Jury Team Commentary

With the withdrawal of the 1,950 Dutch troops in Afghanistan following the collapse of the Dutch government, the Jury Team today again called on the UK government to bring the number of British troops in Afghanistan into line with the NATO average, a policy overwhelmingly supported by the electorate.

The Jury Team policy is to “Limit the number of British troops sent to Afghanistan to the average number sent by other NATO countries (relative to their population)”.  This would mean that instead of 9,500 troops in Afghanistan, the UK would have only about 4,000.  We would still be fulfilling all of our NATO obligations but would also be saving at least £2 billion a year.  More details of this policy are shown on http://tiny.cc/YLuM9

 Sir Paul Judge, Leader of the Jury Team, commented: “NATO is ‘the cornerstone of our defence’ and the UK should play its full part.  That does not however mean that we should provide a disproportionate share of its resources.  We all salute the courage and discipline of our troops in Afghanistan.  They are doing their duty with professionalism as part of NATO’s campaign.  However our politicians in London enjoying their feather-bedded existence and expenses increasingly look like First World War generals in the comfort of a chateau while sending soldiers to their deaths.”

This Jury Team policy on Afghanistan was shown in a YouGov poll to be supported by 67% of the electorate to 14% against.  There was particularly strong support from females (71%) and from those aged 55+ (75%).

The collapse of the coalition government in the Netherlands over the Afghanistan troops issue automatically means that Dutch forces will be withdrawn from the Afghan province of Uruzgan as of 1st August 2010.   The move is mandatory under a government decision taken in late 2007, in which the Netherlands signed up for another two-year stint from 1 August 2008.  A NATO spokesman stated: “The Dutch decision is for the Dutch to take and we will not interfere in that.”

Background:

An analysis produced by the Jury Team shows that British troops have been dragged into the Afghan war far more than any other NATO country.  We have more troops in Afghanistan, compared with population, than any NATO country including America.

-         the UK has 154 soldiers for every 1 million of its population

-         France, Germany and Italy have a ratio of only 58, 54 and 52 per million respectively

-         Spain, Portugal and Greece only have 23, 10 and 1 per million respectively

-         The USA only has 152 per million, just less than the UK.

Compared with the size of the UK, we have had 12 times more deaths than our European NATO allies since 2006 when the army was redeployed to Afghanistan and John Reid, the Defence Secretary at the time, famously said that “our boys” might leave in three years “without a shot being fired”.   

During 2006-9, Britain had 240 troops killed but Germany had only 19 deaths and Italy only 16.  The total deaths of troops from Germany, Italy, France, Belgium, Spain and Portugal, with a combined population of 273 million, more than 4 times the UK, has been only 76, less than a third of the number of UK fatal casualties.  The Dutch had 21 killed in the same period, 16 in combat and 5 in accidents.

This means that per head of population, Britain has suffered 12 times more fatalities than its supposed European NATO allies.  It has also suffered relatively nearly double the U.S.A.

This new analysis by the Jury Team is taken from the latest troop numbers posted last week on the website of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan which is run by NATO on behalf of the United Nations.

An analysis being published today by the Jury Team, one of the political parties in the newly formed Alliance for Democracy, shows that in last summer’s European elections the BBC flouted its own guidelines for impartiality.

The political parties UKIP and the BNP had much more coverage than the BBC Trust had decided they should have as individual producers sought extra ratings by featuring those parties. As a result of the extra BBC coverage, UKIP won an additional MEP seat and the BNP won two MEP seats for the first time.

The BBC Trust decided at its 15th April 2009 meeting to give the same coverage to UKIP as it would to the three main traditional parties (Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrats) because UKIP had done well in the 2004 EU elections even though by ealry 2009 it had dropped way back in popularity. However an analysis for the Jury Team by Taylor Nelson Sofres (TNS), the major market research agency, shows that this is not what happened. TNS analysed the total number of items broadcast on Radio 4, BBC1 and BBC2 over the election period 28th April to 6th June 2009. This shows that UKIP was featured 58 times whereas the Conservatives only had 50 and 45 mentions respectively and the Liberal Democrats less than half as much as UKIP with 28 mentions, a complete distortion of the BBC policy of equal treatment for these four parties.

At the same meeting the BBC Trust agreed to give some national coverage to the Green Party but none to the BNP. However subsequently Helen Boaden, Head of BBC News, told her staff to give as much coverage to the BNP as to the Green Party. In fact the BNP got 38 mentions, more than the 33 of the Green Party and the 28 of the Liberal Democrats.

The Jury Team is committed to changing the way that the BBC decides on election coverage which is mainly on the basis of the results in the previous equivalent election. Sir Paul Judge, Founder of the Jury Team, said:

“By using mainly the results of the last election to decide on coverage the BBC stultifies our political system and entrenches the status quo, not living up to the BBC’s Charter requirement of innovation. People are fed up with the existing political parties. People want to vote for ‘none of the above’. In the 2009 EU elections, two thirds of the electorate did not vote. In the last general election in 2005, 40% of the electorate did not vote but the BBC ignored those licence payers in its election coverage. The BBC should be giving much more coverage to new political parties and ideas.”

 By mainly basing election coverage decisions on what happened at the previous election the BBC is failing to take into account:

 - the increasing volatility of the electorate

 - the fact that the largest party at a general election is the Abstainers and the BBC must strive to find candidates and parties who can represent that two-fifths of the electorate

 - the latest polling evidence

 - the formation of new political parties and movements

 The Jury Team policy is that it is for Parliament to decide how parties may be formed and people may validly be nominated as candidates for elections. Sir Paul added:

 “The BBC’s impartiality requires that it treats all candidates the same and should give news coverage to all parties predominantly on the basis of the number of candidates they are putting forward rather than on the basis of previous elections. It is essential that the BBC does give more publicity to new parties in order to help to break the stultifying stranglehold of the current political system.

 The BBC must consult widely about their election guidelines as it is quite clear that the decisions made about coverage can affect the result of the election. These decisions must no longer be made in private by the BBC Trust or, even worse, by an individual executive. The BBC also needs better to monitor its election coverage to ascertain what actually happens. It is quite clear from the analysis above by TNS that the coverage policies were not translated into actual coverage. The BBC needs to take its responsibilities for democracy more seriously.”

 This need to publicise all strands of opinion on an equal basis was set out in a letter to The Times from David Jordan, BBC Director of Editorial Policy and Standards, who wrote in August 2009:

 ”Our job is to find the facts, test a wide range of opinion fairly and rigorously and let the audience, armed with the best assessment of the evidence we can provide, make up its own mind.”

The Jury Team is working to persuade the BBC to implement this clear policy in its political coverage.

The Alliance for Democracy, the new political movement formed to “clean up and open up” politics by fighting the general election against the traditional political parties, is launching its Manifesto on Monday 15th February.   People will be able to sign up as candidates to become an MP at the general election by going to the website of the Jury Team (www.juryteam.org).

One of the Alliance’s key policies is that British troops should not be put in harms way more than the the troops of other NATO countries.  NATO “remains the cornerstone of UK defence policy” according to the Ministry of Defence.  However NATO is meant to be a co-operative endeavour among its 28 members and if the UK is not specifically threatened then there should be no reason for it to play more than its fair part and to put its troops in greater danger.

An analysis being published today by the Alliance for Democracy shows that British troops have been dragged into the Afghan war far more than any other NATO country.  We have more troops there, compared with population, than any other NATO country including America.

Compared with the size of the UK, we have had 12 times more deaths than our European NATO allies since 2006 when the army was redeployed to Afghanistan and John Reid, the Defence Secretary at the time, famously said that “our boys” might leave in three years “without a shot being fired”.

In fact during 2006-9, Britain had 240 troops killed but Germany had only 19 deaths and Italy only 16.  The total deaths of troops from Germany, Italy, France, Belgium, Spain and Portugal, with a combined population of 273 million, more than 4 times the UK, has been only 76, less than a third of the number of UK fatal casualties.  This means that per head of population, Britain has suffered 12 times fatalities more than its supposed NATO allies and has suffered nearly double the U.S.A.

This new analysis by the Alliance for Democracy is taken from the latest troop numbers posted last week on the website of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan which is run by NATO on behalf of the United Nations.

The Alliance policy is to “Limit the number of British troops sent to Afghanistan to the average number sent by other NATO countries (relative to their population)”.  This would mean that instead of 9,500 troops in Afghanistan, the UK would have only about 4,000.  We would still be fulfilling all of our NATO obligations but would also be saving at least £2 billion a year.  More details of this policy are shown on the extract from the Manifesto attached.

The Alliance’s policies are based on what the British people want.  The political class have become out of touch with the electorate.  As a result of vested interests and electoral cowardice, the current party system does not deliver the policies that people want.  The traditional political parties do not even properly debate the issues.  Using its own review substantiated by a series of YouGov opinion polls, the Jury Team has researched the areas where the political class and the public have clearly different views.  The Alliance will legislate for those policies and then have an authorising referendum before they become law.

The Alliance policy on Afghanistan was shown in a YouGov poll to be supported by 67% of the electorate to 14% against.  There was particularly strong support from females (71%) and from those aged 55+ (75%).

The Jury Team is now part of the Alliance for Democracy. We all need to work together to get rid of the traditional parties and get new people into Parliament at the general election.  Just changing one group of careeer politicians for another lot will not make any real change for the country. Come and help us.

The Alliance for Democracy grouping collectively achieved over 600,000 Votes in the June 2009 EU Elections and intends to field at least 350 Candidates in the 2010 General Election across England, Scotland and Wales.

 The parties will all be campaigning to allow the people a referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union and on the creation of an English Parliament.

 The parties are also united on giving the people a greater say in the way they are ruled by allowing them, subject to certain safeguards, to have a referendum if 5% of the electorate calls for one.

 They all want to break the undemocratic stranglehold of the main traditional political parties by introducing proportional representation and by making Parliament stronger so it can better stand up to the executive and through other serious proposals to reform Westminster and the current “unfit for purpose” political system.