The magnet of despair over the poor choice offered to the public spurred me
to stand again. This time the history of Leyton and Wanstead beckoned.
Why Leyton & Wanstead?
1. Its History
Back in 1965, Patrick Gordon-Walker was foisted upon this constituency. He
had been defeated in the General Election of 1964, and as a result, the then
(Labour) Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, had wanted him to be his Foreign
Secretary. So a By-Election on what was considered a “safe” Labour seat
was created, by “kicking upstairs”, into the House of Lords, the long-term
Member for Leyton, Reg Sorensen. The people of Leyton rejected
this, and a sensation resulted.
2. MP’s Expenses Scandal
Secondly, the existing Member, Harry Cohen, was revealed in the Press (March
2009) to have claimed a colossal sum (£104,701 over five years) in a claim for
“Additional Costs Allowance”. This system was designed for Members of
Parliament to claim for a second home in a Parliamentary Constituency,
if the Member did not actually live in the Constituency. That
latter point is, in itself, a slur on the Representation of the People Act of
1918, whereby an individual is elected to serve his
Geographical Area.
What better place to deserve an honest representative, not tarnished by any
financial assistance from Head Office?
The campaign
Once again the Party System pumped money into all areas.
The Media, yet again, ignored what Independents were attempting to do.
The structure of an Election appears to be that the Electorate is brainwashed
into thinking that they need to vote for a party rather than as the
Representation of the People Act of 1918 states: the individual.
After all, when an election is announced, the Returning Officer says: “I hereby
declare that [Mr/Mrs/Miss, etc] is hereby elected to serve the
constituency”. The officer does not state that “The [so and so]
Party is elected”.
I was invited to two public platforms: both arranged by the local churches.
I am, and always will be, grateful for the Ministers of Religion who opened
their doors to host these events.
One of the points that came out in the second public platform debate, was:
“have you any experience in running a business, and what would you and your
party do to help small businesses?”
My reply was that the church that we were in was actually in the same road as my
own accountancy practice was situated in, back in 1979, so I was well aware of
small business, as this was the back-bone of my income. Secondly, I was
determined to show up the unfairness of the so-called petrol fuel duty
escalator. This method increased the cost of fuel almost every six
months, and only added to the costs of putting goods into the shops.
This point was to prove, once again, that I had pinpointed an area sensitive to
the real public – but sadly over-looked by the media.
As ever, I was out and about trying to meet as many people as possible.
Their politeness, and apparent enthusiasm was encouraging.
In four General Elections, this was the most “fun” that I had, as it seemed that
there was a “buzz” around the prospect of being part of a “David against
Goliath” action.
The result
The records will show that my vote was the lowest that I had achieved in the
four General Elections that I had contested: 80. That figure could be
“spun” to say that at least I made a difference to those that voted for me.
I am not like a political spinner, as that is directly against my intentions.
The conclusion
When one looks at the way Election Campaigns are conducted, we see that:
The way elections are funded
This is where an analysis should be focussed.
We are assailed by the expression “free and fair”
elections.
But are they really?
Free? They are open to anyone who wants to go
through the paperwork of nominations – but there is a
financial cost that you have to meet yourself if you
are not within a Party.
Fair? Unless you are in a Political Party,
this is patently not so. The Parties spend monies on
backing each of its candidates. Thus the expression
“The Whip” really means that “we will support you” rather
than insinuating that the taskmaster controls you.
Party Funding is, perhaps, the root of all evil in a true free
and fair election. It is self-interested persons
who donate huge amounts of cash to political parties.
No-one is a true donor without having a vested interest.
Therefore it is submitted that an examination of this
trail will lead to some interesting results.
How candidates are chosen
It is Head Office of the Political Parties that interview
prospective candidates. They are then placed on a list that
is circulated to the local areas for them to eventually make
their choice. Presumably, each candidate is expected to
almost swear allegiance to the party-line with everything
that is handed down to them. To me, this smacks of
Nazism, and I have on more than one occasion, told anyone
who runs this line, so. Needless to say, this
concluded interviews each time. Such is the price one
has to pay for altruism.
Legally trained candidates
I also ascertained as to why so many candidates with legal
training are foisted upon the public. I was told, it
is because they give a good account of themselves in public.
For anyone who has experience with dealing with the legal
profession, they will find it is a cartel, whereby each
protects its own, and any body of individuals who are
supposed to administer discipline over its members is never
truly independent.
Consider, also, the facts that Parliament makes laws.
Laws ought to be for the protection of the people.
Instead, they are bread for the lawyers to feed upon.
The public are treated like cannon-fodder.
In this area, when anyone claims that “it is against the
law”, I ask them: “Whose law? – Man-kinds? Put
yourself in a jungle, are you going to stop to debate “the
law” if you are going to be killed by a person – or an
animal?”
Serving the people
So there you have it, you, the Public, are given the
chance every five years (maximum) to mark a cross against
the person that you want to be your spokesperson in
Westminster’s Parliament: supposedly the Mother of
Democracy.
In reality, you have been brain-washed, by the Media, to
expect no better than to vote for the Robot in Party
Colours. That person has been foisted upon you by the
Party, with the funds form self-interested groups, who have
chosen to use you as a passport to presume (erroneously)
that you have given it carte-blanche to walk over you
– and to come back (up to) five years later, for you to do
it all again.
We do not “elect governments”, as the Media wrongly
announce. We are supposed to elect area
representatives to be our voice in parliament.
The act of parliament was originally termed the
Representation of the People Act (1918, later amended into
1983). I humbly submit, that the Act should be renamed
the Manipulation of the People. I would appreciate any
views that show that I am not alone in this, and have not
been seduced by The Emperor’s New Clothes
syndrome that has existed for so long.