Barnsley Politics is local politics: the kind of politics that does not raise any attention at national level but is of the utmost importance to local residents. The similarity with national and international politics is real though. Just like ‘real’ politicians, councillors and candidates at local elections fight tooth and nail to get their ideas across and hope to be able to implement them for the benefit of local people. The problem often starts with definition of ‘local people’. Does it mean the whole community or just a narrow sectional interest which corresponds to the candidates ideas?

For the major parties with a national base ‘local’ means a smaller unit of their national electorate. ‘Local’ councils to the Labour, Liberal and Conservative parties are mini-governments in line with their own national policies. You know what you are getting with the national parties. They have policies driven by philosophies and practice which can be examined in the light of those policies. This enables voters to compare their practice with the rhetoric. In short they are consistent and voters can rely on them telling the local truth. It is not always to the liking of the electorate but at least it can be tested against their record in government. You know what you will get with a major party.

Independents are not so predictable! They are often ex-members of a national party who have become disenchanted because they cannot get their own way. They cannot dictate policy to others in the party or community by themselves, so they leave or are ejected. The dictum that says ‘power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’ applies in this case. Individuals within a party will sometimes become so carried away with their own importance that they think they are more important than anybody else. Every dictator throughout history was convinced they were right. When they try to assert their importance within a political party they will be ‘whipped’ back into line by the party machine. That is why we have political parties: so that we do not end up with dictators. It is one of the checks and balances within the British party political system.

Too often now those individuals will continue in their delusions of grandeur, supported by the press construction of corruption in politics and the consequent rejection of national parties. Some have been rejected by the party for not complying with the rules which govern good practice and political development. Some have decided to stand for election as individuals. Some have even set up their own parties, which usually flicker and die just as quickly. They are after all not real parties but mini-dictatorships (e.g. BNP, The Barnsley Party, etc.). More often they amalgamate to make an ill-defined collection of elected members, connected only by their opposition to the mainstream parties. They have no party structure to support new ideas so they steal others’. This is probably the most dangerous stage of their thankfully short political lives.

They often look like a real party to the voters. They have a collective title (e.g. The Independents; The Barnsley Party, aka J Brown, etc.); they have a loose set of aims and objectives and a ‘leader’. What they do not have is a credible common ideology, philosophy or ethic which drives their policies. They are often what the French revolutionaries called the ‘Party of Little Shopkeepers’. Not always a literal description of their members but close enough for definition of so-called ‘Independents’.

They are often drawn from that class of people who know vaguely that they want to do something but are not quite sure what they want to do, so they go into business in a small way. They are in short ‘small thinkers’. When they are tested they only know what not to do. They are limited by their own imagination, rather than supported by the collective imagination. Politics should be about people discussing ideas and reaching conclusions which improve their lives and those of their communities. It should not be about small-minded self-interest.

In the final analysis these so-called ‘independent’ politicians are neither independent nor politicians. They are usually a pale imitation of the major parties. The problem for them is that they are a collection of many ideas from all the major parties and none, which quickly dissolves into chaos. The problem for the voters is that they often do not find out how bankrupt their ideas are until they are elected. They are political parasites who are accountable to nobody once they are elected. They do not need to even turn up to meetings or do any work for their electorate.

Barnsley stands at a cross-roads in political terms. Do voters stick with one of the mainstream political parties and hope their collective ideas serve them well; or do they branch out on an adventure into the unknown political wilderness led by a bunch of individual small thinkers, peddling their untested ‘common-sense’ solutions. The only political capital these people have is that which they have stolen from mainstream political parties. Barnsley is better with the Mainstream parties which are backed by think tanks, universities and tried and tested practice; set against an ideology of service to the common good. At least they are accountable.

The dilemma in Barnsley is that politics in the shape of Mrs Thatcher destroyed the system of democracy we had in Barnsley when she closed our economy and destroyed our communities. Now we need to build a new democracy, which speaks to individuals and caters for the common good. We can only do that by joining and working with mainstream political parties which are accountable between elections.