On the surface our political system appears to be democratic and fair; however an examination of the process shows this to be highly misleading, largely due to the distortion created by the party system and those running the major groups.

In the 1990’s a small faction saw a gap developing in the political system as the traditional Labour and Conservative parties, popularly labelled left and right respectively, had polarised and moved apart. Rather than having the courage of their convictions and starting a new party as many are trying today, this group chose to manipulate the weaker of these big two, creating a massive distortion of the political landscape whereby traditional voting patterns were put aside in the hope of real change.

The increasing frustration of an ever-growing number of people has prompted some, to step forward to try and bring about the much needed modernisation to the way the political system operates in this country today, which was promised but like many other issues the government of the day have failed to deliver. As a newcomer becoming progressively more involved gaining an understanding of the way things work, I can see the masterstroke behind the cowardly, but strikingly effective ruse, to re-brand the traditional Labour Party as “New Labour”, the party of the middle ground.

This ingenious psychological move, worked on the strong hereditary ties with the “working class” by creating the misconception that the Labour Party still stood for the working man and opposed the multi-national companies that had put fear into the population, as the dogma of out and out Capitalism from the Thatcher years was taking hold.

Unfortunately we see today, that the brand “New Labour” is tainted and confused as it is neither Socialist nor Capitalist based; it is a very bad hotchpotch of both with superficially presented, socialist worded policies but blundering capitalist actions as those in power do not have the depth of business experience to deliver.

In my opinion, I believe that we have reached this situation due to the political manoeuvrings of small elite who have fogged up the base belief systems, so that choice is almost irrelevant. This has been created by the narrowing of political policies that are tailored to appeal (from all parties), to the potential "floating voter"; taking for granted that the traditional partisan voters will not change lifelong patterns, thus creating the so called "safe seat" syndrome that has led to the disastrous misuse of parliamentary privileges.

The "Blair Government" of 1997 did not contain anyone with a business background or demonstrating a successful career in creating anything; made up of Academics, Lawyers, union representatives and career politicians. Sadly this remains largely the same mix today with perhaps an increase in the career politician element in each of the big 3 parties to the detriment of the nations stewardship.

One year ago there were about 288 political parties formally listed on the electoral register for the United Kingdom, by the 11^th March 2010 when I started these notes, this had increased to 367 and by 29^th March risen again to a total of 389, a current list can be found at the link following, click on search to select all parties http://registers.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/regpoliticalparties.cfm?ec={ts%20%272010-03-31%2010%3A04%3A47%27} .

This is an increase of 101 parties registered in the last year of which 35 parties were registered in March with 7 registrations on 29^th March alone. I have detailed the listing with dates of registration at the end of these notes.

The vast majority of these parties are very small single issue groupings with a particular focus. Judging by the choice of party naming, many are protest actions and I wonder if they are serious about the political situation or merely demonstrating their dissatisfaction with the state of things.

Just over a year ago now, I was looking for an organisation that I felt represented my views with some substance behind them and not just a narrow focus group. I am not a socialist but believe strongly that national assets and interests should be managed for the benefits of the citizens of the UK and not multinational companies often fronting for foreign government institutions, particularly in the utility sectors. On the other hand, I am not an outright capitalist but believe that entrepreneurial flair and right to manage effectively is something every nation needs, to be successful.

Unfortunately I found many of the parties listed to be disaffected groups with an axe to grind in some shape or another, many being outright left or right wing, others bigoted or almost racist in nature. The majority do not have any breadth of policies and do not seem to have thought through the mechanics of being a real political party to represent a constituency.

So what is behind this clamour to register new parties? From the general feedback in the media, it is not from a deep interest in the political landscape, I would suggest more a revulsion with the behaviour of many current MP’s and the feeling of despair at the current party system which stifles new ideas and contributions.

The past success of Great Britain owes much to the foundation established by its Christian heritage. Not so much from the religious or belief system but from the structured knowledge base, learning and organisational processes along with the inherently moral foundation that is common with most religions of various denominations.

England has (for better or worse depending on view point) for more than 5 centuries, since The Act of Supremacy of 1534, had a common head of state and of national church which was separated from the government. This depth of experience in management and administration of the country is reflected in our language with the use of the term “clerical workers” who shoulder much of the responsibility for the administration of a multitude of differing tasks that make that the country tick. This infrastructure, established progressively over the decades, is inherent in the organisation and spirit of the “Civil Service” that recent governments have undermined rather than developed.

Many of the modern politicians in their clamour to appeal to everyone and upset no one, have forgotten and brushed aside the very strength of the nation that stems from this longstanding tradition of Britain and what is commonly known as its “Christian Values”. This is not a religious point, many of those (me included) who say they hold these values do not go to church. It is more a generic term for values that are believed to be inherently sound and good, accepting that the theocracy element is of little relevance to much of the population.

So to find a political party that is not too left wing, as outright socialism plainly does not work; not too right wing as it is uncaring; not bigoted; not racialist, not believing everything should be nationalised but also not agreeing that everything should be left to the mercies of capitalism; has a broad understanding of macro management whilst accepting that action is carried out at the micro level, is a very difficult entity to find.

The big parties are very quick to make false accusations against any small voice that disturbs the status quo, for example the recent government labelling of all who question mass immigration as being racist. This makes sensible debate very difficult as the small voice has no access to the might of the national media, creating the impression in the public’s mind that independents and small parties are voices in the wilderness and a wasted vote. In fact they have a substantial contribution to make, as they are not trying to curry favour with any particular group to win votes, however no mechanism exists to harness this contribution.

A recent study by the Popular Alliance of the policies of 6 smaller parties (including the Greens) showed a common ground of over 85% in themes and aims and with a little adjustment to wording, could easily be common policy statements.

Add this to the little differentiation we see between the major parties and we can see that there is massive scope for some unity in the major policies that affect the nation. So why can’t the big boys work together for the overall benefit of the UK? The answer lies in the whole party system which by its nature propagates division, dogma, adversarial competition and the “tit for tat” mudslinging that is seen regularly in PM Questions.

In business over the last two decades we have seen a massive drive to flatten management structures, empower employees at the point of delivery, modernise practises and improve efficiencies all round. Management, employee and process development have been key to changes of recent years

Compare this to the situation in our political system where those in charge do not need any formal qualifications for the job they are in power to do; have allowed the majority of their power to be usurped by an unelected foreign organisation, in effect making a large element of their work redundant; in business this would have led to massive reductions in staffing levels. Contrast this to the reality of what has happened in the UK, we have seen the growth in national assemblies, regional authorities, and a multitude of quangos, who carry out the work of our elected representatives; all adding massively to the overhead of the management of the state. In business this would be commercial suicide and heads would roll very quickly.

So why do our MP’s not see this crazy situation? Well they probably do, but it would be like Turkeys voting for Christmas to do something about it. Therefore like business and natural forces, the answer lies in a new approach; exactly what the smaller parties want to achieve. Ironically, here lies the problem.

The smaller parties are run by highly motivated individuals who passionately want to improve the country. However, they are mostly, also driving individuals in the organisations that provide their livelihood and do not have the time or financial wherewithal to devote their full, exclusive energies to make the difference to unseat the professional politicians who have the support structures that can undermine any potential threat to their existence.

Another barrier for a new candidate not supported by a party machine is there is no “Fast Track” introduction process to the political world where the negative media pressures will suddenly bear down on family and friends, focussed on the past rather than what can be done in the future. This is further exacerbated by the media requiring a party to be of a certain size before they can have a seat at the table of debate, or have a wealthy benefactor who can pump money into an initiative to gain publicity.

Maybe the argument for the political parties to be funded from the public purse would address this issue, however judged by the evidence of recent registrations, I believe that this will only encourage more frivolous parties to spring up and waste even more taxpayer’s money.

I refuse to accept that amongst the 389 parties, there cannot be a new grouping that could come together to mount a significant challenge to the big 3 over time. However we see new parties springing up every week, formed by motivated individuals who simply do not know that there are other like minded groupings out there with common aims. Which brings us back to the coverage in the media, who seem to think that the big 3 have a monopoly; this is restricting the lifeblood of publicity to embryonic organisations. I see no reason why the BBC as a public service provider, cannot run a local ½ hour programme providing a husting for local parties to outline their views on a regular basis and provide the opportunity for groups to merge and bring about change for the good of the country.

After my search for a party that is compatible with my views, I found that the Popular Alliance provided the best fit for me; I dare say that others within the 389 listed will provide a better fit for others. One of the overriding reasons for selecting to join the PA is that, inherent in their beliefs, they welcome as part of their membership, everyone regardless of race, gender, colour or creed. The only criteria are that they fervently want to improve the ongoing situation for the nation as whole, whilst maintaining what is recognised as the “British” way of life. Together with the cultural values that have attracted others to these lands over the centuries to the extent that in many forms or other, we are all mostly immigrants of some sort.

Of course the need for flexibility, logical thought, commitment, teamwork and a broadly commercial nature is a prerequisite to any successful organisation.

Pity our MP’s do not display these characteristics.

I am sure that there are many like me who would like to make a contribution to the political arena and improve the general situation by raising standards and introducing modern business practise into the system. However I fear the situation is against this.

I would welcome the opportunity to discuss matters with likeminded individuals who want to build a better Britain for us all.

Mike Ross OBE, FCMI
Business and Industry Spokesman, Popular Alliance
E: M.Ross@PopularAlliance.orgThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
M: +44 7837 477 643 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              +44 7837 477 643      end_of_the_skype_highlighting
S: mikerossuk
W: www.PopularAlliance.org