Political Parties Are A Threat To How We Think

• The very existence of political parties causes unnecessary divisions within society. The word ‘party’ derives from the Old French word ‘partie’ meaning ‘side, part; portion, share; separation, division’. There are natural divisions, such as differing interests, perspectives, and identities; politics should exist to mediate such divisions. When True Democracy transfers legislative power from political parties to the Electorate, the importance of, and therefore the divisions caused by, parties will be decreased. 
• The division caused by the party system is worsened by the maliciousness that each party uses to succeed. They lie about their opponents and their beliefs. They exaggerate their own accomplishments and exaggerate the failures of their opponents. They shift blame from themselves and they throw unfair blame on others. They spread fear about their opponents which, at its worst, can lead to assassinations and riots. The problem isn’t necessarily the people in politics the problem more so is the winner-takes-all party system that encourages desperate and vicious behaviour.
• Political parties name-call their opponents (and therefore their voters), and many people imitate their vocabulary. For example, Tories disparagingly call Labour ‘left-wing’ and Labour disparagingly call Tories ‘right-wing’. This is despite the fact these parties both have positions that are popularly considered ‘left-wing’ and ‘right-wing’. They both support abortion, arms sales, corporate tax avoidance, faith schools, gay marriage, hate speech laws, Israel, privatised rail, gun control, low interest rates, mass immigration, a minimum wage, a mixed economy, the monarchy, the NHS, no-fault divorce, nuclear deterrence, parliamentary democracy, the prohibition of capital punishment, share buybacks, unemployment benefits, university tuition fees, water privatisation, et al. The issue with labelling people left-wing or right-wing is that no-one is sincerely ‘left-wing’ or ‘right-wing’ on every issue. If such people existed, labelling them as such wouldn’t be an issue. If there are people that sincerely believe everything popularly considered ‘left-wing’ or ‘right-wing’, I have never come across one, it’s because they are conforming to a tribe and not thinking for themselves. Reason cannot be the primary motivation for such a person believing everything one wing does because the positions adopted by each wing changes over time. For example, supporting free-speech was once popularly associated with the ‘left-wing,’ now it’s commonly associated with the ‘right-wing’. Because of changes such as the decline in religion’s popularity and the introduction of the contraceptive pill, mainstream culture has become more ‘liberal’. ‘Liberals’ have used their newfound power in the mainstream to promote their ideas of good and evil, silencing those that disagree with them, just like how ‘conservatives’ used to. ‘Conservatives’ now want to protect free-speech in order to have a chance at retaliating. Both tribes changed their positions on free-speech for their own betterment, not out of principle. If people stopped mislabelling others with these terms, they’d find people have more in common than they may have thought. This terminology originated in the French Revolution and had a specific and therefore useful meaning; those on the right supported the French monarchy and those on the left supported the revolution. If a label has a specific meaning and is used accurately then it is fair, but these labels have no substance in our time and are therefore unnecessary divisions that we can resolve simply by not using them. I hope that as True Democracy lessens the importance of political parties the usage of these terms may finally be left behind and we can view one another as individuals instead of as embodiments of irrelevant labels. 
• People can anchor into a group for one reason and then adopt the rest of that groups’ beliefs because of loyalty without critical thinking. That initial reason for anchoring into a group is often motivated by sentimentality; it will likely be related to part of their identity, such as their sexuality, religion, or ethnicity. For example, someone that identifies as homosexual is more likely to support a ‘left-wing’ party than a ‘right-wing’ party. They are then likely to adopt other ‘left-wing’ stances even if they have nothing to do with homosexuality like supporting the mitigation of climate change because they engage more with ‘left-wing’ media figures, considering them more congenial and trustworthy than ‘right-wing’ media figures. The same phenomenon occurs when a Christian chooses a ‘right-wing’ party then disagrees that climate change is largely man-made. Group loyalty becomes important to their personal identity, giving their life purpose and belonging. Criticism towards the group and their beliefs, no matter how polite, feel like personal insults towards their intelligence and morality, and feel like a threat to the group that gives the individual a sense of purpose and belonging. Their group loyalty discourages them from thinking rationally about criticism towards their beliefs.
• Partisan motivated reasoning (p.17) can be powerful because an individual’s party identification “raises a perceptual screen through which the individual tends to see what is favourable to his partisan orientation”. Upon encountering political objects such as a well-known politician or an issue, automatic affective responses will activate directional goals leading to motivated reasoning: the tendency that citizens seek out new evidence that is consistent with their prior views, evaluate attitude-consistent arguments as stronger, and spend considerable energy in denigrating arguments that run counter to existing beliefs. Many studies demonstrate that partisans show dramatic differences in their perceptions and interpretations of key political events such as economic changes and war, prior attitudes colour the evaluations of arguments and subsequent search for information, and citizens are willing to spend more time and effort on processing information in order to reach conclusions consistent with their party identification.
• The prioritisation of electoral success often leads political parties to support contradictory policies, as they attempt to balance policies they’re most passionate about and policies they must support to be popular with voters. The influence the parties have encourages some members of the public to also support these contradictory positions. Contradictory policy goals lead to a state of confusion and frustration when one is achieved whilst the other is not. An example of a party with contradictory policy goals is one that supports capitalism and claims to be socially conservative. Capitalism is a force for social change, it is not a force for social conservatism.  Capitalism’s perpetual demand for growth leads to, amongst other things, encouraging more women to work (which discourages the creation of traditional family structures) and it encourages materialism (which is discouraged by all major religions). People don’t hold contradictory beliefs just because of political parties. People hold contradictory beliefs because of careless thinking and we sometimes want two incompatible things at once. Decreasing the influence of political parties through True Democracy will discourage the careless thinking they perpetuate and the contradictory policies they enforce, and will encourage voters to adopt policy positions that better compliment one another.

The Competency of the Electorate

• Anti-democrats claim the Electorate lack the knowledge to vote competently in comparison to politicians. Perhaps, they think this because a higher proportion of politicians graduate from university in comparison to the Electorate, or because politicians have more time to study legislation than the Electorate, or because of the prestigious career backgrounds many politicians have. However, it’s difficult to understand how these factors would mean the judgement of politicians on legislation is better for the Electorate than the Electorate’s own judgement. There is a vast range of issues covered by legislation that no university education or career background can fully prepare one for, nor are there enough hours in the day for an individual to study each issue in depth. Politicians and the Electorate rely primarily on second-hand knowledge to find the likely implications of technical pieces of legislation such as that relating to finance, and tend to rely primarily on personal beliefs for sensitive issues such as those relating to identity. The most concerning difference is the decision-making of politicians is corrupted by donors, the revolving door between the corporate world and the government, cash for access. A 2019 survey found the vast majority of MPs believe they are elected “to act according to their own judgement, even when this goes against the wishes of their constituents”. Not that MPs have any idea what the wishes of their constituents are. After all, has your MP ever asked for your opinion on anything? How could they act according to our wishes even if they wanted to? They don’t even pretend to care. What’s to say their judgement is better than the Electorate’s? The government could be filled with the country’s most knowledgeable people, but their knowledge is dangerous if they place their own interest above the public’s. Politicians seeking knowledge from businesses to assist with legislation decisions is not inherently bad for the public, but there is a risk it will be bad because the Electorate are excluded from the decision-making process. Perhaps, some people imagine True Democracy will result in the Electorate’s decision-making abilities being overwhelmed by the vast amount of votes that they can partake in, but I think this is unlikely to occur. True Democracy doesn’t oblige anyone to vote. True Democracy gives the Electorate the option to vote on legislation. Under True Democracy, you can abstain completely, or you can vote only on matters that pique your interest which may potentially only happen once or twice a year.
• Another common criticism from anti-democrats is that the electorate cannot be trusted to vote competently because they’re easily manipulated. However, this argument is flawed: susceptibility to manipulation is a universal human trait, not unique to voters. In fact, politicians are more vulnerable to manipulation than the public. Although voters may be swayed by propaganda, politicians are additionally manipulated by political donations, gifts, conformity to further their career in their party, intimidation from a small but vocal minority, and promises of employment. In fact, governing political parties are the greatest force for manipulation by means of propaganda, the national curriculum, and laws.
• Voters have more skin in the game than politicians: if there is a war, it’s the voters that will go to fight, it’s the voters that will see their loved ones go to fight, politicians don’t go to war. Politicians earn multiple times more than the average person so are more immune to rising prices and stagnant wages. Whilst having more skin in the game, the Electorate also have the benefit of voting anonymously. They they don’t need to conform to perceived majority opinion on sensitive issues, as the votes of the Electorate are anonymous unlike that of politicians.

How to Improve the Electorate’s Decision-Making

• Anti-democrats complain that voters lack the competency to have the right to vote. If the Electorate are incompetent at political decision-making, it’s because they’re the victims of a dictatorship that excludes them from every decision. It should come as no surprise if many people are not well-informed in political matters. I understand why some people don’t bother informing themselves. The government never asks for their opinion, so why would they bother wasting their time on learning about something when their opinion will be ignored? Conspiracy theories are popular because the government excludes the Electorate from every decision. It’s inevitable that people will theorise about what the government is doing. If the government are displeased by conspiracy theories, they only have themselves to blame for excluding people from the decision-making process. The government is, by definition, conspiring. Current political discussions are infected with drama, scandals, and slander. The more of there is of this, the less there is of substantive policy discussion. I hope True Democracy will encourage people to focus more on policy issues and less on the entertainment aspect of politics. Representative Democracy encourages people to think more about political figures than political ideas, because this form of democracy only allows you to vote on political figures.
• At the beginning of secondary school, students should be taught critical thinking. Currently, they’re only told what to think.  The teaching should be apolitical, as information from authority will intimidate students into conformity, and will inevitably lead to parents disputing what is being taught which will distract from the main purpose of these classes which is how to think.  They should be taught at least the following.
• How to evaluate the providers of information. To question if the provider has an incentive to lie. To question their track record. To question if the information is verifiable. To question if the information provides the full context. They should be made aware of free, academic resources, and discouraged from relying solely on news media. They should be made aware of the news media’s tendency to be sensationalist.
• They should be encouraged to self-reflect and understand why they have the opinions they have. They should question if their opinions are based on assumptions. They should be encouraged to seek multiple viewpoints. They should  learn the reasoning behind opinions they disagree with.
• They should be taught how statistics can be misleading when shown out of context. They should be taught how the teaching of history can be manipulated for the purpose of propaganda. They should be shown examples of policies that had unintended consequences.
• They should be made aware of fallacies, such as false dilemmas, appeal to emotion, and straw man arguments. They should be taught the differences between causation and correlation. They should be made aware of biases, such as anchoring biases and confirmation biases.

Low Levels of Satisfaction in Government

In 2022, a study found just 17% of people in the UK were highly satisfied with the political system. For context, this is only one percentage point more than people in Russia a country which our leaders correctly say is led by a dictator. Fortunately, 64% believe democracy in theory is a very good way of governing, up from 41% in 1999, it therefore appears doubtful the Electorate will seek an anti-democratic alternative in the foreseeable future.

According to a 2023 report by the ONS, the average rating for life satisfaction in the UK for the year ending March 2023 was 7.45 out of 10. The ratings are: 0 to 4 (low), 5 to 6 (medium), 7 to 8 (high), and 9 to 10 (very high). What is the cause of this discrepancy between satisfaction with the government and satisfaction with life? People have more power over their lives than they have over the government. If someone wants to change a part of their life that dissatisfies them, the means are, not always easy, but often clear and possible. On the other hand, if someone wants to change a part of the law that dissatisfies them or prevent a proposed law that dissatisfies them, the means are barricaded. Barricaded because we cannot vote on Bills, we can only vote for MPs to vote on Bills, we cannot submit referendums, we can only vote on referendums the government allows us to vote on. If True Democracy is implemented, people will have more power over the government, as they will be able to vote on Bills, and submit their own referendums. If the Electorate votes for legislation which, through its ill effects, results in widespread dissatisfaction, they may use the Referendum Cycle to correct the legislation. The Electorate may also use referendums to give themselves more political power.

Currently, the people are in a state of helpless reaction towards legislation enacted by the government. True Democracy gives the people a shield against the government’s proposed legislation and a tool to make their own legislation.

Low Levels of Trust in Government

A 2023 study found that 27% of people in the UK have high or moderately high trust in the UK government and 57% have low or no trust in it. 12% of people have high or moderately high trust in the political parties and 68% have low or no trust in them. A report by the National Centre for Social Research found that a record high of 45% now say they ‘almost never’ trust governments of any party to place the needs of the nation above the interests of their own political party. Low levels of trust in the UK government are not a recent phenomenon, they have been low for decades, as this study shows. The governing party changes, but the current form of democracy remains the same and distrust remains consistently low.  A study published in 2023 shows the UK public is one of the most trusting populations globally. 84% trust people of another nationality and 52% trust people they meet for the first time. In 2022, 46% of Britons said “most people can be trusted”, marking a significant increase since 1999, when 29% felt this way – the lowest recorded. Clearly, governments are distrusted because of their own actions, not because the UK public are indiscriminately distrustful.

Trust in government is low for at least these few reasons.

1. Worsening wealth inequality: Real wage growth has been slowing since the 1970s, and is 2.7% down compared to 2008. By contrast, real wage growth across the OECD as a whole has risen by 8.8%, on average over the same period.  From 1990 to 2022, billionaire wealth has risen from £53.9 billion to £653.1 billion, which is an increase of over 1,100%.
2. Broken promises and lies: Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak, Keir Starmer.
3. Large donors receiving exclusive access: Labour Party example. Conservative Party example.
4. Lobbying: Information provided on ministerial meetings is so scant that it cannot be used to scrutinise the government. As an example, look at the information provided for the ministerial meetings of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. The purpose given for each meeting is merely one sentence long. As further proof that they don’t care about transparency, the purpose of the first meeting on the list contains a typo. The purpose given is ‘Roundtable to discuss Smart Mchines’. There may be an explanation for the details of some meetings being confidential, for example if a meeting relates to national security, but there is no justification for all meetings remaining confidential. What justification is there for a meeting about ‘drinking water, performance and pollution’ being confidential? To find the meetings of different government departments you can go to openaccess.transparency.org.uk, because the government made no effort to make this information easy to search, sort, or filter on their own site. Not only are the published details of meetings restricted to one sentence, they are often published quarterly or even later, making them even more useless. What are the public supposed to do with such information as there being a meeting with BP ‘to discuss energy’? What else would an energy company be discussing with the government? The information is useless on purpose, because they want to prevent scrutiny. The meetings recorded are only a fraction of the meetings that take place between the government and lobbyists. Only officials in the top two levels of government—ministers, secretaries, and the leaders of the House of Commons and House of Lords—report their meetings activity, while lobbyists likely have more meetings with lower-level employees. Thus, there may be a large number of meetings between government officials and lobbyists that are not reported—and are not required to be. Opposition parties are not required to declare their meetings with lobbyists. Consultant lobbyists, those who lobby on behalf of a third party client, must join the Register of Consultant Lobbyists. However, in-house lobbyists, those who are employed to lobby directly for their employer, are not required to join the register, although their work makes up around 85% of lobbying.

Under True Democracy, trust in government will increase for the Electorate, as they will not be merely electing the governing party as they currently do once every few years, they will permanently be part of the government. However, this is not a promise that every member of the Electorate will be satisfied with the outcome of every vote. After all, among them are differing interests and views. Differing interests and views because of differing occupations, experiences, educations, etc.

Despite these differences, the Electorate still have more reasons to trust each other under True Democracy than they have to trust MPs under our current democracy. The decisions of the Electorate will not be influenced by wealthy donors, corporate lobbyists and party whips, whereas MPs are. Instead, their decisions will be influenced by their own experiences, educations, those they discuss politics with, and, I hope, by those with expertise on whichever matter is at hand.

Members of the Electorate have a greater stake in the outcome of legislation than MPs do. The Electorate are more reliant on public services than MPs are. If the government declares war, it will be the Electorate that must fight. (Currently, under Royal prerogative powers, the Government can declare war and deploy armed forces to conflicts abroad without the backing or consent of Parliament.) If a change in law should hurt the economy, it is the Electorate that faces the brunt of it, they will not be protected like MPs as they receive salaries three times larger than the national average and they are allowed second jobs whilst in Parliament.

Can True Democracy be trusted to not result in a tyranny of the majority? There is reason to believe it is more trustworthy than our current form of democracy. There is nothing intrinsic to representative democracy that protects minorities. Protection against discrimination and protection of human rights is provided by the Equality Act and the Human Rights Act. The Tories have threatened multiple times to leave the European Convention on Human Rights and replace the Human Rights Act. If the Tories or any other party wants to, they can remove the UK from the ECHR and repeal the Human Rights Act without the Electorate’s consent, and they can replace it with a new act without the Electorate’s consent. Whereas if the government tried to repeal either act under True Democracy, they would require the consent of the Electorate. There is reason to believe the Electorate would likely protect these Acts. An EHRC survey shows 74% of Britons agree there should be equality for all groups in Britain and an Ipsos survey shows 80% of Britons agree it’s important to have a law that protects human rights in Britain. Under representative democracy, the majority live under a tyranny of the minority, that minority being the governing party and their financial backers. We elect a minority for five years and then have no power over them until the next election when we have the privilege of choosing a new tyrant. A party has not received a majority of votes in a UK general election since 1931.

This article is to show how weak the Electorate’s power is in our current democracy. A solution is True Democracy.

MPs

How MPs gain their position

• During a general election or by-election, the candidate with the most votes from the Electorate in a constituency becomes the MP for that constituency.
• MPs are the only government figures the Electorate appoint.

How MPs lose their position

• MPs may resign.
• The Electorate may recall MPs via petition, but only if certain conditions are met beforehand.
• There are no term limits, so an MP may serve so long as they continue to be elected.
• MPs are the only government figures the Electorate may recall.

The powers MPs have

• MPs may introduce and vote on bills.
• UK governments continue in office only as long as they have the confidence or support of the House of Commons. This means that they are able to command a majority in the Commons on key matters. Governments do not always have to prove they continue to hold confidence, but governments are expected to resign or seek an election if they clearly lose the confidence of the House of Commons. In between elections, losing confidence happens through particular votes, known as confidence motions, or if a government determines that it can no longer command the confidence of the Commons (for example, if it loses a vote on a major policy issue that is a core part of its agenda).

Lords

How Lords gain their position

• There are three types of Lords in the UK; the Lords Spiritual, Hereditary Peers, and Life Peers.
• There are 26 places reserved for archbishops and bishops of the Church of England, they are known as the Lords Spiritual. The Lords Spiritual sit on an ex officio basis, meaning they only remain in the House whilst they hold the office of bishop. The following five are automatically granted a seat: the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Durham, and the Bishop of Winchester. The other 21 seats are filled by the remaining bishops in order of seniority, though until 2025 the most eligible female bishop will fill any vacancy ahead of any male bishop.
• Hereditary peerages are inherited. A maximum of 92 hereditary peers are allowed to be members of the Lords (unless a hereditary peer is also given a life peerage, in which case they do not count towards the 92). When a vacancy opens, a by-election is held in which the hereditary peers in the House of Lords affiliated by party to the departing Lord elect a peer from the Register of Hereditary Peers that has indicated their wish to stand in a by-election. 15 of the hereditary peers are to be elected by the whole House.
• The Lord Great Chamberlain and the Earl Marshal are hereditary peers exempted from by-elections. The role of Lord Great Chamberlain rotates between three families; the Cholmondeleys, the Willoughby de Eresbys and the Caringtons. The role of Earl Marshal belongs to the Duke of Norfolk.
• Life Peers are appointed by the Crown, though it is the Prime Minister who nominates them.Traditionally peerages are awarded to individuals on retirement from important public offices, such as the Prime Minister, Speaker of the House of Commons and the Archbishop of Canterbury and York. The Life Peerages Act 1958 places no limits on the number of peerages that can be awarded.

How Lords lose their position

• Lords Spirituallose their position in the House of Lords once they turn 70, as all bishops are required to retire at the age of 70.
• Lords may resign or be expelled or temporarily suspended from the House of Lords for non-attendance or conviction of serious offence.

The powers Lords have

• The powers of the House of Lords today are limited by the Parliament Acts. The Lords has the power to delay a piece of legislation passed by the House of Commons for up to one year but cannot block a bill altogether. It is also unable to amend or initiate any ‘money bills’, which are bills that the Speaker of the Commons considers related to national taxation, public money or loans, though they may initiate other bills.

The Prime Minister

How The Prime Minister gains their position

• They are theleader of the party governing the House of Commons.

How The Prime Minister loses their position

• They may resign.
• Their party may lose their control of the House of Commons at an election.
• They may lose the confidence of the House of Commons.
• They may lose their position as leader of their party.
• If an incumbent Prime Minister loses their seat whilst their party gained a majority at anelection, they would likely have to resign, but this is not definite.
• There are no term limits for Prime Minister, so a Prime Minister may may serve so long as they continue to be elected.

The powers Prime Ministers have

• The many powers of the Prime Minister can be found here.

Ministers

How Ministers gain their position

• Ministers are chosen by the Prime Minister from the members of the House of Commons and House of Lords.

How Ministers lose their position

• They may lose their seat in the House of Commons or Lords.
• They may be dismissed by the Prime Minister.
• They may resign.

The powers Ministers have

Secretaries of State:

• Secretaries of state are responsible for leading departments, approving key decisions, developing policy objectives and monitoring their progress. Beyond their policy work, they are also expected to answer questions in parliament and in front of select committees, take legislation through parliament, build relationships with backbenchers, and negotiate with other parts of government.
• Secondary Legislation may be known as ‘statutory instruments’, ‘delegated legislation’, or simply ‘secondary legislation’ and the form of which it is issued may be called ‘orders’, ‘rules’, ‘regulations’, ‘schemes’ or ‘codes’. Secondary Legislation can be created where an Act of Parliament or ‘primary legislation’ doesn’t specify the exact details of regulation, but ‘delegates’ the authority to create and modify this legislation to a Government department, with a less onerous process of scrutiny and implementation. This power to create Secondary Legislation is often phrased within the Act as ‘The Secretary of State may by order…’ or ‘Her Majesty may by Order in Council’ , and any Secondary Legislation will cite the section of the Act that provided this authority.

Ministers of State 

• Each Secretary of State can draw on a team of junior ministers comprised of members of the House of Commons or the House of Lords. These are generally known as junior Ministers although a distinction should be made between Ministers of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State. Ministers of State are the next rung down the ministerial ladder from Secretary of State. There are usually three or more Ministers of State in each government department. Ministers of State are powerful and may be very experienced ministers with considerable responsibility. They usually have individual responsibility for particular policy areas, and this varies depending on how departments are organised. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office for example, currently has four Ministers of State responsible for different geographical areas: Europe and the Americas; the Middle East; Asia and the Pacific; and Africa, as well as one Minister of State responsible for the Commonwealth and the UN.

Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State

• Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State are the most junior Ministerial rank. There are usually one or more Parliamentary Under-Secretaries in each Ministerial team but the balance between Ministers of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries varies from department to department. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office currently has no Parliamentary Under-Secretaries and the Home Office has only one. In contrast, the Ministerial team in the Ministry of Defence comprises a Secretary of State, two Ministers of State and two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries. Like Ministers of State, Parliamentary Under-Secretaries may be given responsibility for particular policy areas, although they often have a much broader brief covering a range of issues or activities and generally have less personal responsibility for the development of policy. They are more junior and often less experienced Ministers and their decision-making powers are usually more constrained than those of Ministers of State. Parliamentary Under-Secretaries would be expected to consult before making any significant policy changes or announcements.

Whips

• Whips are MPs and peers affiliated to a political party appointed to ensure their party colleagues vote according to the leader’s agenda.

Minister Without Portfolio 

• They are not responsible for a specific department, but attend cabinet meetings.

Privy Counsellors

How Privy Counsellors gain their position

• Appointments are made by the Sovereign on the advice of the Prime Minister and are for life – there is no fixed number of Members. All Cabinet Members are appointed to the Privy Council, as are some senior members of the Royal Family, senior judges, two Archbishops, the Speaker of the House of Commons, leaders of Opposition parties, and leading Commonwealth spokesmen and judges. The Council now numbers over 700 members, and members are entitled to the prefix ‘Right Honourable.’ There is no independent scrutiny of appointees.

How Privy Counsellors lose their position

• Technically, a Privy Counsellor cannot resign. Over the past century, however, an individual’s request to resign from the Privy Council has been construed as a request seeking the monarch’s agreement to the removal of that individual’s name from the list of Privy Counsellors. This request is usually made following a political scandal or a criminal conviction.

The powers Privy Counsellors have

• The privy council is the basis for some powers of ministers and is thus a constitutional mechanism through which ministers can give advice to the Monarch on certain matters.
• The privy council exercises its executive powers through issuing formal documents called orders, which have the force of law. ‘Orders in council’ are personally approved by the Monarch during meetings (albeit after ministers have reached an agreement to recommend approval beforehand). ‘Orders of council’ do not require the approval of the Monarch – only by ministers in their role as privy counsellors.
• Orders are either statutory or issued under royal prerogative. Statutory orders are issued when an act of parliament delegates power to the privy council. There are more than 400 acts of parliament giving the privy council powers to make orders. Prerogative orders are used on matters for which it is not appropriate for parliament to concern itself or when legislation does not specifically allocate responsibility to a particular minister.
• For example, it is through the privy council that – on the advice of his ministers – the Monarch grants royal charters, issues proclamations (for instance on bank holidays), deals with matters related to certain professional bodies and universities, and ratifies legislation from, or extends it to, overseas territories and crown dependencies.

Justices of the Supreme Court

How Justices of the Supreme Court gain their position

• There are two possible routes to qualification for appointment as a Justice of the UKSC. First, a person is eligible for appointment if they have held high judicial office for a period of at least two years. “High judicial office” is defined in section 60(2) of the CRA 2005 as meaning a judge of the UKSC, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, the High Court of England and Wales, the Court of Session, the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland or the High Court in Northern Ireland. Alternatively, a person may be eligible for appointment as a Justice of the UKSC if they have qualified and practised as a solicitor, barrister or advocate in England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland for a period of at least 15 years. To do this, they must satisfy either the judicial appointment eligibility condition on a 15 year basis or have been a qualifying practitioner for a period of at least 15 years. A person will satisfy the judicial appointment eligibility condition if they have been a solicitor of the senior courts of England and Wales or a barrister in England and Wales for at least 15 years and have gained experience in law during the post-qualification period (for example, by practising as a lawyer or acting as a judge or arbitrator). A person is a qualifying practitioner if they have been an advocate in Scotland, a solicitor entitled to appear in the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary, a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland or a solicitor of the Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland.

• The Lord Chancellor convenes an independent selection commission. The selection commission submits a report to the Lord Chancellor stating who has been selected to fill the vacancy. Where a person has been selected under the selection process, the Lord Chancellor may accept the selection commission’s recommendation, reject it, or require the selection commission to reconsider. The Lord Chancellor can only reject the selection or require the selection commission to reconsider in certainc If the selection commission’s recommendation is accepted, the Lord Chancellor notifies the Prime Minister of the name of the successful applicant who, in turn, notifies HM The King who makes the formal appointment.

How Justices of the Supreme Court lose their position

• They are appointed on a permanent basis, subject to the UK-wide mandatory retirement age for judicial appointments, which is now 75 years.
• Like other holders of high judicial office, justices hold their appointment “on good behaviour” and can only be removed from office by an address from both Houses of Parliament.
• They may resign.

The powers Justices of the Supreme Court have

• Cases that make it to the Supreme Court are usually those with the greatest general public importance. They often have wide-ranging implications for the relationship between government and the public or for the relationship between the different institutions of the UK constitution. For example, the Supreme Court hears cases related to ‘devolution issues’; in other words, if there is a dispute about the powers of one of the devolved governments, it could end up in the Supreme Court.
• However, whilst the Supreme Court has the power to offer a final interpretation of disputed points of law with significant public or constitutional importance, its powers are still more limited than those of supreme courts in many other countries. In particular, it does not have the power to declare void primary legislation enacted by the UK Parliament. This is because of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, which means that Parliament has, at least theoretically, the power to make or unmake any law without constraint, even from the Supreme Court.
• The Supreme Court can issue a ‘declaration of incompatibility’, which formally declares that an Act of Parliament is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. But Parliament is not legally obliged to change the Act as a consequence, although it may often choose to do so. This in contrast to the Supreme Court of the United States, which has the power to strike down laws if they are ruled to be in breach of the US Constitution.

The Monarch

How the Monarch gains their position

• When a monarch dies or abdicates, the heir apparent automatically succeeds them.

How the Monarch loses their position

• Through death or abdication.

The powers the Monarch has

• Officially, the role is symbolic and ceremonial. However, King’s/Queen’s consent is required where a bill would affect the prerogatives or interests of the Crown.

True Democracy – Phase One

Introduction

We request that the UK Government calls for referendums in the UK, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, to decide if the demands proposed here should be implemented or if we should continue with parliamentary democracy.

Summary of Demand 1: The Legislative Process

Empowers the Electorate to vote on Bills.

Summary of Demand 2: The Referendum Cycle

Empowers the Electorate to create referendums.

Demand 1: The Legislative Process

1. After a Bill has passed through Parliament, the Bill must be passed to the Electorate for voting and be approved by a majority for it to receive Royal Assent. Parliament may pass Consolidation Bills, and Bills for the sole purpose of abiding by international agreements without the Electorate’s approval. Local Bills may only be voted on by voters in constituencies directly effected.  Bills relating to devolved matters of Northern Ireland, Scotland, or Wales may only be voted on by members of the Electorate of each respective country. The Government may exclude the Electorate from votes in which access to classified information they deem necessary for decision-making.

2. Once a month, there shall be a Voting Day. All Bills that passed through Parliament at least a month prior to the Voting Day shall be available for the Electorate to vote on.

3. If a Bill containing amendments to recurring taxes, expenditures, or supply and appropriation provisions is not approved by the Electorate, the current rates of these recurring elements shall remain in use until a new Bill is approved by the Electorate. 

4. Emergency legislation shall not require approval from the Electorate to receive Royal Assent. However, the Act shall be on the ballot of the first Voting Day after a month has passed since it received Royal Assent, unless the Act is no longer in force. If approved by a majority of voters, the Act shall remain in force. If rejected by a majority of voters, the Act shall remain in force, but must be amended. The amended Act shall be on the ballot of the first Voting Day after a month has passed since it received Royal Assent. If rejected again, the Act shall no longer be in force.

Demand Two: The Referendum Cycle

1. The Entry Stage

• For one month, members of the Electorate may vote on and create referendums online. Voters may change their own votes. Each creator shall only have one referendum open at a time. Creators can only close their own referendum in the first week of an Entry Stage. Once closed, the referendum shall no longer be publicly visible. Votes received for referendums in one Entry Stage shall be carried over to succeeding Entry Stages. Creators shall choose whether their full name and their contact information is private or public each time they create a referendum.

• Once the Entry Stage has concluded, the referendum with the highest net approval rating by vote count that meets the criteria will be chosen by the Government to be passed to the Focus Stage. A written explanation shall be provided by the Government if a referendum receives the highest net approval rating but is rejected for failing to meet the criteria.

The criteria for referendums:

• It seeks to create, amend, or repeal legislation.
• Specific values and dates are provided, if it seeks to create, amend, or repeal an item of Government income or expenditure. 
• The referendums of Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales shall only relate to their respective devolved matters. The referendums of the UK shall not relate to the devolved matters of Northern Ireland, Scotland, or Wales.
• It does not seek the same outcome as legislation currently before Parliament or the Electorate.
• It does not seek a conflicting outcome to legislation currently before Parliament or the Electorate.

2. The Focus Stage

• The referendum shall be on the ballot of the first Voting Day after a month has passed since it was approved by the Government. If rejected by a majority of voters, the Referendum Cycle will return to the Entry Stage. If approved by a majority of voters, the referendum will go to the Committee Stage.
• Voters that approve of a referendum must take note of the serial number on their ballot, to vote at the Final Stage.

3. The Committee Stage

• The Government shall determine whether a Bill or Statutory Instrument (SI) is required to fulfil the purpose of the referendum.
• A Bill or SI shall be drafted.
• The Bill or SI shall be sent to the committee stage.
• The Bill or SI may be amended.
• The Bill or SI shall then be passed to the Final Stage.

4. The Final Stage

• The Bill or SI shall be on the ballot of the first Voting Day after a month has passed since it passed the Committee Stage. There will be a section on the ballot for voters that approved of the referendum at the Focus Stage to enter their serial number.
• If a majority of voters approve it, the Bill or SI shall be sent for Royal Assent.
• If a majority of voters reject it, the Bill or SI shall be amended. The amended version shall be sent to the Committee Stage before entering the Final Stage. If a majority of voters reject the amended version, the Referendum Cycle shall return to the Entry Stage.

Notes on True Democracy – Phase One

What does True Democracy mean? For me, it is a democracy in which the Electorate choose the powers they have.

If you believe these demands do not go far enough in improving our democracy, or if they are found in practice to be flawed, it should be kept in mind that the Referendum Cycle gives the Electorate the opportunity to amend all legislation and Parliament may also make legislation to improve True Democracy. It’s not lost on me that there are many more ways in which our democracy can be improved, but I consider it important to keep the demands proposed at this initial stage to a minimum, as too many at once would confuse our message and bring about too many changes at once.

Demand 1: The Legislative Process

Demand 1.1

Read about the current legislative process, and Consolidation Bills.

Find Bills currently before the UK Parliament, the Northern Irish Assembly, the Scottish Parliament, and the Welsh Parliament.

Demand 1.2

Whilst it is true that monthly Voting Days would increase election costs, the total cost would remain a fraction of Government expenditure. The 2017 general election cost £140.85M. £98.31M was spent on running the election, and £42.54M was spent on ‘the delivery of elections addresses’. Total Managed Expenditure (TME) for 2017/18 was £980.3B, the general election was 0.014% of this. If we multiply this value by 12, the cost of the monthly Voting Days would have been just 0.17% of the TME for 2017/18.

Demand 1.3

An example of a recurring tax to be automatically re-applied when a new Bill has not achieved the Electorate’s majority approval in time would be corporation tax. Conversely, a one-off tax, such as a one-off wealth tax, would not be automatically re-applied. Taxes due to end at a specified date will still end at that date unless stated otherwise by an update, for example the Energy Profits Levy which is currently set to end in March 2029.

An example of a recurring expenditure to be automatically re-applied is public health services. A one-off expenditure, for example on an infrastructure project, would not automatically be re-applied. Expenditure due to end at a specified date will still end at that date, an example being payments to Government bondholders.

Read about Supply and Appropriation.

Demand 1.4

Read about emergency legislation.

Demand 2: The Referendum Cycle

The Entry Stage

Initially, I considered including the option of voting online for Bills, but abstained from doing so due to criticisms of online voting by cybersecurity experts.

Estonia has had online voting for elections at the national level since 2005, and there have been no reported instances of significant voter fraud. However, their online voting system has been criticised for its security flaws. In the 2022 leadership race for the Conservative Party, online voting was permitted, it was criticised for its security flaws, but there have been no reports of successful cyberattacks. Some countries allow online voting but in limited capacities, for citizens living abroad, as an example.

Although I believe that online voting should not be used for the Legislative Process at the moment, I consider it acceptable for the Entry Stage of the Referendum Cycle, as the Focus Stage and Final Stage do not allow online voting, those two stages provide the security of offline voting. This is similar to our current process for petitions, they may be created and signed online, and those with 10,000 signatures receive a response from the Government, and those that receive a 100,000 are considered for debate in Parliament.

Read about the devolved matters of Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.

The Focus Stage

The Focus Stage is vital not only because it provides the security of offline voting, but also because it will allow the Electorate to focus their attention on one referendum. During the Entry Stage there could potentially be thousands of referendums open for voting on, as any member of the Electorate can create one.

The Committee Stage

Committee Stages vary in the amount of time they take to be completed. Committee Stages can last for months. Such delays are likely to frustrate the Electorate as there will be other referendums they will hope to process. For the time being, I think that such delays may be advantageous, as it would give the Electorate the chance to become accustomed to the process without being overwhelmed by too large a quantity of referendums. Once the Electorate are accustomed to this process, they may want to consider amending the Referendum Cycle so that a new Entry Stage is started every month even if other referendums are already in the latter stages of the cycle.

The Final Stage

The purpose of the Final Stage is to ensure the Bill or SI is true to spirit of the referendum.

Serial numbers on ballots at the Focus Stage are to be noted by voters that approve of the referendum then recorded by them on ballots at the Final Stage, to ensure the vote at the Final Stage is only by voters wishing to maintain the spirit of the referendum. Election staff will need to check the serial number entered on a ballot at the Final Stage corresponds to a ballot in favour of the referendum at the Focus Stage.

The legislative process of the Referendum Cycle is an abridged form of the current process for Bills. Any stages not mentioned in the main text are not to be included.