Bookmaker William Hill is giving odds of 5/4 for there to be the first hung parliament in over three decades. As David Cameron’s lead continues to shrink, statistics show that it is possible that neither of the main two parties will secure a majority in the upcoming General Election.
Recent polls from Ipsos MORI put the Conservative lead at a meagre five points with just 37% of the national vote. Political analysts assert that the Tories will now need to pull off the biggest percentage swing since the Second World War to be confident of avoiding a hung parliament.
These extraordinary circumstances are the result of the national mood being swayed more by Labour’s unpopularity than any tangible surge of enthusiasm for the Conservatives, and this apparent lack of enthusiasm could well mean that more of the electorate will hang their hopes on independent candidates.
Many independents, particularly those endorsed by the Independent Network (IN), are campaigning ethically, listening to the interests of their communities, and are free from control of any political party. If there is a hung parliament, voting independently could well prove to have been the smart move for voters.
There has been much speculation on how the Liberal democrats would act in a hung parliament, with Nick Clegg being dubbed the ‘Kingmaker’. What hasn’t been given much attention is the potential influence independent MPs could command.
In an article for The New Statesman, Roy Hattersley asserts that “forming a viable government could well require negotiations with Esther Rantzen, Martin Bell and Terry Waite as well as Nick Clegg.” This would place an extraordinary responsibility in the hands of independent MPs whose loyalties lie, first and foremost, with their constituency. There are currently two directly elected independents in the House of Commons and, with 20 high quality candidates endorsed by the IN to date with more to come, there could well be more independent MPs in Parliament after the next election.
Jonathan Salt, endorsed IN PPC for Huntingdon, has put some thought to such an eventuality. He says: “If we ended up with a hung parliament after an election and I have won Huntingdon, I would not ally myself with any party. I would vote for the Government if I felt that my vote were right for my constituents.”
Compare this response to that of Nick Clegg, who, according to the New Statesman, “announced recently that he would give his support to whichever party ‘wins’.” It’s easy to see how voters could become disillusioned with party politics and that some would rather bet on a candidate that will serve their interests first. Clegg is using arithmetic, whereas IN endorsed independent candidates adhering to the Bell Principles are using considered evidence, experience, conscience, and the needs of their constituents to guide their choices.
Being involved in a hung parliament is a huge responsibility, the actions of any one MP have the potential greatly influence the way our country is run. Although some party politicians may profess independence, their voting is too often dictated by their party line. In a hung parliament, the party whips will need to be even more fervent, so party politicians will have little choice but to do as their leader says.
Friday, 26 March 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
Friday, 15 January 2010
Nobody Likes a Moaner
David Cameron spoke about positive campaigning back in December and we couldn’t agree more. Positive campaigning is the ideal route for candidates to talk about what they can do for you rather than getting bogged down in a political slandering match.
Some candidates in previous elections have spent far too much time on negative campaigning. The ‘we are better than them’ approach just isn’t productive. A country gripped by recession and two wars deserves better. We need to know why we should vote for a candidate, rather than simply what’s wrong with everyone else.
There are many benefits to positive campaigning. Candidates can clearly outline what they hope to achieve and why they’re the best candidate. It’s important that candidates sell themselves and shout out their achievements. If you went to an interview and defamed the other applicants, would you expect to find yourself hired?
The next General Election provides a unique opportunity for Independents to set themselves aside from the traditional party election campaigns and offer their constituents something new and fresh – a credible alternative. Dr Richard Taylor is the perfect example of this approach. He defeated a Government Minister in 2001 in Wyre Forest on a string of issues including the rejection of proposals to downgrade the local Kidderminster Hospital being the primary one. If you wish to be elected you must have a well thought out manifesto that can include local issues, but must also include national issues – you’re standing for the UK Parliament, not the local Council.
There are also legal ramifications for slander. If you doggedly pursue a negative campaigning approach, it would be wise to note that many have got themselves into serious legal trouble regarding defamation of character among other types of slander. Carla Bruni-Sarkozy wrote a good piece for The Guardian’s Comment is Free regarding slander of those in the public eye. Although this piece is aimed journalists, it is important to know that any accusations made must be fully researched with empirical evidence.
Whilst the Conservatives and Labour parade the notion of positive campaigning they are not adverse to the occasional spat and reputation bashing. The public are tired of the adversarial politics that is neither productive nor proactive. Independent candidates on the other hand offer something different.
It is time for a change, and I doubt Cameron and the Conservatives can keep to their new found principle. In the words of the opposition leader “let's make it a good clean fight.”
Some candidates in previous elections have spent far too much time on negative campaigning. The ‘we are better than them’ approach just isn’t productive. A country gripped by recession and two wars deserves better. We need to know why we should vote for a candidate, rather than simply what’s wrong with everyone else.
There are many benefits to positive campaigning. Candidates can clearly outline what they hope to achieve and why they’re the best candidate. It’s important that candidates sell themselves and shout out their achievements. If you went to an interview and defamed the other applicants, would you expect to find yourself hired?
The next General Election provides a unique opportunity for Independents to set themselves aside from the traditional party election campaigns and offer their constituents something new and fresh – a credible alternative. Dr Richard Taylor is the perfect example of this approach. He defeated a Government Minister in 2001 in Wyre Forest on a string of issues including the rejection of proposals to downgrade the local Kidderminster Hospital being the primary one. If you wish to be elected you must have a well thought out manifesto that can include local issues, but must also include national issues – you’re standing for the UK Parliament, not the local Council.
There are also legal ramifications for slander. If you doggedly pursue a negative campaigning approach, it would be wise to note that many have got themselves into serious legal trouble regarding defamation of character among other types of slander. Carla Bruni-Sarkozy wrote a good piece for The Guardian’s Comment is Free regarding slander of those in the public eye. Although this piece is aimed journalists, it is important to know that any accusations made must be fully researched with empirical evidence.
Whilst the Conservatives and Labour parade the notion of positive campaigning they are not adverse to the occasional spat and reputation bashing. The public are tired of the adversarial politics that is neither productive nor proactive. Independent candidates on the other hand offer something different.
It is time for a change, and I doubt Cameron and the Conservatives can keep to their new found principle. In the words of the opposition leader “let's make it a good clean fight.”
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
