Why do people not elect Independent MPs?
Discussion
I watched the count at Uxbridge and South Ruislip, they had 17 people standing for the seat but the independent candidates at best got a few hundred votes I presume this was true of the other areas too,
I would have thought electing local MPs would be more popular than the career politicians the main parties put forward?
I would have thought electing local MPs would be more popular than the career politicians the main parties put forward?
I've started thinking about voting for a random independent just as a way to show my dissatisfaction with the main ones. It feels like it would be marginally more effective than staying at home or spoiling the ballot and if it helps someone get their deposit back then so much the better.
A few suggested reasons:
1. They're more concerned with national politics which is dictated by the Political Parties.
2. They don't know who the Independents are, and what they stand for. (Not that they know the Party candidates much better, but have a better understanding what they stand for)
3. They know Independents do not stand a chance of being elected, unless they're extremely well known and popular locally.
1. They're more concerned with national politics which is dictated by the Political Parties.
2. They don't know who the Independents are, and what they stand for. (Not that they know the Party candidates much better, but have a better understanding what they stand for)
3. They know Independents do not stand a chance of being elected, unless they're extremely well known and popular locally.
Rivenink said:
A few suggested reasons:
1. They're more concerned with national politics which is dictated by the Political Parties.
2. They don't know who the Independents are, and what they stand for. (Not that they know the Party candidates much better, but have a better understanding what they stand for)
3. They know Independents do not stand a chance of being elected, unless they're extremely well known and popular locally.
Plus the parties have big campaign budgets.1. They're more concerned with national politics which is dictated by the Political Parties.
2. They don't know who the Independents are, and what they stand for. (Not that they know the Party candidates much better, but have a better understanding what they stand for)
3. They know Independents do not stand a chance of being elected, unless they're extremely well known and popular locally.
If you wanted to get elected as an independat, I thin you'd need to spend a lot to get your message across.
There are limits on what's allowed and not many people wanting to spend that, so unless you are in the public eye already, with a clear message, you would need a marketing genius.
I have a lot to do with councillors and mps in my work.
So often with mps it often was more of a chat and a laugh than “ you’ve failed: my constituents need x” and all the general political nonsense and false promises.
Then a long standing labour gut went and George Galloway was elected
The contact from him to my offices was zero for the years he was about. What he did for his elected members I could not tell you. I guess he lined his pockets for 5 years and rode the gravy train.
So often with mps it often was more of a chat and a laugh than “ you’ve failed: my constituents need x” and all the general political nonsense and false promises.
Then a long standing labour gut went and George Galloway was elected
The contact from him to my offices was zero for the years he was about. What he did for his elected members I could not tell you. I guess he lined his pockets for 5 years and rode the gravy train.
I would suggest that...
1. Under our absurd FPTP voting system we have this ludicrous facade of voting for an individual when in reality we all know that we're all voting for the political party wewant least hate the thought of governing the country.
2. To negate 1 there has to be an exceptionally powerful local motive that unites enough voters in voting for an independent candidate running on a local issue even though they know they're sacrificing their say on who will run the country for the next parliament.
The only exception to the above, I'd say, comes when for some reason a national issue manages to reflect itself in a single constituency, such as when Martin Bell defeated Neil Hamilton both specifically in reaction to Hamilton's corruption, but also in general as a reaction to Conservative sleaze at the time.
My big frustration is that this all applies not only to independent MPs but also to smaller parties. Although I disagree with everything UKIP stood for, for example, it is undeniably ludicrous that they took 12.6% of the national vote in 2015 and had just a single MP in Parliament whilst the Ulster Unionists had two MPs in return for 0.4% of the vote!
1. Under our absurd FPTP voting system we have this ludicrous facade of voting for an individual when in reality we all know that we're all voting for the political party we
2. To negate 1 there has to be an exceptionally powerful local motive that unites enough voters in voting for an independent candidate running on a local issue even though they know they're sacrificing their say on who will run the country for the next parliament.
The only exception to the above, I'd say, comes when for some reason a national issue manages to reflect itself in a single constituency, such as when Martin Bell defeated Neil Hamilton both specifically in reaction to Hamilton's corruption, but also in general as a reaction to Conservative sleaze at the time.
My big frustration is that this all applies not only to independent MPs but also to smaller parties. Although I disagree with everything UKIP stood for, for example, it is undeniably ludicrous that they took 12.6% of the national vote in 2015 and had just a single MP in Parliament whilst the Ulster Unionists had two MPs in return for 0.4% of the vote!
Problems with independent MPs:
- people generally follow their parents voting behaviour: blue or red. Ok, regional nationalist parties don't quite follow that pattern, and I'm ignoring yellow for now.
- if you get beyond that: voting for non mainstream parties gets watered down at the ballot box too much. With 17 (!) standing, none of them were ever going to get the critical mass needed under fptp. Opposition would need a reciprocation agreement not to stand in certain seats so opposition votes caan be focused. As you can imagine, this is fundamentally impossible when dealing with individuals, not parties.
- if you can get beyond that: what is an independent going to achieve in Parliament? Nothing. Whilst 2 party politics exists, they're just a background noise, as they could never ever form a government. A well regarded expert might get a seat on a committee? But unlikely to chair it ever.
So, if we moved to a representative system where a whole bunch of indepents were elected, then maybe we would see real change?
Except...the "independents" would have to organise. Ie thrash out:
- who supports renationalisation
- who supports min wage
- who wantsto pretend we can control migration
- who wants to fling more money to the outlying regions of the UK
And so on, until a group emerges who can agree to work together to secure a majority to be invited to form a government.
And before you know it, you have a group of politicians whose views broadly align, and who are making compromise on some issues to enable other issues to get delivered.
In other words: a political party in all but name.
In summary, because of the way the UK Parliament can only ask the majority of commons to form government, the system - by design - forces MPs to group together.
650 genuinely independent views trying to achieve anything would probably make the Tories look credible.
So finally we get to the real question: what changes would be needed to Parliamentary processes (and elections) to improve the quality of our MPs, the quality of government, improve accountability (and therefore performance) of our political system and generally improve political engagement in our society?
But it's not even 7am on Sunday and I've not had my coffe yet, so I will leave this one for someone else!
- people generally follow their parents voting behaviour: blue or red. Ok, regional nationalist parties don't quite follow that pattern, and I'm ignoring yellow for now.
- if you get beyond that: voting for non mainstream parties gets watered down at the ballot box too much. With 17 (!) standing, none of them were ever going to get the critical mass needed under fptp. Opposition would need a reciprocation agreement not to stand in certain seats so opposition votes caan be focused. As you can imagine, this is fundamentally impossible when dealing with individuals, not parties.
- if you can get beyond that: what is an independent going to achieve in Parliament? Nothing. Whilst 2 party politics exists, they're just a background noise, as they could never ever form a government. A well regarded expert might get a seat on a committee? But unlikely to chair it ever.
So, if we moved to a representative system where a whole bunch of indepents were elected, then maybe we would see real change?
Except...the "independents" would have to organise. Ie thrash out:
- who supports renationalisation
- who supports min wage
- who wantsto pretend we can control migration
- who wants to fling more money to the outlying regions of the UK
And so on, until a group emerges who can agree to work together to secure a majority to be invited to form a government.
And before you know it, you have a group of politicians whose views broadly align, and who are making compromise on some issues to enable other issues to get delivered.
In other words: a political party in all but name.
In summary, because of the way the UK Parliament can only ask the majority of commons to form government, the system - by design - forces MPs to group together.
650 genuinely independent views trying to achieve anything would probably make the Tories look credible.
So finally we get to the real question: what changes would be needed to Parliamentary processes (and elections) to improve the quality of our MPs, the quality of government, improve accountability (and therefore performance) of our political system and generally improve political engagement in our society?
But it's not even 7am on Sunday and I've not had my coffe yet, so I will leave this one for someone else!
There have been some, Martin Bell beat sleaze hit Neil Hamilton, though Labour and the Liberals withdrew their candidates to assist him, and Dr Richard Taylor beat the Labour MP in KIdderminster by running on the issue of restoring the A&E department at the local hospital, the Liberals withdrew their candidate to help him.
Most places don’t have massive local issues that differ from national concerns though so an independent unity candidate is hard to find.
Most places don’t have massive local issues that differ from national concerns though so an independent unity candidate is hard to find.
I suppose the vast majority are either lazy or of "the hard of thinking" type, always voted Party X as did my dad and grandad and his grandad so will continue to do so without even knowing what Party X stands for. Until that changes and folks start to give the smaller parties a go then nothing in this country will change or improve, there's hardly a fag papers thickness between Lab/Con and the Lib Dumbs are just a waste of a vote. In Europe things are changing with previously small parties are gaining ground and getting into power, countries that we would describe as having a decades long left/far left governments are now going right/far right.
They tend to be successful when there is a single issue (usually anti something)
Anti Sleaze in the case of Martin Bell
Anti Hospital closure in the case of Richard Taylor
For all the faults of our politics, the mainstream political parties are fairly broad churches with well established traditions of political thinking. If you have a list of principles which you can't compromise to find a home in either Con Lab Lib or Green then I think it marks you out as a bit of an egotistic oddball even by the standards of politicians.
All people seeking political office are weird to a degree. Those who operate within a party system are fettered to a degree and may be more useful to their constituents.
I think the voting public gets this and doesn't trust independents
Anti Sleaze in the case of Martin Bell
Anti Hospital closure in the case of Richard Taylor
For all the faults of our politics, the mainstream political parties are fairly broad churches with well established traditions of political thinking. If you have a list of principles which you can't compromise to find a home in either Con Lab Lib or Green then I think it marks you out as a bit of an egotistic oddball even by the standards of politicians.
All people seeking political office are weird to a degree. Those who operate within a party system are fettered to a degree and may be more useful to their constituents.
I think the voting public gets this and doesn't trust independents
Edited by oddman on Sunday 23 July 10:55
andburg said:
I think the biggest problem is people cannot differentiate between local and national politics. They don’t see the point in independents as it’s not like they will be able to change anything in government. They’re right but that’s not what local politics is about.
That's true, but your MP isn't local politics, or at least shouldn't be. That's what local politicians are for.A good constituency MP should serve their constituents' needs regardless of whether or not the constituent voted for them, and nobody should have to choose between that and having their say over which party runs the country.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff