Jury Team Commentary

You would have thought that after 58 months out of a maximum of 60 months in Parliament, the ‘Party Manifesto’ would be ready to go as soon as the General Election is called. But no, it’s not until tomorrow, with a third of the campaign already gone, that the parties will release their pages and pages and pages of false promises upon a ‘wish it were true’ public.

And it is unlikely they will contain any surprises even when they are ready to go.

One party official on Labour’s manifesto was quoted as saying: “It’s practically as long as War and Peace. There’s an awful lot of verbiage, which I’m sure nobody is going to read. I’d like to see it half as long and twice as strong.” ~ Oh dear, that doesn’t bode well.

And don’t expect anything more exciting from the Tories either. The key pledges – for that is all they are – have already been well publicised. Indeed there is concern from Conservative Central Office that the Tories may have peaked too soon in their campaign.

So, have you got your reading glasses to hand, because you’re going to need them in order to check what’s written ‘between the lines’? Typically the ‘Big Bad 3’ are experts at saying what they will do, but with their metaphorical fingers most definitely crossed behind their back.

How many of the Jury Team’s only 30 policies have shown up in the other party’s manifestos of the past? Pretty much all of them! Why are they still not enacted then? Because as we have come to learn with the ‘Big Bad 3’ it is always a case of promises are only promised to woo the voter, not to be expected to be Acts of Parliament. If you asked any MP at the mid-term stage of a parliament, “What have you done in your manifesto and what remains undone?” they would be likely to splutter and use that typical Politician’s way out of anything they don’t want to admit to, the old ‘at all costs don’t answer the question’ ploy.

So, what’s the point of a manifesto then? To be frank, when they’ve proved in the last parliament they can’t be trusted to balance their own accounts let alone the country’s balance of payments, I guess no point at all. Manifestos are clearly ignored by the people, and the politicians and political parties rely on this to trundle on in government doing whatever they want, but not necessarily what they promised.

For a genuinely popular read, for the Jury Team bases it’s policies entirely on opinion polls and therefore de facto referendum of the people, please request a copy of the Jury Team’s own booklet – “WORKING TOGETHER FOR THE PEOPLE POLITICIANS FORGOT” – by entering your details in the Press Enquiries section on www.juryteam.org

The Debates are coming. Some political strategists are saying that they expect the election campaigns will step up a gear this Thursday when the first of the televised debates between just the three leaders of the biggest parties will face off on the ITV stage of the triple package debate season. They anticipate the debates to be seen as the real ‘game changer’.

The ‘rules’ are fairly strict, which may make for a fairly dull event, but watch out for Brown, Cameron and Clegg disappearing off the scene for 24 hours before the big event, as the different camps brief their leaders on how to best perform. Both in their own presentation, but also how to rile each other into a frenzy in front of the cameras. Brown especially will be being groomed to look good and hold his calm, conscious of the likely re-emergence of the ‘bullying’ allegations from February. Will they take the gamble and break ranks with rules saying candidates cannot argue directly with each other.

Brown starts as the underdog, Clegg as the unknown, Cameron as the sly fox. All three with a mission to offset these, as they see it, unfair assessments.

Gordon Brown was first to set the tone for excuses though, drawing reference in his Kirkaldy speech to his unpolished television style with: “I realise I am not slick. The truth is I don’t really want to be.”

To which we say “Oh, Prime Minister – you are really spoiling us” – we have seen how slick you can be with you “real” statistical manipulations…..!!

If your initial excitement about the first ever televised debates at the forthcoming general election has faded, because you expect these events to be weak and overly stage-managed….

…you may be invigorated to learn that Facebook and YouTube will also now be used to grill the party leaders of the ‘Big Bad 3’. Hot on the tail of the announcement that they are to encourage voter registration, social media applications are edging their way into the 2010 General Election and set to play an influential involvement in voter preference.

Richard Allan, Facebook’s director of policy, said: “The dawn of the digital election this year is a transformative moment for democracy in Britain. By allowing voters to cross-examine their leaders, these digital debates will put the voters firmly in charge.”

Peter Barron, director of communications for YouTube’s owner Google, said: “Although the televised debates will be a historic first, we feel that there is an opportunity for a different type of platform that allows voters to be in charge of the questions. By collaborating with Facebook to put together one initiative we hope to enable as many voters as possible from across the UK to take part.”

The video responses from Brown, Cameron and Clegg to questions submitted online on these internet sites will appear on Monday 26th April.

The Jury Team are unimpressed that the Electoral Commission has failed in their efforts to truly recognise the need to involve the alternatives to the ‘BigBad3’ parties, such as the Jury Team who represent many of the Independent candidates standing in the 2010 General Election.

It is not APATHY. It is ANGER.

The fact that 1 in 3 of the electorate is wishing for a Hung Parliament is indicative of the fact there is a sentiment that says: “Actually, we don’t want any of you, but if we have to, we want to require you to find a new way of working”.

Clare Short has become the latest political figure to suggest that a hung or ‘balanced’ Parliament would be a very positive thing. In a pre-recorded interview which was broadcast on the Today Programme on 10th April, she described Parliament as ‘broken’ and suggested that a hung Parliament could be the way to begin to fix it.

“A hung Parliament would bring power back to the chamber – votes will be close. The executive instead of being arrogant will have to be nice to people and keep people on board. And that will change things all to the good.”

And it will be Independent MPs who will find a real and new influence as never before. Independent, unencumbered by party political baggage, will become what is known as the ‘kingmakers’ of parliament. The likely margins for error will make their relevance more powerful than at any time in the past 200 years. Those constituencies fortunate (and brave) enough to elect an MP who is not controlled by the Party Whips will reap much greater rewards for their communities than those constituencies returning the same political colour time after time.

Life in 2010 Britain has proved it does not pay to be loyal to one brand. The same now applies to Politics in 2010 Britain. There is nothing in being lifelong Labour or steadfast Tory. The situation in Your “always-red”/”always-blue” constituency will neither gain nor lose by whoever takes over at Number 10. But the Independent’s constituencies will get their A&E departments saved, their post offices preserved, their schools built, and many more gains besides these.

The marginals are targeted going into an election. The Independent constituencies are targeted once governments are in. Be needed and achieve more. Now THAT is Tactical Voting.

[ to listen to the Clare Short interview on the Today Programme for Radio 4 at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/b006qj9z/console ]

/

Pensioners are unhappy. Trade unionists are unhappy. Students are unhappy. Doctors are unhappy.

The public sector may still the largest employer, but it most definitely is not what it used to be. And with this sentiment more than 10,000 public sector workers made a noisy protest through the streets of Westminster today demanding protection of services and jobs.

The diversity of the protesting mass is what made it so unique. Groups from a dichotomy of interests – the BMA, Unison, National Pensioners Convention, Disability Alliance, NUS – formed a united mass of anger against all three major parties alike, after each has come out this week and prepared the way for cuts to public services upon their return to Westminster.

One GP from Yorkshire expressed his frustration at Westminster in this General Election period – “There is a lot of rhetoric in terms of protecting the NHS, but not much promise”. And he is so right in this assertion. Gordon Brown and David Cameron are yet to properly discuss the relevant issues surrounding the health service and its future funding in their election campaigning; instead preferring to argue about national insurance which the voters see as a non-event. All three party leaders have chosen to avoid proper discussion about solving the deficit and how this will protect rather than remove public services. And amazingly late in arriving to the distraction, Vince Cable decided to weigh into the NI debate on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, losing him considerable credibility for being on the ball, not only with the business leaders who have backed the Tories but also the people who see the matter as a distraction from the real issue of recovery from the deficit debacle.

The Jury Team shares the public’s concern for the future protection of the NHS. They don’t rely on rhetoric. The Jury Team recognise the desperate need to protect the important services for the British taxpayer, otherwise they will be lost from the UK, without return. The Jury Team contest one way to ease the pressure on the NHS budget would be to immediate act to limit the current ease of access to British citizenship. As it stands now, British citizenship is available to foreigners in just 2 years, and with it they gain access to free NHS provision for themselves any number of family. Also, EU visitors to the UK can get free health care, which they don’t get in their own country. In fact the UK is the only country in the EU to have a free NHS. This should be available more sparingly. And the Jury Team suggest that the NHS simply should not be available to non-EU visitors in the UK. To control this entry to the UK should only be allowed with proof of holding private medical insurance in case they need health treatment or hospital care while in the UK. This would put a stop to the UK being the ‘health vacation destination’ it has become, which is draining the NHS of life.

To preserve our public services the next government needs to set restrictions on access that limit abuse in order to continue provision to those who have paid for it, namely British citizens and taxpayers.

Despite their claims, the NHS is not safe in the hands of any Labour, Liberal Democrat or Tory PM. They are not brave enough to tackle this citizenship subject and so under their watch the deficit worsens and the consequent cuts to public services will be inevitable.

What a flattering week for Jury Team! The major parties are copying the Jury Team policies.

The Jury Team policy states:

“Requiring referendums to be held on any issue, including the recall of an MP, if there is a petition with signatures from 5% of the electorate.”

The Conservative Party’s Rt Hon Sir George Young, said today:

“We proposed this week giving local people the direct power to recall their MP if they are found guilty of wrongdoing … if signatures from 10 per cent of the local electorate are accumulated”.

This is the fifth Jury Team policy in five days to suddenly become a policy adopted by either Conservative or Labour.  Is there something brewing?  We’ve seen Jury Team has been attracting a lot of attention on Twitter from Lab/Con tweeters alike, so perhaps this is the outcome.

But is this just the season of good promises? And not much else? Do the major parties believe the electorate is so naïve as to fall for all their promises again? The #BigBad3 are used to promising what they won’t deliver, and so too are the electorate! History shows they suffer from “political amnesia” after General Elections.

The Jury Team believe that, in addition to use of this ‘recall’ power by the electorate, referendums should also be called if requested by sufficient members of the electorate. This would be a ‘Citizens’ Initiative’, which is now accepted in about half of the states in the US and both at the canton level and nationally in Switzerland, as well as many other countries.

There is no opposition to the belief that a Citizens’ Initiatives will rekindle interest in politics. This policy is strongly supported by recent YouGov research showing 70% thinking it a good idea, wiht only 15% against.

Yet again, the Jury Team is right on the ball.