Putting my money where my mouth is, I stood in the
1997 General Election, at
A year later, to prove it was no fluke, a similar campaign was conducted at the Local Election in my ward (Redbridge Roding Ward) attracting 3% of the votes cast. Thanks again to those who voted for an honest campaign.
In view of the self-interest of the large political parties, this is indeed an achievement. One only has to consider the immorality of the TAX LAWS that favour political parties to conclude that the system IS CORRUPT.
Enough said. I will continue to show up such corruption whenever it arises.
Had there been any financial support, then almost certainly, I would have declared a positive stand for myself as an INDEPENDENT candidate for LONDON's MAYOR.
In 2001, when the General Election was hinted at being on May 3, I could not resist in having another go. After all, May 3 is my birthday, so I stood again. This time it was on my then home patch of ILFORD NORTH.
After the Budget statement of March 2002, I wrote to the Health Minister Alan Milburn) on 8 July 2002 about the proposed "Health Guru".
As I had always been aware of the waste in the various industries, especially the Health Service, I considered that a better work structure of the top-heavy pyramid ought to be attacked. This would release funds to be spent where it was most necessary: at the bottom end – with doctors and nurse. Not at the top with administrators building their empires. I was ignored.
On 17 January 2003, I wrote to various news media about Traffic Lights:
Is it beyond the wit of London to have a clock on top of traffic lights to let pedestrians and motorists know just how many seconds the lights will be at red/green? It is used in Istanbul, and I would have thought it could work here.
The local press, to my knowledge published this positive idea.
On 11 February 2003, following an "appearance" on Johnnie Walker's Mystery Voice section, I updated my website. This latest point to make is that with the current media interest in refusing to accept the current Prime Minister's attempt to foist a war upon us, that this is reminiscent in how the United States eventually withdrew/lost the Vietnam War. With so many of its own citizens decrying that war, the publicity, the Vietcong and Co appeared to be content that this was a war that their enemy did not have the stomach for. In other words: "A losers’ charter". I have, recently been stating that I would love to see a cartoonist picturing Tony Blair leading from the front saying: "this way, men". Only to see, on looking over his shoulder, no one following him. Most of the media portray the prospect of war as being about oil. Has no one ever considered that George Bush SENIOR is influencing George W JUNIOR?
In April 2003, a Local Election was called at Barkingside following the death of a local councillor.
In May 2005, a General Election – Ilford North
Local Council Election 4 May 2006 – Roding Ward
May 2010, a General Election – Leyton & Wanstead
May 2005 General Election – Manifesto
"Election 2010 Independent Voice"
"Election 2010 Leyton & Wanstead".
General Election 6 May 2010 – Leyton and Wanstead Constituency
The magnet of despair over the poor choice offered to the public spurred me to stand again. This time the history of Leyton and Wanstead beckoned.
Why Leyton & Wanstead?
1. Its History
Back in 1965, Patrick Gordon-Walker was foisted upon this constituency. He had been defeated in the General Election of 1964, and as a result, the then (Labour) Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, had wanted him to be his Foreign Secretary. So a By-Election on what was considered a "safe" Labour seat was created, by "kicking upstairs", into the House of Lords, the long-term Member for Leyton, Reg Sorensen. The people of Leyton rejected this, and a sensation resulted.
2. MP's Expenses Scandal
Secondly, the existing Member, Harry Cohen, was revealed in the Press (March 2009) to have claimed a colossal sum (£104,701 over five years) in a claim for "Additional Costs Allowance". This system was designed for Members of Parliament to claim for a second home in a Parliamentary Constituency, if the Member did not actually live in the Constituency. That latter point is, in itself, a slur on the Representation of the People Act of 1918, whereby an individual is elected to serve his Geographical Area.
What better place to deserve an honest representative, not tarnished by any financial assistance from Head Office?
Once again the Party System pumped money into all areas.
The Media, yet again, ignored what Independents were attempting to do.
The structure of an Election appears to be that the Electorate is brainwashed into thinking that they need to vote for a party rather than as the Representation of the People Act of 1918 states: the individual. After all, when an election is announced, the Returning Officer says: "I hereby declare that [Mr/Mrs/Miss, etc] is hereby elected to serve the constituency". The officer does not state that "The [so and so] Party is elected".
I was invited to two public platforms: both arranged by the local churches. I am, and always will be, grateful for the Ministers of Religion who opened their doors to host these events.
One of the points that came out in the second public platform debate, was:
"have you any experience in running a business, and what would you and your party do to help small businesses?"
My reply was that the church that we were in was actually in the same road as my own accountancy practice was situated in, back in 1979, so I was well aware of small business, as this was the back-bone of my income. Secondly, I was determined to show up the unfairness of the so-called petrol fuel duty escalator. This method increased the cost of fuel almost every six months, and only added to the costs of putting goods into the shops.
This point was to prove, once again, that I had pinpointed an area sensitive to the real public – but sadly over-looked by the media.
As ever, I was out and about trying to meet as many people as possible. Their politeness, and apparent enthusiasm was encouraging.
In four General Elections, this was the most "fun" that I had, as it seemed that there was a "buzz" around the prospect of being part of a "David against Goliath" action.
The records will show that my vote was the lowest that I had achieved in the four General Elections that I had contested: 80. That figure could be "spun" to say that at least I made a difference to those that voted for me. I am not like a political spinner, as that is directly against my intentions.
When one looks at the way Election Campaigns are conducted, we see that:
Nominations are "invited".
Each applicant has to get the signatures of, at least, a mere 10 persons, who are validly on the Register of Electors.
A deposit (of £500 in cash) has to be deposited at the place where the Nomination Papers are to be handed in. The cash deposit is forfeited if the candidate does not receive one-eighth (12.5% of the total votes cast).
The candidate is then able to spend an amount restricted to the number of people in the constituency. Often in a large constituency (say 60,000), this can be quite generous. Financial Records of amount spent (and received), have to be kept, as within a short time after the result of the election, detailed forms have to be returned to the Returning Officer.
There is some remission in that the Royal Mail are obliged to deliver the Election Addresses ("Flyers") free to each household on the Electoral Register. Sadly, after checking with some of the persons known to me that lived in the Constituency, they informed me that, although they looked out for mine, none were delivered. Quizzically, when I posed this to the relevant authorities, they assured me that they had been delivered. Who does one have more credence?
The way elections are funded
This is where an analysis should be focussed.
We are assailed by the expression "free and fair" elections.
But are they really?
Free? They are open to anyone who wants to go through the paperwork of nominations – but there is a financial cost that you have to meet yourself if you are not within a Party.
Fair? Unless you are in a Political Party, this is patently not so. The Parties spend monies on backing each of its candidates. Thus the expression "The Whip" really means that "we will support you" rather than insinuating that the taskmaster controls you.
Party Funding is, perhaps, the root of all evil in a true free and fair election. It is self-interested persons who donate huge amounts of cash to political parties. No-one is a true donor without having a vested interest. Therefore it is submitted that an examination of this trail will lead to some interesting results.
How candidates are chosen
It is Head Office of the Political Parties that interview prospective candidates. They are then placed on a list that is circulated to the local areas for them to eventually make their choice. Presumably, each candidate is expected to almost swear allegiance to the party-line with everything that is handed down to them. To me, this smacks of Nazism, and I have on more than one occasion, told anyone who runs this line, so. Needless to say, this concluded interviews each time. Such is the price one has to pay for altruism.
Legally trained candidates
I also ascertained as to why so many candidates with legal training are foisted upon the public. I was told, it is because they give a good account of themselves in public. For anyone who has experience with dealing with the legal profession, they will find it is a cartel, whereby each protects its own, and any body of individuals who are supposed to administer discipline over its members is never truly independent.
Consider, also, the facts that Parliament makes laws. Laws ought to be for the protection of the people. Instead, they are bread for the lawyers to feed upon. The public are treated like cannon-fodder.
In this area, when anyone claims that "it is against the law", I ask them: "Whose law? – Man-kinds? Put yourself in a jungle, are you going to stop to debate "the law" if you are going to be killed by a person – or an animal?"
Serving the people
So there you have it, you, the Public, are given the chance every five years (maximum) to mark a cross against the person that you want to be your spokesperson in Westminster's Parliament: supposedly the Mother of Democracy.
In reality, you have been brain-washed, by the Media, to expect no better than to vote for the Robot in Party Colours. That person has been foisted upon you by the Party, with the funds form self-interested groups, who have chosen to use you as a passport to presume (erroneously) that you have given it carte-blanche to walk over you – and to come back (up to) five years later, for you to do it all again.
We do not "elect governments", as the Media wrongly announce. We are supposed to elect area representatives to be our voice in parliament.
The act of parliament was originally termed the Representation of the People Act (1918, later amended into 1983). I humbly submit, that the Act should be renamed the Manipulation of the People. I would appreciate any views that show that I am not alone in this, and have not been seduced by The Emperor's New Clothes syndrome that has existed for so long
|John Robert Cryer||Labour||17511||44%|
|Farooq Qureshi||Liberal Democrat||11095||28%|
|Graham Richard Wood||UK Independence Party||1080||3%|
|Jim Clift||British National Party||561||1%|
|Sonika Kiran Bhatti||British National Party||342||1%|
|Martin Levin||Independents Federation UK||80||0%|
Joining a PARTY showed the more positive result in the Local Election of 22 May 2014:
|Martin Levin||UK Independence Party||915||11%||Not Elected|
|Jeffrey G Blay||Labour||700||8%||Not Elected|
|Martin John Dore||Labour||628||8%||Not Elected|
|Neil John Weeks||Labour||588||7%||Not Elected|
|Joan Margaret Carder||Liberal Democrat||262||3%||Not Elected|
|None of the Above||Independent||204||2%||Not Elected|
|Kathleen Gillian Mudie||Liberal Party||169||2%||Not Elected|
|Manny Thain||Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition||105||1%||Not Elected|
General Election 7 May 2015 Regrettably, it was decided not to stand in the fifth consecutive General Election, as it was accepted that INDEPENDENTS do not receive the coverage that the PARTIES do