AFC candidates will gain the benefit of a shared nationwide image, promoted in AFC Party Political Broadcasts.

Candidates can have descriptions of their choice printed on ballot papers, alongside their names, for example, "Alliance For Change anti-corruption candidate", "Alliance For Change, opposed to torture", "Alliance For Change, for family rights", or "Alliance For Change, for debt relief".

AFC candidates are expected to agree with the AFC's human rights-centred "Core Policies", listed on this website. This requirement keeps out would-be candidates who don't share the AFC human rights-centred ethos.

When campaigning locally in their own constituencies, AFC candidates enjoy complete freedom to emphasise themselves, any smaller political parties or single issue groups, to which they belong, or any particular policy objectives that they hold dear personally, provided that these additional policies don't conflict head-on with AFC Core Policies.

There were enough AFC candidates standing in the May 2005 General Election to prove that the AFC concept is viable. The same approach can easily be used on a grander scale next time, to offer the voter a chance to bring about real change, by offering the voter an alternative choice of government.

Each AFC candidate will contribute policy ideas and experience from his or her specialist viewpoint. All are likely to be supportive of one another's agendas, as well as of the Core Policies. A future AFC government would therefore have a wide ranging set of policies, built from the grassroots upward, rather than imposed upon others by any leadership structure that might need to emerge.

A House of Commons controlled by MPs who came from an issue politics background would be far healthier for the country than one composed entirely of today's typical career politicians. These career politicians have already compromised often, in order to pursue the career paths of the old-fashioned political parties to which they belong, and to which the AFC stands opposed.

The AFC initiative would not have been needed at this point in our history, if only the present generation of party politician MPs had been willing in practice to listen to reason. (They are supposed to be willing to listen in theory.) They ought also to have been willing to defy party whips, in order to vote according to well-informed good conscience. They have failed us too often for it to be safe for us to trust them with power again.

The people left nowadays who really care and understand about the really important problem issues of life with which central government can help are mainly drawn from the ranks of single-issue political activists. Many voters have been refusing to vote at all, but often they have longed to be able to vote for more idealistic people. Non-voters aren't generally disillusioned with the idea of "democracy". They just don't like the three main parties on offer any more, that's all.

What's more, many who vote for the same old parties don't vote that way because they really want the candidate for whom they vote to be elected. They vote "tactically", mainly to keep out a candidate whose party they despise even more than they despise the party they end up voting for, reluctantly.

It is time for the people to try to take power away from those who have failed for too long to heed those who elected them - those who have put their parties before their country and humanity, no matter how hard, and how reasonably, we have pleaded with them.

Starting yet another traditional political party, obsessed with a single issue, founded by a vain celebrity, or with a die-hard committment to an outmoded and discredited nineteenth century ideology, won't work. This new approach, the AFC approach, might work, and it is crying out for the British people to give it a try, at the earliest opportunity.

How will our children and grandchildren forgive us, if we do not try to give them this chance to reap the benefits of real change at last? For that matter, how will the world, including those countries without democracy that are being harmed by the way British voters have been voting for so long, forgive us, if we do not consider the effect upon them of the way we vote?