The power of political parties has consistently compromised clear recommendations from Royal Commissions on political reform. Tactical ignorance of commissioned research has seemingly become a means to the main parties’ ends, resulting in the abandonment of reforms fundamental to political progress.

After Labour’s 1997 landslide victory in the general election, The Independent Commission on the Voting System, popularly known as the Jenkins Commission, was set up. Employed to investigate alternatives to the ‘first past the post’ electoral system still being used today, the Commission offered the Alternative top-up vote system as a satisfactory substitute.

Otherwise known as AV+, the voting system was suggested for four central reasons: to maintain a geographical link between MP and constituency, to fulfill the need for stable government, to satisfy the desire for broad proportionality and to give an extension of voter choice.

Based on a two vote system, AV+ was designed to make tactical voting unnecessary, create a fairness that means no wasted votes and to end the distorted representation of the electorate that ‘first past the post’ offers. The professional opinion of the Committee was that ‘the majority of MPs (80 to 85%) would continue to be elected on an individual constituency basis which would significantly reduce the disproportionality and the geographic divisiveness which are inherent in FPTP.’ The parties fully ignored the commission in favour of their own interests and no action has yet been taken on the committee’s findings.

Although the Labour government issued a statement saying that the report “makes a well-argued and powerful case for the system it recommends,” the referendum on the electoral system never came and the Alternative Vote Plus has for now, been abandoned in favour of systems that promote political party dominance. Shunned and dismissed, the chair of the Independent Commission on the Voting System, Roy Jenkins’ disillusions grew and before his death he dismissed Blair as a “second-class mind.”

Another reform central to Labour’s 1997 General Election manifesto that has been confined to the Parliamentary archives is the reform of the House of Lords. The establishment of a Royal Commission of both Houses of Parliament to allow for debate and consideration in developing plans for the reform of the House of Lords was announced in 1998. The Commission would undertake research and present recommendations. The reform bill was shelved in 2004.

The House of Lord’s Joint Committee’s January 2000 report (otherwise known as The Wakeham Commission Recommendations) proposed that a reformed House of Lords would have 550 members, of which 65, 87 or 195 would be elected. The report’s conclusion on new members was that an independent appointments commission of eight people should choose new members. Five qualities were identified as desirable for the makeup of a reformed second chamber – legitimacy, representativeness, no domination by any one party, independence and expertise.

The Committee also recommended that the House of Lords should include people who are not politicians and who are likely to be experts in a particular field. These people would attend on a part-time basis and provide independent, alternative insight to issues. Subsequently, philosophical, moral, and expert opinions would be introduced into debates, enabling more informed debate.

In November 2001, the Labour government launched a white paper stating that it ‘strongly endorsed’ the Royal Commission’s views. However, it listed its own proposals, leaving the highly researched paper somewhat dismissed.

May 2004 saw the Labour Government drop plans to reform the House of Lords. Jack Cunningham, chairman of the Joint Committee on Lords Reform said it had been “clear for some time that things were going wrong.” He added that “there was a “lot of party politicking going on.” Still an implement of party political warfare, the debate on House of Lords reform consistently ignores the considered evidence and hard work of the original Royal Commission.

The current debates about political reform precipitated by the hung parliament look set to ignore the expert advice of the Royal Commissions still. As the Lib Dems seek a promise for electoral reform in return for an alliance, the Conservatives have offered the ‘Alternative Vote’ system. This lacks the highly researched and democratic advantages of the AV+ system and clearly illustrates a dangerous corruption of the political system for their own means.

It has become clear that the strength given to the main political parties is overriding detailed research conducted by leading experts. It is essential for a democratic system that party powers are weakened so that recommendations from inquiries into such issues as House of Lords and electoral reform are considered appropriately.

After the dust settled from the press launch, the Independent Network can be proud of putting independent candidates in the national spotlight.

There was a significant presence of national media at the launch in April with the Press Association and BBC on hand with camera crews as well as most quality national newspapers like the Times, Independent, Telegraph, Guardian, Daily Mail, and the Financial Times. BBC World Service were also present to interview to various independents as well as Martin Bell OBE and Brian Ahearne from the Independent Network.

Political websites like politics.co.uk and epolitix also attended to cover the event showing a shift towards better representation of independent candidates. This was further emphasized by the presence of thee of the major national political sketch writers including Ann Treneman, Brian Wheeler, Simon Hoggart and Simon Carr.

The Telegraph drew attention to the challenge to high profile MPs disgraced in the expenses scandal with the Daily Mail, Metro, and Reuters highlighting the increasing chance of independents causing an upset on May 6th.

The spiky sketch writers did their best to be satirical; the BBC’s Brian Wheeler, Simon Hoggart for the Guardian and Treneman for the Times all picking up on Bell’s metaphor of the Independent Network being a “contraption” and not a political machine. While the BBC used the comment as a humorous starting block before explaining the no policy system of the Independent Network and emphasizing that all candidates share an “earnest sense of public duty”, Hoggart took a personal swipe at the organizers of the Independent Network without offering any real comment into the state of British politics and what the independent candidates stood for.

Independent Network candidate Gordon Kennedy said he had to read Simon Hoggart’s piece twice in disbelief because the picture painted was nothing like the actual event that he attended. “The group of Independent Network candidates could hardly fit in the room comfortably given the number of attending media types. It is true that the Independent Network had no huge budget to supply a flunky to wait on Mr. Hoggart. I am sure if he attended a big political party event there would be more deference and PR smooze, however on this occasion he had to content himself with being just another writer.”

The venue for the launch was the Frontline Club, a favourite of war correspondents and hotbed of independent journalism. The seats filled up so quickly that many reporters found that there was standing room only.

“I was there to support the Independent Network,” continued Kennedy. “I admire their aims and was ambivalent about the journalists as I have to place my trust in the voters of Dagenham and Rainham rather than the editorial policy of national newspapers and whom they decide to support or attack.”

Treneman for the Times seemed to find the launch amusing enough as she likened it to “political speed-dating” but managed to portray the candidates’ enthusiasm for their campaign with a half a page dedicated to the launch.

Matthew West at politics.co.uk seemed to be at an entirely different event where “journalists didn’t appear to care”. However his pessimistic sketch was counteracted by Sam Dale’s informative piece on the same site which emphasized the message that independents had an opportunity like no other on 6 May.

Apart from some inaccurate reporting, which included the number of candidates ranging from 40 to 49 depending on which report you read, the launch received a good amount of coverage emphasizing the growing demand for an alternative to party politicians. Most articles, in print and online, recognised the limited resources available to independents and portrayed the launch as a refreshing alternative to the PR and spin events hosted by the political parties.

The press also gave good publicity to many of the endorsed candidates including Sarah Flannery of Tatton and John Swallows of Peterborough who received a substantial amount of mentions. Gordon Kennedy also got his interview aired on BBC World Service and Alice Sakura Dartnell’s picture by the Press Association appeared in the Metro and the Times which is bound to enhance their campaigns.

Bell proudly said at the launch, “There is not a professional politician on this platform!” Indeed, the platform showed probably one of the most diverse set of views in any political organisation. Issues and policies they may disagree or agree on but the unanimous sentiment on the stage of the Frontline Club was that independent candidates are the only alternative to party politics.

The independent candidates were given a fair voice and a space in many political papers, websites and radio stations showing the media are accepting that independents are becoming a force to be reckoned with.

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.

It’s impossible to be in two places at once. Yet, to be an effective MP, you have to try to do both. For every MP there is a constant struggle between time spent at Parliament and time spent in the constituency.

Markedly, independent MPs loyalties often lie with their constituency, however, without voting in Parliament their constituents cannot be represented. As Dr Richard Taylor previously said in a conference of independents in January, ‘the ability to vote is a real privilege’.

In 2006 The Hansard Society found that MPs generally spent equal amounts on parliamentary and constituency work. When Parliament is in session, MPs usually spend most of their time there which accounts for around 165 days a year. In Parliament they raise issues affecting their constituents, attend debates and vote on proposed bills. Many MPs are members of Select Committees, which look at a wide variety of issues in detail. Examples of Select Committees include the Members’ Allowance Committee and the Energy and Climate Change Committee. If an MP has a special forte, for instance medicine, it then makes sense for them to sit on a Select Committee, such as the independent MP Dr Richard Taylor who sits on the Health Committee.

All Party Groups are growing in influence in Parliament and are very popular with both MPs and Lords. They are informal cross-party groups that have no official status within Parliament and are run for and by Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Unfortunately an All Party Group must include at least five members of the Government party and five from the opposition parties. However, all party groups provide an opportunity for cross-party and independents to discuss a range of issues including animal welfare, sport, science, industry and the environment.

Therefore it is essential that an MP spends time in Parliament, technology also now allows MPs to undertake constituency work whilst in London. There are many innovative ways to keep in touch, such as Facebook, Twitter, email and blogs. Many MPs are using these tools - look at the huge list of MPs on Tweetminster. These approaches fall in line with the Bell Principles, which avow that MPs should consult their communities regularly and innovatively (The Bell Principles are thought to be the first set of conduct guidelines created by a political organisation for its affiliated candidates and representatives).

The vast majority of MPs hold weekly surgeries in their constituency, which allows constituents to discuss their concerns and problems with their MP. Constituency office staff have a key role to play and can make sure the community is aware that there is someone available for them, even if the MP is not there all of the time. Constituency staff main role is to do casework for constituents and help them with a variety of problems. Common topics of casework include immigration applications, council housing, dog fouling and student funding. Thousands of people contact their MP every year and it is the job of constituency staff to respond to enquiries.

It could be argued that there are four main parts to an MP’s job: taking part in debates at Westminster; working in Committees; dealing with problems and issues for constituents; and visiting and keeping in touch with local people and organisations. Without going into Westminster, the interests of the local people in the constituency can’t be represented at a national level. On the other hand, if an MP spends all their time in Westminster then local people will not be able to share their insights and concerns.

The nature of a good MP is one who divides their time appropriately between Parliament and their constituency and makes use of all the tools available to enable them to undertake a heroic job on behalf of the constituents and be in two places at once.

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.

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.