference voting. If no one achieves a majority of votes, the candidate with the fewest is eliminated and their 2nd preference votes are redistributed at full value to the remaining candidates. This is repeated until one candidate obtains a majority of votes. Resulting in a single winner, this wouldn’t change the make-up of Parliament at all and would achieve very little in terms of electoral reform, though it could provide some interesting results.
This could technically mean that some candidates could win seats simply by being the 2nd preference (provided they have enough 1st preference votes to ensure they are not eliminated instantly). This could be a crucial step from changing the perception that any other vote than a party vote is a ‘wasted vote.’
What AV means for independents is a sort of mixture of good and bad. Technically it should make independent candidates more electable as people will be more confident of either placing an independent as their 1st or 2nd preference without the fear of wasting their vote. Although some independents may not receive enough 1st preference votes and will be eliminated, therefore the benefit of having them as your 2nd choice is negated.
The Liberal Democrats were in staunch favour of Single Transferrable Vote (STV), an addition to the referendum which failed to receive the support of Parliament. STV is the predecessor to AV and a system which aims to provide a more proportionally representative result. Like AV it is a preferential voting system: although in this system candidates do not have to reach a majority, only achieve percentage of votes which is calculated by a formula called ‘Droop Quota.’
STV reduces the dominance of Parties in the electoral process and results in a more accurate account of what the electorate want. STV provides proportionality by transferring votes to minimise waste, and therefore minimises the number of unrepresented or disenfranchised voters. Although, this system is quite radical for the UK, it could be a giant leap in the right direction in creating a Parliament more representative of the electorate.
STV was rejected on the grounds that if the MP to constituency link was broken, our political system will be forever damaged, it was too radical. It was rejected because it was too expensive and too complex.
Independents would benefit a lot from STV as it would effectively destroy the 1 MP - 1 Constituency and open Parliament up to be far more reflective of what the public demands.
The Conservatives want to stick with First Past the Post (FPTP), an electoral system which we currently use in the UK. Currently a candidate can become elected if he receives the majority votes, even if that totals at 20% of the vote. This creates a system in which some constituencies have overwhelmingly not voted for their current MP, but because of the voting distribution they are stuck with them. FPTP arguably creates more wasted votes than any other system. It’s unlikely the Conservatives will want to change anything, as it seems very possible FPTP will win them a reasonable majority in Parliament.
A big problem for FPTP is that it excludes some from voting, as in affect their vote will be a wasted vote. FPTP often ensures than non-political party or minor party votes are ‘wasted’ as traditional parties hold a grip on constituencies across the country. It also makes for a very unrepresentative MP, in many cases MPs are elected on less that 50% of their constituent’s votes and this is a major issue as some simply feel disenfranchised. This results in ‘tactical voting’, exclusion of the electorate and prevention of independents or minor parties being made credible choices.
Some criticisms of AV and STV are that they cost far too much and that the systems can be too complex for humans to calculate effectively on polling day, leading to the over-reliant use of computers.
In Pierce County, Washington, USA, election officials outlined costs of $3,291,340 to implement AV in 2008. This included costs for new software and equipment, voter education, testing and additional ballot printing and postage costs. Staff also had to be paid for the extra time they spent checking the ballots and scanning them into the computers.
So we have a potential referendum in October 2011 to change the electoral system to AV or remain with FPTP. AV should prove more effective for independent candidates but ultimately this choice is with the voter. MPs have given you the choice of a bias system or a slightly less biased system… enjoy.
Thursday, 28 January 2010
Drowning in your manifesto?
Independent candidates can sometimes find it difficult to produce a comprehensive manifesto on national and international issues. To help you get started we have put together the following suggestions.
Use the Network
The IN, as the name suggests, is a network for independents that aims to pool resources to enable candidates to succeed. Candidates can use the network to communicate and use the expertise of other independents and supporters. For instance, if you are struggling on education and healthcare, you can contact candidates who are doctors or teachers to improve your understanding of these areas.
Research
Whilst New Labour proclaimed, ‘education, education, education’, a statement for independents could be ‘research, research, research’. It’s important that you’re up to date on current political debates and have a good knowledge base on national policy. Think tanks provide excellent research on a wide range of subjects from economics to immigration. They are arguably influential in politics, as many party policies originate from research carried out by them. Examples of popular think tanks include ippr, Demos, Fabian Society and Hansard Society.
Demographics
It’s useful to check out the demographics of your constituency. This can help you to target your voters, for instance you may want to attract a certain group, such as students. Good websites for demographics include UK Polling Report and National Statistics Online.
Consult
One of the strengths of being an independent candidate is that you don’t have to sign up to a rigid manifesto - you can freely listen and consult your constituents. Essentially you want to redirect their needs and requests in an effective and clear way in your manifesto. To be successful you will need to get in touch with people of all ages and backgrounds, this will enable you to have a balanced view. It’s unlikely that you’ll be able to have a proper conversation with every electorate, so online methods are great. A good website is Survey Monkey which enables users to create online surveys for free.
Social Media
A good way to get in touch with younger people is by using popular social networking websites such as Facebook and Twitter. It is a great way to connect with a wide range of people that you may not meet in traditional public political events. Barack Obama used Facebook and Twitter in the 2008 US presidential election to his advantage in order to connect with his audience. Social Oomph is a great website that enables users to manage social media and is an essential tool for candidates.
Don’t reinvent the wheel
If you have policies that are similar or the same as political parties, avoid the pitfalls of completely changing your manifestos just to be different; there’s no point reinventing the wheel. But it can be an advantage to research opposing candidates’ manifestos if asked to draw upon why your policies are better than theirs; it is always good to know what you are up against.
Non-profits
Finally, if you’re supporter of a charity or pressure group, you may want to include some of their policies in your manifesto. For instance Save the Children is asking Prospective Parliamentary Candidates (PPCs) to consent (if elected) to take direct action to end child poverty. If you’re not currently involved with a charity, but passionate about a certain issue, you may want to contact an organisation that supports your views. For instance if you’re passionate about electoral reform, you may want to get in touch with Power 2010 and sign up to their pledge for PPCs.
If you think we’ve missed any key points please leave your comments below or send an email to: secretariat@independentnetwork.org.uk
Use the Network
The IN, as the name suggests, is a network for independents that aims to pool resources to enable candidates to succeed. Candidates can use the network to communicate and use the expertise of other independents and supporters. For instance, if you are struggling on education and healthcare, you can contact candidates who are doctors or teachers to improve your understanding of these areas.
Research
Whilst New Labour proclaimed, ‘education, education, education’, a statement for independents could be ‘research, research, research’. It’s important that you’re up to date on current political debates and have a good knowledge base on national policy. Think tanks provide excellent research on a wide range of subjects from economics to immigration. They are arguably influential in politics, as many party policies originate from research carried out by them. Examples of popular think tanks include ippr, Demos, Fabian Society and Hansard Society.
Demographics
It’s useful to check out the demographics of your constituency. This can help you to target your voters, for instance you may want to attract a certain group, such as students. Good websites for demographics include UK Polling Report and National Statistics Online.
Consult
One of the strengths of being an independent candidate is that you don’t have to sign up to a rigid manifesto - you can freely listen and consult your constituents. Essentially you want to redirect their needs and requests in an effective and clear way in your manifesto. To be successful you will need to get in touch with people of all ages and backgrounds, this will enable you to have a balanced view. It’s unlikely that you’ll be able to have a proper conversation with every electorate, so online methods are great. A good website is Survey Monkey which enables users to create online surveys for free.
Social Media
A good way to get in touch with younger people is by using popular social networking websites such as Facebook and Twitter. It is a great way to connect with a wide range of people that you may not meet in traditional public political events. Barack Obama used Facebook and Twitter in the 2008 US presidential election to his advantage in order to connect with his audience. Social Oomph is a great website that enables users to manage social media and is an essential tool for candidates.
Don’t reinvent the wheel
If you have policies that are similar or the same as political parties, avoid the pitfalls of completely changing your manifestos just to be different; there’s no point reinventing the wheel. But it can be an advantage to research opposing candidates’ manifestos if asked to draw upon why your policies are better than theirs; it is always good to know what you are up against.
Non-profits
Finally, if you’re supporter of a charity or pressure group, you may want to include some of their policies in your manifesto. For instance Save the Children is asking Prospective Parliamentary Candidates (PPCs) to consent (if elected) to take direct action to end child poverty. If you’re not currently involved with a charity, but passionate about a certain issue, you may want to contact an organisation that supports your views. For instance if you’re passionate about electoral reform, you may want to get in touch with Power 2010 and sign up to their pledge for PPCs.
If you think we’ve missed any key points please leave your comments below or send an email to: secretariat@independentnetwork.org.uk
Thursday, 7 January 2010
The General Election should morally coincide with the Local Elections
The case for the General Election to be held on May 6th to coincide with the Local Elections is a strong one. This country, deep in recession, cannot afford two separate elections. It would be an absolute waste of tax payers’ money and an unnecessary expense for the economy. If the elections were on two separate dates it will be obvious electioneering by the Government, by attempting to influence the votes by the timing of the General Election.
The last General Election cost £80m to organise, although there are thousands of extra costs which could increase that figure. As of March 2009 the deficit stands at 55% of our whole Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The Government will put extra strain on our fragile economy by having two separate election dates. EU Regulations enforced by the Maastricht Treaty consider a country to be in debt when they reach a deficit at 60% of their GDP, at which point the EU council could decide to enforce sanctions on the UK.
The situation is dire, and needs to be addressed now. We cannot risk sanctions and we cannot jeopardise the future of this country. The primary concern for any Government should be the reduction of the deficit not election success. Therefore having the General and Local elections on the same day would be the perfect measure of cutting costs on an essentially expensive operation.
It is a well known fact in previous elections that Governments have all abused their ability to manipulate the public and the timing of the General Election to suit their needs. It is common practice for all political parties to coerce the electorate; we shouldn’t have to stand for this, and we should be free of conscience to make our own vote, we should be independent.
The Labour Government seems to only be concerned with election success rather than reducing the deficit. Ian Dunt of Politics.co.uk in his commentary hit the nail on the head of Gordon Brown, “Now, he puts off the date as long as possible, in a vain search for political fortune”. The Prime Minister should be running the country instead of searching for a miracle to keep his political tenure. It seems that the Government is far more concerned with election success than running the country.
This farce surrounding the dates of the 2010 election can be easily resolved. Have them on the same day, it saves money and makes things simpler for everyone; after all we are paying for it.
The last General Election cost £80m to organise, although there are thousands of extra costs which could increase that figure. As of March 2009 the deficit stands at 55% of our whole Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The Government will put extra strain on our fragile economy by having two separate election dates. EU Regulations enforced by the Maastricht Treaty consider a country to be in debt when they reach a deficit at 60% of their GDP, at which point the EU council could decide to enforce sanctions on the UK.
The situation is dire, and needs to be addressed now. We cannot risk sanctions and we cannot jeopardise the future of this country. The primary concern for any Government should be the reduction of the deficit not election success. Therefore having the General and Local elections on the same day would be the perfect measure of cutting costs on an essentially expensive operation.
It is a well known fact in previous elections that Governments have all abused their ability to manipulate the public and the timing of the General Election to suit their needs. It is common practice for all political parties to coerce the electorate; we shouldn’t have to stand for this, and we should be free of conscience to make our own vote, we should be independent.
The Labour Government seems to only be concerned with election success rather than reducing the deficit. Ian Dunt of Politics.co.uk in his commentary hit the nail on the head of Gordon Brown, “Now, he puts off the date as long as possible, in a vain search for political fortune”. The Prime Minister should be running the country instead of searching for a miracle to keep his political tenure. It seems that the Government is far more concerned with election success than running the country.
This farce surrounding the dates of the 2010 election can be easily resolved. Have them on the same day, it saves money and makes things simpler for everyone; after all we are paying for it.
Monday, 30 November 2009
Guest Blog by Guy Aitchison of Power 2010 http://www.power2010.org.uk
Perhaps the most striking features of politics today, is the gaping chasm that exists between the loyalties, hopes and fears of the public on the one side and what our sclerotic political system permits on the other.
For a long time, people in the UK have been switching off from formal politics. Voter turnout at the last two general elections in 2001 and 2005 was at a historic low of around 60%. One of the self-serving myths of the political class is that this disengagement stems from apathy or satisfaction with the status quo. This couldn't be further from the truth. Take any issue of concern – climate change, war and peace, poverty, civil liberties - and you'll find lots of fired up people out there. But their anger and compassion leads them to support campaigning charities and NGOs rather than get involved in party politics.
This is equally true of the local level - people care deeply that their local hospital is closing or that there's no jobs in their area, but they don't feel confident that the systems in place will be responsive to their concerns.
At the Power Inquiry, the largest ever investigation into people’s attitudes to British democracy concluded, people are withdrawing from formal politics out of a sense of powerlessness and a feeling that parties and politicians are all the same. That's why public outrage over expenses was always about more than simply duck houses, moats, dry rot, and other abuses, however petty or extravagant; it was symptomatic of a much deeper disconnect between the public and politicians that has been building for years.
If there's to be any hope of breaking through this morass it'll take citizens organising outside the formal structures of political power and calling for reforms that will open up our democracy to new voices and new ways of thinking.
POWER2010 the spiritual successor to the Power Inquiry, is one such initiative. The Independent Network is another. Both aim to challenge an insular and semi-corrupt political class that has grown arrogant and complacent after years of power and the privileges that come with it. POWER2010 is a grassroots campaign to renew and strengthen UK democracy from the bottom up. The campaign is unique in giving everyone the chance to have a say in how our democracy works for us.
The public is being asked to send in ideas for how to change politics before Tuesday November 30th. Is it open primaries? Fairer voting? A cleaner system of funding politics? More power to local communities? You decide: http://www.power2010.org.uk/page/s/yourideas
The ideas with most support will become the POWER2010 Pledge and the focus for a national campaign at the next general election. Over 3,000 reforms have been submitted so far and it won't surprise you to learn that a lot of them are aimed at trying to get smaller parties and independents into Parliament. As Jim Thornton, Exec member of the Independent Network, wrote on the POWER2010 blog it's remarkable that while 98.5% of the British population refuse to belong to a political party, there are only seven Independent MPs.
The next election provides an opportunity for those who want a new politics to work together to break open the system and reverse the stranglehold the two big parties have over our democracy.
Find out more about Power 2010 by checking out their website and Facebook and Twitter page.
For a long time, people in the UK have been switching off from formal politics. Voter turnout at the last two general elections in 2001 and 2005 was at a historic low of around 60%. One of the self-serving myths of the political class is that this disengagement stems from apathy or satisfaction with the status quo. This couldn't be further from the truth. Take any issue of concern – climate change, war and peace, poverty, civil liberties - and you'll find lots of fired up people out there. But their anger and compassion leads them to support campaigning charities and NGOs rather than get involved in party politics.
This is equally true of the local level - people care deeply that their local hospital is closing or that there's no jobs in their area, but they don't feel confident that the systems in place will be responsive to their concerns.
At the Power Inquiry, the largest ever investigation into people’s attitudes to British democracy concluded, people are withdrawing from formal politics out of a sense of powerlessness and a feeling that parties and politicians are all the same. That's why public outrage over expenses was always about more than simply duck houses, moats, dry rot, and other abuses, however petty or extravagant; it was symptomatic of a much deeper disconnect between the public and politicians that has been building for years.
If there's to be any hope of breaking through this morass it'll take citizens organising outside the formal structures of political power and calling for reforms that will open up our democracy to new voices and new ways of thinking.
POWER2010 the spiritual successor to the Power Inquiry, is one such initiative. The Independent Network is another. Both aim to challenge an insular and semi-corrupt political class that has grown arrogant and complacent after years of power and the privileges that come with it. POWER2010 is a grassroots campaign to renew and strengthen UK democracy from the bottom up. The campaign is unique in giving everyone the chance to have a say in how our democracy works for us.
The public is being asked to send in ideas for how to change politics before Tuesday November 30th. Is it open primaries? Fairer voting? A cleaner system of funding politics? More power to local communities? You decide: http://www.power2010.org.uk/page/s/yourideas
The ideas with most support will become the POWER2010 Pledge and the focus for a national campaign at the next general election. Over 3,000 reforms have been submitted so far and it won't surprise you to learn that a lot of them are aimed at trying to get smaller parties and independents into Parliament. As Jim Thornton, Exec member of the Independent Network, wrote on the POWER2010 blog it's remarkable that while 98.5% of the British population refuse to belong to a political party, there are only seven Independent MPs.
The next election provides an opportunity for those who want a new politics to work together to break open the system and reverse the stranglehold the two big parties have over our democracy.
Find out more about Power 2010 by checking out their website and Facebook and Twitter page.
Monday, 19 October 2009
Bottom of the ballot
The UK’s electoral system is not kind to independent candidates. Electoral Commission rules state that only registered political parties are allowed to use logos on the ballot paper. Since visual cues and representations are a key element in establishing a successful brand, this poses a problem to independent candidates.
What’s more, while candidates are listed in alphabetical order on the ballot – regardless of which party they’re from – independents are always listed at the very bottom.
This matters. Independents must – and do – work enormously hard to build their profile in their community, devoting significant amounts of their time and money along the way. They often do this entirely alone, or with the smallest of staffs and budgets. Compare this with the other candidates who can draw upon the bottomless pockets and numberless agitators and volunteers of the established parties.
Why then, having worked so hard, should independents be hamstrung at the polling station by being hidden away at the bottom of the ballot?
What independents must do to counter this double disability, is work together to forge a common identity for independent candidates. This common identity is not based around a party, or common policies – it is about showing a commitment to public service, probity and rigorous principles. It’s also about showing that independents, rather than careerist party politicians, can best represent and – crucially – listen to their constituents.
That’s where the Independent Network (IN) can help. By affiliating themselves to the Independent Network and signing up to the Bell Principles, candidates benefit from the shared expertise and experience of others; they can also use the Independent Network brand on their website and campaign materials. This will help individual candidates, as it shows they’ve signed up to the most rigorous code of conduct in British politics. It will also help independents across the country by forming a common identity for non-aligned candidates and politicians, and help promote the credibility of independents as a realistic alternative to traditional party politics.
What’s more, while candidates are listed in alphabetical order on the ballot – regardless of which party they’re from – independents are always listed at the very bottom.
This matters. Independents must – and do – work enormously hard to build their profile in their community, devoting significant amounts of their time and money along the way. They often do this entirely alone, or with the smallest of staffs and budgets. Compare this with the other candidates who can draw upon the bottomless pockets and numberless agitators and volunteers of the established parties.
Why then, having worked so hard, should independents be hamstrung at the polling station by being hidden away at the bottom of the ballot?
What independents must do to counter this double disability, is work together to forge a common identity for independent candidates. This common identity is not based around a party, or common policies – it is about showing a commitment to public service, probity and rigorous principles. It’s also about showing that independents, rather than careerist party politicians, can best represent and – crucially – listen to their constituents.
That’s where the Independent Network (IN) can help. By affiliating themselves to the Independent Network and signing up to the Bell Principles, candidates benefit from the shared expertise and experience of others; they can also use the Independent Network brand on their website and campaign materials. This will help individual candidates, as it shows they’ve signed up to the most rigorous code of conduct in British politics. It will also help independents across the country by forming a common identity for non-aligned candidates and politicians, and help promote the credibility of independents as a realistic alternative to traditional party politics.
Tuesday, 8 September 2009
A bigger chance for independents
The Guardian’s most recent ICM poll showed just 85% of votes cast at the end of last month were for the three main political parties. According to the newspaper, that figure has dropped considerably since 1996 when Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats accounted for 97% of votes. Even five years ago - it said - the three parties still gathered 91%.
So what’s happened? The drop could be explained by the growth in votes for marginal political parties but it is questionable whether voters are choosing them because they agree with their policies. Instead it is likely they are just looking for an alternative to the three main established parties. In the last 20 years party membership has fallen by 50% while a record number of votes were cast for independent candidates in the 2005 general election.
Independent political candidates represent an alternative to party politics, offering the public the chance to use their vote positively. With high profile names such as Terry Waite and Esther Rantzen announcing their plans to stand as independents, people now have the opportunity to vote for people they believe in rather than compromising their politics. They can choose an individual instead of a party. Unlike party politicians independents are in the unique position to be able to listen to debate and make an informed decision based on the feelings of their constituents and without the pressure of a party whip.
The Independent Network (IN) is a not-for-profit association which aims to support independent political candidates free from toeing the party line. It wants to give a collective voice to independent candidates, although it does not impose any political views on its members. It is hoped the public will then become more aware of the choices available to them, so they know they have more than three options when they come to vote at the next general election.
All independent candidates are invited to a strategy meeting later this month to discuss the ways Independent Network can support them. For more information go to http://www.independentnetwork.org.uk
So what’s happened? The drop could be explained by the growth in votes for marginal political parties but it is questionable whether voters are choosing them because they agree with their policies. Instead it is likely they are just looking for an alternative to the three main established parties. In the last 20 years party membership has fallen by 50% while a record number of votes were cast for independent candidates in the 2005 general election.
Independent political candidates represent an alternative to party politics, offering the public the chance to use their vote positively. With high profile names such as Terry Waite and Esther Rantzen announcing their plans to stand as independents, people now have the opportunity to vote for people they believe in rather than compromising their politics. They can choose an individual instead of a party. Unlike party politicians independents are in the unique position to be able to listen to debate and make an informed decision based on the feelings of their constituents and without the pressure of a party whip.
The Independent Network (IN) is a not-for-profit association which aims to support independent political candidates free from toeing the party line. It wants to give a collective voice to independent candidates, although it does not impose any political views on its members. It is hoped the public will then become more aware of the choices available to them, so they know they have more than three options when they come to vote at the next general election.
All independent candidates are invited to a strategy meeting later this month to discuss the ways Independent Network can support them. For more information go to http://www.independentnetwork.org.uk
Thursday, 20 August 2009
Independent but still open to scrutiny
According to Conservative website Centre Right “Independents should be scrutinised like anyone else”. This statement followed independent MP Martin Bell’s announcement on Monday, of his plans to target discredited MPs.
But the idea of holding independent candidates to account has never been under question. In fact the Independent Network (IN) would encourage it, with all its members subject to the Nolan Committee’s standards in public life. True - IN does not impose any political views on its affiliates, but they must be non-discriminatory and act according to the principles and values the public expect.
Just because a candidate is independent does not mean they are not open to scrutiny. They are however free to represent their constituents without towing a party line. And it is the Independent Network’s aim to promote them as an alternative to the established parties.
But the Guardian’s Michael White said he believes “major parties remain the key”. In his opinion they attract good candidates with the experience to do the job. But many of these candidates are attracted to these political parties because they provide an easier route to power. If independent candidates were offered the same level of support, there is no reason why they could not gain the same level of experience.
It is also true to say, very few people can honestly agree with every policy of a political party. This means they could be forced to compromise some of their views to avoid rocking the boat, while independent candidates can express their ideas free from party whips.
They may not have the experience when they first launch their campaign but that is where IN comes in. It is hoped that by creating a national identity for independents, encouraging the electorate to identify themselves as independent and by raising their profile, they will attract funding, which can in turn be used to support candidates.
Prospective Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs have a well established support network and it is this inequality faced by independent candidates which IN seeks to address.
For information on a meeting being held for independent candidates go to http://www.independentnetwork.org.uk/
But the idea of holding independent candidates to account has never been under question. In fact the Independent Network (IN) would encourage it, with all its members subject to the Nolan Committee’s standards in public life. True - IN does not impose any political views on its affiliates, but they must be non-discriminatory and act according to the principles and values the public expect.
Just because a candidate is independent does not mean they are not open to scrutiny. They are however free to represent their constituents without towing a party line. And it is the Independent Network’s aim to promote them as an alternative to the established parties.
But the Guardian’s Michael White said he believes “major parties remain the key”. In his opinion they attract good candidates with the experience to do the job. But many of these candidates are attracted to these political parties because they provide an easier route to power. If independent candidates were offered the same level of support, there is no reason why they could not gain the same level of experience.
It is also true to say, very few people can honestly agree with every policy of a political party. This means they could be forced to compromise some of their views to avoid rocking the boat, while independent candidates can express their ideas free from party whips.
They may not have the experience when they first launch their campaign but that is where IN comes in. It is hoped that by creating a national identity for independents, encouraging the electorate to identify themselves as independent and by raising their profile, they will attract funding, which can in turn be used to support candidates.
Prospective Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs have a well established support network and it is this inequality faced by independent candidates which IN seeks to address.
For information on a meeting being held for independent candidates go to http://www.independentnetwork.org.uk/
Monday, 17 August 2009
Independents need teamwork
This week independent MP Martin Bell and former Beirut hostage Terry Waite began a campaign to organise a network of “anti-sleaze” independent candidates to target discredited MPs.
But they are not alone. The Independent Network (IN) is a not-for-profit association aiming to offer support and advice to those independent candidates previously left out in the cold. It aims to promote independents as a credible alternative to established political parties and to raise funds to achieve this. Jury Team is another coalition which sees independents as a way of reviving the public’s faith in politics.
But one of the biggest problems facing independents today is the lack of a single identity, familiar to the big three parties. The Independent Network is unique in its aim to create a national identity for independents standing for election. It wants floating voters with either similar or conflicting views to see themselves as independents, giving them a sense of cohesion.
But they are more likely to gain a strong identity and the recognition they deserve if these groups worked together to support and promote independent candidates. If they combined their efforts their message has a bigger chance to stand out and be heard by the growing number of voters disenfranchised with party politics.
The Independent Network is holding a meeting for all independent candidates on Friday September 25, to create a forum to exchange advice and resources. At the meeting a new executive committee will be formed and members will also discuss how candidates can access and share resources to aid their campaign. For more information go to http://www.independentnetwork.org.uk/
But they are not alone. The Independent Network (IN) is a not-for-profit association aiming to offer support and advice to those independent candidates previously left out in the cold. It aims to promote independents as a credible alternative to established political parties and to raise funds to achieve this. Jury Team is another coalition which sees independents as a way of reviving the public’s faith in politics.
But one of the biggest problems facing independents today is the lack of a single identity, familiar to the big three parties. The Independent Network is unique in its aim to create a national identity for independents standing for election. It wants floating voters with either similar or conflicting views to see themselves as independents, giving them a sense of cohesion.
But they are more likely to gain a strong identity and the recognition they deserve if these groups worked together to support and promote independent candidates. If they combined their efforts their message has a bigger chance to stand out and be heard by the growing number of voters disenfranchised with party politics.
The Independent Network is holding a meeting for all independent candidates on Friday September 25, to create a forum to exchange advice and resources. At the meeting a new executive committee will be formed and members will also discuss how candidates can access and share resources to aid their campaign. For more information go to http://www.independentnetwork.org.uk/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
