Prior to the 1969 Representation of the People Act party names did not appear on ballot papers; only the candidate name was present. This was directly in line with the constitutional principle that our MPs are local representatives of the people in Parliament – in other words, that each constituency is supposed to elect one person from amongst the local population to speak on their behalf in Parliament.
The Party system has completely decimated that constitutional principle. Now, MPs represent their party first, the people second. It has also led to tribal voting; constituents ticking the box of the party they back with no knowledge or interest in the person who will be representing them. And of course it has meant that some MPs are returned to Parliament election after election, without having to campaign at all. These developments are a key part of the growing disconnect between Parliament and the people.
Simply removing the party name from the ballot papers would eliminate tribal voting at the stroke of a pen. No longer could people turn up to the ballot box and tick ‘Labour’ or ‘Conservative’, they would have to know the name of their chosen candidate, which makes it far more likely that they will scrutinise that candidate and what they stand for. Therefore, we should reverse the clause in the '69 Act that put party names on the ballot papers.
Tis a fair point. There is a need for educating our masses to not just hear something from the TV and then blindly pick, which is why I am seeing certain small rises in the Lib Dems when the Tory/labour duo loses points in the popularity polls, but yet, it is more of the same with Lib Dems, but there are too many people who are not researching who they are voting for and I’d even argue that the name side of things is also unbalanced with how the legacy media is.
We ourselves just have the mission to educate people at this rate, because no service will do it unbiased.
That is an interesting proposition. I’m sure it would mean no party could take tribal voting for granted. This would put more emphasis on the MP as an individual and would give party headquarters pause for thought before parachuting in someone favoured by the party who are otherwise a stranger to the constituency.
Personally, I think the party affiliation of the candidates IS important however; it is the parties that propose a programme of government, and that is what mostly determines where I place my vote.
So, were party names removed from ballot papers, I would be making an effort to identify the candidates with their parties. I think it would at least encourage leafleting to inform as many of the electorate as possible about the candidate and what he/she stands for, which is no bad thing.
I think the principle underlying this proposal is: the more the electorate takes an active interest in politics, the more transparent and accountable the political class becomes. And so, the more they will want to govern for the electorate and in the national interest, rather than for globalist ends while thinking of the exercise of democracy as a rather inconvenient nuisance.
Another way to encourage an active interest in politics is through education: I think politics should be a part of the curriculum in schools, say in the last year or two before school leaving age. But because of the overwhelming bias to the left in the teaching profession, the curriculum will need to define what is taught pretty well. So, the curriculum should emphasise matters of fact: how parliament works, what part is played by political parties to form a government and opposition (but not which one the teacher favours!), how elections work, the role of the monarchy, what the house of Lords does, the function of select committees, the judicial system, how local government works, and so on. And the democratic system should be presented as something we are proud to have, it’s development from ancient Greece and throughout the history of Britain, and how it is better than other forms of rule and governance that have been known in history.
Perhaps political education needs to be another policy proposal which I’ll have to write up . . .
I think it is an interesting proposition, and I believe it is correct in its intent. However, I think it would negatively impact all political parties and likely result in a number of ballots being cast where the wrong candidate had been selected, or worse decrease turnout through perceived complexity. A ‘plague on both houses’ situation, with little immediate benefit - and I think we are in quite an urgent situation with regards to the future of Britain.
I couldn’t agree more with regards to changes to the National Curriculum. I believe politics and economics should be a fundamental part of the Curriculum. Although ensuring true impartiality at the DfE would be necessary first!
Yes, I too agree with the intent, but as you rightly point out, it does depend on a sufficient degree of engagement on the part of voters to understand which parties the candidates are affiliated with.
Excellent idea.
And I’d go even further.
Have the same 10 questions from each candidate, with their “Yes” or “No” printed on the back of the ballot paper.
Do you believe in Net Zero
Do you think foreign born criminals should be deported
Do you think we should build back British Industry/Manufacturing
etc
Then you would really see what the candidate thought and not pretend to be something they are not.
The Uni-Party would hate it, just like Brexit, but if you put it to the people, then I’m sure they’d go for it. You could then “really” hold the candidate’s feet to the fire, when they vote in Parliament and it was against what they’d promised. The current system allows them to be very vague about the big issues, but this should pin them down and make them 100% accountable.
I like this idea a lot, but then I would. Like all of us on here, I am interested in politics and have a reasonable idea who my local and national candidates are, what they are like and what the party they stand for is about. That is possibly not true for the majority of people in this country. They have other interests and consider politics as boring as I might their fascination with stamp collecting.
Yet they still have the vote, although fewer are exercising that right.
Perhaps the policies outlined might tie in better with compulsory voting?
And that is very much a question rather than a suggestion.
Yes there needs to be more political information available and more biographical information of each party member. However, I’m wondering if, given the current use of the Party whip system and the potential to face backlash if you do not vote as commanded, we should bother with MP names and just put the party name there instead.
I’m not belittling or being cruel.
the fact is that given the amount of pressure placed upon MP’s to vote in line with their party over their voters wishes, there is little room for MP’s to exert any form of autonomy whatsoever. So we could argue given the current system that the inverse of your policy sould also ring true, we may as well just put the parties. It is such a sad degredation of democracy.
If we were to render the party whip as a toothless enabler rather than a pernicious power guardian who enforces the parties demands at the “point of a gun” (Liz Truss quote) If we can argue for greater autonomy and making the MP answerable to their local constituents then I have a policy suggestion that you might like. Click on the latest. I just gave you my vote.
