Independent Assembly

Great Britain has some 68 million citizens. Of those though, only 81,326 have just unjustly chosen who is to run the country – deciding that Ms. Liz Truss was the finest among our number – following an election contest which clearly illustrated both the mediocrity and the glibness of the candidates, all of whom, in terms of shallowness, exhibited the depth of a muddy puddle (their policies changing almost daily, in response to their reception by the press and Tory membership).

How can it be right that a tiny minority of similar, narrow-minded people can decide the fate of a nation? A group of people, one might add, whose opinions appear to be at odds with those of their fellow citizens – the favourite candidate for Tory members? If they’d been given the option, still the disgraced and discredited Boris Johnson!

Yet this madness is only a fraction of the general lunacy of a – naturally parasitical – party political system (ref. the accompanying 33 Theses for a fuller expose of party-politics), a system which results in the country suffering a perpetual state of crisis – why? 
Well, firstly this is due to the short-termist (so myopic), factional (so divisive), narcissistic mismanagement, which is consistently visited on us by self-interested, conniving tribes – be they red, blue, yellow, or any other hue.
And, secondly, because crises empower governments, governments like crises, to which end the parties naturally welcome them (let it not be forgotten, the parties are part of the state’s apparatus – to the extent that they’re subsidized by chump-taxpayers [Tories and Labour seeing eye to eye when it comes to such handouts]). 

ALL the problems our country suffers stem from these weaselly, scheming coteries, for it is they who have their grasping, groping hands on Britain’s tiller, and have had so for decades – thus, whatever the difficulty, commonly its upstream cause, or leastwise exacerbating factor, is the party-political system (through sins of commission or omission, by those supposed to represent us).

Moreover, always unethical, and insidiously pernicious (being socially selfish and culturally cancerous – ref. the accompanying 33 Theses for a fuller expose of party-politics), in the internet age, a party-political approach to qualified, rational and equitable  government becomes unworkable, by dint of the following trilemma: imagine a triangle whereupon each vertex are the terms Good governmentSocial mediaParty-political system – you can have any two these, but never all three, for the parties are in thrall to the shifting whims of unconsidered, knee-jerk, quickly-clicked opinion (ill-informed trends on the web – led by emotion and tittle-tattle, more than thought and fact – now, undemocratically, shape the path the parties, and so the nation takes). 

To conclude, whichever way you dress it up, or try to cloak it, there is an inherent, incontrovertible, unequivocal conflict of interest between the vast majority of citizens, and the vampirical political parties that unjustly govern them. What then is to be done?

Political Reformation (Phase I)

21st Century Legislature (Popular Parliament)

Preamble:

Most are now disaffected by party-politics – whose tired, divisive, Punch-n-Judy show, makes a mockery of democracy, for the parties are parasites who – feeding off the body politic – place the interests of their members ahead of the interests of the remaining 99.5% of the population!

The number of politically-dissatisfied people (in truth, disenfranchised people – or Us, as we schmucks are commonly known) dwarfs the combined membership of the political parties, whole electoral success belies the fact that voters only have two or so groups to choose from.

In brief, the majority of people – according to the True & Fair party, some 66% of people – are now opposed to the status quo, and find themselves politically homeless (traditional socialists and conservatives both fitting into this category, along with libertarians, nationalists, feminists and religious individuals, among a multitude of others – ergo any new legislature must be a broad church).

Good government is about wrong and right, not left or right, to which end, in keeping with common sense, the nation is better led by a body of capable, independent people, people able to think and act for themselves in the interest of the commonwealth, than it is by any – necessarily-prejudicial – self-serving political party.
Moreover, such an organic, free-thinking, authentic body would, collectively, better exude the national character than any contrived, divisive, bipolar legislature ever could (free of ideological halters, and unburdened by institutional baggage, its natural, sincere, communal wisdom – or horse sense – would lead to a better-run country).

How then to effect this? A new party is not the answer as, notwithstanding that all such entities inevitably become either parasitic or cancerous to the body politic which they afflict, the political duopoly that runs the UK has sewn up the electoral system so as to stitch up newcomers to their parties party (two being company, three being a crowd), not just in respect of their operation, but also through the media conditions they have created, the honours system they control, and the appointments they bestow.

Consequently, the two-party state we live under is unlikely to be changed by any new contestant who seeks to play our two rulers at their own game, a game they’ve been playing for a hundred-plus years, a game whose rules they’ve set and, worse yet, a game it seems they referee.

Yet though the parties may appear all powerful, in truth they are but cardboard cut-outs – the front they present being impressive, whilst their legitimacy is paper-thin, viz.: 
At the last UK general election, the Tories did brilliantly, with circa 13,900,000 people voting for them.
In organisational terms though this figure lacks significance.
The significant figure by this measure is the membership of their organisation, for sans this the said entity doesn’t exist. 
After nearly 200 years of recruiting, this sits at a much humbler c.160,000 people – 160,000 people who once again have decided the path to be taken by c.68,000,000 of their chump-countrymen

Q. Without forming a party though, how are we to beat this social disease and institute good government?

A. An Independent Assembly

Rather than forming an oxymoronic anti-party party – which, even if successful, would inevitably ape what it’d replaced – it’s better to form a group or organisation, which is here provisionally christened the Independent Assembly (or IA – unlike AI, a humane endeavour, that’s no place for machine politicians!) As will be shown below, this is the way to defeat the party-political duopoly that confronts us, not the formation of another political party, which mistakenly aims to slay Goliath in a swordfight, when all that’s necessary is clear vision, true direction and adamant pebbles, to wit: 

i). Campaign: The IA would campaign against the party-political system, rightly laying the blame for current social failings at its door, and in so doing would take the battle to the duopoly, who could then explain to the public why, for example, it’s right that 81,326 conservatives chose Ms. Liz Truss to be the PM of circa 68 million people. Or why the latter electorate, when they do get to vote, only get to vote for those chosen for them by party members, and so on and on – the inevitably joint defence of the duopoly would serve to evidence their common interest in stitching up the public through a system they’ve sewn up (see the accompanying text 33 Theses (re the parasitical, party-political system) for more criticism of the self-serving system that’s supposed to serve us). 

In this way the Us of the IA, whose constituency is colour-blind, thus wide – seeing no red or blue hues in society – would pitch itself against the Them of the EstablishmentThe Man, the Other that divisively governs Us (and who profits from Us) – the IA in effect encouraging and assisting the people to take back control from the cartel that lords it over us (and is insidiously seeking  to hijack our lives, via crises contrived or heightened to frighten us – a sinister exercise, which often creates true threats and menaces). 

ii). Political assistance: As part of its campaign, the IA would offer support, guidance and funding to those who stood as candidates in elections.
To this end the IA would impartially endorse who it thought was the most qualified, plausible and electable person from those who approached it vis-à-vis a seat – the initial object of the exercise being to make the collective body of independents large enough to elect a cabinet and Prime Minister within Parliament, then, once the said congress was a majority, introduce the legislation necessary to abolish party political activity (plus prosecute unrepentant party politicians, apparatchiks and donors – in way of deterrence, and as a popular sop).

iii). Political qualification: In respect of what the IA would require from candidates, it is tentatively suggested here that they…

  • Are aged over 40 (albeit a dispensation could be sought for wunderkind).
  • Have no previous career in party politics (talented and useful turncoats excepted).

and that they make a Declaration that they…

  • Are committed to free speech
  • Are committed to preserving, and advancing liberty
  • Are committed to the interests of actual, non-fictitious women
  • Are opposed to political factionalism
  • Are opposed to radical action (save in an emergency)

Having satisfied the IA re the latter, every candidate should then complete a concise, Formatted manifesto – with editorial assistance from the IA if they wished – wherein they summarise their position in respect of the five biggest issues of the day, and the five biggest issues of the last 25 years – both, initially, as decided by the IA – plus list the top five Private concerns they have/matters they would like to champion, such that the electorate could gauge their persuasion – all of this taking up no more than three pages of A4 (Calibri, font size 11). The candidate could then expand upon the latter at length upon their page on the IA website.

In addition to this, they should present a one-page CV, and disclose anything about themselves that a reasonable person might find controversial, extraordinary or exceptional (as with the manifesto, the candidate could then expand upon the latter at length upon their page on the IA website).

This document – the DeclarationFormatted manifesto and CV – would thus qualify their campaign, whilst their opponents would be challenged to submit the same – We framing the debate this way – which, of course, is something party-political candidates cannot honestly do, as ‘their’ mutable views are spoon-fed to them by a Head Office, which does their thinking for them (using Whips to remind them if they fail to toe the line) – this being how to choke frog-swallowing toadies!

Likewise, IA candidates could be quite clear upon their position re sexual identity and women’s rights – something their sexually confused, morally impotent opponents would also struggle to do.

iv). Corporate enforcement (in anticipation of lawful enforcement): Until such time that independent MPs gained control of Parliament, and passed laws in respect of manifestos etcetera, the constitution of the IA could be contractually upheld/enforced, in respect of undertakings, commitments, disclosure, donations and so on.

v). Political sponsorshipThe IA would look to form a pool of sponsors, whom it would seek to wed with like-minded candidates. Akin to marriage though, the IA would only permit a sponsor to back one candidate, so as to prevent any individual, body or corporation from being able to exert undue influence upon Parliament (and so screw the people).

vi). Political strategyAs well as vetting, endorsing and supporting independent candidates, the IA would actively encourage existing and historical MPs to defect and stand as independents (something many of them would always have longed to do anyway). 

To this end the IA could offer defectors a general amnesty from future prosecution – provided they rightly informed upon the gang they’d left, re Machiavellian practices, corruption and so on – such people being, like the rest of Us, misled victims prior to the IA wiping the mud from their eyes, whilst, in respect of present MPs, in the event they stood as an independent and lost their seat, the IA ought to pay them their salary, in all or part, until they gained employment that netted them the same income (up to a maximum of three years).

By virtue of these two approaches, one would imagine that the closer the independents came to controlling Parliament, the more MP defections there would be – the wise wanting to be on the right side of history (as for those who stuck to their guns, and sought to continue to mislead We, the people, their fate would be of their own making).

In respect of tactics, initially the IA should field strong, charismatic candidates against weak seats, and similarly headhunt disaffected MPs (one could wax further here re tactics, but to do so would be a distraction – in addition to which, some things are best left unwritten).

In respect of membership, the IA should look to drum up public support, plus aim to persuade Reform UKReclaimKeep Britain FreeTrue & Fair, Together and other such entities to join its ranks and, this way, consolidate opposition to the current system (the aggregate membership of the latter being greater than that of the Labour and Conservative parties).

vii). Running matesEach candidate should appoint a running mate of the opposite sex, their business post the election of the principal being to advise the same, plus attend to day-to-day constituency business – only referring matters to the MP when necessary – such that the latter is free to focus on national matters. Akin to the MP, the running mate should make public their CV, plus their endorsement of the MP’s manifesto.

viii). Parliamentary operation/electoral developmentThis falls beyond the scope of this brief overture (it being Phase II of a protracted, four Phase program – convention and reformation, being pragmatically reconciled by way of great duration).
Moreover, as it is desirable that the system evolves through practice, process, trial and error, it would be unwise to set out a rigid, procrustean constitution at the outset (and even as the project evolves, one of the edges that the IA would have over the parties would be the fact that it was beholden to neither ideology, precedent or convention). 

To touch upon the mechanics of a new approach though, once independents controlled 51% of Parliament, they could change the system however they wished to, the first order of the day being, one would posit, the abolition of political parties; whilst the second order of the day, perhaps, ought to be the launch of investigations into party-political MPs who had not defected/recanted, vis-à-vis their public conduct, to wit, to determine whether they’d ever put party or personal interests above the interests of the public (indictments re nonfeasance, misfeasance and malfeasance, being for juries to impartially decide).

Procedurally, once the majority of MPs were independents, they could elect a PM and cabinet, and thus hasten the end of the parties by dint of obsolescence (though, once reformed, Parliament could shortlist four candidates for PM that the electorate could then choose from – more of this in Phase II [questions begged by this essay, such as how independent MPs could determine policy, being answered there]).

ix). International development: Peoples all across the world are sick of inauthentic and prejudicial, duplicitous, antagonistic, duopolous politics, to which end what’s proposed here could be rolled out across the Globe, with the UK presenting a paradigm (the Mother of Parliaments birthing anew).

~ # ~

Ernest A.
September, 2022