400 MPs under 40: Why Young, Independent Candidates Deserve Your Vote(s)....

In a democratic society, the power to choose our representatives through voting is a fundamental right. As responsible citizens, we must exercise this right carefully and consider the long-term impact our choices will have on our nation's future. In recent times, it has become apparent that there is a significant age gap between the majority of voters and the elected politicians. Let us analyze the importance of supporting younger candidates, preferably independent ones, whose ages are closer to the voter demographic, and why doing so can bring fresh perspectives, innovation, and a stronger representation of our interests.

1.   Representing the Voice of the Majority:

The age group of 18 to 31 constitutes a significant portion of the population, and their concerns, aspirations, and priorities deserve strong representation in the political landscape. Younger candidates are more likely to understand and empathize with the challenges faced by their fellow youth, whether it be education, employment, or social issues. By electing candidates closer to the age of  the majority of voters, we can ensure our concerns are given due attention and that our voices are effectively represented.

2.   Embracing Change and Innovation:

The world is rapidly evolving, with technological advancements and social shifts occurring at an unprecedented pace. Younger candidates are more likely to be in tune with these changes, as they have grown up in an era of rapid technological progress. Their unique perspectives and innovative ideas can help resolve many of the challenges of the modern world, foster economic growth, and create opportunities for the younger generation. By supporting younger candidates, voters will invite the infusion of new ideas, creative problem-solving, and adaptability into our political systems.

3.   Independence from Party Influence:

Political parties often have their own agendas and established hierarchies, mostly made up of geriatric people, that can limit the autonomy of individual political thinking. Supporting independent candidates allows voters to break free from the constraints of partisan politics and focus on electing representatives who prioritize the interests of their constituents over party loyalty. Independent candidates can bring a broader range of perspectives, as they are not bound by party platforms and can work towards finding common ground across different ideologies. This non-partisan approach fosters a more inclusive and collaborative political environment.

4.   Bridge the Generation Gap:

By electing younger candidates, voters can bridge the generation gap that often exists between the elected representatives and the majority of voters. This can lead to improved communication, understanding, and cooperation between different age groups. By electing representatives who are closer in age to the majority of voters, we can promote inter-generational dialogue and ensure that the concerns of all age groups are taken into account when making important decisions that shape our society.

Let’s compare the advantages and disadvantages of voting for young political candidates:

Advantages:

1.   Fresh Perspectives: Young political candidates often bring fresh perspectives and new ideas to the table. They have grown up in a different era and can offer innovative solutions to address the challenges of today's world.

2.   Relevance to Voter Concerns: Younger candidates are more likely to understand and prioritize the concerns and aspirations of their fellow youth. They can advocate for issues such as education, employment opportunities, and social issues that directly impact younger generations.

3.   Technological Proficiency: Growing up in a technologically advanced era, young candidates are generally more adept at using and leveraging technology for governance and public participation. This can lead to more effective and efficient governance, and better engagement with constituents through digital platforms.

4.   Long-Term Vision: Young candidates have a longer potential tenure in public office, which enables them to focus on long-term policies and planning. They may be more invested in shaping the future, as they have a longer stake in the consequences of their decisions.

Disadvantages:

1.   Limited Experience: Young candidates may lack the experience and depth of knowledge that comes with years of political involvement. They may face a learning curve when it comes to navigating complex political systems and dealing with the intricacies of governance.

2.   Lack of Network and Support: Young candidates often have limited political networks and may struggle to garner support from established political structures and interest groups. Building alliances and coalitions can be challenging, which may hinder their ability to enact change.

3.   Perception of Inexperience: Some voters may perceive young candidates as lacking the necessary qualifications and readiness to hold public office. This perception can be a barrier to their electoral success, particularly if they are running against more seasoned and politically cunning opponents.

4.   Overemphasis on Youth Issues: While it is important to address the concerns of young voters, an exclusive focus on youth issues could potentially neglect the broader range of challenges faced by other age groups. Balancing the interests of different demographics is crucial for effective governance.

It is important to note that these advantages and disadvantages are not absolute, and individual candidates will vary in their qualities and capabilities. Evaluating candidates based on their specific merits, qualifications, and policy positions is essential when making an informed voting decision.

In the next general election, young voters must consider voting for candidates whose ages are closer to their own. By supporting younger, independent candidates, voters can empower themselves to shape the future that they desire. Young elected representatives will ensure that their concerns are heard, their ideas are accepted, and their aspirations are fulfilled. Together, the voters can bridge the age gap, foster innovation, and build a more inclusive democracy that works for everyone, regardless of their age. It is time to make our voices heard by supporting young and independent candidates in the upcoming election.

Remember: If we can vote 400 young candidates to the Parliament in the next general election, we will change everything in our nation, and for the better. 

400 over 40 should be the voters goal.

                                                                 Pic courtesy: EU forum

 

 

 

Biased, Poorly managed and Untrustworthy - The London Police

Being in the middle of a controversy is nothing new for The London Metropolitan Police, commonly known as the Metropolitan Police Service or simply the Met, which is the largest police force in the United Kingdom.

It is responsible for policing the 32 boroughs of London, covering an area of 620 square miles and in current times, serving a population of more than 8 million people. The Met has a long and controversial history, spanning more than 180 years.

The Met was founded in 1829 by Sir Robert Peel, the Home Secretary at that time. At the time, London had no organized police force, and law enforcement was the responsibility of parish (local community) constables and watchmen. This system was highly inefficient, and crime rates in the city were high. Peel's vision was to create a professional police force that would be accountable to the public and would uphold the law impartially. Peel’s principle was the goal to preventing crime, not catching criminals. According to him, if the police stop crime before it happens, they (the government) will not have to punish citizens or suppress their rights. His opinion was that “an effective police department doesn’t have high arrest statistics; and its community has low crime rates”.

The first 1,000 police officers were known as "Peelers" or "Bobbies," after their founder. They were selected for their physical fitness and moral character and were trained in basic police work, such as crowd control, investigation, and arrest procedures. The Met's headquarters were established at Scotland Yard, and its officers were issued with uniforms and truncheons (a short thick club).

Initially, the Met was not well received by the public. Many Londoners saw the police as an intrusive and oppressive force, and there were several riots in the early years of the Met's existence. However, over time, the police gained public trust, and crime rates began to decline. By the mid-19th century, the Met had become a model for police forces around the world.

The Met was not always the model police agency for efficiency or competence. In the 1860s and 1870s it was tasked with investigating a series of bombings known as the ‘Fenian bombings’, carried out by Irish republican groups. The Met’s handling of these cases was criticized for being heavy-handed and discriminatory towards Irish communities.

The Met's first significant controversy occurred in 1888, with the White-chapel murders, which are more commonly known as the ‘Jack the Ripper’ killings. The Met's investigation of the murders was heavily criticized for its incompetence and lack of progress, maybe because the police considered the five women victims to be prostitutes (which was debatable even in those days), and the killer was never identified or caught, with the case remaining unsolved to this day.

The Met's next major controversy came in 1911, with the Siege of Sidney Street. A group of anarchists had taken refuge in a house in East London, after initially killing two police officers and a third one when the police had surrounded the building. The police response was heavily criticized for its lack of planning and coordination, and questions were raised about the use of antiquated firearms by the police. The police, through the then Home Secretary, Winston Churchill, had to request the assistance of the British Army to quell the situation and bring it under control.

During the 20th century, the Met faced several other controversies, including the policing of protests and riots.

In the early 20th century, the Met was involved in the policing of the Suffragette movement, which campaigned for women's right to vote. When the then British Prime Minister Asquith reneged on his commitment to present ‘The Conciliation Bill’, that would have allowed women, the Right-to-Vote; the women protestors who marched to towards their Parliament were met with brutal force from the Met police, which resulted in the death of two women at the hands of the police.

The Met's most significant controversy in recent times came in 1993 with the murder of Stephen Lawrence. Lawrence was a black British teenager who was murdered in a racist attack by four white youths in South London. The police investigation into Lawrence's murder was heavily criticized for its incompetence, and allegations of racism within the police force led to a public inquiry. Sir William Macpherson, a retired high court judge and former soldier, headed this inquiry and concluded that the investigation into the killing had been “marred by a combination of professional incompetence, institutional racism and a failure of leadership”. Specific officers in the Metropolitan police were named and the entire force was criticized. The inquiry led to a series of reforms within the Met, including changes to the way the police investigate hate crimes and a greater focus on diversity and inclusion within the force.

In 2021, Sarah Everard was kidnapped and murdered in London, by a London Met Police officer, Wayne Couzens. On 9 March 2021, Couzens was arrested for her kidnapping and murder. However, it was during the vigil of of 13 March on Clapham Common, that led to a controversial police response and four arrests for breaches of COVID-19 regulations, which was criticized for its heavy-handedness and lack of sensitivity towards women's safety concerns. An investigation by Louise Casey, a member of the British parliament's upper house who led the review, said "radical" reform was needed after severe failings were found across the Met, which employs more than 43,000 officers and staff.

"We have found widespread bullying, discrimination, institutional homophobia, misogyny and racism," the report said, adding "women and children do not get the protection and support they deserve".

London’s police force has lost the confidence of the people it serves because it is riven with institutional racism, misogyny and homophobia and doesn’t do enough to weed out bad officers, according to this withering report commissioned after Sarah Everard was raped and killed by a serving officer.

Deep-seated bias, poor management and budget cuts mean that crimes against women and girls are poorly investigated, ethnic minority communities are over-policed and trust in the police is plummeting among various sections of the people, the report found. These issues have been allowed to fester because whistle-blowers are ostracized, outside criticism is ignored and too many bad officers have been allowed to remain on the job, even after they’ve been charged with domestic abuse or harassing their colleagues.

Despite its many controversies, the Met has also been at the forefront of many significant developments in policing, including the introduction of fingerprinting and DNA analysis in criminal investigations. It has played a significant role in counter-terrorism operations, particularly following the terrorist attacks in London in 2005, which claimed the lives of 52 people and injured hundreds more. The Met's response to the attacks was praised for its effectiveness, but there were also concerns about civil liberties and the use of anti-terrorism legislation.

The Met has responded to these controversies by acknowledging its shortcomings and committing to reforms. In the wake of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, the Met introduced a range of measures aimed at improving diversity and reducing racism within the force. These included the higher recruitment of black and minority ethnic officers, the implementation of unconscious bias training, and the establishment of a diversity and inclusion unit.

The Met has also made efforts to improve its community engagement and build trust with the public. The force has introduced neighborhood policing teams, which work closely with local communities to address local concerns and build relationships and has embraced social media and other forms of digital communication to improve transparency and engage with a wider audience.

Despite these efforts, the Met continues to face criticism and controversy. The force is often at the center of debates about police powers, accountability, and civil liberties. The ongoing debate about the role of the police in society and the relationship between law enforcement and the public is likely to continue for many years to come.