Transform will have to make important policy positions around a number of important problems. Not only are there no right answers, are we sure we have the right questions?

PROBLEM A

For a poor person, the process of becoming a Member of Parliament is financially challenging. Simply traveling to another city to attend a selection conference may involve losing a shift – if one can. It will involve travel time and costs. It may involve either payment or obligations for the care of loved ones. One is often expected to drink at the venue, and to stand your round.

Women are often judged on their appearance, much more than men are. Hair, shoes, and other clothing have to be right for a prospective MP – when one does not have the income to support that appearance.

Every invitation has to be weighed against its associated costs.

Poor people who do not live solo have to make repeated compromises about the welfare of their household and the many costs of political activity.

Once selected, the travel and subsistence costs, losses of earnings, and the sheer amount of time impose costs. Your partner is expected to appear at some events, incurring yet more costs.

Should Transform give financial help to people seeking to become a candidate? Should Transform give financial help to candidates? Once we have some MPs, the costs could be met from the levy we will make on MP salaries.

As a subset of this problem, anyone who has stood as a council candidate knows that in addition to the candidate paying their own operating expenses, there is often a hope or expectation that the candidate will contribute further to help to pay for leaflets, etc. One CLP I knew made a £1,000 grant to its Parliamentary candidate upon selection, to help a poorer person be able to operate as a candidate. A wealthy candidate could accept the grant, and then donate it back to the party, but a poorer person did not donate. Should the same happen with council elections?

I think it important that Transform contribute to elections from central funds, because otherwise a cash strapped campaign and its candidate will suffer.

PROBLEM B

There are years where despite the millions of Conservative voters in West Yorkshire, West Yorkshire has no Conservative MPs. Some years, despite the millions of Labour voters in Kent, Kent has no Labour MPs. The Liberal Democrats do worse at every General Election than they should. In 1951, Labour gained more votes than the Conservatives, but the Conservatives had a House of Commons majority.

In most UK constituencies the result of the election is a foregone conclusion. For much of the population, their vote is irrelevant. This is not good for democracy.

Proportional Representation (PR) is an answer. Even if we have regional elections, as we did for the European Parliament, there would not be absolute fairness.

Denmark has a national system. So does Israel. After each election there is a protracted period of negotiation, producing a result that favours the centre parties more than they deserve.

PR tends to splinter parties, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

Assembling a coalition, and maintaining a coalition government, is enormously time consuming.

On difficult issues a small party may have disproportionate power.

Is it really right that government after government rules without its policies or its composition ever being put to the people for approval?

Is government by perpetual plebiscite any better? It is a recipe for inconsistency.

PROBLEM C

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority.” (Lord Acton)

Many British scandals are based upon a sense of entitlement. MPs and councillors are translated to powers and opportunities that normal people never see.

If you spend years and decades being bowed and scraped to, it is only human to think this is your entitlement.

How do we stop our Left Labour elected politicians turning out like many of the others?

Suggestions:

-two terms limit as a MP or councillor without a break

-poor pay / only national average pay as a MP

-requirement to spend a month a year doing manual or “menial” work

-Regular (annual?) votes of approval by the constituency voters. In which case, is the two terms suggestion better or unnecessary?

PROBLEM D

There are many oppressed groups in our society. Women, ethnic minorities, the disabled, carers, the poor, the elderly, the sexually unorthodox, those living in stress or living after stress, the unfit and obese, and the poor all have difficulty playing their part in society.

We as a party in Government will use the power of the state to help.

Until then, how should Transform make it easier for the oppressed to be truly part of Transform?