Unified Democracy – Your Questions Answered

If Unified Democracy is such a step-forward, why didn’t we get it years ago?

Because of the inward-focussed way our government works. Our politicians only ever make proposals in vague, aspirational terms. This is for two reasons – firstly because stating any degree of detail risks losing votes to those that disagree. Secondly, because they don’t need to put the work in – just rhetoric for votes. This frees them to go in any direction they want (if elected) as they learn-on-the-job.

The same applies for our political system. Many of our politicians have proposed ways it could be approved (PR, Citizen Assemblies etc), but without committing to any detail -because they think that’s what voters want to hear.

But all that gets forgotten – when they think they have a strong chance of coming into power. Because our system is ideally suited to their purpose – almost unlimited centralised power to run the UK any way they want – under the delusion that “their way is the only way”. So the only way it can ever change (short of revolution), is by The People forcing the change we need via the ballot box.

What would all this cost me in Taxes?.

Nothing. The Transition Programme would be self-funded by streamlining government processes and making substantial civil service staff reductions. Post transition, the ongoing costs of government would be substantially reduced by the same token – ultimately winding-up the House of Lords saving taxpayers many millions of pounds.

Is It PR – Like Advanced Democracies (Finland etc?) Will it replace FPTP?

No – its better than PR – a system of HR (Hybrid Representation). PR systems use complex voting systems to try to achieve an optimal tradeoff between citizen repesentation and policy representation. This nearly always results in coalition governments – that can drive political inetria, even deadlock at the top-level of government (as seen recently in Germany).

HR avoids such compromise and preserves a strong single-party cabinet. It does this be recognising the fundamental differences between the 2 types of representation (Citizens represented by MPs and Party Policy represented by Politicians). So, we keep our familiar simple voting system, whilst also achieving the benefits of PR where it matters – in the proportional representation of the policies that people have voted for.

The only difference to our current the voting system is that it very simply and logically replaces FPTP with HPV (The Party with the Highest Popular Vote over the election’s geographic area).

The key difference is that PR is aimed at stability, continuity and democratic integrity of policy by optimising citizen representation (making trade-offs), – with raised economic performance a hopeful outcome. By contrast, HR is also aimed at those same goals, but without representation trade-offs, with economic growth as part of its core design.

This is necessary because there is no direct correlation between democratic integrity and economic performance, (the ultimate example being that of China). Although Finland’s democracy has been recognised as world-leading, its economy is actually performing slightly worse than the UK’s.

How then, does Unified Democracy promote Economoc Growth?

By ensuring that each sector (not least Business), has in place properly informed strategic policies for the longer term – within a government better-informed to make better tactical decisions as domestic and global circumstances change. Further, by a better coordinated projection of upcoming skills and resource needs in each sector and better-alignment with the Education Sector . All this helping our young people get on their career ladder of choice and ensuring our country has the necessary doctors, scientists, builders etc as our economy grows.

Doesn’t a new, untried, system of Government Carry Unnecessary Risk?

It’s operation is risk-negative compared to our current one – that’s puts excessive power in the hands of an elite few at the top of government (as we have learnt to our cost).

Transition would carry with it far lower levels of risk than migrating to a “tried and tested” system – such as that used in Germany. That would mean a huge upheaval by a new voting system, government restructuring etc. that would take many years to achieve.

By contrast, transition to Unified Democracy keeps everything in place, with easily managed process-changes (The House of Lords being run-down over time), making for a relatively quick, risk-free transition. The only really big change is the introduction of the proposed new Development Authority. Were that to not work as intended, we would smply fall-back to the current system, identify and fix the problems and go again.

But why copy others, when we can do better ourselves? Restoring UK reputation as a democratic exemplar – increasing our global influence, wealth and safety in the process?

Wouldn’t our Political Academics be better-placed to propose Improvements?

No – the skills needed to upgrade our system are not political in nature but those of process and organisational redesign. The nature of political academics is that they will forever debate democratic theory above practical real-world solutions.

The best way forward is therefore for a combination of skills. For a business-change specialist to specify a draft solution (essentially this website), and ask them to review it – to identify areas where it may not work as intended and to suggest improvements. That way, we will make better progress faster – and with the necessary public assurance.