BY JOHN DREWRY

It’s time to call it a day. The party system has always presented an illusion of democracy, providing an apparent choice between opposing principles, policies and promises. With only a moment’s thought, it is obvious such a system is fatally flawed, at least in the interests of the electorate.

Firstly, a party hungers for power rather than office, and will therefore be tempted to make whatever false promises (sorry, manifestoes) it thinks will secure it.

Secondly, it makes a potential liar of every MP – sooner or later they will be required to obey the whip rather than their consciences, or face the prospect of banishment into the political wilderness, with loss of ministerial cars and a host of party and parliamentary benefits.

Thirdly, there will inevitably be a binary system – two parties will collaborate as a cartel to shut out intruders, masked by a pseudo-adversarial environment of left versus right (minor parties are also tolerated but easily castrated by first-past-the-post).  Longer-term, as we now witness, the main parties will inexorably steer to a middle ground where the perceived voting majority sits, meaning that their policies will be increasingly similar. Instead of electing on policy, the voter will have become conditioned to choosing ‘the other side’, normally as punishment to the incumbent. Vive the Uniparty.

We have what is probably our last chance to do something about it at the looming General Election. I am pessimistic, but let’s at least try. Who has the magic words to universally change the people’s mindset to understand that we must never, ever vote for any party again, but for an independent individual? A soon as someone says they represent a party, especially a new party, they are already corrupted (and defeated) by the system.

Instead, let’s create the ultimate NON-party in the House of Commons, Independents In Parliament (IIP). If you want to clear this current lot out, we have the collective power, but this is the only practical way I know how to use it. Simply vote for an Independent candidate. En masse. There will always be at least one. Even if the only choice is a loony, vote them in. I’m really not being flippant. Stay focused on the strategy – to remove, or shut out, anyone who smells of party. If that means a clown, better a real one than the unfunny pretenders currently occupying that hollowed, once hallowed, institution. A bit of colour in the palette won’t hurt a bit. And they may surprise you.

The screamers will tell you that such a proposition would be a shambles because there would be no unifying policy from a party structure. But therein lies the ultimate con. There are two sides to a debate, but we have been conditioned to believe that this means two main parties, one in government, one in opposition. The whips descend – you’re told how to vote in that structure. Your independent mind, if you have one, is secondary. But independent minds don’t have to be told how to vote. With all real debates, the individual listens to each side of the argument on each individual subject, debates, questions and votes.

The screamers will ask how on earth you’re going to source a Prime Minister and a Cabinet from such a shambles. How about using Occam’s Razor? The MPs select the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister selects the Cabinet, as at present – dare I say it, making judgements based on merit and skillsets?

The screamers will warn that you can’t eliminate factions and secret societies, so groups will form to conspire against others, and pseudo-parties will emerge. This is true, as is the fact that any Prime Minister will have prejudices and priorities, any Cabinet may fall in love with the power of it all. But the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and the power of recall. Dissatisfaction needs a simple system to express itself effectively. If over 50% of MPs register disapproval of their Prime Minister, a re-vote is automatically called. If over 50% of a constituency electorate register disapproval of their MP, a by-election is automatically called.

I also have to draw attention to the House of Lords, because in the unlikely event that IIP succeeded, there’s the second chamber available to scotch the new democracy. One of the first jobs for the new House of Commons would be to sort this out.

Again, with only a moment’s thought, how could anyone ever believe that such a bloated, privileged, unelected, crony-based institution as the current second chamber would be acting in the best interests of the people? It isn’t in any way connected with the people.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Of course we need a second chamber, to keep the first in check. But who will keep the second chamber in check? The answer is a virtuous circle. The people elect their House of Commons. The government debates and produces draft legislation. This should go back to the people for ratification, rejection or amendment. I would propose that a different kind of peer inhabits the second chamber. As with a jury of peers, so should we summon the common people for second- chamber service. ‘Juries’ called regularly from each county sit and listen to presentations from each side of the argument, with a judge to advise and direct them, and produce their verdict. We would be told, of course, that it is far too complex an environment for the common person. My response is that if it works for the law, it will work for proposed new laws, certainly so far as primary legislation is concerned.    

John Drewry has a background in marketing, owning and chairing an advertising agency for many years. He also holds an Equity card as a stage director and actor, and is Patron & Presenter for the Nursing Memorial Appeal.