Jury Team

The Jury Team has been up and running for a while now. How do you think it is going? Any ideas for improvement?

In my view, The Jury Team is a brilliant idea - and the timing is, of course, just perfect. But, as a strategic marketing and communications specialist, recognised in the Campaign magazine 'A List' of Who's Who in Marketing and Advertising, I do think there is a risk of The Jury Team being seen as another 'Party' thus compromising the 'independence' of the Independent candidates. This is a difficult communications challenge to overcome.

The first step would be to recognise the very existence and importance of this issue because voters simply will not vote for parties or candidates who confuse them.

Having recognised the existence and importance of the issue, it would be possible to explain The Jury Team concept more clearly on the website and in the media.

For example the Home Page of the website says:

"The Jury Team is a political movement created with the goal of making politics more accessible, politicians more accountable and political institutions more transparent."

I wonder if the following might be clearer:

"The Jury Team is a political organisation that has been established to promote and support more independent candidates in Europe and Westminster because we believe independent candidates are more likely to bring professional expertise to British politics and vote for what they believe in - rather than sit on their hands for fear of being whipped and losing their party political careers".

Beat that!

spot on.  may i use that on my first radio interview tomorrow.  it is a small community radio

I agree absolutely with that. This is a movement rather than a political party. What can come out of it is a radical change in the political system.

Thanks, Graham. Sorry if I am too late for your show but I hope you felt free to use my argument.

And thanks to you too, Dominic. I am not sure The Jury Team is fulfilling its potential because of the confusion I have identified above. If I may, I thought it would be worth my developing my thoughts a little further:

Having established The Jury Team as an 'enabler' for independent candidates (rather than 'a Party'), one has to ask the question of what is the benefit of this?

I think the answer is twofold:

1. For the electorate, it must follow that independent candidates are more likely to have career experiences to bring to the party (sic). This would raise the level of the debate in the Chamber, because you would have real experts presenting specialist points of view. If, in turn, these expert views were to be voted on by other independent candidates then not only would the level of debate increase, but each issue would be decided on its own merits (rather than party political allegiances). Lord Ramsbotham made this point about the House of Lords at the first Jury Team launch at Millbank.

2. For the prospective independent candidate, there are two 'barriers to entry' that The Jury Team can already demonstrate it can overcome. One of these is rational: what is the procedure? how do I stand? how much will it cost? what forms do I have to fill in and by when? etc....

The other barrier for a prospective independent candidate is emotional: what will my friends think of me? will I come over a bit sad, a bit whacky, a bit Screaming Lord Sutch? will my neighbours cross the road when they see me coming? am I ready to 'come out' politically etc.....

The Jury Team can help overcome both of these barriers. The first, by providing 'Candidate Guidelines' with personal endorsements by previously successful independent candidates. The second by the very existence of all the other Jury Team candidates ('you are not alone'!) and by the wider publicity of The Jury Team itself.

So, a change of emphasis please:

1. The Jury Team is a political group whose objectives are to encourage, enable and support independent candidates to stand for the European and UK Parliaments.

2. By achieving more independent MPs and MEPs, the quality and integrity of UK politics will be radically transformed (for the reasons stated above and by Sir Paul Judge this morning and on your website).

3. If you would like to stand as an an independent candidate for your region or constituency we, The Jury Team will help you! You will, of course, be expected to agree to agreed principles.

As stated in my first blog above, if the electorate perceive The Jury Team as some sort of 'Party', they will be confused, are more likely to revert to type and they won't tick our box! So please delete 'The Jury Team Proposals' on the website and replace this phrase with ''The Jury Team Benefits' or even 'The Jury Team Principles'.

The Jury Team must not be perceived as a Political Party - or it will be doomed. It will only take one soundbite by one candidate for other politicians from other parties to take that soundbite and apply it to the whole 'Party'. You cannot afford to let this happen. You must make it clear that the sole objective of 'The Jury Team' is to encourage independent MPs and MEPs and thereby, necessarily diversity of opinions.

Finally, Martin, if you are reading this - when you ask your followers to complete the 'My Profile' section, you ask "Who do you normally vote for?" and then list the parties. Well, like Esther Rantzen, I'm a floater - I don't 'normally' vote for any of them! In fact, I have voted for three of them and am still dissatisfied. That's why I've joined The Jury Team.

You could think of changing the question to "Who have you voted for on the past?" or add "Are you a floater?" or drop it altogether. We're trying to look forwards not backwards. I thought that was the whole point.

End of!

I'd agree with the above. I spend about 50% of my time with the media re-iterating that Jury Team is not a party but a support group, but reporters still get it wrong. They're so conditioned into thinking of the X party or the Y party that it just slips easily off the tongue to wrongly identify us as the Jury Party. I don't want to spend so much time explaining the background, I want to spend time explaining what I and Jury Team will actually do.

Unfortunately, the piece aired on BBC Scotland today focused entirely on my description of Jury Team and everything else was edited out.

Hugh,

You talk a lot of sense, but you are addressing the converted here, who understand our concept. It has been amazing the difficulty much of the media have had in grasping the basic Jury Team concept. I think Alan's post encompasses this extremely well.

Essentially, the media and the public are programmed to think in terms of parties. When explaining we are not a party we are faced with a slightly perplexed expression, with the best attempt and understaning so far being the self-contradictory description of us as "anti-party party". They find the possibility of a political organisation being involved in an election without being a party inconceivable.

We are trying to break our project down into extremely simple wording that even these media hacks can understand. Hopefully, the coverage of our launch this morning will finally get it right.

When I was canvassing for the primary I told my potential text voters that Jury Team was a 'political movement' and they understood the concept straightaway...Also think Hugh speaks a lot of sense . Gets my vote!

The more last week went by, the more annoyed I became by Alexander Chancellor's piece in The Guardian on 22 May (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/22/mps-expenses-bnp-queen-telegraph). From the headline on, Chancellor showed that he has completely missed the point of The Jury Team.

As I have tried to argue above, The Jury Team is about 'independence'. The potential benefits of independent MPs and MEPs are about much more than their "being people in white suits trumpeting their honesty". It is about each issue being argued and voted for on its own merits by independent people whose vote cannot automatically be counted on by the political party to which they belong.

Chancellor also says "the aim of The Jury Team is to flood parliament with goody-goodies". Where did he get this idea from? Exactly the opposite is the case. If anything, the aim of The Jury Team must be to flood Parliament (I wish!) with independent people who care about their own communities more than their political party, who are prepared to fight for local and national issues based on their own judgement, who are prepared to stand up and be counted for what they believe in - and, by the way, people who are prepared to volunteer for a David and Goliath battle not only against the established political parties (who would doubtless prefer to merge together than for The Jury Team to succeed) but also, it now seems, against the unthinking (and party politically-aligned) national media. How does this make independent candidates 'goody-goodies'?

But what REALLY annoys me is Chancellor's arrogance as to the good sense and judgement of the British electorate: "It's ridiculous to pretend that this random principle of jury selection could be used as a basis for effective cabinet government" (I wish again!). Does he really think that good British voters cannot tell the late, lamented Screaming Lord Sutch from serious independent candidates? This is the 'jury' principle for which Sir Paul  Judge has been arguing - a complete trust in the good judgement of good people.

Finally, how can Chancellor say "I'm all for booting out the most corrupt MPs, as voters may very well do in any case at the next election, but the idea of replacing them with people whose main characteristic is a conceited belief in their own integrity is very lowering. Martin Bell was irritating enough; to have Esther Rantzen in parliament would be unbearable"? Martin Bell was a particular man fighting a particular issue for which grown up people in a particluar constituency voted him into Parliament. As to Chancellor's comment about Esther Rantzen, well I suspect that, if she should stand, most people in Luton South would call that i) plain rude and ii) nothing to do with Alexander Chancellor. Like the rest of us, they probably think we have had had enough of Chancellors.

Including this Alexander one.

Hugh,

Someone told me that we can't canvass on Thursday as it's Election Day..what's the truth on that? Anyone know?

Surely Martin Searle must know the answer to this one, Lucy.

You most certainly are allowed to canvass on election day. We will be!

However, you are not allowed to canvass inside or too close to a polling station. As long as you are not standing right next to any entrance to a polling station, you should be ok. But, if you are asked to move by anyone official do not argue too much, as this is a rule that is quite rigorously enforced I am told!

Back to Hugh's useful contribution earlier that included:

2. For the prospective independent candidate, there are two 'barriers to entry' that The Jury Team can already demonstrate it can overcome. One of these is rational: what is the procedure? how do I stand? how much will it cost? what forms do I have to fill in and by when? etc....

Can we have some guidance on the 'rational'? what is the procedure? how do I stand? how much will it cost? what forms do I have to fill in and by when? :-)

Congratulations to all of you at The Jury Team on a great campaign. In a way, the expenses�scandal has been a blessing and a curse. A blessing because it has generated a huge public outcry. A curse because it has dominated the media to an extent that is has been harder than ever for The Jury Team to achieve due 'share of voice'.

The Party Political Broadcast was especially impressive. The benefits of Independence came through loud and clear and the candidates all came over as genuine, honest, sensible people. Well done to all.

Martin, in response to your post of 20 May, I know I have deliberately kept my comments above to 'within' the Jury Team rather than on Facebook or more public forums.

This is because I have wanted my views to be seen to be constructive rather than critical and I have tried to help the 'converted' (your word) communicate a clear message in the face of enormous media clutter.

I do mean this and I offered my professional strategic communications experience and skills to the Jury Team - for free and because I believe in your (our) principles - the day after the initial launch in March.

I have three further comments which, deliberately, I have not made until today because they would have been too late - and seen as critical - if I had made them earlier.

So, in case I get run over by a bus before the General Election (you wish!):

1. Whether in the midst of a national debate such as the expenses scandal and, now, calls from the Cabinet�for the resignation of the Prime Minister, The Jury Team while always fight for media attention against the more established parties. The need for CLARITY in communicating our benefits is absolutely key.

I believe a wholesale review of The Jury Team messaging is justified (sic).

2. The billboard posters were visually striking and clearly designed�but the three benefits of The Jury Team were "Democracy, Accountability, Transparency".

I would argue that there is a narrow dividing line between "Accountability" and "Transparency". Furthermore, these claims are all going to be made by all the other parties, whether or not the electorate believe them (the parties that is).

Sadly, for the reasons outlined in all my posts above, the word "Independence" did not feature in the billboard posters (which are still up on The Jury Team website Home Page).

I do believe "Independence, Democracy, Accountability" would have been a stronger message.

3. Having voted for The Jury Team yesterday, the big yellow Ballot Paper�was enormous! Again,�there are a lot of�other 'parties' out there.

Again, I'm afraid,�it was difficult for "Jury Team" to stand out from the crowd.�

Is there a case for a name change to "The Independent Jury Party"?

Other supporters views would be appreciated.

In the meantime, to all of you in The Jury Team 'office', whoever and wherever you are, well done again for achieving so much in so little time. You - and all the candidates -�did a FANTASTIC job.

The Jury Team�is a great, visionary�concept. If we can communicate its benefits a tad more clearly, as per all the comments I have made in my other posts above, then Independence, and Independents�and all the benefits thereof�will have all the greater chance of success at the Generla Election - and truly challenge and change the political chaos we are in.

I remain at your service. I would love to help.

Hugh etc, I agree with a lot of what you have to say but yesterday, when megaphoning my way around London on the Battle bus, I became aware that the use of the word 'Independent' could confuse us with the UK Independence party...and also with the wish for 'Independence' from Europe...in which camp I am not definitely not sitting. I am unashamedly pro-Europe and pro change within Europe and to give Britain a stronger, united voice in Europe. So how does one communicate those wishes with this word 'Independence, or even Independent(s)?'. Personally I like the word 'Progress'...I suppose what we mean by independence is that we are not anyone's poodle..we are incorruptible...How about the White party? The Persil party? The anti-poodle party? .....!!!

Good point, Lucy. Bowled middle stump. I'm right with your position re the Independence Party. Perhaps "The Jury Team - supporting independent candidates" would be better - for the reasons outlined in 20 May blog above.

I have voted for you guys! This was my first ever time voting being that I am 19 and unlike all my friends I was the only one to vote!

I like how the Jury Team is meant to run lets hope you get enough votes to prove yourselves.


Plus I dont like that quote hugh. You are not indepedents ! you as your name states are a team. A better way to put it is an Alliance e.g. like the European Union itself. You have your seperate goals and ideas but you work together to gain them.

Remember you dont have to follow what your party say so please please listen to those who voted for you. Speak for them, Not instead of them.

I learned a hell of a lot during the whole process - and many lessons I have learned would change both my personal approach to campaigning and also what I would lobby for in terms of improvements from the "centre" (which cover a lot of what has been discussed here). Sunday evening will answer a lot of questions (and provide some more dilemmas I'm sure in terms of future approach :-) but I hope we have the opportunity to come together (or that these forums are taken seriously in terms of feedback mechanisms) to provide our thoughts in advance of setting out the Jury Team stall for the general election. There is a lot of learning that we can all benefit from I'm sure and more to come - roll on Sunday!

Thanks, Stephanie. I think it is brilliant to have people like you challenging people like me.

I explained to my own son Kris, who is also 19 why he should vote for the Jury Team yesterday. It was the first time he has voted too. What is clear is that you guys have no history of the historic significance of voting for an 'Independent' MP - nor should you have, of course. To an older generation like me, it carries a lot of baggage (see my 20 May entry above). The term (admittedly with historic references and famous precedents like Martin Bell) is clearly not a meaningful one to you.

When you combine this with Lucy's experience from her megaphone about the confusion with the Independence party, it shows is that communicating WITH CLARITY what the Jury Team stands for - especially in a short, succinct way (which is all the time we will get) - is very, very difficult.

So please stay engaged, Stephanie! The fresh thinking you can bring is really valuable. Your sentence "you have your seperate goals and ideas but you work together to gain them" is brilliant and really significant. Can you think this through? Can you challenge your friends and ask them if this has any resonance to them? What if someone in 'the Team' doesn't agree with another? How do you communicate the 'team' persuasively enough for people to vote for you?

The other thing you could think about is that the tension between Jury Team candidates tending to be LOCAL to their geographical area but also the need, for credibility if we can build on this great idea and if we are successful, to contribute to important NATIONAL issues like Health, Education, the Economy, Defence etc.

This is something I have been struggling to get my head round and your input would be really interesting to me (and others I am sure).

I voted JT on Thursday.

When reading through the main site I felt a little uneasy about the donations policy and the paid staff vacancies. Because that's the way other parties do it, it doesn't follow that it's the right way for the JT. I think running this party on a zero budget should be given a fair go. If we try and fail, so be it but I do think it should be tried until it's proven not to work.

My area is a safe labour seat. For the EU election I've had one piece of political literature put through my letterbox, was from the tories. Someone made a donation, others designed the pamphlet (and got paid?) then the printers earned some money, transport was arranged and a volunteer I don't know put one through my letterbox.

We all know that many of those volunteers are in fact laying the groundwork for their own political careers. Do enough grunt work and you'll be given a no hoper seat to fight at election time. Make a good fight of it and eventually you'll get a marginal or even a safe seat if you're a rising star. By the time they become an elected official, the party owns them to the extent that they will tell blatant lies when ordered to do so.

Is JT going to develop along those lines?

How a party is set up is of vital imortance imo. The current labour party crisis would not exist if they had a similar constitution to the conservative party, Brown would be long gone. I think we should be looking at all the possible problems a party can face and arrange the framework accordingly.

As an example, let's say that the JT get a huge amount of early support and it looks like we can win a general election. Then the main parties decide to remove their whips and that takes the wind out of our sails. Do we rejoice the removal of whipping or do we feel sad that victory has been snatched from us? Do we redouble our efforts in trying to get power? What happens when nearly all the initial aims have been met?

I remember the groundswell when the SDP was formed. When they allied with the liberals there was a fervour in the candidates eyes, they really believed that they could win.

That is what politics does to people, the game becomes more important than the original objectives.

As I see it, in the game of politics, the Jury Team is the referee.


For zero budget politics, we can have a selection of approved literature and those of us with laser printers can run off fliers and post them locally. £5 worth of paper and toner spent by a supporter is going to get more literature through peoples letterboxes than a £5 donation to a party.

It might be an idea to have some co-ordination so that some households don't get innundated with our fliers to the extent it annoys them. The campaigning can take place all the time, not just at election time so that by the time the election comes, the voter has had plenty of comminication from us and hopefully with literature that also discusses issues specific to that constituency.

This party fills a need, lets hope it can grow without gaining the surplus fat that afflicts other parties.

Hugh - just thinking about your comment about credibility at a national level:

Perhaps the reason why so many people feel divorced from the process is because we can't connect local to national when in affect local is national.  Health, defence, economy are not national issues - they permeate every aspect of our lives - it doesn't just get dealt with in a faceless building in London - we need to engage people at local level to produce results at a national level.  What's happening with the local NHS?  What are people experiencing? What is important to people - this should drive the national agenda - it should not be determined by nameless civil servants  and so called experts.  Local opinion and fact should lead and not be an after thought or dressed up as 'consultation'.

Perhaps what I'm saying is this.  Lets start local in an effort to get people on board - local issues can be linked to national.  What's happening on the ground needs to reflect at the top - politicians, whatever their persuasion should be the voice to represent this. 

Hi John,

My personal opinion is that the whips could be abolished tomorrow, MPs could be tied to a code of conduct and expenses could be paid in milk tokens, but it wouldn't change the thrust of what Jury Team is about. We need to change the type of politicians and break the ties to parties. Our current political elite are there because they enjoy politics and the whole political process.

It's rather like having a football league where all the players want to be referees and are obsessed with making new rules for the game.

For me, the expenses issue isn't important in terms of money, but in the underlying attitudes that politicians have displayed. No amount of rulebooks and codes of conduct will change this attitude with existing politicians, nor with their eager replacements chomping at the bit on party lists currently.

Parliament can never be representative until it reflects the huge diversity of political opinion in the public. How can half a dozen parties ever hope to be truly representative? I long for the day when Parliament passes a Socialist Act in the morning and a Right Wing Act in the afternoon, because I'm fed up at the attempts by parties and the media to pigeon hole people. It's perfectly possible for one person to believe in Capital Punishment and strengthening the role of Unions for example.

My aim is to work towards making Parliament truly representative of the British Public. I believe that the Parties and the professional politicians have a vested interest in the status quo. I don't believe we'll ever see 646 Independent MPs in Westminster, but if we could achieve one third of the seats it will change politics forever. Let's see the parties for what they actually are - special interest pressure groups.

We need to change the type of politicians and break the ties to parties.

That's why I voted JT and will continue to vote Jury Team.

Personally I think it will be a long long time before there are enough independent MPs for there to be 'no overall majority'. It could well be that those JT MPs aren't born yet.

There was almost 40 years between the start of the labour party and them having their first PM. Even longer before they had a majority large enough to free them from needing an alliance and not many would deny that there was a need for such a party when it was formed. This is going to take some time.

It's obvious that there is a need for change but what happens when that change has happened? We've all seen how the labour party went. Not so much lost its way but they more or less acheived everything that the people from their 1895 start up wanted. ok boys and girls, we've got what we wanted, let's go home and stop being politicians.

What I like about the Jury Team is that it is apolitical. A framework for people that care about their local community, their country and the world in general. I've no interest in public office but I am very interested in the framework of a party being such that it doesn't create future problems. Hence my concern over financing. I'm willing to print and drop fliers to whatever local addresses I'm asked to but with a donation, it all gets same old same old. Someone gets paid to make decisions on my behalf and the nature of the game turns those people into politicians.

For a framework that helps people get into public office for no other reason than they want to serve their community, sure I'll help and even spend some money doing so but I won't donate.


This is the biggest problem we'll face I think, we're all different and we come into this for varying reasons. Mainstream media likes concision so soundbites are where it's at for them. My view is stuff the mainstream media, they had zero influence on my vote or the friend I convinced to vote JT, not only can we can do it without them I think it's better to ignore them from the start.

It's looking like Brown will leave No 10 with his fingernails dug into the walls as they drag him out so the next election will be as late as possible. That gives us all a fair bit of time to have conversations with people. All we need to do is let the people we talk to know that there is a viable alternative to party politics.

OK,�let's all take a deep breath and think.

My position remains that The Jury Team is a great concept but communicating it with clarity�is�very complicated.

Again, to the voter, is the Jury Team�a 'PARTY' or is it an�'ENABLER'�to encourage and make it easier for more independent people to stand for Parliament? And if the latter (which I think it should be), what are the benefits of this? And how do we communicate this message with clarity?

I agree with Andrew's 'conspiracy theory' that the expenses so dominated the media that it was difficult to break through with The Jury Team message.

I agree with Lucy that it is important that in our language the word 'Independents'�is pronounced the same way as 'Independence'.�Like her, I don't like�UKIP or The Independence Party.�This is a�key point - and it makes the job of the Jury Team even more complicated than I thought.

I agree with Stephanie that 'you have your seperate goals and ideas but you work together to gain them'. But as I have asked her: 'what if someone in 'the Team' doesn't agree with another? How do you communicate the 'team' persuasively enough for people to vote for you?'�Difficult.

I agree with John that The Jury Team could provide 'a framework that helps people get into public office for no other reason than they want to serve their community'. The 'enabler' strategy in one! Bang on.

However, I am sorry John, but I cannot agree that�"running this party on a zero budget should be given a fair go". Historically, cost has been�one of the�barriers to more independents standing.�On your own, you just cannot compete with the major parties. And let me tell you, many of these professional politicians may be crooks - but they are ALL competitive (and not very nice) people. If The Jury Team can bring people together to provide funding support for independent candidates AND help them communicate more professionally and more powerfully and more competitively, then than must help the cause.

I also think a word of thanks and respect to Sir Paul Judge here. The Jury Team has been his vision. He has been prepared - very publicly - to stand up and be counted. And I suspect he he has put his money where his mouth is.�We should all recognise that and be grateful to him for it.�

I agree with Lucy that�we should 'start local in an effort to get people on board - local issues can be linked to national'. I am sure it is the case that independent candidates are more likely to be local to their constituency. This is a huge competitive advantage over the major parties and their career pamphleteers. But remember, if you don't have a clear point of view on the national issues, the media will have you for breakfast.

I agree with Alan that we should 'work towards making Parliament truly representative of the British Public'. This is an important differentiator for The Jury Team and it�is one of the reasons it would be better to have more 'independent'�MPs in Parliament. It's what is known in the trade as a 'consumer benefit'.

But did the benefits of having more independent MPs in Parliament really get through as a clear, concise message? And did the role of The Jury Team in helping this happen shine out loud and clear?

I am afraid I think not.

But I am not going to lose the faith. Work and timing permitting, I may still stand as an independent candidate in my local area. I cannot stand the established political parties, I despise the way they operate and I don't trust anyone in Parliament - or any of their candidates for that matter.

But, if I do stand,�from a rational perspective, I would appreciate the help and advice that the expertise and experience that The Jury Team could give me. From an emotional perspective, I would feel comforted that there were other people like me trying to achieve the same thing in other constituencies - and if The Jury Team could help bring us together, I would feel more confident of success and less worried about my neighbours thinking I am a prat.

In an ideal world, among us, there would be people with real experience of life in the real world and we could work together to kick out these self-serving careerist incumbents (and, together,�compete on a national level as well as, individually, on a local level).

These have been extraordinary times.� The Jury Team has defined�a truly�radical - and�different�-�positioning (sorry, another technical term).�

Please - all of you - stay with it. If I can help, I will.

If you scroll back up to the top of this page it says:

POLITICS FOR THE PEOPLE

POLITICS WITHOUT PARTIES

POLITICS WITH PRINCIPLES

I'm in.