During the campaign for the last general election, I determined that I should “Vote person, not party” and chose which candidate to vote for on that basis.  In the recent local elections, I applied the same principle (although this was tricky, given the limited information available).  The choice between voting for a person and voting for a party will be starkly presented in black and white on the ballot papers for the upcoming European Parliament elections.  Because these elections use a form of proportional representation, the box that I cross on the form will either be for a political party (with its pre-selected list of candidates) or for an independent candidate (an actual person).  Democratic Audit has published a useful guide to how the elections will work, including a sample ballot paper which nicely illustrates this choice.

Taking a step back for a moment, why am I bothering to think about who to vote for?  Although I voted to leave the EU, whilst we remain a member (however frustrating that may be) it is my view that we should continue to engage constructively with it.  Firstly, I just think that is the right way to behave as a member.  Secondly, we will always have some form of relationship with the EU so it makes no sense to behave in an unnecessarily disruptive manner which will antagonise the institution and its remaining members.  Furthermore, although the MEPs elected may never take up their seats, in these unpredictable times they may end up representing us in the European Parliament for a full term.  For these reasons, whatever your views on Brexit, I think it’s really important for people to consider how to use their vote carefully.

I have to be honest here and admit that for ten minutes or so after the Brexit Party leaflet dropped through the door I did consider voting for them.  Like all party political leaflets it briefly lulled me into a false sense of certain simplicity.  If you want to leave the EU, vote for the Brexit Party and they will make it happen.  However, I quickly remembered this was Nigel Farage’s party.  It’s not that I never think he has a valid point to make; it’s just that I almost always object to the way in which he chooses to make it.  Besides, whatever the media or Nigel Farage or Vince Cable might want us to think, this isn’t a referendum:  it is the election of MEPs who won’t actually determine whether or how Brexit will happen.  That will be decided in Westminster.

Having taken the time to work out how these elections work and given my instinct for person over party, I looked up a list of candidates for the South-West region to see whether I would have the option of voting for any independent candidates (the only people it will be possible to vote directly for).  There are three:  Larch Maxey, Mothiur Rahman & Neville Seed.  After a bit of digging, it transpired that Larch Maxey and Mothiur Rahman are not entirely independent as they are both standing under the Climate & Ecological Emergency Independents banner.  An organised group with a website proclaiming a manifesto sounds suspiciously like a political party to me.  This leaves one truly independent candidate to consider:  Neville Seed.

As an independent candidate with no previous political experience, Neville has certainly set himself a challenge by standing.  Without the financial and logistical resources of a political party behind him, the most immediate source of information available to potential voters is his website.  Reading this, it is apparent that he is at least something of a kindred spirit:  a Leave voter who is disillusioned with party politics but who believes that “if we are to be in the EU then we need to make it work”.  Furthermore, he seems to be in tune with what, to me, are the basics of being an elected representative:  careful scrutiny of proposed legislation, engaging with the electorate and then acting in their interests.  Of course, I don’t agree with everything that he says.  For example, I take a more charitable view of our current politicians.  I believe the majority are well-meaning people who genuinely want to serve but have been stifled by the oppressive party system they feel they have to join in order to attain office.

Neville’s website is there for anyone to read and evaluate.  On Sunday, however, I was able to attend a hustings event in Bristol to see him in action.  Present at this event were (with party affiliation and position on party list in brackets):

• Ollie Middleton (Change UK, #3)
• Carla Denyer (Green, #3)
• Andrew Adonis (Labour, #2)
• Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrats, #3)
• James Glancy (Brexit, #2)
• Neville Seed (Independent)

The event was chaired by Adam Boulton of Sky News.  It was confirmed that the Conservative Party and UKIP had been invited to attend.  There was no mention of the English Democrats or of Larch Maxey and Mothiur Rahman.  Sadly, although somewhat inevitably, proceedings were dominated by Brexit.  This was partly down to the audience repeatedly asking Brexit-related questions, many directed in frustration at James Glancy who thereby benefited from the most talk-time.  However, the candidates themselves set this tone for the afternoon by making their opening pitches mostly about their position on Brexit.  It was amusing to listen to Andrew Adonis making an impassioned plea for remaining in the EU and a second referendum and comparing it to official Labour Party policy!

Neville Seed, however, bucked this trend.  By the time he spoke, I had already jotted down the following potential question “Why do our MEPs’ positions on Brexit matter when the issue will be decided in Westminster or, perhaps, a second referendum?”  I didn’t have to ask this question because Neville made the point for me.  He also made the point that because of the list system and because none of the parties’ first place candidates present, he was the only panelist that your vote could go directly to without first getting someone else elected.  To illustrate this point, let me say that that the speaker who most impressed me was Carla Denyer.  Whilst making a point of her position on Brexit, she also made a concerted effort to talk about other issues.  Until pressed by specific questions, my recollection is that only Carla and Neville took this step.  Carla spoke eloquently when she got the opportunity and dealt clearly and confidently with a question raised about debating with the far-right that arose from the cancellation of a previous hustings event.  If I could vote for her on Thursday I would seriously consider doing so.  However, the closest I could get to doing so would be to vote for the Green Party and, since Carla is third on their list, hope that they get somewhere in the region of 50% of the votes cast in the South-West constituency.  The combination of political parties and this particular form of proportional representation make the whole process rather nonsensical.

The nonsense of political parties further resulted in much time being wasted by two candidates (Andrew Adonis and James Glancy) having to field repeated questions about their party leaders and leadership, rather than about their own opinions.  One breath of fresh air, however, came from Stephen Williams.  One of the final questions asked the candidates to talk about the benefits of Brexit.  Most of the Remain candidates (their terminology, not mine) simply said that there were none.  It is a response I see and hear in many comments on social media:  one that simply shows that the respondent hasn’t taken the time to understand the other side of the argument.  In a complex issue like this, I fail to see how it is possible to form a valid opinion with first understanding the pros and cons of each side of the argument.  Stephen showed one of the few glimpses of liberal thinking by discussing in his response (having first made clear that he personally saw few, if any benefits, in leaving) that there was an argument to be made that our laws should be made in our parliament and that this was an issue that needed to be better addressed by those in favour of EU membership.

As someone sympathetic towards the abolition of all political parties, I cannot bring myself to vote directly for any political party, although I do appreciate that the Green Party at least try to do party politics in a different way.  I would prefer to have a choice between several experienced independent candidates offering a range of personal views.  However, although inexperienced, I have decided that Neville Seed has demonstrated enough to win my vote.  If I didn’t feel confident enough to vote for him to be my elected representative I would have reluctantly spoiled my ballot paper.  He clearly takes a reasonable, pragmatic view of the fact that we are even holding these elections and wants to work constructively with the EU.  He seems to have fundamental beliefs in independent politics similar to my own and has had the courage to do what I have not:  put them to the test at the ballot box.  Vote Neville!