Waiting for a Breakthrough: the SDP and Reform UK

As a Brexit supporter, from the 24th of June 2016 I was disenfranchised by the Labour Party I had generally always voted for. From that sunny morning much of Labour were conspiring to reject the mandate, to dilute or even prevent the delivery of it. I did not vote in 2017 and reluctantly willed the Conservatives to win, only campaigning for pro-Brexit Labour MPs. Then the Tories messed up the election and Mrs May made a similar dog's breakfast of the negotiations.

Enter Mr Farage with The Brexit Party. Here was a weapon against both of them - a plague on both their houses. I went to their rallies, put up their posters and voted to return two MEPs in their landslide victory. Mr Johnson was then leant my support in 2019 - a support he enjoyed from many voters like me - and he romped home. Then he locked us all up a year later, masked us and tried to coerce us into getting a newly developed 'jab' in the arm. Labour and the other major parties cheered this on, of course. The (mostly) achieved Brexit was of small consolation in the face of it.

In the aftermath of the 2019 General Election I watched The Brexit Party, soon to become Reform UK, with interest. Also on my radar the Social Democratic Party (SDP) then appeared. "What?" I asked. "Those 1980s Europhiles who bailed on Michael Foot?" No, I found - they were different now, pro-Brexit and socially conservative since the Lib Dems split away. Reform was the more prominent, but the SDP was closest to my economic politics. Their leader William Clouston appeared to be a thoughtful, intellectual man. It seemed to me here, potentially, were the new Tory and Labour parties. They were economically opposed but both common sense and patriotic - the answer to their parent companies, now captured by globalism and 'social justice'. 

Yet in election after election I have watched neither party manage to make much impact. Even in the 2019 General Election, Mr Farage could not get one MP. In fact in some areas - notably Yvette Cooper's Pontefract - they even helped Labour MPs to keep their seats. Councils, mayoral runs and by-elections have sped by yielding nothing. Sometimes the vote tally has only reached double digits. I have tried to get involved with both parties, but found the local infrastructures virtually non-existent. Reform attempted some local meetings, but they've fizzled out. The SDP have been similarly lacking. Between them they have a handful of council seats, with the SDP doing especially well in Leeds. Reform tend to be polling at between 5% and 10%, and sold out their recent 2023 conference, but that's just polling - we know how polling can work out.

I know how difficult building a party or political base is, and I did not have overly high expectations - but I feel more should have been achieved. Reform especially have been underwhelming, whereas the SPD with their smaller profile can be let off somewhat. It's not just about the parties themselves, it's about people not looking beyond the traditional duopoly, or not believing there is an alternative, or simply being tired of the constant political psychodrama. 

I made the decision to stand as an independent in the 2022 local elections, and I will continue to because I don't want to answer to anyone, especially when I feel I can do just as well on my own. I also recognise that an 'apolitical' independent can appeal to a broader range of people, making it more about the candidate's personality and local issues. But at the same time I am aware that Reform and the SDP have to break through for anything to change on key national policies. That is my estimation, at least.

Voting system

So what are the causes of the poor fortunes of these two smaller parties, and what do they need to do? The obvious cause is the electoral system. 'First past the post' (FPTP) keeps the two main parties in power and makes it very difficult for anyone else to make ground. I would support electoral reform towards some form of proportional representation (PR), despite the risks involved. It might be chaotic, but it would be purer democracy, with people able to make a genuine choice to reflect their views. Right now they have to make a tactical decision for the lesser of two evils. Others disagree with me, pointing out that modern left-wing liberalism would dominate, or that grubby backroom deals would be the norm. That does concern me, but I feel it is like tearing off a plaster. We need to endure some pain for the greater good. 

FPTP doesn't make breaking through impossible, and parties such as the Scottish National Party (SNP), the UK Independence Party (UKIP), the Greens and the Liberal Democrats have become influential to varying levels. Only the SNP have been able to form a government on their own - albeit a devolved one - while the Lib Dems managed a coalition. The SDP itself was influential for a time when it formed. UKIP used the PR of the European Parliament to act as a pressure front, pushing the Tory government to call a referendum on EU membership. The Brexit Party picked up that baton and ensured the Tories actually delivered (mostly) Brexit.

'Job done' and Covid

After their finest hour, The Brexit Party was seen by many to have done its job. Covid then stymied any momentum of its reincarnation, Reform. The disgust of many Conservative members over the lockdown debacle did not translate into any electoral gains. Again, I found this surprising, because Reform were presenting a largely anti-lockdown position (as were the SDP). Perhaps, though, it demonstrates that the lockdown issue was not as motivating to the general public as I thought it was. The general public, after all, complied without much of a fight. Maybe many were put off by the 'anti-vaxxer', 'Covid denier' label being levelled at Reform. Ironically, of course, many Covid-sceptics considered Reform too pro-vaccine, and it still remains a black mark against them. Both the leader Richard Tice and his lieutenant Dr David Bull initially supported vaccine mandates for health workers, and Bull advocated jabbing children. Even Farage, with uncharacteristically poor judgement, had eulogised Tony Blair's mass-vaccine vision and said Blair should be in charge of the rollout.

To return to the perception of 'job done' on Brexit, that certainly has dampened Reform's bonfire. Ben Habib constantly reminds us we haven't fully left, but only Brexit purists like Habib are going to heed this. Your average Tory or Labour voter is not going to change their habits over the Windsor Protocol. They might if Nigel Farage was back in charge and shouting from the rooftops about it.

Farage

Yes, Farage - he really is the key factor. Without him The Brexit Party would not have had the success it did and UKIP would never have secured the referendum. His presence would immediately ignite the excitement of Reform's support base, and voters beyond. You get the impression he is biding his time, waiting for the optimum moment and leaving Tice as a placeholder. But The Nigel is difficult to read - it could be he is happy being a broadcaster on GB News and won't return to the fray even when he is needed. Indeed campaigns like his 'Debanking' crusade have done very well without the need for Tice and Co. There are even now suggestions he might rejoin and be fielded by the Conservative Party, given his presence at their conference (as a journalist), but Farage has rebuked this strongly at the Reform conference. I knew there was nothing in it - too much bad blood has flowed between them, and he's better on the outside.

Membership model

My main issue with Reform is that it is not a democratic party. It is a company that puts out candidates. Its leader cannot be elected. I understand why, having seen the situation with UKIP. Farage felt threatened by other factions within UKIP, and when he stood down there was a power struggle. An anti-Islamist faction became prominent and Farage knew this would make UKIP unpalatable to many. The Brexit Party, then, killed off UKIP and secured as broad a support for the Brexit cause as possible. Farage does not want another UKIP mess, and thus he keeps Reform there waiting should he need it again. It is clever power politics, but it is not sustainable for a political party - especially one dedicated to delivering on a referendum. I feel he needs to open Reform up to a democratic model. Until he does I am much more inclined to support the SDP - and this is not the only factor determining my preference.

Other small parties

While we are on the other smaller parties, from the libertarian right there are plenty. A rump of UKIP remains (so to speak) led by the Tory defector, Neil Hamilton. I feel it has become too 'toxic' for mainstream voters. I won't discuss the ins and outs of that, and there are some worthy people within it, but it's not a goer. It is a brand that the public have heard of, but at this stage this is about the only advantage to it. The same goes for the Laurence Fox vehicle, Reclaim. Fox is simply not palatable to many, despite his following and - as has been proven recently - is prone to saying and doing unwise things. David Kurten's Heritage Party has similar issues - he has rather fringe views which will lose many. This is not intended as a slight on Fox or Kurten, who speak some sense, but it's just the fact of the matter. These three right wing parties should really merge together, but as they are the projects of individuals, no individual is going to stand aside and make way. There's no reason they should, but it does mean none of them will get anywhere. Neither would Reform want to merge with them, because there is too much animosity towards the leaders, and too much ammunition against them. Reform's work is cut out enough with Farage's controversial image!

On the left, meanwhile, there are some small socialist parties, but there is nobody else on the economic centre-left as the SDP is. George Galloway's Worker's Party of Great Britain is the most prominent, which has similar issues to Reclaim and Heritage in terms of a 'toxic' figure at its helm. Galloway's unique selling point is he is a 'based' socialist with no time for identity politics other than class. Other groups, including much of Momentum within Labour, have embraced identity politics and internationalism. If they are Trotsky, Galloway is Stalin (not the insult you'd think it would be in these circles). There is also the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) and older groups knocking about. TUSC caters more for the Corbynite exiles from Labour. Indeed Corbyn himself is tipped to run as an independent against Mayor Sadiq Khan, which could see another socialist party being formed.

These are all far too left-wing for me, despite them speaking some sense economically, and the same will go for the British public. I believe there is a place for a socialist party, but they won't be getting me on board. The SDP meanwhile promotes centre-left, more free market economics - as Labour traditionally do. However, their socially conservative aspect sets them apart, and also pitches wisely at the public mood. Most people don't want to badmouth the country, or rail against 'white supremacy' and the family, or question what a woman is. Neither do they want a hyper-capitalist neoliberal approach. They want public services, healthy public spending and a strong community. 'Communitarian' is the term SDP types often use. This is the notion the community should shape the citizen instead of excessive individualism, and in turn the individual should serve that community.

Neoliberalism and the SDP's advantage

This brings us to another issue with Reform. They are at their hearts neoliberal Thatcherites, concerned with free markets, property rights and fiscal discipline. Low and streamlined taxes, small government and deregulation is on their wish list. I would argue there is a place for a party that genuinely offers this, as the Conservatives have become high spend and high taxes, as well as influenced by 'progressivism'. However in its pure form, neoliberalism is to be avoided. I am convinced the economic ethos was a massive wrong turn for the Western world, and it is the complete antithesis to what we want as a nation.

In a nutshell neoliberalism is about markets ruling most aspects of society, with the government mainly concerned with preventing inflation through interest rates and keeping law and order. Privatisation, anti-union action and spending cuts are the means of doing this, and through bodies such as the IMF and EU the project has been inflicted on countries that never wanted it. It has caused misery and social destruction, and by putting key issues outside of the public realm it is inherently antidemocratic. Thatcher pursued Milton Freidman's ideas with vigour and without much care for the downsides, demolishing our industries and making us reliant on exports. In the industrial areas, especially in the North of England, it cheated a whole generation out of work, prosperity and purpose. It may have been necessary to escape the tight grip of the unions and remove a few debt-heavy companies from the government books, but the programme went too far too quickly. At the top of the food chain, of course, city traders and CEOs made a mint - which was the priority all along.

This is why the voters of the post-industrial North will not go for Reform. Many backed The Brexit Party in the EU elections because it was a weapon against the elites ignoring their decision. They went for Johnson for the same reason, and also because of the question marks over Corbyn's patriotism. These were unusual circumstances. These preferences were not about economic ideology - they were about Brexit and about revenge. Johnson and Cummings tried to engineer a realignment of politics and keep these voters on board with their 'levelling up' spending splurge, but in the aftermath of Covid that has failed. These Red Wall voters will revert to Labour without a social democratic alternative, despite Labour being a little neoliberal itself - despite its mass immigration, Brexit hatred and 'progressivism'. These voters, of course, are much more the natural supporters of the SDP, though the party may struggle to make itself known to them. Certainly without Farage at the wheel, who has some sort of magic with the working man despite being a city gent, Reform will not reach these voters. Tice, with the best will in the world, just won't cut it.

Because Reform are populists they have a few socialistic policies such as nationalising 50% of ‘key’ utilities (and having the other half owned by British pension funds). Their 2019 manifesto was resolutely pro-NHS, in fact wanting to abandon public-private-initiatives PPIs that aren’t delivering. Even Thatcher had some socialistic policies, because the post-War consensus demanded at least a basic amount. Nevertheless, compared to the SDP’s proposals to nationalise power, water and the railways (Brexit Party were considering this in 2019), Reform pales in comparison. This is what you would expect. Mass building of social housing – we used to call it council housing – and a national investment bank are other left-wing policies of Clouston’s party not shared by Reform.    

The socialistic gestures of Tice’s party will not convince many outside of Southern England to look past the general Thatcherism and vote Reform. They are even less likely to do so if Tice persists with clumsily labelling the Tories the ‘Consocialists’ because of their public spending and non-libertarian tendencies. My advice to the party would be to distance themselves from privatisation - especially any further privatisation - and to identify and denounce neoliberalism. Global free trade needs to take a back seat to protectionism. Tax cuts should apply not just to high earners and corporations but to lower and midrange earners as well. In fairness, their current policies partly do this – they want to raise the basic rate threshold to £20,000 (from £12,570), which would be a game changer for working people. They should also consider healthy public spending where appropriate. Likewise they need some socially conservative policies in the mix, not just blanket libertarianism and 'anti woke'.

I'm talking from the centre left, but plenty on the dissident right despise Thatcher's legacy as well. They bemoan the market forces that have led to globalism and supplanted our national identity and our independence. They like small state, liberty and low taxes, but they like localism, a moral framework and tradition. Thatcher uprooted all of the latter, with Major worsening it by integrating further into the EU and Blair committing the coup de grace by ramping up immigration. The so-called Conservatives since have done nothing to reverse this trajectory, putting the dissidents off them. This has gone beyond dislike to the point many prominent figures are actively wishing the destruction of the party in the next General Election. It’s no longer Peter Hitchens banging that drum. Reform might appeal to some in its anti-immigration, low tax positions, but many will be sceptical and it won't be enough.

Defectors

Another negative perception I have heard about Reform is that it's stocked with ex-Conservatives - especially defecting or deselected councillors - acting on a personal grievance. This, they will say, discredits Reform and shows there is little difference between them and the Tories. Of course, Reform cannot afford to turn away any support, especially from their ideologically closest party. They should take efforts, as The Brexit Party did, to attract a wider range of people and opinions, and especially people who are floating voters or not 'political'. The SDP need to do this too, and in their case perhaps they might welcome some Labour defectors acting on a personal grievance! Goodness knows people like Rosie Duffield and Paul Embery have taken enough abuse from the party - their admirable loyalty not returned.    

Exposure and celebrity

Both parties are sometimes invited onto broadcast media, Reform much more so. The SDP's William Clouston appears often on Mike Graham's Talk TV show, while Richard Tice had his own show on that channel before moving to GB News. GB News features Reform often (indeed The Brexit Party seem to have been a recruitment agency for the channel) and occasionally the BBC or Sky do. With their broadcaster hats on, however, the GB News sympathisers cannot directly promote the party. The SDP are not seen as much on GB News and to my knowledge have not appeared on mainstream media since they were a significant force. They have been interviewed during elections where they have to be offered a certain amount of airtime by law, but that's it. Whoever manages their media needs to hustle harder for appearances - although because they might present a threat to Labour, perhaps this explains why they are being denied.

Another reason could be that Reform has a controversial edge, and that gets more ratings than the more moderate Clouston. The BBC mainlined Farage in the UKIP days because of this factor. That's not to say the SDP should be needlessly provocative, but perhaps they could be more entertaining to woo the TV producers.

Clouston cannot do the heavy lifting alone. There need to be several prominent people within the party. Rod Liddle and Patrick O'Flynn are the only noteworthy lieutenants - and neither are very active with their SDP hats on. The SDP conferences feature fairly well-known guest speakers who don't then take up the flag. Somebody needs to - somebody with star power. Imagine for a moment if a figure like JK Rowling got on board over the trans issue. That would be incredible, and the party's membership would soar. For now they will have to make do with Graham Linehan, who appeared at the conference this year.

They shouldn't take any celebrity just for celebrity's sake, or compromise their polices to secure one - but surely somebody could be found to fit the bill. Similarly Reform need more heavy hitters to bolster the current crew of ‘Brexit Ben’ Habib, Ann Widdecombe and Bull. These three are all decent, solid performers, but they're still not 'box office' enough.  Parties are like bands or football teams - you need recognisable figures with distinct skills and styles to build a sort of public mythos. Think Kiss or the Euro 96 England squad.

To return to media coverage, of course we are in the era where broadcast media can be outflanked, and is becoming less important. Alternative media on online video platforms is increasingly significant. The parties should appear on large channels on these platforms, to reach the hundreds of thousands of subscribers they have. There are a lot out there that share the same socially conservative or libertarian ground. Clouston has been on Triggernometry and New Culture Forum, but there are many others. Podcasts and live-streams are long form and contemplative, which is perfect for getting complex ideas out there rather than the quick bursts on news channels. Many a time I have been won over by listening to long-form discussions, which flesh out ideas and allow a greater insight into the philosophies of political figures.

Both parties need to up their game on their social media. They need teams of young, creative, tech savvy folk maximising exposure and keeping a high standard of quality control. Doubtless the parties are attempting this, but they have to push this further. Content on video platforms also needs to be increased and improved.

Local events are another key factor in campaigning. The parties should tour the country, addressing meetings, raising funds and signing up supporters. They should use their travels to canvass opinion, and get local insights to inform their policies. People really respond to live events, in the same way they like to see live music or sport. It brings them together and increases morale, as well as letting them appreciate (hopefully) good public speaking.

Local infrastructure

Events are part of what political parties need to be doing on the ground locally. There need to be distinct local structures with a social and a political component. General political discussion needs to mix with local party business and pints in the pub. Again, I'm sure this is happening at some level depending on particular areas, but it has to be greatly expanded and improved. In my experience both parties have been lacking in this department. The key thing for any party is the ordinary members on the ground. Until there is a community and people willing to put leaflets through doors, a party gets nowhere.

Money

Of course the most important factor in a political party is funding. Nothing can get done without it, a major cost being printing and distributing literature, as well as advertising. Paid staff and office space are needed to really professionalise the operation. The larger parties rely on rich donors, corporations and, in the case of Labour, trade unions. Another major source of money is the membership paying their subscriptions and occasional extra donations. The bigger the membership, the bigger the coffers. It is also a lot heathier to get income this way then being beholden to vested interests. Certainly that has been the downfall of Labour and the Tories, who now do anything to keep their donors happy rather than actually help the country.

Reform – for now - has better funding than the SDP, sometimes from Tice’s own pockets. The SDP announced at their conference they have secured a million pounds from an unknown donor, which is a great start and could see a new lease of life for them. Hopefully this donor is not demanding anything in return and is fully above board! Nevertheless, political parties are renowned for burning cash. Without a steadily growing membership and committed donors, progress can easily stall. Thus all effort has to be put into maintaining these aspects.

Policies

One thing that can boost membership is having flagship policies that differentiate a party from its competitors. It is effective to have a stance that will have popular backing, but which the main parties are too cowardly to touch. UKIP and The Brexit Party of course had leaving the European Union, an issue that had been simmering since the EEC ballooned into something not advertised in 1975. The three key issues today, which are not served by the mainstream parties, are immigration, the Channel crisis and energy and ‘Net Zero’. None of the main parties are willing to fully change position on either, when what we need are radical departures from the norm.

Both Reform and the SDP do offer such departures. With energy, both parties are against the Net Zero targets (while still asserting manmade climate change is real and a problem). Reform politicians are more anti-Net Zero in their public appearances , but the SDP’s literature is just as strong. Both parties are in favour of fracking and extracting North Sea gas and oil, with Reform again being more bombastic on the issue. Both recognise the need for a secure, more self-sufficient energy mix and the vastly increased development of nuclear power.

The SDP is more resolute than Reform on immigration – pledging a pause on mass immigration (above 50,000 a year) while we take stock and prioritise integration of those that have come. I do notice with some disappointment this has been diluted from the total ‘moratorium’ on immigration promised before. Reform just wants a tougher points-based system than the damp squib the Tories have presided over. On the Channel Crisis, both parties advocate leaving the ECHR and UN Refugee Convention and have a tough stance. Reform is a little more ‘tow the boats back to France’ than the SDP. Both support offshore processing, but the SDP wants it done on remote British territory so we have more control over it. Both support refusing asylum to anyone who enters the country without permission, which would necessitate leaving the international framework (which allows for illegal entry).

Both parties need more of the same on these key issues. They’re on the right track for sure. They need also to find other topics that will be electorally lucrative (as well as useful for the country, of course). Farage is especially good at noticing huge subjects not being talked about and then pushing them into the discourse. Often the large parties can be quite myopic in spotting things and sluggish in forming policy.

UKIP and The Brexit Party were often criticised as being ‘single issue parties’. This was a rather unfair appraisal – one I hear SDP members making to this day. Nevertheless, it is important to have multiple key policies rather than one (even if one is the main focus). To borrow from the post-Blair playbook, you need to mainly talk about a few key policy areas, with at least one concrete proposal for each – a new law or spending pledge, for instance. This needs to be communicated clearly to the electorate so they can repeat it to others. Again, the proposals ideally will differentiate you from other parties. These psychological games might seem hucksterish to some, but they are essential.

In the SDP and Reform’s case, for now the Mandelson cue-cards should contain the three policy areas I outlined above. Reform can also push its tax cutting and simplification stuff, which will differentiate it from the SDP (which hardly mentions tax in its current manifesto, aside where it pertains to family matters).

Local policies are also vital in appealing to voters. This is often another blind spot for the big parties. They tend to fixate on their national agenda. The majority of the public often write off the national parties on this basis, which explains why council elections have such low turn-outs. The more successful councillors of major parties might take it upon themselves to champion certain local issues, while independents are even freer to do so. The SDP and Reform don’t need to pull a Lib Dems and change their very ethos depending on geography, but they should still keep a keen eye out for issues local residents care about, and once elected should take action to address them. The SDP’s Councillor Wayne Dixon has done well at this in Leeds, by all accounts. 

I would suggest planning is a policy area both parties are quite ‘Yimby’ [Yes In My Back Yard] on. Others will approve of this, but I do feel the imposition of mass developments on communities can be very detrimental, particularly ugly and low quality builds, or builds nobody can afford. The urge to not be thought as ‘Nimbys’ and to be resolute on addressing the housing crisis perhaps makes the parties blasé about residents’ concerns. Policies of deregulation are a feature of this, but these regulations are underpinned by the democratic process – the need for residents to have a say over what is or isn’t built.  I feel both parties need to be more open to this process, and to have ideas about how the effect on communities can be mitigated, and how developments can be high quality, attractive and affordable.

To make a brief point on literature, I will say the SDP’s written material is better than Reform’s. It is more detailed in the main policy section, and Reform has put some questionable PowerPoint type slides on its website, which is not accessible for the average reader. The SDP’s website is more aesthetically pleasing and user friendly as well. The fact they publish some my work is neither here nor there!

Pacts

Within the SDP, there has been much controversy about the limited election pact made with Reform. The SDP has agreed not to stand against Reform in its top six target seats, and vice versa. This is sensible, and from an outsider’s point of view I don’t have a problem with it. There is no point in cancelling one another out, as there is an overlap in their current support bases. They can win these seats and then do battle with each other once they’ve done this. Yes, Reform is controversial – but then so to some extent is the SDP. Both parties get tarred by the ‘far right’ brush, whatever they do. The SDP seems especially hated because it’s of the left. The type of person saying these things is not going to be won over whether there is a pact or not. Average voters, meanwhile, will be much less bothered.

Nevertheless, certain ideologically driven members have left the party in frustration, leaving sliced pieces of red, white and blue cardboard on their timelines. I would urge others to stay, at least to see if the scheme bears fruit. If it does yield results, more comprehensive pacts might be considered – not just with Reform but perhaps with independents as well.

Summing Up

Besides stating the obvious points, there are no easy answers here. The system is rigged against any small party. It is designed that way by the red and blue team, to benefit them and safeguard against any ‘extremism’ seen in other nations. In our current dire straits, of course, common sense has become ‘extremism’, and certain points of extremism have become the status quo. Mass immigration, pandering to absurd minority views, curbing of free speech, economically flawed green agendas and medical authoritarianism have all taken centre stage. Thus the hopes of Reform and the SDP seem dashed before these parties can even get a glimpse of government.

Nevertheless even within FPTP, powerful political movements can grow and if not lead, they can be influential.  And even if it is hopeless, it is human nature to try, to rage against the dying of the light. Doing something is better than doing nothing. The endeavour of building - if not a new government - a likeminded community with political clout is worthy in itself. To return to the band and football team analogies, starting then developing those things is an enjoyable process. The league or chart positions you reach are secondary to the joy of this, to building infrastructure, assembling expertise and writing material. If the newly developed party can contribute to the political debate in a way other parties do not, it is providing a service and is at least achieving something.

Never underestimate the moral majority of this country. The SDP and Reform are both saying common sense things that ordinary people - be they on the left, right or centre - agree with. They might not be comfortable in saying some of it out loud, but given the right conditions they will vote for a party pledging such policies. Most people do not spend all day steeped in politics and current affairs. They have general instincts about issues, but not necessarily the full range of information in order to have strong positions. They may not even know about these smaller parties, or perhaps they do not believe such players can break through. Maybe they reluctantly vote Tory or Labour, possibly switching between the two, or they might not vote at all out of weariness.

Whatever their motives, the key is to reach those people and give them confidence, to provide on the ballot paper a box for them to put their tick against. Once you get a vote, you get someone more likely to join and stand for your party. What follows is everything needed to take the project forward – money, publicity, manpower, greater organisation and so on. That’s the name of the game. Except of course it’s not a game, it is the only way to address the dreadful ills besetting our nation.