Moving forward
The dust is now settling on the General Election and it is time to consider where the IN is now, where it wants to be and how it will get there. The current set up of many independent minded people under an umbrella of like minded people could be an appealing idea, but is it one that is electable, or understood by the electorate?
In Hexham we fought a good campaign and polled 1974 votes to win 4.5% - so just missed out on Steven Ford's deposit. However, the result was good considering the resources we had to work with, the fact that we started from scratch, the local media did not really give us any coverage - except when Steven paid for advetisements to be placed in the local paper.
Would we have done better if we were standing under a party banner? The Independent Network is not a party and as yet is not set up to help its endorsed candidates in the way a national party machine can - but maybe it will be able to do so in future elections. It could help in providing templates for literature so that candidates can have some sort of national identity, and this could also be used on posters and boards. If it attracted enough high profile supporters that would attract national coverage and also be willing to promote the IN across the nation it would also raise the profile of candidates.
I have put forward an argument for the IN to become a party, possibly to be called the Party of Independent Minds (PIMS). I would like to see it get behind individuals who want to stand at local level in Council elections and form a nationwide party line that can get wider press coverage. It should have a few policies that everybody who wants to join and stand for office have to agree to, but also allow them freedom of flexibility to suit their own locality’s needs and concerns. Areas that they should all agree on could be: Anybody standing should have lived in the constituency for at least 5 years; Political/voting reform; A policy regarding Trident/nuclear arms/defence; A policy regarding health; A policy on the environment; A financial/economic policy. Then beyond that each candidate should be able to relate issues such as education, immigration, policing, local services, transport, employment etc to their locality.
It is a fact that most members of the main parties do not agree with more than 80% of what their party says is their policy, and having a few essential points of agreement but giving members this degree of flexibility could be a very attractive proposition. At the moment the Independent Network has no real status, and it could start by approaching Independent councillors across the nation to tempt them to join up and give the Independents a solid national base. If there is to be an election in the next 6-10 months then we need to have something positive in motion as soon as possible to give Independents some legitimacy in the electorate’s eyes. The Tories are talking of a fixed term for 5 years, but if they fall out with the Lib Dems and then lose a vote of confidence there would have to be an election.
I think that there is a lot of potential support for Independents, but their lack of co-ordination and national coverage will always hamper them. In a way my proposal for PIMS is a cross between what IN is at the moment and what a traditional style national party is. I fully agree with the aims and ideas of the IN, but it needs to be marketable to the media at both National and Local level who will then give it positive coverage.
I understand the reasons for the IN not becoming a party and would be glad to hear the opinions of others.
There's a fundamental problem with independents being members of a party. Its essentially a contradiction in terms, i.e. the candidates are not really independent if they're a member of a party and required to agree on Trident/nuclear arms/defence; A policy regarding health; A policy on the environment; A financial/economic policy.
Jury team tripped over that one and got nowhere...
So I think the Independent Network is much better advised to learn from that experience and remain a network for independent minded people.
I agree entirely with TGR. Were the IN to form as a party, independent politicians who joined it would lose the only thing that seperates them from those of the big parties in the eyes of the public - their independence.
A traditional party has two main functions:
- To manage the logistics regarding organising candidates and getting them elected
- To create policies that those candidates support
It is perfectly justifiable for the IN to be a party in the sense of the former, but not the latter.
http://independent-mps.co.uk/2010/04/01/the-not-a-political-party-party/
I agree with TGR_Worzel and Shaun MacPhee.
This is what I posted on The Jury Team blog (http://juryteam.socialgo.com/forum/topic/7) on 20 May 2009 (what have I been doing for the last year?!):
"The Jury Team must not be perceived as a Political Party - or it will be doomed. It will only take one soundbite by one candidate for other politicians from other parties to take that soundbite and apply it to the whole 'Party'. You cannot afford to let this happen. You must make it clear that the sole objective of 'The Jury Team' is to encourage independent MPs and MEPs and thereby, necessarily, diversity of opinions."
I feel the same way about the Independent Network now as I did about The Jury Team then.
I fully understand the Not a Party Party concept, but it will never wear with the media and the public. The PIMS (Party of Independent Minds) concept I put forward may need some changes but will be easier for people to understand if its members have some common ground other than the fact that they don't agree with the other parties. Nowadays the electorate tend to vote differently on National and Local elections, and there are plenty of Independent councillors across the nation - these Independents could become the backbone of the IN if we can win them over. As far as Parliamentary elections go people tend to vote more for the party, and not the candidate, unless there is a serious local issue - as Dr Richard Taylor had when he first won an election - that the Independent candidate supports.
If we end up with the STV version of PR the IN will eed to become a party or else it will never have an elected MP. If we have AV then it stands a chance of getting some MPs elected whether it is a party or not, but only a very slight chance.
The IN needs some form of National Organisation, whether it is in the form of a party or not, but it does not have a nationwide structure in place yet.
Marc
If you want more publicity for your site on the newsletter and also at www.EnglishGovernment.org please let me know
Vincent Wales
Hi all,
Within the Democratic Reform Party (a party whose candidates have independence outside of abiding by the Constitution and Manifesto i.e. no Party Whips) we're trying to create a network of all political groups and organisations, which we would very much appreciate your help with.
At present there is no way to contact the many different parties, candidates, Pressure Groups and other politicized organisations. This means that there are many events, campaigns and protests that people remain unaware of even though they would be happy to support them. For instance ending homelessness is a big passion of mine. But had I not been in a certain place at a certain time I would never have learnt about a 'big sleepout' organised for December this year to campaign for more action on tackling homelessness.
In recent months I've been compiling a network of contacts, and want to see the creation of a central, non politically biased (including in favour of independents over parties) forum where every group/candidate can post information about upcoming events, as well as hold discussions and debates. But although I would like to see the DRP take credit for the initiative it would be a terrible idea for one party to host such a network/forum. Therefore, I would like to ask if the Independent Network might consider hosting such a forum and carrying the idea forward?
If you are at all interested then please contact me on
Thanks for your time,
Robert Battison
