NEWS: Poll Reveals That Many Voters Do Not Know What The Major Political Parties Stand For – Even Their Own

The latest poll from IPSOS Mori revealed that many UK voters do not know what the major political parties stand for – including the ones that they might traditionally vote for.

With much debate among political commentators and party supporters alike around what the main parties stand for in this new era of Coalition politics, the latest poll from Ipsos MORI shows that all having trouble convincing the public that they have a clear identity.

Two in three people (64%) agree that they “don’t know what the Liberal Democrats stand for these days” while 57% don’t know what Labour stands for and 44% don’t know what the Conservative Party stand for.

The problem the parties have isn’t just confined to the public at large. Their own supporters say they don’t know what the party they would vote for stands for these days:

-41% of Liberal Democrat voters say they don’t know what the Liberal Democrats stand for;

-37% of Conservative voters say they don’t know what the Conservative party stands for;

-42% of Labour voters say they don’t know what Labour stands for.

 The only thing that the public seem certain of is that each of the major political parties stand for their own continuance and success. This does little to help the average voter who wants to vote for an individual or parties based upon an identified set of ideas and beliefs – a set that the voter might hope to share. With all three major political parties behaving similarly, agreeing readily on a range of issues, equally lacking in original ideas and historically assuming each others’ policies and flagship strategies upon assuming government, there is little wonder that voters don’t know what the parties – even their own – stand for.

With Independent candidates standing on specific platforms and Minor Parties more consistent in keeping with and communicating their adopted issues, it is likely that they would have performed much better in the above poll. It is clear what an Independent politician coming to office on an anti-corruption platform or an NHS-changes protest platform stands for. It is clear what the Green Party or UKIP stand for. At least voters for these Independent and Minor party candidates, by and large, know what they’re getting. With the Conservatives, Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats standing only for themselves, people voting for these parties get only what the leaders of these parties want them to get – and that doesn’t sound like the best our democracy can deliver.    

BLOGS: Why I Buy Brand 'George Galloway' by Hugh Salmon

"Don’t get me wrong. I don’t want to meet George Galloway. In fact, given the opportunity, I would rather not. I have a personal rule to avoid meeting celebrities. In general, I have found them more willing to talk to other celebrities than ‘normal’ people so what is the point?

By his appearance on Celebrity Big Brother, we can be safe in describing George Galloway as a ‘celebrity’. As to whether appearing on this show was a wise decision, or whether he made a prat of himself when he did, these are matters for us to judge on a personal basis.

They are certainly not views we should publish. It is on the record that George Galloway has litigated for libel on more than one occasion and we do not want that. All I can do is point you to Google and YouTube to make up your mind on a cornucopia of subjects as far apart as Iraq, the Tiananmen Square massacre or pretending to be a pussy cat.

The Daily Mail asserts that ‘Galloway’s victory is the last thing Britain needs’.

I disagree with this. I think George Galloway is just what we need.

Why? Simple answer. He is his own man. He is independent. And, now, he is the only independent MP in the House of Commons.

Arguably, you could apply this soubriquet to Caroline Lucas who is the only Green Party MP and a couple of others. But by far the greater majority of MPs (621 out 646 by my reckoning) are members of the Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat parties.

Some of these MPs will ‘cross the floor’ some of the time. On the whole, they will toe the party line. The newer the MP, the more likely they are to do this. For, so sophisticated is our political system, these parties now know how to weed out any potential ‘rebels’ before letting them anywhere near their candidate lists. Winston Churchill? No chance.

At the last General Election I was one of over 40 independent candidates endorsed by the Independent Network. We were (are) all so disillusioned by (ashamed of) our political system that we hoped for an electoral backlash.

And now, two years later, George Galloway has made this happen. Although many of the Independent Network candidates, including me, ‘won’ the local issues for which we stood, none of us made the breakthrough to the House of Commons. Frankly, as I discussed at the time (Why did I do it? What was it like? Was it worth it?) , the people were not interested.

Well, as George Galloway has shown, they are now. Whether you agree with him or not, like him or not, trust him or not, Galloway has rallied the Britons of Bradford West behind him and against all of the ‘established’ political parties.

In the House of Commons, he will say what he likes. Through Parliamentary privilege, he can even libel people. He will not vote as instructed to further his own career interests, unlike our disgraced career politicians – yes, the lot of them.

By the very fact that he is not a party MP, his priorities will not be to scheme his way past party colleagues, weasle up a greasy party pole or toady up to the press (or police).

George Galloway will be his own man. A free spirit. In this sense, unlike our disgraced career politicians – yes, the lot of them – he has integrity.

There are well over 100 ‘cross-benchers’ in the House of Lords. May George Galloway be the first of such a number in the House of Commons. If this were to happen, our country would be an immensely better place.

So, although I do not agree with a lot of what George Galloway says and certainly never want to meet the man, I do think the brand that is George Galloway is a force for good in this country.

I am glad we have him.

We need him."

Hugh Salmon's blog 'The Salmon Agency' can be found here.

NEWS: Bloc Voting on The Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee

Sometimes extraordinary events bring the failings of party politics into keen focus. The Phone Hacking Scandal is one such event. This is an event that engulfed the News of the World and its parent company News Corporation - and still threatens to engulf both government Ministers and the Prime Minister himself. The Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee - containing members of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties - had responsibility for investigating libel and privacy issues regarding aspects of the Phone Hacking affair. They were able to interview a range of people – including James and Rupert Murdoch and examine some of the most shocking aspects of the case, such as the hacking of teenage murder victim Milly Dowler’s mobile phone. Their bipartisan report was expected to draw conclusions and make judgements regarding the Murdochs, their conduct in respect to the News of the World and News Corporation’s future ventures in regard to BSkyB.

Many expected the Culture Committee, in their entirety, to be unanimous in their criticism of Rupert Murdoch and his fitness to be Chairman of News Corporation – such is the shocking nature and political toxicity of the story. Instead the committee members split down political party lines. Labour Party members and Liberal Democrats wished to censure Murdoch for his involvement and negligence in respect to phone hacking at the News of the World. The report found Rupert Murdoch was not “a fit person” to run a major international company. It accused News Corporation of “huge failings of corporate governance”, saying its instinct had been “to cover up, rather than seek out wrongdoing and discipline the perpetrators”. Of Murdoch’s son, News International’s former executive chairman James Murdoch, the report identified that he had displayed “wilful ignorance” and a “lack of curiosity” over phone hacking and that it was “simply astonishing” that he had not sought more evidence and information, simply maintaining that phone hacking was down to a single rogue reporter.

The Conservative Party members of the Culture Committee would not back the report – of which they had been part. Just before the release of the report and after years of working on it, all Conservative members declined to be part of the Committee’s damning verdict on Rupert and James Murdoch. Conservative Party Committee member Louise Mensch announced, “No Conservative member on this committee with a vote was able to recommend the report itself to the House.”

This failure for the Culture Committee – whose members have worked together for years – to reach a unanimous conclusion is shocking. Despite the joint Labour Party and Liberal Democrat judgment reflecting the popular view of the Phone Hacking Scandal and suspicions of a wide-ranging cover ups the Conservatives accused Labour of voting along party lines. Conversely, in objecting to this the Conservative Party members turned into a voting bloc and collectively rejected the report – refusing to censure Rupert and James Murdoch. In many ways the interesting aspect of this is the fact that the Liberal Democrats felt that they simply couldn’t support their Coalition partners in failing to judge Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation. The Conservatives’ behaviour on this is politically bizarre – given the toxic nature of seeming support of the Murdochs. It puts the Conservative Party very publically on the side of the Murdochs, if they weren’t already publically perceived as being so, given the allegations being made against Culture Minister Jeremy Hunt and meetings between the Prime Minister and The News of the World’s Rebekah Brooks.

Ultimately, the Culture Committee’s failure to reach agreement and their split along party political lines serves as a good demonstration of why party politics in the country is poisoning our democracy. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the committee findings, committee members simply reverted to tribal instincts and sided with members of their respective parties. While the two major political parties dominate the British political landscape – and voters allow them to do so – genuine truths and justice will elude us. With the political party system it will always come down to the numbers ‘on your team’. That seems a poor way of dealing with such important matters – almost akin to mob rule in which the numbers decide the outcome. As a hypothetical, if the committee had been made up of a mixture of Independent politicians and Minor Party members (with much smaller influence than the major parties), would not a more accurate and just finding have been reached – one that truly reflects a wide range of opinion and perspective that exists in our society? Instead we get tag-team politics and committees hamstrung by their clearly-defined party divisions.

Groupthink in Action - 'I don't know what the PM said, but I agree.'

Party politics is a real danger in the UK - as it is everywhere. Here is the Australian employment minister demonstrating Groupthink beautifully on the news yesterday. In an interview on Australian Sky News, the country's employment minister, Bill Shorten, is asked his opinion on the return of Peter Slipper, the speaker of the parliament, after a sexual harassment claim. At the end of the interview Shorten admits he does not know what his prime minister said on the issue - but says he supports whatever it was.



The problem that this clearly demonstrates is that when voters elect a member of a major political party, they empower that party's leader with the blind loyalty of their own Member of Parliament. This is seen time and again in the House of Parliament where MPs fail to consult thier constituents or take into account what their opinions might be, instead taking their instruction from major party leaders like Cameron, Clegg and Miliband and their party whips. Is this the kind of politics we want? Alarmingly, by voting for a candidate from a major political party a voter could be empowering a future party leader they haven't even heard of yet - let alone agree with or want to support. Only Independent MPs and MPs from Minor Parties will be free of that kind of blind and dangerous loyalty. They will consider their position as MP to be more fragile and precarious - and therefore more precious. Their compact with the people who voted for them is likely to be the only consideration for Independent MPs and take precedence over even Minor Party members' obligations to their party leaders. The leaders of Minor Parties simply can't afford to alienate the voters of a smaller number of members and so are likely to be more considerate of constituents' wishes. Voters will not get that from Cameron, Clegg or Miliband who think they automatically have votes for their candidates in the bag. Their eye is firmly on the power those votes give them personally as a leader - voter lending power to local MP who in turn gives it up through party obligation to party leader and/or prime minister. The only way to stop this is to vote in a greater number of MPs who are either Inependents or members of Minor Parties. Ultimately, don't people want a Member of Parliament who will listen to them and act on their wishes?

For more about the political dangers of Groupthink, click here.

INSIGHT: Party Politics and the Dangers of ‘Groupthink’

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within groups of people. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints. The negative cost of groupthink is the loss of individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking. The majority of the initial research on groupthink was performed by Irving Janis, a research psychologist from Yale University. His original definition of the term was, “A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive ingroup, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses” (Janis, 1972).

One of the great advantages of a new parliament benefitting from a plethora of Independent MPs and MPs from a range of Minor Parties is that the negative effects of Groupthink would be negated. Larger numbers of MPs with diverse viewpoints would force genuine debate in the House of Commons and in the media. Alternative ideas and viewpoints would receive the appropriate amount of examination and rigorous critical attention. This means that decisions might take longer – but there is a much greater chance that these decisions would be the right ones for the country, rather than the right ones for specific major political parties and their inner core of voters. A greater number of Independents and MPs from Minor Parties would stand a good chance of preventing Groupthink in a future parliament. They would check the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats convincing themselves that their ideologically-driven decision-making is in the ‘national interest’. Any political party in government would not have a free pass with the important decisions facing the country. They would still have a litmus test – a larger group of Independents (drawn from the whole political spectrum – both Left and Right) that would not collectively vote for a strategy because their party leader had told them to. Major parties couldn’t simply have their whips enforce the will of the Prime Minister or party leader across a large number of voting MPs. They couldn’t simply get their will on successive issues unchecked by winning the count: they would have to win the argument. Surely our democracy would be improved by such a state of affairs and the dangers of Groupthink would be kept in check. The more extreme, reckless and damaging political ideas would likely be filtered out in favour of strategies with benefits for a greater range of British people.

MORE ABOUT ‘GROUPTHINK’

Since Janis’s work, other studies have attempted to reformulate his groupthink model. Psychologist Paul t’Hart (1998) developed a concept of groupthink as “collective optimism and collective avoidance.” Janis identified the dangers of Groupthink as “The more amiability and esprit de corps there is among the members of a policy-making ingroup, the greater the danger that independent critical thinking will be replaced by groupthink, which is likely to result in irrational and dehumanizing actions against outgroups.”

Irving Janis studied a number of historical 'disasters' in American foreign policy, such as failure to anticipate the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (1941), the Bay of Pigs fiasco (1961) - when the US administration sought to overthrow Fidel Castro - and the prosecution of the Vietnam War (1964–67) by President Lyndon Johnson. Following his studies he concluded that in each of these cases, the decisions were made largely due to groupthink, which prevented contradictory views from being expressed and subsequently evaluated. The concept of groupthink has been subsequently used to explain many other faulty decisions in history. These events included Nazi Germany's decision to invade the Soviet Union in 1941, the Watergate Scandal and more recently the invasion of Iraq. The attack on Pearl Harbour on December 7, 1941 was a prime example of groupthink. A number of factors such as shared illusions and rationalizations contributed to the lack of precaution taken by Naval officers based in Hawaii. The United States had intercepted Japanese messages and they discovered that Japan was arming itself for an offensive attack. Washington took action by warning officers stationed at Pearl Harbour, but their warning was not taken seriously. They assumed that Japan was taking measures in the event that their embassies and consulates in enemy territories were usurped. The Navy and Army in Pearl Harbour shared rationalizations about why an attack was impossible. Officers succumbed to social pressures and did not want to face scrutiny by objecting to what had become the common belief that Japan would not attack Pearl Harbour. Leading officers at Pearl Harbour reinforced each other's feelings of faith and invulnerability and it is the reason why the United States was defenceless against Japan's attacks.

To make Groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms indicative of Groupthink. He indicated that Groupthink is indicated by groups suffering excessive optimism and an unquestioning belief. They rationalize warnings and alternative viewpoints that challenge the group’s assumptions. They stereotype those who oppose the group as weak, biased and stupid. They experience self-censorship of ideas that deviate from group consensus and indulge illusions of unanimity among group members. To such groups silence is viewed as agreement. They place direct pressure on group members who question the consensus and view it as a type of disloyalty. Groups experiencing Groupthink also have self-appointed members who make it their business to shield the group from dissenting information. There is strong evidence to show that the Groupthink phenomenon impacts on real-world decisions on a daily basis. Groups that are engaging in groupthink target the consensus group decision and bypass alternatives without careful consideration or discussion.

Do these sound familiar? All three of the major political parties in this country – Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat – present the British publish with these symptoms. Groupthink is dangerous and demonstrated on a daily basis. A greater number of Independent MPs and MPs from Minor Parties would help keep Groupthink in check and prevent it from further destroying true democracy.

NEWS: Is the Double-dip Recession the Nail in the Coffin of Coalition’s Economic Strategy?

Voters are steadily coming to the conclusion that a Coalition Government built on economic fear-mongering during the last election, is not the solution to Britain’s problems. The Conservatives make no apologies for the hard and fast cuts they continue to make. Up until now the electorate has indulged voluntary hardship believing that the Conservative strategy – which they were told was essential and unavoidable – would take the UK to a better financial place. The Liberal Democrats staked the alienation of many of their voters on this economic strategy also, reneging on their election pledges to form an unpopular coalition, whose purpose was sold as coming together to solve the country’s financial problems.

It was reported today that the UK economy is now officially in a double-dip recession. This was exactly the outcome David Cameron had used to put fear into voters during the election – indicating that five further years of Labour economic strategy would ensure such a situation. The Coalition’s strategies, two years into their term in office, seem not to have been the solution voters were hoping for. Many believe that the cuts are ideological, unnecessary and have in fact brought about the double-dip recession that many economists have been warning the public about. This leaves the Conservatives manacled to a strategy that they refuse to abandon or modify but that clearly isn’t working. Most voters would not unreasonably expect to see some glimmer of hope on the horizon by now – the government’s term is only five years long, after all.

As for the Liberal Democrats, it seems that their justification for joining the coalition – which has damaged them so greatly – has now turned out to be worthless. Labour, on the other hand, are remaining far too quiet on the economy for many people. They are seen by many in the electorate to not only be responsible (fully or partly, depending upon which economist you consult) for the financial problems the country is facing. To make matters worse, they are not advocating - with any volume or conviction - an alternative winning strategy. For many, it is simply too soon after the previous government to trust Labour with Britain’s finances. All in all, this paints a bleak picture for voters. They are confronted with three political parties who tell you that the economy is a crucial issue but do not know how to address the country’s big financial problems (but still want your vote!)

If the MPs in the three main political parties are not part of the solution, then they are part of the problem. The only alternative that voters have is to put their trust in a greater number of Independent candidates and representatives from Minor Parties. These candidates would still represent the spectrum of political views in our country, but would be more willing to establish a dialogue in which a myriad of solutions is properly discussed, examined and implemented. A future economic strategy - a thoughtful approach that will make and keep Britain prosperous – is much more likely to be found by such a gathering than the ideologically motivated machinations of the three major political parties, who convince themselves – as well as the electorate – of the need for the unnecessary.

NEWS: Conservatives Mired In Accusations of Corruption

The Conservatives have been in government for barely two years and accusations of serious misconduct and corruption are mounting up. James Murdoch’s evidence delivered to the Leveson Inquiry has demonstrated once again the close and toxic connections between Conservative Government Ministers like Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt and News Corporation – the media empire embroiled in the phone hacking scandal. This comes soon after Cash for Cameron in which Tory Party Treasurer Peter Cruddas was filmed selling time and government policy influence for hundreds of thousands of pounds. This in turn came hot on the heels of the resignation of Defence Secretary Liam Fox in respect to his conduct regarding Defence Department access to businessman Adam Werritty. Repetitive nationals scandals is recognised as a key element in the fall of the last Conservative Government and it seems that history is repeating itself. A YouGov poll yesterday showed the Conservatives trailing badly and YouGov’s media clients are Conservative Party supporting newspapers. The poll showed the lowest approval for the Conservatives since taking power. Public discontent with scandal-mired governing parties have historically provided fertile ground for Independent and Minor Party Candidates. Voters naturally look for political alternatives under these circumstances and become increasingly open to the possibility of real change. These candidates offer a choice free of the associated corruption of parties collectively tainted by previous misconduct. These candidates can still represent the full spectrum of public opinion and politics but are free from the coercion and collusion that seems to go hand in hand with the whips and voting practices of the three currently dominant parties. Interestingly this coincides with the highest poll ratings for Minor Parties across the same period.