Removing a UK Government’s mandate to govern

A government that uses referendums to manipulate the country to follow what the government wishes to happen, as opposed to what the people want, should be possible to remove from power.

What happens when the people of the UK end up with a government that is incompetent and incapable of performing the simple function of governing?

Going into 2019, the UK has being suffering from the machinations of a single political party, the Conservatives, choosing to use the governmental powers of the UK to waste taxpayers money paying private organisations to work out a deal that was pushed to the populace, without any driver towards that deal coming from the people of the UK. Follow the money, who has won so far? Speculators, accountants and lawyers.

Were you taking to the streets to demand we leave the EU or stay, BEFORE the referendum was called? No. Nobody really cared one way or the other, as is precisely evinced by the result of the vote. Barring a General Election where it is possible for 25% of the voting population to elect a government, a 52% to 48% ‘victory’ hardly demonstrates a happy and united country. It has divided the people and resulted in a shambles of a government wasting the UKs finances, whilst forgetting about the proper governing of our country. The result of the referendum appears to be mirrored in the division our parliament is now demonstrating.

Think of it this way, if you are undecided about something, you could be said to be 50/50 about the matter. If the nation is represented as a whole by a referendum, then a nigh on 50/50 result should be considered as not enough of a driver to change the status quo. In doing so, you’re still going to be in a state where you are, at best, half-pleased with the situation.

It appears that new laws are required to restrict manipulation of Parliamentary process to the detriment of the infrastructure of our country. Either that or MPs must pass some basic intelligence tests before being allowed to stand. Our legal system follows the principle of sticking with the status quo unless a better option is demonstrated, how can our government enact such dramatic change without a plan?

One of these two methods for enacting change in our country must be deemed a prerequisite for a government calling a referendum. Can you tell which one has been used recently and why it should be illegal for a government to undertake?

  1. Plan
  2. Schedule
  3. Decide (Referendum)

After planning it is possible to estimate how long something will take and thus a reasonable schedule can be set. Once that is all completed, a decision as to whether to proceed can be taken, if the plan and schedule seem feasible.

  1. Decide (Referendum)
  2. Schedule
  3. Plan

Make a decision without any idea of the effort and time involved. Schedule the deadline without any idea if it is achievable. Plan under pressure of unrealistic deadlines, still not knowing if the plan will be feasible.

Our government will always move back to the position they have been given a mandate from the people to govern the country in the manner they see fit, on behalf of the people of our country. Not businesses, not for personal gain, not to perpetuate a system because it benefits an ideological position.

So, mid-way through a term of government, what allows the people to repeal the mandate that was given, on the grounds the mandate has been abused to a point that is not acceptable?

Nothing. Unless one includes civil unrest, which is obviously not a proper way to enact change in a civilised society, until the situation becomes untenable. Are we there yet?

A politician should be granted the same protection by the security services of the UK as any other citizen. They should not be allowed to use those security services to protect their abuses of power. For if the people of the UK wish to oust the corrupt and self-serving scum that have been demolishing our democracy since the 1990s, they have to participate in civil unrest.

The self-same security services, police, armed forces and the like are also citizens and must remain aloof from opposing that which they are bound to protect. How can they join with their families and friends to oppose what they see as fundamentally wrong without breaking their oaths? The public who are not forced by such oaths to be under the control of an incompetent government have a duty also to these people who defend us daily.

“You gave us the mandate, so we’ll do what we see fit” There is thus no recourse against a government for destroying our country’s infrastructure and allowing those who are pre-warned to profit immensely by the turmoil that is generated. Good way to avoid insider trading laws.


In the 21st Century the UK Government has chosen to hold referendums, debate topics and even state publicly that business is what they support, not people.

  1. The referendum that was given absolutely no media coverage (Proportional Representation) and which the government did not wish people to vote on, at all. This passed almost unnoticed due to the fact this referendum was not given any major debate and was thus hidden behind local election news and had no impact, primarily as the question asked was “Do you want to vote how you do now, or some other way?” Who would vote on such a vague proposal? (See the Mathematically solid form of PR here that guarantees over 70% of all voters be represented in Parliament) The govern
  2. Scottish independence demonstrated again, with a similarly unpleasing result, that divisive plans will not unite the people of a nation.
  3. When did the people of the UK demand a referendum on membership of the EU at the specific time it was enacted? What has the entire process done other than make an immense amount of money for lawyers and accountants and especially the ‘investor’ friends of politicians that were tipped the nod by the Conservative party to bet against the Pound. How much more time could our government have spent working on the actual governing of the country on behalf of the people if they hadn’t been sipping whisky and gin whilst ‘debating’ this debacle for months? Why is there no way to challenge the legality of using a referendum for political gain?

The stimulation of inter-citizen hatred and media blanketing with divisive topics has been developed over the past few years to allow our government to pass laws and divert the populace from important matters.

In 2013, the UK was looking at a bleak financial situation developing by 2018. It was clear to anyone tracking global financial markets and could only be avoided by something that could not only distract the nation but the world from what would inevitably occur. As such, it is fair to say that the past year has worked a treat in that regard. One could extrapolate further, now we are seeing a remarkable leniency from the EU, that the orchestration of what was intended to appear to be a debacle, could have been a means of avoiding a key member state collapsing and brining the whole house of cards down. This would though be something of an extreme extrapolation more suited to sites that want to find mystery in every event.

To look back and see how the policy of control by spreading divisions between citizens was developed, the following demonstrates an early test of the process. Before reading the next paragraph, try to completely remove your personal opinions on the topic and look at what value what was delivered, compared to what could have been given as much media and governmental time and money.

Fox hunting. It is likely certain that one statement about this topic will get agreement from both sides viz this is a divisive subject that polarises both sides into violent opposition.

Yet did you ever stop and think “Why did the debate gain so much media and government focus?” Was it because children were no longer being abused and neglected in our country, since local governments were overflowing with funding and staff to meet any need? Were low-income families suddenly able to buy food that wasn’t in the discount, filled with whatever additives are cheapest, aisle?

Did hospitals not remove minor surgeries from their offerings, leaving citizens in pain and discomfort because their ailment isn’t deemed as serious as a 90 year old Lord getting an erection to be able to have sex with a teenage sex worker? We were allowed this medical care in the 20th Century, why not in the next, supposedly more advanced one?

The answer is obviously that our government has not solved a tenth of the primary concerns of people who WORK to keep themselves in a home, whilst others enjoy holidays paid for by governments that can’t be bothered to work towards a FAIRER system of governing, for the people.

Thus a mechanism to remove a government by A MANDATE FROM THE PEOPLE, is required in the same way as it has been told by the government many times before – “Hard times demand hard decisions”. Well the people should be able to be involved in those decisions, not just prey to the fallout from them.

If it is possible for a government to call a referendum that is being undertaken for no clearly stated purpose, a tick box on the voting form should be provided that gives the option to state “I do not agree with the need for this referendum”. This would grant the people a true choice that makes their position visible and not hidden by tactical voting or abstention. If of sufficient numbers, the referendum itself can then be invalidated.

Further, the government should provide a web portal that ties to any decisions which will affect the taxes and future of our country, at which point people can raise a refusal to accept such decisions, without the need for a referendum. The technology is available, although our Prime Minister would need a lot of slides with pretty pictures to explain it.

Think of the HS2 rail project. A service that will not connect up the country end to end, that will not provide rail services to towns that had them over 80 years ago and that will cost so much to use that the only real users will be from business, tourism, civil servants and Chinese/Russian overlords.

Yet the people of our country are not able to oppose such ludicrous wastes of resources. After all we have to support the likes of Balfour Beatty, AMEY and the other pals of our politicians in continuing to syphon the resources of our country with the shoddy building and thus subsequent fortunes from maintenance contracts, that have left our roads the laughing stock of Zimbabwe and poorer nations.

Do you want to end your days saying you sat back watching your box sets on your nice shiny TV (the fifth one purchased in 10 years) or wasted your time switching tariffs on various utilities, following the path of distraction from matters of import that your government expands each year? Would you rather be able to tell your children that they grew up in a country that actually involves the people in the act of governing the country? Since of course, given the current leader who gives the appearance of someone who could barely manage the tea stall at a WI gathering, we could hardly do a worse job.

Our government isn’t a joke, our nation has been made one by it.

No confidence? How do WE initiate that vote?

This entry was posted in Political Development / Reform and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s