Party politics is bad for democracy

I've been opposed to party politics for a long time. It leads to the nonsense of having party whips and politicians voting in parliament for a party line rather than on principle.

Yesterday's report from the Culture, Media & Sport select committee about the Murdochs and phone hacking perfectly shows why party politics is wrong. Many of the things the committee voted on were decided by a party split and had the membership of the committee been made up of a different set of MPs the reports findings could have been totally different. It seems some if those on the committee didn't listen to any of the evidence and had pre-judged the result they wanted.

I don't believe that anybody, including the whips and the party leaders, believe in every single policy that appears in a party's election manifesto, and yet they go ahead and vote the way they're told so that they can climb the greasy career pole and be considered for q cabinet, or shadow cabinet, post the next time there's a reshuffle.

Party politics isn't about doing what's right for the electorate, it's about doing what's right for your own bank balance. It's time that politics was taken back by the electorate and made more accountable, and it's time that we put back principle into politics.

Why not allow all MPs to vote for themselves? To stand on their personal strengths, beliefs and principles? Why not make politics more democratic?

Look at the nonsense in the USA, with sub-parties like the lunatic fringe called The Tea Party within the Republican Party. Parties within parties shows that democracy has failed in its current form.

I know she won't win the London mayorship tomorrow, after all election law was against her, but I do hope that Siobhan Benita does well. It would be great if she picked up a sizeable vote and maybe, just maybe, it could be the start of a bloodless revolution that changed the future of politics in this country.

COMMENT: Independent daze

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. The laws of the land are made by political parties and so they will be made to help political parties.

That's all well and good - until you have an independent candidate standing.

Siobhan Benita is an independent candidate in the election for London mayor. She is a fresh new face, unlike the 3 candidates from the major parties, all who were around four years ago. And Siobhan is doing very well, considering she doesn't have the weight of one of the monolithic parties behind her. Currently, according to opinion polls she is standing fourth - behind Labour, Tory and Lib Dem candidates, but ahead of the Green, BNP and UKIP candidates.

Election law stipulates how much media coverage the candidates receive and makes sure things are fair.

But it isn't fair.

Election broadcasts, and specifically the quantity of them, are based on performance at previous elections by each party. In the election for London mayor the big 3 parties have all had multiple broadcasts, and the smaller parties have all be allowed a broadcast too.

But Siobhan isn't allowed one.

As a newbie, without electoral history personally, and without the weight of history provided by an established party, she's not allowed an election broadcast - and her position in the opinion polls counts for nothing.

So the racists of the BNP and UKIP get to flaunt their distasteful policies on television and radio, Labour's Jen Livingstone, with his various unpleasant views and dubious tax arrangements, gets some, the standing mayor is allowed to defend his record, even Brian Paddick is allowed airtime to try to pretend his party hasn't been subsumed into the Tory Party...

... but Siobhan Benita, a woman whose message many are turning to, isn't allowed an election broadcast because the parties have stitched up the law about election broadcasts.

It is undemocratic. It is blatantly wrong and unjust. It's a situation that must be changed.