What on earth makes you think that an independent would spend more time working for constituents rather than themselves? This is certainly the experience of independents in local politics; why should they be any different in national politics?

If you vote for someone you need to know what their *politics* are.

Yes we want to know someone has integrity.
Yes we like people to be independent minded rather than party hacks.

But if the Jury team had done well at the last elections we’d have just had a mixed bag of left, right, mad, bad, pure, sensible and bonkers without any actual way of knowing what we were going to get.

Vote independent and get what? Anti-war or pro-war? Pro-privatisation or renationalisation? Policy is more important than whether the candidate is whipped or not.

I like the idea of a number of independents in parliament, councils, etc but they need to make clear where they stand politically in a clear way if they are to receive the level of support needed to get elected. The Jury Team’s structure makes it impossible for them to provide a coherent set of politics.

One of the advantages of the party system is that you have some idea of where the candidate stands when you vote for them – the Jury method forbids that and so it loses one of the biggest advantages and undermines the basis of politics – fighting for what you believe in.

Hmm, not sure where I fit in with “rag-tag bunch of retirees and borderline weirdos”. Possibly the latter, but I suppose that goes with the standard of political debate.

If I could devise an election format calculated to work against Jury Team, I couldn’t do a lot better than the party list system employed at the Euros. Six candidates with widely varying views – phew, no wonder the electorate shied away. But FPTP elections are different. Jury Team invites voters to examine the candidate, not the colour of the rosette. I know that Liberal Democrats have suffered along with all the other minor parties when faced with safe seats populated by party stooges foisted upon the electorate. What choice does the voter really have if (say) they have strong Labour core values but the Labour party puts forward a dishonest, sleazy or incompetent candidate? Jury Team offers disillusioned Labour supporters the opportunity to stand and represent real Labour values.

Parties change direction to suit whatever way the wind is blowing. I’d argue that it’s difficult to know from year to year exactly what the main parties stand for any more. By electing an individual, it’s easier to hold him or her to account. If the candidate stands on a pro-EU platform for example and a few years down the line votes against EU membership, he/she had better have a good reason to put to a media and electorate who remember the election platform. The party candidate need do no such thing. He/she can point to party policy and say “You voted for a party”. Well parties are unaccountable.

If nothing else, Jury Team invites people to really examine the candidate and to listen to the argument. If the candidate is found wanting, fair enough. Surely this is healthier than the “Vote for a donkey with the right rosette” approach?

“If I could devise an election format calculated to work against Jury Team, I couldn’t do a lot better than the party list system employed at the Euros.”

I could – it’s called FPTP. I certainly would agree that closed lists work against independents and would be first in line to replace it with an open list system (or better yet, STV, blah blah blah…), but if you thought it was hard to make an impact this year, wait til the general election.

“Parties change direction to suit whatever way the wind is blowing.”

And independents don’t? To a large extent, that’s what politicians are SUPPOSED to do – i.e. reflect public opinion.

Martin Bell was notorious for on the one hand consulting widely on the issues he didn’t care or know anything about whilst ignoring his constituents on issues he did have a particular bee in his bonnet about. He twisted in the wind far more frequently than any party politician.

“By electing an individual, it’s easier to hold him or her to account.”

At the end of the day people elect individuals whether they belong to a party or not. It is no easier to hold an independent to account than a partisan – the fact that all too often people don’t take partisan MPs’ records in consideration when casting their vote suggests that they won’t treat independents any differently. It is however a LOT more difficult to find out an independent’s policy on something than a party politician.

Ultimately, people who vote independent vote for the brand ‘independent’ in the same way that people vote for Brand Labour and Brand Conservative.

“Jury Team invites people to really examine the candidate and to listen to the argument.”

Except they didn’t. They just existed to create another brand. Looking at their PR they said almost nothing about any of their candidates’ policies, merely that they were independent and that was an end in itself. More so than any party I have ever seen they spent the whole campaign passionately supporting the notion “Vote for a donkey with the right rosette.”

Another issue I meant to mention regarding the main article is that I don’t actually except it is an MPs’ role to look after constituents’ interests first and foremost. It is their role to look after the national interest first, with constituents in second place. This may sound like a trivial distinction but it really isn’t.

Seeing how politicians work, they actually do spend far more time working on behalf of their constituents than they do for the party (“themselves” is a more thorny issue and depends on you define it – they certainly expect to be paid and the typical MP does tend to have a bit on an ego, but the idea that they are spending all their hours venally working the system for their own advantage is a complete fantasy). And that is part of the problem.

MPs have never been more ‘local’ than they are these days. Yet people have never been more discontent with politics. Go back fifty years, when party memberships were high and confidence in politicians was at least relatively good – back then MPs barely even considered constituency matters.

It seems to me that politics needs to rediscover the power of debating big issues and big visions about the good society and you simply won’t get that by replacing the party system with 646 independents. I don’t question that if you ask people if they want their MPs to be more parochial and put constituents’ interests first they will say yes, but this poll seems to suggest they don’t know it when they see it and certainly don’t like it when they get it.

I agree with the people that pointed out that “independents” could have any views under the sun. And, by not stanidng on a clear manifesto, they actually _harm_ the principle of accountability – as they have not set out what they would try and do if elected. Also, a band of independents couldn’t form a government in a way a disciplined party or a coalition of parties could.

Also, should MPs be representing their “constituent’s interests”. After all, the whole point of politics is that constituents _disagree_ about what to do over things. Should they be representing those constituents who pay the most taxes; those who use the most public services; those who are most environmentalist etc……..In the end, politics is about choices. If, say, some voters want ID cards and some don’t then politicians will have to make a decision one way or another. You can’t please all of the people all of the time

They need to change their name for a start. TEH JRUY TAEM is the worst name I have heard for a party since TEH NTAURAL LWA PRATY.

What should they call themselves then, The Justice League?

@ anonymouse and james graham

Thanks for your comments – and I actually don’t disagree with much of what you’ve said.

I think it’s important to make the distinction between the role of the backbench MP and and Ministers. As I said in the original piece, the Jury Team model – and, in fact, any model for indepenent MPs – will not work as a system of government. I accept that to rule, a party system is really the best (only?) option there is.

However. I see it as essential for our system of governance that there are in Parliament independent MPs who can hold Government to account without the coercion of party whips or the distraction of simple party loyalty. Far, far too many MPs vote with or against Government irrespective of their actual feelings on a given issue. My point is that the Jury Team idea is worth considering and refining in order to increase the number of independents in Parliament.

James Graham – you say “I don’t actually except it is an MPs’ role to look after constituents’ interests first and foremost. It is their role to look after the national interest first, with constituents in second place.” I probably should have made the distinction clearer in the piece – but my feeling is that MPs can best serve both the national interest and their constituents by doing what they are supposed to: holding Government to account, whether that Government is the same stripe as them or not.