大象传媒

Dear Newsnight

I'm sure you will feature tonight Clare Short's decision to become an Independent MP and this story follows on from your programme yesterday about Independents in Parliament. There is also the tie-in with the stories you list on the website for tonight, in that Clare Shorts decision is directly linked to our invasion of Iraq which was clearly against the democratic wishes of the people of this country.

So all the issue of Independents, Iraq and where we go in terms of our democracy all seem to be connected, I hope it is ok to post the following.

One argument in favour of political parties is that they give some idea to electors what a candidate stands for or will support on a particular issues. We all know where Clare Short stands on the main issues but it will be harder for voters to know with lesser known figures who have received less publicity or with people entering politics for the first time.

- however the problem seems to be that the party label now misleads as much as informs electors?

People may vote for a candidate on the assumption that they support certain issues, but a party will often implement policies that are different to the views expressed in the manifesto, which can be spun any way in any case.

Political parties often seem more like a franchise. I know that some conservatives for example have stood as Independents when their party was out of favour or even I suspect have joined more popular parties, and this seems to apply for all political parties. The political class often join the party where they will have most success. This can work against a highly talented individual with scruples who doesn鈥檛 do this and consequently doesn鈥檛 make it to Government, and we as much as them are the losers from this.

Political parties can have the same brand but the sort of washing powder on sale seems to vary around the country. So if a person votes for the ultra-violet party for example in one area, locally they may implement policies which are different to those in another area, and if it makes it to Government what policies win through? Not all ultra-violetee supporters will be happy. So haven鈥檛 some being basically misled by the party label?

So a person votes for a candidate and finds a government implementing policies they would never ever have supported. Who would have thought a Labour Government would have supported a war mongering aggressive foreign policy supporting the interests of other countries, attempting in my view to steal oil from Iraq while looking away as people 鈥�(literally millions in the Congo) are murdered and raped.

I feel particularly betrayed as I was the national campaign worker for the 1997 tactical voting campaign that helped put across the need for tactical voting to defeat the Conservative government, hence named Get Rid of Them or Grot, and I and others worked our socks off to achieve this.

I think the way forward for our country will be to make our democracy a reality and this can be achieved. The first thing anyone not wanting to see this will be to try to demoralise people who want this, so they give up but we must be resolute.

The payoff would be huge, as the previous poster remarked with a real democracy the money earmarked for trident would be used on healthcare and pensions and we would not attack countries like Iraq.

Tony Benn said that the reason people do not vote is they feel they d o not have power. Sadly that鈥檚 true but this can be changed. Today Clare Short became an independent. I think the way forward will include a decline of the political parties or at least MPs having more of a personal mandate as for example could be achieved by allowing them to modify their entry on the ballot paper as for example an Independent (political party) member for (town) ie that they would have a specific mandate to vote independently. If MPs chose not to list themselves as such voters could at least ask why?

They would have something they could use against the trained bullies of the whips office who frustrate the wishes of voters.

As for people standing as Independents directly it might be possible to have a mandatory pro-forma list of questions that the candidate must answer to stand for office and that their replies would be easily available to electors. They would need to give an answer deemed understandable by returning officers on the major issues from defence to immigration so that people are not misled into voting for example for someone with racist views but who chooses to hide this to improve their chances in the election.

It would also encourage more people to stand in their own right if the 拢500 deposit required to stand for Parliament was scrapped and for example 40 nominations from voters was required instead 鈥搉o easy matter. This deposit does deter some from standing who may not have 拢500 to lose if they do not get a certain number of votes or might prefer to use it for example to help those in need.

It is quite scandalous that the Electoral Commission have recommended that the deposit should go but the Government who sadly have a vested interest in limiting choice at the ballot box have refused to do this. The deposit also affects the ability of new or smaller parties to field candidates across the country. My late father who stood for the Liberals a few times in General Elections used to pay the deposit himself.

The next move towards encouraging more Independents in Elections might be the local council elections and the advantage is that there is no cost to stand, and it requires like Parliamentary elections the support of 10 electors. So perhaps people who care about this might contact their local council election team and find out how they could do this.

There is a bit more about Independents and the possible decline of political parties on the website www.morechoice.org.uk

One thing, I have been in too many campaigns to see how they can be undermined. People need to keep focused on the issues and keep personal attacks on those they oppose to the minimum. This really puts people off. For the tactical voting campaign I simply had to shut many of the activists out and have the phoned diverted directly my home, operating almost a mandelsonian approach to stop people saying nutty things to the media.

Keep focused, try to keep your personal animosity towards those you oppose to a minimum because it will discredit you, not them and this is what they want you to do.

It will be necessary to use guile and cunning to achieve this. We need to use Trojan horses to improve our democracy. The inmates will not necessarily unbolt the door.

A huge issue is the personality type who go into politics. We need to use equal opportunities to make it more possible for more ordinary balanced people with balanced lives to stand. Not those who are prepared to neglect their families or careers to seek office.

The problem with Mrs Pritchard is when she said

鈥淚 can do a better job鈥�

鈥淚, I, I, I, I !鈥�

The head of government must be more like the Chairman of the board.
They must know that the world does not revolve around them
They should not ask anyone to do something they would not do
They should be aware that we are all equal
It is only the grace of God that separates us from being anything or anyone else
Everyone is important and we must tap into the huge pool of ideas and talent in our country
A lot of politicians seem to need the attention and power of office to feel real or complete as people
We need more people in Government who do not have this emotional need

We can make our democracy work. We can do it.

Good luck

Best wishes

Bob Goodall

The brief item on the threat of a Russian gas shortage in 2010 gets closer to the heart of the global energy problem than any other recent piece. The reason? A physical shortfall in supply will be caused by lack of investment, not lack of resources and whatever anybody does today or tomorrow to put that right, it will be too late to bring on significant new capacity by 2010. It takes time as well as money. More startling perhaps, is that a global oil shortage is likely for exactly the same reason (the earth has abundant energy resources if we pay enough and wait long enough). Why would OPEC invest in more capacity that is needed and recreate the surplus they have spent 30 years trying to eliminate? They won't and neither will the private oil industry or even consumer governments kill the golden goose of high prices. Why not? They make money from high price and shortage and the consumer comes last. The same syndrome is true for power generation. The chances of a serious and prolonged crisis between 2009 and 2012 are high.

Newsnight is getting closer than most to the root of the real problems in Iraq. Does it not seem now that Iraqis were better off under Saddam Hussein as compared with now? Talk of getting out and withdrawal, and comparisons with Vietnam tends to sidestep the real issue. Bush and Blair should come out with their hands up. Immediate withdrawal to bases, with offers to support the government when needed, for a finite time.

A very good programme. Relevant on many levels. Really appreciated the coherence and attention to context. Thank you.

I agree that this was a good programme although it could have done with a little more background information for the Finnish summit / Russian gas piece: It did make me cringe to hear a British delegate call for greater EU unity to face down Russia.

- Germany relies on Russian imports for 40% for its gas supplies, which account for 39% of total gas consumption
- Gas imorts from Russia in France represent 31% of total gas imports accounting for 26% of total gas consumption
(see sources [1]&[2] below)
- Britain, according to Paul Mason's report, only for 2%.

Is it really that surprising that they wish to get some assurances from Moscow? Remember the outcry in Britain when the government had to admit that it was now importing gas for the first time in 2004? I think it is very easy for the UK to call for a united European position, I'm not at all convinced it would do so if it was in Germany's or France's shoes.

It is very difficult to negotiate let alone do business with companies or rather states/governments who in the past have made it so blatandly clear that their national interest comes before any contractual obligations or business deals. Given Russia's refusal to allow foreign investors access to its pipelines and given its excrutiatingly poor record on civic freedoms and human rights this is a tricky situation indeed.

SOURCES:
[1]
[2]

A nicely judged, and well shot piece on Panama. I particularly like the way Newsnight mostly avoids the nasty habit some others have of using supposedly "same-class" English voices when voicing-over the translation of interviewees. Thus canal-side Panamanian residents did not get dubbed as, say Geordies.

Some greater explanation of how they plan to build such a large canal alongside the currently busy one, without any shut down, would have been worthwhile. Or will we have to do without the canal for a few years? And what precisely are the economics whereby the country is presently in poverty but will be rich with a wider canal? Are they currently losing a lot of income they had before ships got larger? If so, are those ships currently taking trade, and wealth to other ports on the long way around? If so, what will happen to them when the canal is widened? And what is the comparative situation with the Suez canal? Is that wide enough?

On News24 over the weekend there was a Straight Talk interview with Lord Patton (former EU Commissioner), during which he expressed outrage that the Ukraine is not on track for EU membership. "What do they have to do to show they are Europeans?" he mused. But that would complete the exclusion of Russia from the EU, with tough EU borders directly with Russia. What a way that would be to treat our main energy supplier, a country long proud of being both European and eastern: vast, multi-ethnic, multicultural - much as is modern Europe.

My point is that the elephant on the conference tables seems to me that bringing Russia on track to EU membership would likely solve most of the issues raised in the piece on Russia and European energy needs. The human rights, the regulations, the investment, the loyalty, the energy supply.

Is Europe's energy supply at risk because the Bush White House wants Russia excluded from Europe, hedged around by EU and NATO members, made to feel excluded and inferior? Is that in Europe's, or the world's best interests? How long will this remain undiscussed, so conveniently for the US?

EU-Russia energy conference: On News24 over the last weekend there was a Straight Talk interview with Lord Patton (former EU Commissioner), during which he expressed outrage that the Ukraine is not on track for EU membership. "What do they have to do to show they are Europeans?" he mused. But that would complete the exclusion of Russia from the EU, with tough EU borders directly with Russia. What a way that would be to treat our main energy supplier, a country long proud of being both European and eastern: vast, multi-ethnic, multicultural - much as is modern Europe.

My point is that the elephant on the conference table seems to me to be that bringing Russia on to the track to EU membership would likely solve most of the issues raised in the piece. The human rights, the regulations, the investment, the loyalty, the energy supply.

Is Europe's energy supply at risk because the Bush White House wants Russia excluded from Europe, hedged around by EU and NATO members, made to feel excluded and inferior? Is that in Europe's, or the world's best interests? How long will this remain undiscussed?

How strange, I post a comment at 1.04pm on the 25th, and when it hasn't appeared 22 hours later, post a re-edited version, and then both get approved and appear together, making me loook silly. Would the moderators care to share the rules of the game they are playing?