Information on the number of votes the Jury Team candidates actually amassed in the European elections is strangely absent from their website, on which the only change I can see is in their banner headline, from “make June 4th Independents Day!” to the charmingly hopeful “June 4th was Independents’ Day!” – which I think we all know isn’t true, unless you’re counting the BNP and UKIP as independents. It appears that this new please-don’t call-us-a-party party didn’t manage more than a handful of votes. But while the rag-tag bunch of retirees and borderline weirdos recruited as candidates are clearly unelectable, we shouldn’t be so hasty to junk the concept with the candidates.
Now I didn’t vote Jury Team, and neither did anyone I know. In fact, most people I know had never even heard of Jury Team; and most of those that had heard of them had done so only because I’ve been asking about it. This is obviously a fundamental problem: that I can visit their website, read all about the candidates, proselytise about the concept of the party, and yet still not vote for them.
There are many things standing between Jury Team and widespread support, perhaps the two most serious being the lack of exposure and funding (compared to the other parties), and the lack of quality candidates for election (a major problem for all parties). I have no answers to the issue of funding or exposure; but the lines along which the party is run could – over time – attract high quality candidates; and, crucially, candidates who are in politics for the right reasons.
A MORI poll done a few days ago investigated people’s attitudes to our elected representatives in Parliament, and whether they are satisfactorily working to represent the views of those who elected them. The results are not surprising: less than 10% of people believe MPs are working for their constituents.
It is important to notice that this is not just in the wake of the expenses scandal, but a more-or-less constant figure over the last 15 years. While the expenses debacle suggests that MPs are working a little more for themselves, a little less for the party, it is clear that the popular perception is that MPs work for themselves or for their party, but not for their constituents.
The comparison with 1994 suggests that this has long been the case; in fact, there is evidence that even in 1944 around 70% of people believed MPs to be in it only for themselves or their party. Now, the majority of people surveyed will not be politically aware (an enormous problem in itself), and many may believe everything they read in the Daily Mail about “snouts in the trough” (an enormous problem, etc). But in this case, there is most definitely no smoke without fire. It has become clearer than ever in the past few weeks that a large number of MPs are working only for themselves or, at best, their party – when in fact their job is to represent their consituents.
The Jury Team position – that MPs who are elected on principles and not craven to a party message might be ‘better’ in these terms – deserves some thought. Of course, Jury Team could never be the party of Government, but it might act as a genuine alternative party for prospective candidates who would prefer not to have to swallow wholesale the policies of one of the major parties, and with it the attendent sniping at whoever ‘the opposition’ happens to be. I see the idea Jury Team have as allowing independents the benefit of the party apparatus (in terms of campaigning and raising support) without the need to repress your judgement in the name of party unity.
No doubt the party as it currently stands will be ground down through a series of deposit-forfeiting results at by-elections, and then eviscerated at the General Election by the first-past-the-post system. But the rise of Jury Team could mark the beginning of a new template for political independence. At its best, it could make being an Independent MP more effective and worthwhile, and allow Independents to fulfill their ideological function: to hold Government to account, not on the basis of party politics, but on the basis of principle.
Interesting post! I think the idea of an independents network with open primaries is actually excellent, but the idea of doing so in a closed list system was stupid (and I did tell them I thought it couldn’t work!). However come the next general election they could open things up, especially if funding can be found for campaigns. I don’t think they will win any seats, but they could help some single issue or prominent local campaigners do well.
I would recommend they start preparing for next year early (this summer), state now that they will put up the money to support the (say) 50 candidates with the highest number of primary votes and open it up to members of parties currently without parliamentarians (so not to L/C/LD/Gr/BNP/UKIP but to local groups or health concerners).
wow that is a great blog and very informative you must write more!!!
Firstly, you assert that “in fact their (an MPs) job is to work for their constituents.” Surely this is an assertion worthy of qualification – one of their jobs is to work for their constituents but other jobs – like legislating and governing, are just as, if not more, important. We don’t just elect MPs to represent us – we also elect MPs to make national decisions in government. Part of the elections process is to make parliament a workable constitutional organ. This may have little (or nothing) to do with MPs jobs as working for their constituents.
Secondly, the Jury Team seem to be a bunch of no-hopers to me.
Angus – Good points, both of them. Of course we elect our MPs to do more than just sit through consituency surgeries and pretend to care about someone’s dry rot. They are there to make national decisions; although for the vast majority their job is not so much to govern as to hold national government to account. With this in mind, it is even more crucial that MPs “represent us”: they should make those decisions on the same basis as the public (in full possession of the salient details and a working brain) would make them.
No-hopers…while the phrase I use is “borderline weirdos”, the sentiment is the same. Jury Team is an interesting idea still very far from fruition.
I’d love to see some rationale behind this ’5%’ that would be required to call a referendum. I’m not saying it is wrong, but some kind of evidence or comparison to say why it should be 5% and not 15% or 1% would be interesting. Personally, I think I’d prefer to vote for a politician who has good judgement, rather than relying upon the average person, but maybe I’m just old fashioned.
I’m all in favour of modernising politics, especially in the direction of technology and transparency. One fairly obvious idea I remember reading somewhere online, but it bears repeating. All laws being written should first go into a version control system (computer science meaning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Version_Control ). That way we can see which politician proposed which sections, and how the bill changes over time. Also, all potential-laws should be open to comment by the public on a moderated forum. Lots of potential for abuse and trouble, but it wouldn’t take too much effort to filter out, and a few good suggestions might greatly improve the law.
I do think MPs and MEPs should be in a more fragile position, so that we can vote them out ahead of time, if necessary. However, I worry that this will make them even more short-sighted than they are at the moment.
Cheers
John
John –
As you well know, I’m not exactly one to preach about computers…but I have thought for ages that collaborative policy-making like this would be a a great, simple idea to improve the way we are governed. And, in Parliament itself, of course, everything which can be transparent should be. What possible reason could there be not to develop a system along the lines of what you suggest? Really, I’d like to know!
Because politicians do not want any extra scrutiny or transparency. It is not in their own best interests. Oh, and many politicians are computer illiterate, or easily influenced by scare stories. Many don’t understand the internet and don’t take it seriously.
Which is why it was inevitable that Richard Shepherd was never going to be the new Speaker, after he said this yesterday:
“I believe in freedom of information. There is no way of shrugging that off. I believe that it was a great, great statute that the Labour Government introduced. I believe that although it seems our nemesis at the moment, it is in fact the path to redemption. A public out there expect openness, and where public money is used, whether in local authorities or by this institution, they have a right to know. That I profoundly believe.”
Is it just fear then? Are there no technical reasons why a wikipedia-ish model wouldn’t work? An interesting article on all this: http://radar.oreilly.com/2008/11/change-gov-revision-control.html