Evidence submitted by Peter Hooper
I stood as an Independent Candidate in the 2005
General Election for the Windsor CC seat being vacated by the
Honourable Michael Trend MP, and I would like to make the following
points:
1. There is no mechanism for voters to remove
a sitting MP even if he/she no longer has the confidence of their
electorate. Mr Trend announced his decision to stand down at the
next election in January 2003.
2. In cases like this and/or where the current
MP has announced his decision to retire, the party selection process
kicks in well in advance of the formal General Election. There
was much speculation over the summer of 2003 as to the new Conservative
candidate with the decision finally being made in October 2003.
3. Immediately a new candidate has been
selected the party machinery kicks in to promote their new candidate
by all means possible. This would include both newspaper and TV
appearances being engineered by the central party machinery.
4. At a local level the Conservative candidate
was given a weekly newspaper slot to promote himself, which ran
from 12 December 2003 for 40 weeks until 10 September 2004. My
own request for a comparable weekly column was refused.
5. During this phoney war period leading
up to the formal announcement of the General Election, local public
meetings/photo opportunities for party candidates were either
set up and/or rigged for electioneering purposes and well reported
in the local papers.
6. Because accommodation costs are exempt
from a candidates election expenses I believe some candidates
rent local accommodation well in advance of the General Election
for the sole purpose of promoting their candidacy. It is unclear
to me who precisely is funding this expensive operation.
7. The long phoney war prior to the May
2005 General Election clearly benefited candidates from the main
political parties as they could bath in the reflected glory of
the tens of millions of pounds spent on campaign advertising and
the "presidential" qualities of their leaders (one of
whom later admitted to being an alcoholic!).
8. The short official campaign announce
on the 5 April 2005 leading to a General Election on 5 May 2005
minimised the period all candidates are supposed to be treated
equitably and this seriously disadvantaged the opportunities of
anyone wishing to stand as an Independent Candidate, particularly
as much campaigning is actually done via weekly local newspapers.
9. Postal voting further encroaches into
the short official campaign as many voters will have already made
up their minds as for whom they are going to vote, and return
their ballot slips immediately.
10. An electoral system that allows the
Prime Minister to call a General Election at any time during the
possible five year duration of a Parliament clearly allows the
ruling party to obtain the maximum electoral advantage, whether
deserved or not.
CONCLUSION
The political parties need their wings clipped
in terms of party funding, expenses and election rules:
(a) In order to avoid future allegations
of cash for honours there should be a fully elected 2nd chamber,
otherwise someone will always find a way around the "rules".
(b) Parliaments should run for a fixed term
to avoid opportunism.
(c) No public funding should be made available
to any candidate or party unless all candidates are to be treated
equitably in all regards.
(d) Election rules and expenses should be
extensively reviewed in the light of modern practices with the
aim of ensuring all candidates are treated equitably. Surely no
candidate from a political party should have any advantage over
any other candidate?
I hope that my comments may be of assistance
to your esteemed committee, the composition of which I note is
made up of appointees from the main political parties.
Peter Hooper
March 2006
| 
