The COI (Coalition of Independents) is a politically neutral organisation created in order to help independent candidates win votes in constituency parliamentary elections. We are not a political party.
We are politically neutral in terms of the left/right divide but we do, for the forthcoming election, have a driving philosophy: that of defending the democratic process and improving it. We’ll select and support candidates who wish to see a clean break from the EU and who also support a fairer voting system. We’ll choose left-leaning candidates in strong Labour areas and right-leaning candidates in Conservative ones. We will be asking voters to step away from their preferred parties; it would be an ask too far to also expect them to support an opposing political ideology.
The intention is to help independent parliamentary candidates get elected by funding their campaigns, helping with administrative matters and electoral information, and providing them with that all-important credibility of support that independents generally lack and which identifies them as an unknown quantity on the ballot paper.
In general elections, people rarely vote for independents, even when the existing parties are not an attractive proposition. There are many reasons why this occurs but a major one is the unknown and unsupported nature of the independent. A critical role that the COI will play is in seeking and selecting quality candidates, and the selection process will be more thorough and egalitarian than any political party would undertake.
When our independents stand, their electorate will know they have been through a tough selection process, they will be people of quality with CVs to match and we’ll ensure that comprehensive information about them and their political ideology will be delivered through every door in the constituency.
Voters like to think that the person seeking their vote has the confidence of others. In the case of a political party candidate, this testimonial is automatically conveyed, by virtue of standing for a known political party. The COI can provide a better quality of candidate because our independents will be subject to a more comprehensive selection process. The difference will be that party loyalty, back-scratching, chums or the children of chums being parachuted in, will play no part in our determinations in choosing the very best candidates.
Timing is everything. In more normal times, when electors are simply fed up with their political masters but not enough to get them to change their vote, the independent candidate has little chance. However, with the Brexit fiasco being played out by all parties and for all to see, the current standing of our political elite has never been lower. Both this Conservative government and the unbelievably disorganised rabble of the official opposition has left many people angry, not just a bit irritated but livid. The milieu of desperation and disgust that has been fermented by the incompetence and betrayal of our political elite has created an ideal opportunity for the clean and incorruptible image of the independent candidate to emerge. There will never be a better time to offer voters an acceptable alternative.
A political party can (usually) only choose a candidate from amongst its members. Memberships range from a handful to a few hundred, and in the current Labour Party maybe a thousand or so. In general, though, ordinary people don’t join political parties, and even if they do, many do not stay for any length of time. Of those that do join, only a very few are prepared to take on a formal role, whether that is a committee role or an elected role. The result of this general apathy is a very limited pool of talent and ability from which to select candidates for office, particularly for council elections. There are usually a few who would enjoy the ego boosting experience of parliamentary candidacy, but they are rarely the right person and would never get the opportunity if there were the slightest chance of winning. This is how we populate our legislature with incompetents and apparatchiks.
This void of excellence provides a breeding ground for the political chumocracy, where the party chief officers parachute friends, family and the apprentices of the political world to stand in constituencies in place of local selections. In a way, this makes some sense because of the absence of suitably qualified local party members, but it is a corrupt process and has led to the debacle we see unfolding before our very eyes.
In time, the COI can choose its candidates from the entire population of a constituency electorate, some 70,000 people. For the next general election, with Brexit probably being a massive influential factor, over 50%, some 35,000 electors, would likely support our initial aims and objectives. It clearly follows that the probability of getting a top-quality candidate is significantly increased.
As well as helping selected independent candidates with their campaigns and providing technical, promotional and messaging facilities, we want to maintain this overall support indefinitely by offering research and administrative support as well. Political parties, including the Lib Dems, have huge financial resources, little of which is directed to ongoing support for elected officials or candidates. We would do this differently.
That something needs to change is unarguable, that such change will have to overcome an FPTP voting system which works to sustain the status quo is also a fact. New political parties will eventually, even if successful, be drawn into the same soft corruptive practices that so bedevil our political system, so the case for the independent parliamentarian continues to grow.
Our message is vote for people, not parties, vote independent to initiate the changes so desperately needed. Find out more and register your interest at coalitionofindependents.org.

So independents + farage fans = Judean Peoples Liberation Front ? It has to be UKIP , so get back with the team, sign up for the program and go for the big win .
Thats two film references for you
I joined the Conservative party about six months ago to have a say in a possible leadership election. Last week I put a motion of no confidence in Tom Tugendhat, my local MP to be debated at the AGM. a couple of days later I was suspended from the party pending expulsion. The comments beneath this video are the given reasons. We do, indeed have a real problem with our political class and something has to change.
Where are the comments that got you chucked out David? Do you mean the ones on this thread? I can’t see any of them as flagrantly anti-Tory Party.
David, you stated that Tommy Robinson is “anti-Muslim and anti-foreigner”:
https://independencedaily.co.uk/independents-the-way-forward-part-1/
I asked you to directly quote his words that convinced you of this. You have not done so. I therefore ask you again: Please quote Tommy Robinson’s words that convinced you he is “anti-Muslim and anti-foreigner”. You can’t, can you?
Keith, your point is irrelevant. That is how he is perceived and that is the context in which I made that comment. With his track record of criminal violence and fraud accompanied with his many periods of incarceration, nobody is going to stop and listen who isn’t already a fan. Political reality, I’m afraid.
You sound like Titania McGrath: “My feelings don’t care about your facts”. Thank you for showing everyone that you are unable to produce a shred of evidence to support your libellous claim.
Winning !… Winners and Losers. What is needed to win.
A really interesting idea David, I’ve had discussions with a number of people along similar lines. In my part of Surrey, some residents groups have done extremely well in council elections but of course with General Elections, indies have a poor track record, people revert to the old tribes.
You are right, independents generally stand no chance of winning, but consider these two things: Never before have political parties been so despised, and winning isn’t everything, causing the expected winners lose is equally disruptive.
How you vote in a local election has important implications at a national level. The well-run Tory shires are like oxygen to the Conservatives. It’s what keeps them afloat. It’s what keeps them in power. Furthermore, local election results provide a clear signal to voters regarding the likely state-of-play in the next general.
The Rise of the Independents? I’m not buying it.
To some it might sound like a breath of fresh air. A political party/organisation that’s hiring as if it’s an ordinary employer. Hiring for a person’s abilities, for what that person can do once hired. The trouble is what they can do and will do might be different.
When you vote for someone you’re asking them to protect your interests in all things ranging from knife crime, teaching sex education to primary school children without parents’ consent, to immigration, energy costs, national policy. In short you’re voting for your policy preferences.
So if you vote for an ‘independent’, someone who, officially at least, stands for nothing, you’re voting for someone who could be standing for anything.
The Battle for Britain is not done, but when it is, there’s still a war to be won. This is only the beginning.
Vote UKIP, Join UKIP. Grow with us.
Fully agree.
Likewise. I think it farcical to talk about another independents party when we already have one in ukip. Whatever their faults, the traitors of LabConLib are in control and the only force that might stop them is centered around ukip. Time to get over yourselves and pull together I suggest .
Absolutely right Michael.
Agree Michael, now is not the time for what might turn out to be boatload of loose cannons. I also believe that reform of the vote counting process is necessary but probably not PR is its usually understood form. Maybe I’ll write an article on the subject.
Check out http://www.makevotescount.co.uk for a practical, simple and more representative voting system.
I believe that there are fairer and simpler ways but explanation requires more words than a comment allows. I’ll get to it when I have time…
UKIP is dead, for the moment, at least. with a 4% poll rating there is absolutely no chance of them winning anything. every recent election would confirm that. It is a real shame, but that’s reality and the next election, and the one after that will simply confirm their irrelevance. You are right in that is does sound like a breath of fresh air at a time when political parties, for all your generally valid comments, are despised as liars,and self serving elitists.
Parties will still win government even with the most successful independent campaigns. It may also be that independents do not win anything, but they will affect the outcome of elections, and that’s a very useful first step. The current system is corrupt, our MPs are largely androids with big pay packets. The whole thing needs a huge political spanner in the works and quality independent candidates might just be that.
Why would an independent stand for nothing? Why would they not protect your interests from a position of incorruptibility with no party to serve?
You may be right, but timing is everything and it will depend on the mood of the country when the next election is called, however it is likely that people will not want to vote Conservative or Labour at the next election, or for any of the other small parties as it’s much more difficult to get a vote for a new small party than is would be as an independent in the current climate. People don’t vote for manifestos, we know that. Nobody even reads them. The headline issues are more likely to sway voters and there is nothing bigger than Brexit. Despite that UKIP won’t pick them up.
I strongly suspect that the May elections, which are a useful indicator as to national feeling, will see UKIP come away with nothing again.
Rather than flogging a dead horse I’m trying to register a fresh young one.How about a bit of positivity?
AN INTERESTING IDEA SURE ENOUGH ! It does however skirt around the most important voting change that is so overdue ! FPTP must give way to a PR system, and sensible thought has to be given as to the sort of PR that would be of Democratic value and acceptable across all political thought !
I might be seen as ahead of this, due to my voting in Northampton North. Since 2010 we have had Michael Ellis MP. A Tory who is a local man. A Barrister with a record of some pro-bono cases. As well as being a likeable guy, he has proved to be an excellent constituency representative. An MP with a wish to cut his expenses to his own administration, and who welcomes any and all letters and emails that make suggestions or requests, with replies given within two to three days. Up to now I have been voting for the man, rather than his Party.- I am no Tory !
Due to the sick joke that this Conservative Government has become, I have told Michael that I will not be voting for him again, and cheeky that I am, suggested that he might like to join UKIP ! About two years ago I sent him a Personal Letter, warning him of his Party pulling the electoral rug from under him. He’s a good MP but working for a Party that stinks !
I agree that Independent MPs have a roll to play, and although the power of the Party whips is presently too great, I consider that too many ‘Independents’, clear of whips, would only bring in a lack of discipline and a far from certain outcome to Government’s aims and legislation. It should also be remembered that in far too many cases, voters are unfortunately ‘tribal’ within their own families, especially by those who do not keep up to date with Party Political Change !
What would you regard as too many? An interesting observation is that if things don’t change they’ll stay as they are. In this context, any change could be a good one (and by that I don’t mean Labour, as that is the same). I suspect that in some constituencies Independents will do well and in others not, but affecting outcomes is also hugely important. Remember that UKIP forced the referendum without wining a parliamentary seat.
Tribal voting is prevalent, but what happens when your tribe has abandoned you?
Admirable attempt to come up with a solution David, but like so many before, you ignore the fact that perhaps two-thirds of voters pick the least worst option out of LabCon. In other words they vote AGAINST Labour or Conservative, depending on their tribal inclinations. Thanks to FPTP.
No matter how bad the Tory party gets, it will always beat Labour, for example. Picking local candidates naturally makes logical and democratic sense, but until you can come up with a solution to the FPTP problem you’re wasting your time, sad to say.
What would happen though if independent MPs started to “coalesce” into groups of similar-thinking individuals? Wouldnt this also be the formation of “parties” in some sense of the word? I’m not knocking it…it’s a step towards smashing the two-party tug of war.
A political party is a legal entity that requires registration and adherence to a set of rules, but I get your point. That may happen on some issues, of course, but as we’ll support candidates from across the political spectrum it’s less likely to be a formal or long term association. That’s a good thing.
Deep Throat in the Civil Service, or perhaps another one, attests to the fact that” Ministers are nothing more than a megaphone for the views of biased mandarins lurking in the shadows”. In other words, party appointees with supposedly a strong, aged tradition and considered manifesto – all are supposed to sign up to…..but don’t, cannot control their administrators ( see Failing Grayling). So how much less able would be a bunch of uncoordinated ferrets in a sack put forward by COI. Mandarins would have a field day and ensure they never had any more cohesion than the individual chancers they would be. Sounds total rot and pie in the sky to me. As a former councillor for 16 years, I just cannot see a bunch of discordant individuals with different and competing philosophies could get the better of the permanent deep state manipulators. I could of course be wrong, but I would not like to chance it.
A bit pessimistic I feel, but possibly right, who knows? What is certain though, is that if nothing changes we’ll get the same.
The problem is of course who would be vetting and interviewing the candidates under such a scheme? in UKIPs case it was largely laughably ill suited characters with an inflated sense of their own self importance and capabilities who were often of a far lower calibre including a long personal history of election failure themselves than those they were interviewing and ultimately approving or disapproving.
Of course the decent MPs’ salary and expenses together with no need to turn up for work regularly really is an invitation to carpetbaggers.
Living in, and having a connection to, the constituency will be a material consideration, and as for carpetbaggers, that’s par for the course for existing political parties. Independents are almost exclusively local people with strong connections.
How patronizing. How dismissive.
Yes, you’re absolutely right. Interviewing and vetting is a critical process, not only to get the best candidates, but to also demonstrate that to potential voters. You’re also right in that UKIP, as a political party, with some success behind it, was desperate to fill as many seats as possible and consequently low grade candidates were routinely accepted. You will see more of the same in the next general election.
The COI selection process, its mechanism, stages, requirements and appointment of selectors will be be published for all to see, and it will evolve as does the organisation. No organisation begins on day 1 as fully fledged. an advantage is that we can run with just 1 candidate or 200. as each independent can only stand as an individual in one seat. There is no national electoral pressure.
Your observation regarding the electoral successes of UKIP was rather disingenuous. Electoral success has very little to do with candidate quality and everything to do with FPTP. Although UKIP had some poor candidates, there were many excellent ones also. You will not have forgotten that UKIP, in 2015, outpolled the Libdems and The SNP combined, with just one seat as opposed to about 65 for the other two.