This is part two of a two-part work. Read the first part here.
How would it work?
The Coalition of Independents would be an overarching organisation to select, help (both financially and advisory) and encourage suitably qualified and experienced people to stand as independent candidates in constituencies where the incumbent is a Remain-supporting MP.
The COI would not be a political party so would not be responsible for any of the activities of the independent candidates, nor would it proscribe any political ideology, which gives it great flexibility and affords an opportunity to set it up quickly. No manifesto needed, no party registration, no party organisation.
In a constituency where a Remain-supporting Conservative MP is the incumbent the COI would support an Independent conservative candidate. In a constituency where a Remain-supporting Labour MP is the incumbent the COI would support an Independent labour candidate and so on. Yes, there are also Liberal Democrats and SNP supporters who wish to leave the EU.
The policies of the independents would be for them to decide – after all, they are independent. However, their general political stance would be clear as independent Labour, independent Conservative, independent Liberal etc). Only in two areas would they be required to swear a commitment. They must be in favour of a clean Brexit and they must support, campaign and vote for electoral reform, particularly voting reform.
What are the advantages?
Timing is everything. For most of my adult life (quite a long one) such a strategy would have failed abysmally. However, the public currently hold our politicians in an extremely low regard. They are viewed as self-serving, in it for themselves, unrepresentative, elite, and not very bright. Many are simply voting fodder and often parachuted into seats because of who they are, or they get selected by the party hierarchy after a period of political coffee making since leaving university. Independents, on the other hand, would have real life and work experience and be quality individuals free from career opportunities and bribes so prevalent in party structures. As an independent one would never hold a post such as Foreign Secretary, so the personal ambition associated with many politicians would be absent.
This gives the potential for a degree of honesty and integrity above and beyond the party-based candidate. Voters quite like this about independents.
Voters would not be asked to betray their political roots, which would be the case if there were to be a thriving and successful UKIP or other national and well organised Brexit party. If one is politically to the left, then one can vote for a typically left of centre independent, and the same applies for the other parties. For those with no political home (can’t vote for the Tories, can’t vote for Corbyn, can’t vote for UKIP) this is an ideal opportunity to ‘stick’ it to the establishment.
In this scenario and at this time, the temptation to put one’s cross against the Independent would be compelling.
How could it happen?
It would need a national organisation, considerable funding and a national figure at the head. The first exists (Leave.EU, and others) with extensive mailing lists; the funding is possible from those who funded the Brexit campaign (as some have already indicated), and Nigel Farage would be a powerful advocate. However, one needs a degree of momentum before these people are likely to be interested.
There are enough activists from all parties with experience to conduct candidate interviews, assistance with recruiting helpers in constituencies, completion of election forms and expenses returns, and providing written campaign material.
When I stood as a candidate in Rochester and Strood in 2017 for UKIP, I did something that nobody else has ever done before. I wrote an eight-page tabloid newspaper (The Informed Choice) and got it delivered for free as an electoral mailing. For about £3,200 one can print, fold and deliver to the post office 55,000 newspapers. As it happened, I also wrote the Brexit newspaper ‘The Informed Choice’ which we delivered in Kent (60,000 copies). In tabloid form one can create some very powerful messaging of the right type.
What would be the effect?
It may be that no Independents would be elected. On the other hand, it is not beyond the bounds of reasonableness to imagine 50 independent MPs in Parliament, given the current political climate. Were that to happen they would be able to exert considerable influence. Even if none was elected, they would certainly take significant numbers of votes away from the party candidates and many would lose their seats. Amber Rudd would certainly fail and 150 seats of both the Labour and Conservative parties could be at risk.
We know from previous experience that one doesn’t necessarily need a parliamentary presence to effect massive change. I suspect that those MPs at risk from the COI may well decide to re-visit their opposition to a clean Brexit to save their skin, so there is potential for a change of view from some of these party apparatchiks before the first punch is thrown.
Can you imagine the delight if that arch hypocrite and all round bossy boots Anna Soubry lost her seat because she was forced to contest it against a conservative, not an opposition party, but an independent conservative, fully supporting Brexit and voting reform.
Can we make this happen?
If you would like to know more please contact me directly at david.allen@coailtionofindependents.org
David, in the first part of this article you stated that Tommy Robinson is “anti-Muslim and anti-foreigner”. I asked you to directly quote his words that convinced you of this.
Instead of doing so, you replied, “Tommy Robinson is a serial offender with convictions and prison sentences for assault and fraud”. That is true, but irrelevant. Criminal convictions do not prove someone is “anti-Muslim and anti-foreigner” unless they e.g. involve beating up Muslims or foreigners, which in Tommy’s case they don’t.
I therefore ask you again: Please quote Tommy Robinson’s words that convinced you he is “anti-Muslim and anti-foreigner”.
The newspaper aspect however will not work. Members may well read a newspaper such as the one that David aspires to, but then it is preaching to the converted. However, the voting public at large will not read a long newspaper whether it be at election time or otherwise. In fact an election leaflet has to be brief and to the point and more importantly can be read within 20 seconds flat. In other words bullet points with short paragraphs below. Anything more than that, the leaflet will be discarded into a green recycling bin without being read at all. Elections are won at the doorstep by canvassing and then getting the vote out on the day. The Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats are all good at this and that is why they win elections. They have the manpower to do this, whilst UKIP struggles to get anywhere near enough ‘boots on the ground’. We have lost a hell of a lot of activists over the past two years, and the new members joining are just not interested in being activists. Unfortunately that is where our problem will lie in May this year, but the answer is most definitely not a newspaper.
David, I suggested to you not two months ago that you should return to the UKIP fold. There is no earthly point in you being a member of the Conservative Party, who are not really conservative at all, lets face it. There is not going to be a leadership challenge to Theresa May any time soon. As you know there are just too many weak willed politicians within that party who are devoid of any political conviction to force a leadership election, even some of those who supported the Leave campaign. Those former UKIP members who deserted the party during and after the Bolton era and either set up new parties or joined the conservative party in the hope that they might have a say in the election of a new leader, need to have a major re-think and let bygones be bygones and come together under one party. That party is UKIP, I know it, you know it, and I would suggest most people realise that as well. I agree with much of what you have written here, but much of your undoubted talents are being wasted. We need you as much as you need us, so lets cut to the quick and do whats right and rejoin this party for goodness sake.
Colin, I wouldn’t disagree with your estimation of most Conservative MPs and that I’m probably not Conservative Party material at heart, though there are many who wish to see as clean a Brexit as I do. I am attempting an alternative mechanism, much easier than setting up a new political party and taking advantage of a quite unique situation, where ordinary people could not bring themselves to vote Tory, or Labour. I could quite easily see, in our own constituency, an Independent conservative, with a half decent campaign, out-polling UKIP comfortably. Under FPTP, national support means little and the 14% UKIP achieved in 2015, won only 1 seat (much to do with the local MP) so 6%, or 8% will achieve nothing. To make an impact we need to individualise seats, fight Conservative with conservative, Labour with labour and make it about the person and Brexit, not about a party.
I realise this is new in national politics (not so much in local politics), but it is worth a shot.
UKIP would need the angel Gabriel himself to take over the leadership, for them to make any sort of electoral impact. Let’s not forget that UKIP won the referendum by polling upwards of 18% or thereabouts.
To a degree i sort of agree with you (almost rhymes). However, and this is the big however, where would you get the all important manpower from. You would need a party machine of sorts behind the candidate with sufficient finance and boots on the ground to make it all work. In our constituency you would require at least 30 willing volunteers you could rely on to get the job done, and as you know in your time with UKIP we were not anywhere near to hitting that number locally, and there were even less in Rochester and Strood, where you last stood. In principle it sounds a fine idea, but you cannot spirit people out of nowhere, it is impossible. There is only a finite amount of people who want to get actively involved in politics, and the gross majority of those are members of a political party. I also have a problem with the term ‘Independent’. What does it mean. We have had a number of councilors in Kent who have in the past 2 years defected from UKIP to Independent status, but what does it mean for the voter, independent what ? Everyone knows what the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats stand for, but an Independent, well who knows……………..
Did the Foundation Party show you the door, David? Some people have such unique talents that they simply don’t fit into a political party at all, but how would such people ever be able to co-operate on anything?
No, I left of my own volition and on good terms. There are many new political parties that have sprung up and are motivated by a sincere desire to make a difference. Typically they have honest and decent political ideologies, much like Foundation Party. However, whilst there is much enthusiasm, that task is futile. They may all end up just competing amongst themselves. I see no future in these individualistic enterprises, which is why I am championing a completely different approach. One that is ‘of its time’, perhaps. We’ll see.
Sorry, but while this is all a very noble idea, it is all a bit late in the day, and is at present about as helpful as all the talk about forming new parties and pressure groups.
I expect to be voting for a UKIP candidate…
David,
Forget all that nonsense and start banging on and on about Proportional Representation.
You haven’t got a hope of your plan working, simply because 65% of the voting public are LabCon, and they only vote to keep the other party out. With the best will in the world, you could get around 15-20% max, not enough to win a single seat. Unless you magically get most of them to move to one constituency. Rochester and Strood, for example.
Rob, you overlook one significant factor. 15%-20% may not win a seat, but it is quite enough to make the incumbent lose it. I’m not asking voters to switch political ideology, but to vote for Independent conservative instead of Conservative and Independent labour instead of Labour.
I have been advocating for a number of years that our parliamentary system should be made up of independents who would work together across the board on the most important issues of the day. They could then follow their party line on other issues if they so wish. I could foresee parliament of independents who would then go on to do the jobs of Home Secretary, Chancellor etc because their skills suited that position. Not just because the party hierarchy by promised a job for support of a particular policy. Amber Rudd for instance had no business being Home Secretary having never served in an capacity for her country or even run a large business with many capacities.
I do see a real turn around in politics towards the independents by the next GE, should candidates be brave enough to put their country before their careers. We are told no one is truly speaking for people in this country at the moment. UKIP does speak for the majority but shamefully, is never given a microphone to spread the message. We have to listen to lies, propaganda and innuendo across the MSM and then watch as so many choose not to vote in the misbelief they are a voice in the wilderness.
Anjela, if you would like to know more david.allen@coalitionofindependents.org
“required to swear a commitment” – so – what does “electoral reform” mean and how would you sanction those who break their oath?
Same sort of “committment” that was so successful with defecting UKIP MEPs? ?
Unlike UKIP and the MEPs who, between them, failed to draw up a legally binding contract, that would be the basis for receiving funding and support, repayable on default.
(Continuing)
If Mr Allen’s thinking could incorporate the ideas within Magna Carta 1215 and all it entails in relation to Parliaments, the People, and mutual respect – including Common Law Trial by Jury and Annulment of unjust law by jury – then it is probable the population as a whole would understand the folly/illegality of party-based government and the fairness of government by the people.
It seems to me that this is a useful demonstration of ‘thinking outside the box’, so sorely lacking within the realm of run-of-the-mill party politics. Too often the (two) party system represents thinking which boils down to ‘I’m right, you are wrong’, which cannot be helpful ever in resolving problems. Seemingly, that leaves us with one alternative – a single party system – an idea which is anathema to any freedom-thinking people.
A SINGLE party system? – surely this is another name for a monopolistic Dictatorship! We already have that in the form of the EU and look how well that works!
Michael, for more information david.allen@coalitionofindependents.org
Pipe Dream – if you don’t have a Political Pary then you cannot contest Elections coherently – there are no other organisations as suggested here to do it except UKIP.
Yet another version of the Donate, Wait, Vote . plan.
Dear me . How did that happen ?
When did we repoin ?
HOWEVER ther’s a good idea in there. A seperate organisation/s , Not political. Aided / reccommended / helped / To do things that UKIP is too beautiful to do. Just like the labour party which has spawned hundereds of toxic fellow travellers.
Oh dear Labour already thought of it. When ? 1920’s.
David Allen, in the first part of this article you stated that Tommy Robinson is “anti-Muslim and anti-foreigner”. I asked you to directly quote his words that convinced you of this. You have not replied.
Will you now answer? Quote his words directly please, not what others have said about him, and explain why you think those words show he is anti-Muslim and anti-foreigner.
Seconded, Keith.
the reason as I see it is Tommy has never been anti anything except anti anythink non british and I along with millins more would support him 100%