Over the next few days, we will be publishing our twelve most read posts of 2016. Many thanks to the 533,000 people who have visited the site over the past tumultuous 12 months. 

At number 11, we have a post from July asking some questions of the newly formed More United. Kudos to Paddy for replying the next day. 

In a blaze on social media. the More United project, supported by Paddy Ashdown, launches this morning.

It’s certainly ambitious:

MoreUnited.uk is a new movement setting out to change British politics. We’re going to transform the way politics is funded, giving a voice to the millions of open and tolerant people in Britain who feel the political system no longer works for them.

It has a Facebook page here and you can follow it on Twitter here.

They intend to fund candidates who subscribe to a series of pretty broad principles:

A fair, modern, efficient market based economy that closes the gap between rich and poor and supports strong public services

A modern democracy that empowers citizens, rather than politicians

A green economy that protects the environment and works to reverse climate change

An open and tolerant society where diversity is celebrated in all its forms

A United Kingdom that welcomes immigration, international co-operation and a close relationship with the EU

There some example policies to flesh this stuff out.

So, we agree, so shouldn’t we all sign up? Well, actually, it raises more questions than it answers, so it may be wisest to wait and see.

How does this work in a First Past the Post system?

If they are going to fund every candidate who signs up to their principles, surely they could end up funding every candidate in a seat. There are some, if few, moderate Tories who could qualify. However, what if the manifesto of the party a candidate is standing for is in direct conflict with this. Someone might back electoral reform but their party probably wouldn’t and in government wouldn’t legislate for it so they would never get the chance to implement it.

In a First Past the Post system, funding more than one candidate could mean that none of them wins. They might allow their local members to decide which one to back as Paddy said on Marr, but that could be open to manipulation by the parties.

Why is there no mention of liberty and freedom anywhere?

I am irked that there is no mention of liberty and freedom. I’m voting Lib Dem regardless, but if I wasn’t, I’d be darned if I was going to vote for a Labour candidate who might subscribe to the principles of More United but would then go and vote for things like control orders and 90 day detention. The absence of a civil liberties test worries me.

Their example policy of “safeguarding the truth” in politics has the potential to be positively Orwellian. Who defines the truth? How do you enforce such a policy? We all saw the blatant lies told by Leave during the referendum, which no doubt influenced people’s votes but what else other than point out the facts, can you actually do?

What about Scotland and Wales?

We accept the right of the Scottish people to decide their future, but we hope they will want to remain part of the UK

The branding, a union jack in a heart, wouldn’t appeal in Scotland but, like the Stronger In branding, that can be changed. But what if the members backed independence? There is potential for this to be quite a cause of conflict within the movement in Scotland particularly.

Is this just for Westminster? What about councils and Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies?

If you want to really change politics, you need to look at government at all levels.

They will have to do better than THAT on diversity

I am not one of these people that think a mere mention of diversity is enough. You have to show intent with detailed policies but this is it:

• Promoting and defending diversity, pluralism and tolerance.
• Strengthening anti-hate laws.

It’s generalised and weak. They could end up backing 100% straight white middle class middle aged men and there is nothing in their founding principles to stop them.

UPDATE: 4:40 pm. Their aims on diversity would be much more credible if they didn’t have two people on their list of supporters who exclude transgender women from feminist spaces.

Having said all of that, there are lots of things that More United say that could strike a chord with Liberal Democrats. This does have potential to grow into something that influences the debate in politics in a good way. If it means that progressive candidates get the funding they need to make an impact, that could be a good thing. They need to be careful that they are not so broad that they dilute their effectiveness and potential to make a difference.

Let’s just see how they develop. I have signed up, but I haven’t and can’t see myself giving them any money because I as a party member will want to support Liberal Democrats. That’s as it should be. If this movement is going to succeed it will need to bring in people who are not involved in politics.

The most useful thing More United can do, in my view, is change the debate, to get people thinking about how they get the Parliament and politicians they ask for and confront the really nasty, narrow, right wing movements who are becoming way too influential. If they can do that, then they will have succeeded.

UPDATE: Austin Rathe (yes, he who used to be our membership and data guru) is heavily involved in this and has written a piece explaining what they want to achieve. He says:

Right now, the forces of extremism are winning every major fight in our politics. Brexit is merely the latest instalment in an ongoing saga. If the solution to the crisis in our democracy was people who already agreed with each other sitting in meetings and talking then we wouldn’t be in this mess.

If we want things to be different, we need to think differently.

We also need to do something that makes sense in the modern world.

Digital organisations are, one at a time, disrupting every part of our society. Companies like Uber and Amazon succeed because they understand that the internet isn’t just a way to do things faster or cheaper, it’s a way to do things that could never be done before.

That same revolution will come to politics. It’s inevitable.