You’ve heard of Conservative and Labour. You’ve heard of the Liberal Democrats. You’ve heard of the Greens and Reform. But who else is standing in the General Election?
One of the glories of our electoral system is that anyone can register a party, put together a manifesto1 and stand candidates in as many or few seats as they wish. I take my hat off to anyone who does this: the courage and time to register and put together a party, to find candidates and to face the electorate - all the while knowing that you’re almost certainly going to lose your deposit.
Nevertheless it must be said that sometimes these parties are a little…quirky. So, in celebration of democracy, courage and glorious British eccentricity, let’s have a look at ten of the microparties standing2 on 4 July.
In all, there are 98 parties standing, 35 of which are standing in only one constituency. In choosing the ten below, I’ve done my best to avoid the outright white nationalist and full-on communist parties, of both of which there sadly numerous examples3, and also prioritised parties that are organised enough to have a website and manifesto.
I’ve also not included any of the purely local parties, whether that’s the slightly sinister sounding Lincolnshire First or the delightfully named Confelicity4 (‘joy in other people’s happiness’), which wins my prize for the best name of any party standing. These are probably the most common type of microparty - and many of them are powerful forces in local council elections, even if they’re unlikely to win any seats in Parliament next month.
Needless to say, all parties are presented entirely without endorsement.
So, without further ado, here goes:
The Alliance for Democracy and Freedom (9 candidates)
Excitingly standing in my constituency, the ADF is here to represent the very specific subset of the population who both want tough action on immigration (“No amnesty for illegal undocumented migrants. Deported to their country of origin.They ARE CRIMINALS. This is ALSO the only way to stop the migrant boat gangs. Immediate deportation of foreign Nationals who commit crime in the UK with UK Citizenship rescinded, where applicable.”) and also want to legalise (all?) illegal drugs (“The best protection against drug use leading to misuse is respecting informed choice within an evidence-based regulatory system. Criminalising people for their drug use choice is invariably counter-productive for both problematic and non-problematic cases.”).
On the downside, they have no healthcare policy and no policies on education other than to ‘Put Agricultural Studies, Outdoor Skills and Cookery Skills into the National School Curriculum’ as part of their broader ‘twelve principles’ to ‘to actively and financially encourage the use of every available plot of UK land to convert into agricultural production.’ On the other hand, they have extensive and highly developed policies on HGV drivers, and what appears to be a fairly sensible policy on kinship caring:
They have a remarkably sensible housing policy including planning reform, opposing rent controls, and replacing ‘right to buy’ properties sold one for one to maintain the stock of social housing.
They believe in ‘low tax and small government’ and want to reduce the reliance on borrowing. Unfortunately, they also want to reduce the state pension age to 60 and increase it to over £20,000 a year, alongside also increasing carer’s allowance and child benefit to the same figure5.
To quote a friend: “They remind me of the Guardian - have some interesting things to say, unless numbers are involved in which case they haven't the first clue. Somehow I suspect neither side would be flattered by that comparrison.”
Blue Revolution (1 candidate)
Blue Revolution completely wrong-footed me: I went to the site expecting some kind of Tory splinter group, but no - it turns out the ‘blue’ refers to ‘a new blueprint to advance the interests of the blue collar workers’ as well as ‘the colour of the last hat in our proposed decision-making process.’6
Blue Revolution’s big idea is that ‘the political system is broken’ and that ‘We don’t need another political party… We need a peaceful revolution!’ The people to blame for this are, evidently, Margaret Thatcher (sold council houses, undermined British industry, and ‘Turned Britain from a country of workers who produced social and economic value into to a country of consumers addicted to ‘stuff’.’) and Tony Blair (took us into the Iraq War, indebted young people and ‘Encourage (sic) the idea that ‘greed is good’.’) To solve this, ‘We will need a new bus, not a new driver who thinks the existing system works.’
Other than solving party politics through adopting De Bono’s thinking hat methods, their manifesto is light on policy, heavy on history and theory. The section in the maifesto entitled ‘economy’ is not, as one might expect, a set of economic policies, but rather a discursive essay on the evolution of economic power from pre-history to the present day, containing sentences like this:
Environment therefore shaped the way “species essence” was reflected in tribal reality. As Karl Marx said ‘man’s consciousness doesn’t shape his material environment his material environment shapes his consciousness’(9) As there was no storage of food, in tribal society life was uncertain, and this would be reflected in the ‘consciousness of the people’, who would expect punishments to be harsh with unforgiving Gods ‘in control’ of human destiny. Brutality reflects hard material circumstances. Act with brutality without the material circumstances that ‘justify it’ and it becomes merely a perversion, an irrelevant cultural fetish or an abuse of power.
There is also a fairly worrying bit that goes:
Who exactly are the revolutionary class?
Firstly, we need to decide who constitutes the class known as working people. We have become so used to arguing about identity and rights that are promoted within the elite’s political agenda that we have lost sight of who, we are as a group.
The working people are defined by Blue Revolution in this way. A) Do you rely on your labour power alone to make a living? B) Are you in receipt of welfare? C) When you die will you leave enough to enable your children to live a life which does not require them to engage in waged labour? Finally, D) are you well connected enough to ensure that if your children do depend on waged labour you can ensure access to high waged work opportunities? If you answer yes to A and B you are a waged or potentially a waged worker and could be part of a revolutionary class. If you answered yes to C and D, you are part of the elite and probably part of the problem.
In terms of actual policies, the main ones appear to be:
Ban political whipping
Bring all lower tier elected representatives (i.e. councillors) into Parliament, financed by abolishing the House of Lords.
Some (comparatively) detailed education policies, including ‘a broad, diversified and inclusive National Curriculum’7, abolishing academic selection, free education for all and lowering the school leaving age to 15
Reduce reliance on debt.
Some of these aren’t too bad, but overall I’m kind of glad that Blue Revolution are unlikely to end up running the country - I fear that too many of us would end up as ‘part of the problem’.8
Christian Party "Proclaiming Christ's Lordship" (2 candidates)
“The secular society has helped the U.K. to lead the world in abortion, teenage pregnancy, family breakdown, burglary, spy cameras, speed cameras, parking fines, wheel-clamping, green taxes, fuel taxes, stealth taxes, superbugs, binge-drinking, drug taking, stabbing and social disorder”
Standing in two constituencies in Scotland, the best thing about the Christian Party’s website is their FAQ section, which is over 34,000 words long and contains no fewer than 57 questions. These are delightfully varied, ranging from things such as ‘What are your views on human rights?’, ‘What are your views on the rich and taxes?’, ‘What are your views on Government by stealth?’, ‘Why do your call our government hapless?’ and the slightly more ominous ‘What about the muslims?’
Some of these open in a delightfully winsome manner, with my favourites being:
Will I waste my vote on a new Party?
Here’s something to ponder. Besides, is any vote proclaiming Christ’s Lordship wasted? Further, you could waste it voting for a mainline Party.
Can my small donation help?
Why call it a small donation? Possibly it is not.
What is your doctrinal basis?
We are pleased that anyone is interested in doctrine – a rare interest nowadays9.
Quite a bit of this section of the website appears to date from the time of the Coalition, with a lot of discussion about Nick Clegg, David Cameron and other figures of that period, and why we should disapprove of what they did.
In terms of their policies, they have one of the most developed policy manifestos of any of the microparties featured, with extensive and coherent sections on education, health, foreign policy and defence, immigration, human rights and much more. There tends, as one would expect, to be a focus on issues of specific Christian interest, but the policies cover the broad range of matters that one might expect of a much larger party, whether that’s the school curriculum, mental health or the nuclear deterrent.
They take the view one might expect on matters such as same-sex marriage and abortion, and are strong supporters of free speech and parental rights. Overall, they’re on the right more broadly (for example, supporting Brexit), but the foreign aid and immigration sections are more compassionate than one might expect of a similarly right-wing non-Christian party (e.g. ‘we encourage illegal migrants to seek economic migrant status and thus to demonstrate good faith by integrating with the legal requirements for potential residency in the UK.’), demonstrating they take their quoting of Exodus 22:21 (‘Do not mistreat a stranger nor oppress him, for you were once strangers.’) at least somewhat seriously.
Common Good Party (1 candidate)
The Common Good Party wants us to massively increase our military aid to Ukraine, and I’m absolutely here for the spirit of that conviction, even if not the precise amount they’re calling for:
I am standing in the 4th July 2024 General Election in Birmingham Northfield to promote this inspiring vision for our country at home and abroad and also, importantly, to urge a bold increase in the supply of military aid to Ukraine funded by the very substantial sum of £100 billion created by Quantitative Easing . (The Bank of England found it possible to create £875 billion for the banking and Covid crises.)
It also is rightly concerned about human rights abuses in China, and slightly optimistically suggests that we “ask high street stores that sell Chinese goods to make an appointment to discuss these issues with the Chinese Ambassador.”
Outside of foreign policy, it wants ‘to work to make the world a better place and, at home, to model the kind of healthy, kindly, more equal society’ and plans to achieve this through a fairly standard left-wing programme, including abolishing tuition fees, regional assemblies, nationalising the railways, free adult social care and preventing commercial banks increasing the money supply. With regards to America, it thinks that, “Basically, America is good but it needs us to keep it straight and to challenge it in its domestic affairs, foreign and global policy and its military expeditions.”
I’ve got to admit, I kind of like this party. It almost certainly wouldn’t be any good at actually running the country, but its heart is in the right place.
The Fairer Voting Party (1 candidate)
Are you expecting the Fairer Voting Party to support proportional representation? If so, you’d be wrong: they stand for something far more interesting than that. They oppose PR because it leads to coalitions:
The last coalition government was between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. The Liberal Democrats went into the election on a grand promise to remove University tuition fees and got 57 MPs, and a huge student vote. In their coalition agreement they dumped this promise like a hot coal and voted to increase tuition fees to their highest ever level to get some posh sounding job titles. Us Brits don’t trust coalitions.
Instead, the Fairer Voting Party stands for ‘The Living Vote’: a system where each MP’s vote in Parliament counts for however many people voted for them at the last General Election10. This would be really massive, not to mention an absolute nightmare for chief whips: if implemented now, it would mean that in the last Parliament, George Howarth (Knowsley, 44,374)’s vote would have counted for twice as much as Mohammad Yasin’s (Bedford, 20,491). This would make a big difference to the dynamics in the House of Commons!
But that’s not the limit of their ambitions. The other main changes are:
A quarter of MPs would be independents, elected to 64 independent ‘independent’ constituencies covering the whole country, each covering about 4 ordinary constituencies.
In each election you vote for one party MP (standing in an ordinary constituency) and one independent MP.
In each constituency - both the normal ones and the independent ones - the two MPs with the largest number of votes get elected11.
It doesn’t say this, but I think when you combine the Living Vote mechanism with this, it means that the Independents are likely to have much more powerful votes - as they each cover four ordinary constituencies - meaning that they are likely to be the real power players in Parliament. Although possibly, being independents, there may be more people standing with votes more dissipated, which would mitigate that slightly.
In terms of why we might want this, the Fairer Voting Party tells us:
But won’t someone think of the poor Chief Whips?
Freedom Alliance (4 candidates)
The Freedom Alliance is a libertarian party and appears pretty consistently libertarian and opposing state action across its policies. It supports traditional rights such as free speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion and opposes ID cards, social credit scores and and ‘State overreach into our lives.’
They claim to be ‘made up of people from all political backgrounds, moving the dialogue away from the left Vs right debate towards a right Vs wrong – what is right for the people not what is right for the elites and big corporations.’ I think it’s fair to say they are genuinely libertarian and can’t easily be classified as left or right; for example they oppose ‘Net Zero madness’12, defend ‘sex-based rights for men, women and children’, and also ‘the right to protest’ and ‘The absolute right of the people to freely associate and assemble.’
One of the things I liked best about them was not so much their policies, but the way, for each policy area, they laid out clearly not just what they were for, but what they are against. For example, on the economy:
Or:
This is a really great approach! I wish the major parties would tell us what they were going to not do, or to oppose, as well as what they are going to do13. Often the more positive parts can sound a bit like platitudes - and the ‘we oppose’ makes what they really mean shine through more strongly. Plus, we often care as much about what we want not to happen as to what we do.
Congratulations to them on a great manifesto innovation, even if not on all the policies contained therein!
Heritage Party (34 candidates)
Also excitingly standing in my constituency14, the Heritage Party calls itself a socially conservative party, and says that it stands ‘for free speech and liberty, traditional family values, national sovereignty and financial responsibility.’ It says:
The Heritage Party exists to return to the principles of social conservatism, to reverse the cultural destruction wreaked by politically correct ideologies and to return to our true traditions and heritage. In embracing these principles, we believe the United Kingdom can once again become a great and prosperous nation.
And that’s…a pretty accurate description of what it’s policies are. The policies are more or less exactly what you’d expect on supporting the traditional family, standing up for free speech and freedom of conscience, supporting parent’s rights and being tough on immigration and crime.
For the most part, the policies are fairly straight-forward and coherent: whether or not one agrees with them, they’re the policies that one would express a socially conservative party to have, and expressed in fairly conventional socially conservative ways.
Unfortunately, when it comes to climate and the environment they do start to descend into scientifically dubious claims, stating that, ‘Carbon dioxide is a natural atmospheric gas; it is not a pollutant, nor is it harmful’15. They’re also pretty worried by 5G, saying, “ There should be a moratorium on using 5G, or any other new electromagnetic frequencies, before it has been fully and thoroughly tested by independent researchers as to its effects on humans, animals, plants and microbes. It should not be switched on unless it is conclusively proven that it does not cause any adverse health effects.”
Also, somewhat surprisingly, despite championing the military - ‘We should once again become a strong military power that can act positively where necessary’ - they’re very isolationist, arguing that ‘successive governments have sent our armed forces to engage in unnecessary military action in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine that was neither for the defence of the realm or the protection of the British people’ and that ‘We should hold to the principle of non-engagement in third party conflicts and de-escalation of tensions at the earliest possible juncture to avoid unnecessary death, suffering, homelessness and migration’. I suspect a lot of people would agree with them on Iraq, but rather fewer on our support for Ukraine.
They’re big on home ownership and believe that ‘Every young British family should be able to buy their own home’, though appear to plan to get there primarily by reducing immigration, as they also believe ‘All housing targets for local councils should be abolished, along with the practices of building large housing developments on prime agricultural land and ‘densification’ and ‘intensification’ where zones in town centres are turned into blocks of flats dozens of stories high to meet imposed targets for housing units.’ Which is a bit odd because even if one did drastically lower immigration, one might think that building some more houses might, you know, help more people afford homes. They’re also big on growing our own food and ending our dependence on foreign imports16.
As one might expect, they’re tough on crime:
The Heritage Party wants an end to politically correct policing and justice. The job of the police is to protect us from murderers, grooming gangs, burglars, rapists, paedophiles, vandals, thieves and thugs; it is not to kneel before Marxists, make dancing videos for the internet, or hassle people for politically incorrect opinions.
Overall, I have to hand it to them: if you want a strongly socially conservative party, and can overlook a side-order of isolationism and conspiracy theorising about 5G, this is your bag.
Psychedelic Movement (1 candidate)
Breaking my usual rule, I couldn’t find a website or manifesto for the Psychedelic Movement, who are standing one candidate in Southend West and Leigh, one of the seats also being contested by the delightfully named Confelicity17.
However, the Basildon, Canvey and Southend Echo reports that ‘His manifesto promises Southend will have 24-hour cannabis cafes offering THC brownies and cookies’ and that he intends to ‘ignore the law’ to provide this.
His other pledges, it’s reported, include ‘protecting local libraries, offering psychedelic therapy and “bring back the legal punishment of exile” for those that “threaten the fabric and the future of this country”.’ The Echo is silent on whether he also intends to bring back Ostracism, but he totally should18.
Appealing as all this sounds, personally I’m hoping the good people of Southend West and Leigh will go for Confelicity.
Save us Now (1 candidate)
They claim to be ‘The all new Political Movement that will counter the collusion and crony institutions and systems undermining our freedom the rule of law, democracy and the peace of the United Kingdom.’
Save Us Now has a lengthy constitution which is very big on the Common Law and very down on cronyish and corruption:
THE PARTY was created out of a desire to forge Good Honorable people together under oath ( Be without fear in the face of your enemies, Be brave and upright , speak the truth always even if this leads to your downfall, safeguard the weak and helpless, and do no wrong) – to overcome the current dysfunctional political system, Where politicians may lie and cheat even when they know this to be the wrong action, because there is no longer any sanction against wrong-doing or dishonourable behaviour – Which is unrepresentative of the public at large whom they serve And which in so doing they subvert the integrity and reputation of the institutions that they are in regulatory oversight of., including passages such as:
OUR PARTY is an inclusive democratic party and is part of the international movement for saving the Environment, To create good health and wealth in the general population, including peace and prosperity for all people, not just the few, empowering all citizens of the World who have been subjugated by money and repeal laws that allow profit to take precedence over Life, health and a good environment, which has been created due to the unfair venial political systems, dominated by crony capitalist businesses, greed , bribery and corruption; And to hold all such corporations and shareholders liable for damages for any ill health to Human Capital or the Ecology they create.
THE PARTY’S PRINCIPLES are based upon honour, fidelity and the Bond of word of Oaths of Office and transparency regarding the adherence to the Common Laws of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
There policies are somewhat less developed. In fact, I couldn’t actually find any specific policies, but based on the ‘Evidence’ and ‘Posters’ section of the website, their main concern appears to be opposing 5G, e.g.:
You can also download ‘memes’, buy a SUN T-shirt or hoodie. Also, fascinatingly, this is the third microparty so far which has highlighted the Lib Dem’s broken pledge on tuition fees; that really has had some long-term cut-through:
The appalling news that the 5G roll out kills babies before they are born shows how much we need to clear out the old decrepit systems that are allowing this to happen. The established parties can’t be trusted you only have to refer to the Liberals and their promise to cut tuition.
Overall, 10/10 to Save Us Now for coming up with a nifty acronym; 0/10 on everything else.
Living in the love of the Common People, Smiles from the heart of a family man…
The Common People’s website public spiritedly opens with a prominent description of how to register to vote, including how to apply for a postal vote and what ID you need. It then goes on to outline a wide range of charities that can give you help if you’re struggling. It’s not the usual approach, certainly, but I quite like the idea of a political party that cares more about a reader’s mental health than whether or not you vote for it.
In a similarly public spirited fashion, The Common People has a donors page which explains, ‘Donations to The Common People are only accepted from citizens of the UK. All donors are listed on this page.’ before going on to say that, sadly, ‘To date, no money has ever been donated to The Common People.’
Despite this unusual start, they have a pretty radical, if incomplete policy agenda, including Universal Basic Income19, banning dividend payments from public utilities and lowering the voting age to 12:
We will extend the voting franchise to all eligible citizens from the age of twelve. Citizens in secondary education receive mandatory lessons in Civics knowing they will have to wait anything up to twelve years before they will first get an opportunity to vote in a national election. That is not an incentive. Reducing the age at which they can vote will have a galvanizing effect on their interest in the governance of Britain. Everyone in these classes should know from the start that they will have a duty to vote before leaving secondary education.
They take quite an interest in the nuts and bolts of government, pledging to end the whipping system in Parliament and to ‘reconfigure the Departments of State. A new Department of Energy will be established for the first time since privatization in 1994…Its decisions will be ring-fenced from interference by any other government department, particularly the Treasury’.20 Unfortunately, their policies on Defence, Health, Foreign Policy and the Commonwealth, amongst other areas, aren’t written yet.
If after reading their website you’re still not sure about them, don’t worry. They say:
‘The whole of this website and the party it represents is opinion, none of it is news. Nobody should go away from here thinking they have been informed, enlightened or even represented. We offer the website as a basis for discussion…We invite the electorate in this country to vote in support of the policies we outline here after discussing them, revising them and coming to a balanced choice.’
And one for luck…The Motoring Party (0 candidates)
The Motoring Party is registered with the Electoral Commission but not actually standing any candidates in this election. They’re included because I couldn’t resist highlighting one of their policies:
Discuss having all future Olympic Games in Greece, allowing them to make money and taking away the worry and burden of debt from other countries.
And why not, I say! Oh, the mountains look on Marathon, and Marathon looks on the sea. And I look up at the Parthenon, and the Greeks look down on me.
The Motoring Party’s policies, oddly, do not relate much to motoring. Some gems include:
We shall help Africans and Arabs solve their problems so they can make the most of their beautiful warm continent. Then if they want they can invite tourists to visit.
The Human Rights section reads:
Try to negotiate them in countries that do not have them. Allowing criminals to be deported.
Speed limit on motorways 80mph.
Keep the time in Greenwich.
Some bits are extremely odd, becoming almost incoherent. For example, on immigration, it says:
Circle it. Allowing services and systems to cope and to spend wisely. Reducing the national debt. We shall build in Rwanda, to start. A Learning Centre that people want to go to. Making our Globel what it should be.
We are told, further more that, ‘We are a centre party, that when necessary helps the full spectrum of people’, that ‘The Motoring Party is the only one with the necessary precision’ and, most mysteriously of all, that ‘The motoring party does include the spin dryer etc.’
Overall, I’m not entirely sure whether this manifesto was written as a prank, by an AI, or as a genuine statement of intent - but it’s probably for the best they’re not standing.
If you’ve enjoyed our canter through the microparties, please do share this post - I rely on word of mouth for my audience. And most importantly of all - don’t forget to vote on 4th July!
Optional.
And one party who’s not.
Though I apologise if one of these turns out to be in either of those camps - I’ve not read every word on their websites, or examined their social media.
Southend.
I assume this is what they mean; what they say is ‘State Pension to be linked to National Minimum Wage and based on 40 hours’ (and similarly for the others).
This turns out to be the Edward de Bono ‘thinking hat’ system, possibly familiar to any of you who have suffered through corporate away days.
Have they been listening too much to the Lib Dems?
Though no doubt that shows I am indeed part of the problem!
I should add that all of these answers carry on, at some length.
'It lives for the entire parliament, hence The Living Vote.’
But of course the one who gets elected first has a higher weighted vote in Parliament. In Knowsley, in fact, the second placed MP got only 4,432 votes - or about 1/10 of the winner! Whereas in Bedford, both the first and second are almost level.
They are very exercised by ULEZ and 15 minute cities.
I know they sometimes do this, e.g. ruling out tax rises.
Now you can work out the Parliamentary constituency in which I live. :-)
It’s one thing to oppose measures to mitigate global warming as not worth it, or our country not being big enough to make a difference; those are political positions. But when one starts saying that CO2 doesn’t contribute to global warming, that crosses the line into scientific illiteracy.
What is it with the pre-Peelian position of so many socially conservative parties?
And, I guess, the Conservatives, Labour, etc.
I would love a modern democratic nation to bring back ostracism, just to see what impact it has. Although, a bit like having twins, it’s definitely something I want someone else to do, rather than us.
Kids get it but have to use some of it to pay for their schooling
Arbitrarily large budget with no spending controls for the win!
What a delightful post!
It is a little sad that the Blue Revolution defines working people as 'people who live partially off benefits instead of off their work'.
If £100bn is the wrong amount of money to give to Ukraine, what's the right amount? (Personally I'm be more intrested in a party saying they're going to build some ammunition factories and start shipping serious quantities of shells and bullets to Ukraine than in any specific sum, but then I always prefer plans to targets.)
The Fairer Voting Party's system is original and elegant (at least, the bit where their vote in parliament depends on the number of people who voted for them is. Everything else about their system including the 'more than double the number of MPs part' I'm not so keen on). I think the whips could handle the different vote sizes with a simple spreadsheet though.
Freedom Party: what are social credit scores and does anyone other than China use them at the moment?
The Save Us Now party has some seriously odd choices about which words deserve capital letters. My favourite is the 'And' midsentence.
I had no idea there were so many people worried about 5G. I wonder what has set them all off, and if it was on YouTube.
Corrections:
"deposite" has a bonus e.
"they stand for far more interesting than that" is missing something :-)
"as’part of the problem’" is missing a space after 'as'.
"Plus, we often care as much about what we want not to happen as to how we do." 'how' should probably be 'what'.
bid od -> bit odd