The Next Big Movement

People who have read my articles in the past know that I don’t support our outdated voting system. Now is probably the best time to bring this up again. After the result of the American Presidential election and the anger and outrage at the electoral college and their outdated voting system, it’s time we have a look at our own. My main reason for taking interest in this issue originally was in the last General Election I voted for UKIP, perceived by most as a ‘protest vote’. The party overall made massive inroads on the overall vote, collecting 3.8 million votes. To put that into context we got nearly three times the amount of votes than the SNP who collected 1.4 million votes, yet they gained 56 seats in our parliament and we got 1 seat. From what I see in this divided country at the moment I would expect mass outrage from our ‘liberal’ friends who are busy trying to delay brexit. Yet not a whisper has been heard. They tried to champion proportional representation in a white paper motion which I fully commend the Greens for doing, I even wrote to my MP Sir Paul Beresford and asked him to get behind the motion which was a fools errand, as I was told in no uncertain terms that he whole heartedly opposed it and that was the end of that. It fell on deaf ears. I understand why, the people in power aren’t going to give away more of their power and damage their own party and interests.

Also it didn’t have the full blooded support that it really needed to get off the ground. I don’t think however that this is the best course of action or indeed the right cause to be supporting. When going for complete change you have a harder time persuading people and changing their minds. So I move onto the next stage. I had a massive brainwave (or so I thought) about 2 months ago of a brilliant new system that I devised in my head that supported both the current way of voting and a form of proportional representation, a hybrid if you will. Which would be easier to sell to the public and parliament alike, rather than cutting numbers of MPs or anything drastic of that nature. Yet to my disbelief after looking it up online, a form of my ‘vision’ already exists. Before I tell you which system it is I shall explain it and try to sell it to you.

Quite simply the numbers and areas that hold the power in parliament aren’t proportionate, so why not tip the balance of power. There are a huge amount of seats in London and Scotland which don’t reflect the views of the overall country. So by changing constituency boundaries of places like London and Scotland you could essentially free up a huge amount of seats and put them to use. By creating a regional MP as well as a constituency MP, so that say for example a party gained a huge amount of votes but came second in all of the constituencies they would still get some MPs who would be the voice for the people who didn’t vote for the constituency MP. Otherwise you get what we have now, with swathes of UKIP support but no one to give us a voice in parliament, including might I add the House of Lords (that’s for another time!). So it would give more of a balanced debate in the House and actually reflect the views of the country, there would also be no more ‘shock’ results like Brexit as people would actually be heard and their opinions transmitted onto a higher platform.

Now the downside to this is that where it’s already used, the regional MP is looked upon as a lesser MP and someone who couldn’t win a seat. So to combat that I thought of a different way to approach it, instead of being picked from a party list system the MP who wins the largest majority in a region is ‘promoted’ to regional MP and a candidate of a party who won the most amount of votes but came second would take his/her place as constituency MP, thus taking away the stigma of regional MP because the regional MP will have resounding support from the electorate. This is of course is the Additional Member System which is currently used in the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament, but with a few tweaks. Imagine my excitement and then withering disappointment all in the space of about 5 minutes when I devised it and then the realisation it already existed in some form! So there goes my dream of being a pioneer or revolutionary of electoral reform. I’ll just stick to fighting it out with Liberals and shouting down Political Correctness shall I…?

There is a huge disconnect between the London Elite and the rest of the country, this is why it needs to change and why in this form of voting the number of MPs from London would be more evenly distributed. There is no doubt that this country is divided, especially when it comes to politics. This form of voting system would be easier to use in persuading the masses as it isn’t too far different from the current system and from what i’ve seen after Brexit, change angers privileged millenials and the upper classes alike. Yet if we’re actually to move forward as a country after Brexit has actually taken place then we definitely need to drag this archaic system into the 21st century and really give the power back to the people. This legal farce that is taking place isn’t ‘giving the power to the people’ it is creating a bigger divide still. Gina Miller has single-handedly disenfranchised 17 million voters. Quite frankly, the abuse she receives is duly deserved apart from the death threats as I don’t believe people should be killed or threatened for their views. She actually believes she is the ‘champion of the people’ and believes in parliamentary sovereignty, then please explain why she is taking court action against the government and their plans on Brexit. The DEMOCRATICALLY elected government who have a mandate to govern the country from the electorate. Yes the referendum was advisory, yet the government would take the advice and implement the decision. It is as clear cut as it can get. Yet this rich women who thinks she speaks for normal ordinary people is trying to bypass the system by throwing money at it. She’s also cast doubt over the judiciary in this country by dragging it through the courts, as the verdict was poorly devised by the three judges in charge. The people voted to Leave why delay it, if it’s a matter of Royal prerogative then why hasn’t anyone talked to the Queen? I understand that she has to stay impartial as a constitutional monarchy and can’t show any political leaning, yet the decision rests with her and surely if the people she rules over have spoken then it should be implemented. The question was asked and you got the answer, stop being a sore loser and get on with your life. Trying to throw the country into further turmoil should be seen as a treacherous act, the end.

This movement is where the next big burst of political pressure should come from. Maybe in the new year and before Article 50 is triggered, UKIP especially should get behind this as they have the most to gain from it. But also it should be considered by normal voters as regardless of whatever political allegiances we have, this move is in the interest of the nation. Scotland and London won’t see it in this way, but then again what they think doesn’t reflect the views of the nation as a whole and it would benefit us to go down this road. It would also help to bridge the divide in the country and hopefully give hope to the electorate that eventually everyone will get a say in how their country is run.

If you enjoyed this please share!


Republican or Royalist?

I read an article the other day that stated that there is actually a movement that wants a referendum on getting rid of the Royal Family. Personally I have no side to take on the issue but this has made me curious what people’s thoughts and feelings about the matter are.


On the one side you have the Royalists, who believe that the Queen is the be all and end all. She and her family contribute £1bn in tourism a year, they’re good for international relations and being the face of the British people abroad, they’re an unelected barrier between the Government and absolute power which is healthy, otherwise you end up with power hungry leaders with no restrictions. People use the argument against the Monarchy and the House of Lords saying they’re unelected and anti-democratic. When in actual fact they’re just a safeguard against giving all the power to one individual or one party. The House of Lords can delay bills and block them for up to a year but can never fully stop a bill going through but can buy enough time to properly scrutinise and amend a bill, so that it isn’t rushed through without being properly debated or heard and enshrined into UK law. The Queen has the power to reject any law but in doing so would create a constitutional crisis so usually signs it off anyway, which is where people get the idea that the Queen has no power, as she has to adhere to what the government puts in front of her. Our lawmaking process is pretty good and thorough though, so when it finally gets put in front of the Queen, it’s in it’s final form and has the support of most MP’s who are voted in and given a mandate to vote on and make laws on our behalf. Which will finally be completely back in our control after Brexit! She can still technically wage war against another country, not that she will ever need too. She can also dissolve parliament which is a perfect safeguard in the event of having an unpopular PM or mad PM intent on harming this country. However in doing so it would start a civil war, so it’s more of a deterrent. The PM always tends to keep the Queen onside as it’s a kind of mutual understanding between the two. Also the Royal family will play a pivotal role when we start to negotiate trade deals around the world again post-brexit. Where some Prime Ministers can be disliked and unpopular with other countries, the Queen has the respect of a large amount of nations around the world and this can be a good building block for negotiations in places where the PM might be unpopular. Believe it or not this is how it used to be done before the EU negotiated all of our trade deals for us. I also read in an Economist article that keeping the Monarchy but reforming it would be a welcome sign to both parties. That’s a basic look at the For argument.

Bildresultat för british republicans

On the other side you have the Republicans who want to see the Queen dethroned and kicked out onto the street. That’s my cynical view of it but for the sake of being balanced let’s look at their argument. They say that the Queen sponges off the state which is true, yet her net contributions outweigh the running of her estates and outgoings. They use the fact that Prince Charles has penned letters to MP’s in the past as an excuse to describe him as meddling in politics. Which is also true as the Royal Family as a whole should stay impartial and a-political. Which is where I think a lot of the fear shown by the Republicans come from, the realisation that he will one day be king. They assume the worst and expect Charles to stick his oar into political proceedings. I think the fact that he cheated on Diana with Camilla sits uncomfortably with most people and don’t think that someone with such bad intentions should be trusted or be trusted to run a country. Much like nowadays when an MP is caught doing something lewd they’re forced out of office, yet with a monarchy you can’t force them out. It’s an outdated hereditary system which I can understand, a birth right to the throne is such an archaic means of choosing a head of state. Yet if you had to vote in a head of state, then you’re stuck in the catch 22 of they could be in league with the PM and therefore wouldn’t be impartial or a-political and we would automatically fall into an autocracy or a puppet government run by the head of state (e.g Russia). The Republicans also show a distaste for the amount of coverage the Royal Family gets in the media, I personally look at this as jealousy as the movement doesn’t have as much coverage or the following and support they feel they deserve. I understand that they get media attention for being given the crown and not doing anything worthy or noble to warrant receiving the crown like they originally did (e.g Battle of Bosworth), however I don’t exactly see the Queen racing head first into the enemy on horseback with a sabre in hand in this day in age.

Bildresultat för british royal painting horse

The reason the Queen and the Royal Family are who they are is because of the Queen, she has an overwhelming sense of duty that deserves respect, she has worked at making the Monarchy what it is and her family all look to her as an example and we can only hope that they try to follow in her footsteps, wearing the commitment and duty she does. I’m happy with the status quo and don’t wish to ruffle the feathers of the establishment on this issue, yet it is important to have these kind of debates on issues as it defines who we are and what we really hold dear. I’d like us to keep the Monarchy in the traditional sense and hope they don’t go over the top and try to drag it into the 21st century too much when the Queen passes away. That will be when it’s time to get rid of them as they’ll become more celebrity than monarchy. Bowing to pressure. This institution stands tall and doesn’t quiver at the thought of opposition, leading by example and displaying the true British values and integrity. I don’t think there will be reform as I can’t see anyone voting for it, if we did then i’d imagine that the Royal Family had already lost their grip at that point. I think it would spell the end of the United Kingdom as well, as we wouldn’t all have that shared culture anymore and I feel that we’d get more and more disconnected as a nation\collective nations.

Bildresultat för united kingdom

This also brings me onto the subject of continued referendums. I believe in democracy and the spirit of referendums, however they should be reserved for the truly divisive issues that can’t be settled by any normal means. It shouldn’t become the go to measure for every occasion. Before you know it we’ll have a referendum on whether referendums should be legally binding! A referendum about a referendum. I also think that it’s disgraceful that even though it has been put to the public vote (Brexit) because the politicians couldn’t be trusted with the decision, they’re trying to hatch a plan to disrupt democracy in plain view. There are calls to try and halt Brexit through the House of Commons as it’s only ‘advisory’. Advisory it may be, yet the turnout was high and the voice of the people shouted a resounding Leave! The MPs almost forget who puts them in power in the first place, they act on behalf of their constituents who coincidentally were the ones who voted to Leave? So why would you even think of trying to go against the very people you serve? The disconnect between the population and politicians has never been wider. There is even a legal challenge as to whether the PM can activate Article 50 without consulting Parliament! The people have spoken, that should suffice. The mortally wounded Remainers are trying to impose a posthumous blow to the Leave campaign. Their attempted sabotage is morally corrupt and contemptuous. Anyone seen to be attacking the will of the people should be dragged from the commons by their ankles and thrown in the tower. It should be treated as treachery. They’re the same people that lied about what would happen in the event of Brexit, they don’t have the best interests of the country at heart. This brings me beautifully back to the start, this is why we don’t entrust all of our power to these people and why we are safeguarded against them. The system works, be thankful that we can choose who we have in government, the poor Americans are about to be lumbered with either Trump or Clinton.

I love my country.