Q&As

Who is behind ReformUK.org?

Thank you for your interest in ReformUK.org. The person/people behind ReformUK.org believe that, on balance, it is better to keep their identities hidden at this stage. However, ReformUK.org can reveal that the founder(s) is a UK subject/are UK subjects and that the founder(s) live(s) in the UK.

If people agree with the aim and agree with the plan, that's the most important thing at this stage. Let's get those spoilt-ballot-paper figures up. Let's give ReformUK.org traction. Then let's take it from there.

How can you expect me to fuel the ReformUK.org vehicle if I don't know who is behind it?

We respectfully ask: should it matter who is behind ReformUK.org at this stage? If one wants to get from A to B, and one thinks that using Vehicle Z is the best way to get to B, why should it matter who suggests going to B using Vehicle Z? What matters is what each and every one of us wants, and what action we are prepared to take to get there.

You are asking me to follow your plan, but this plan depends on you to coordinate candidates, MPs etc. What if ReformUK.org ceases to exist?

The founder(s) of ReformUK.org is/are committed to achieving the ReformUK.org aim. But the ReformUK.org aim and plan belong to all of us, so it shouldn't matter who coordinates our efforts. What matters is that there is one person/team coordinating it. Right now, that is ReformUK.org. ReformUK.org may, for reasons beyond the founder's/founders' control, cease to exist, but, as long as the ReformUK.org aim and plan are kept on record by the British people, the plan will live on.

The implementation of your plan depends on ReformUK.org MPs, but how will they take their seats when they would have to first swear the oath of allegiance?

The fact that this question is being asked demonstrates that the UK is not a democracy. If all Britons disagreed with the oath of allegiance, how would they peacefully achieve this reform, given that the route to doing so requires MPs? As it happens, the ReformUK.org aim does not, in itself, contradict the oath of allegiance. (Of course, it does indirectly contradict it, because the first-past-the-post voting system is the shield that (almost) protects our constitution, and therefore our monarch and the establishment, from the collective power of the British people.) However, if ReformUK.org candidates disagree with the oath of allegiance, they will be expected to lie, under oath, in order to take their seats as MPs if elected. (ReformUK.org has reason to believe that this has already happened multiple times.) Given that this oath is anyway undemocratic, ReformUK.org sees no problem with requiring its candidates to lie in this way. The alternative would be a non-peaceful plan that would disregard our laws (which ReformUK.org is determined to avoid), or to screen candidates on their loyalty to our monarch, which wouldn't leave us with many candidates given that first past the post is the shield that (almost) protects our monarch's power.

People spoil their ballot papers for various reasons. What makes you think that a ballot paper that is cast spoilt is one that is cast in accordance with ReformUK.org?

ReformUK.org appreciates that ballot papers are cast spoilt for various reasons. However, ReformUK.org believes that those who cast their ballot papers spoilt typically do so because they are disillusioned with our voting system and/or our constitution. ReformUK.org's focus is on addressing the voting system, and this also happens to be the first step for the reform of our constitution. ReformUK.org is confident that, in each constituency, when ReformUK.org does put forward a candidate, a significant proportion of those in the constituency's electoral population who cast their ballot papers spoilt at the last constituency election will vote for our candidate.

Multiple movements already exist for voting reform. Why don't you support one of those? Is this movement not just splitting this support further?

Splitting pro-reform support twenty-one ways instead of twenty ways (estimated figures) makes little difference. What does make a difference, however, is having those twenty ways unite on one way. The vehicle that is ReformUK.org is the best option by far for getting our country to where we want it to go, for the following reasons:

1. The implementation of the ReformUK.org plan depends entirely on us, the 99.9 %. No corrupt politicians are needed.

2. There is no barrier to entry: no candidate deposit is needed to cast a spoilt ballot paper, and every spoilt ballot paper is (in theory) counted, and the total figure is (in theory) published.

3. It is decentralised: there is no central political party, and no central funding. This makes it harder for the regime to slow us down.

If my constituency has a ReformUK.org MP, how will I be represented on matters other than voting reform?

Our national government is supposed to represent all of us, irrespective of how different parts of our country voted. (We have been indoctrinated to believe in our constituency-based approach to governance, because it suits the regime for us to be on conflict with each other.) So while ReformUK.org MPs occupy parliament, other MPs will govern all of the UK. As ReformUK.org MPs increase in number, a minority, caretaker government might be needed. In the unlikely (and desirable) scenario that all 650 MPs are ReformUK.org MPs, ReformUK.org will put together a caretaker government using former politicians and members of the civil service, until ReformUK.org holds the snap general election as stated in the ReformUK.org plan.

Given sufficient public support, what challenges does ReformUK.org face?

ReformUK.org is under no illusion about the challenge of the journey ahead. Given that our country has general elections, the electoral system is the shield that (almost) protects our constitution, and therefore our monarch, from the collective power of the British people. Voting reform will upend centuries of ingrained status, prestige, tradition, heritage, and power, so implementing the ReformUK.org plan is likely to come up against resistance. Ultimately, however, the will of the British people must, and will, prevail. It is no exaggeration to write that our lives, and the lives of future generations, depend on the successful implementation of the ReformUK.org plan.

How can you claim that the UK is not a democracy when we have general elections?

ReformUK.org believes that, for a form of governance to be classed as a democracy, it must satisfy the following:

• Universal suffrage.

• A voting system that allows the electoral population to choose how they are governed.

• Freedom of expression.

• The rule of law.

The first criterion, universal suffrage, is in place, despite public confidence in the published figures from elections being questionable. The third criterion, freedom of expression, although in decline, is currently sufficient for us to publish this website, and spread word of, ReformUK.org. As for the fourth criterion, the rule of law, our justice system is not, as it should be, independent of the other two branches of state, the legislature and the executive (all three are overseen, and controlled, by the regime). But the regime has, for the time being, allowed the judiciary to uphold certain freedoms, which protect our rights as we continue to implement our plan (but, as ReformUK.org gains increasing traction, watch this space!) That leaves the second criterion. In becoming a democracy, it is our voting system that is currently the limiting factor, what is holding us back.

It is not the casting of ballot papers (at a general election or otherwise) that has, in itself, any meaning with regards to democracy. What has meaning is how the casting of ballot papers determines the allocation of power. And it is here where our voting system, first past the post, fails to satisfy the criterion stated above.

On this website's homepage, the governance-hierarchy illustration shows the monarch at the top. Is the monarch's role not one of tradition and ceremony, rather than a position of power?

This idea that our monarch's role is merely one of tradition and ceremony is an idea that we have been indoctrinated with, through the mainstream media and public institutions. To see through the spin, the imagery, the rhetoric, and the lies, we simply need to delve into our laws. The oath of allegiance, royal assent, royal prerogative, the privy council, king's consent, royal secrecy etc are all kept in place for a reason, primarily as a deterrent to reform, but also as a means to punish those who step out of line. The monarch is, for the day-to-day running of our country, largely politically docile. But that's because he/she can afford to be! – our MPs serve in our monarch's name. Our country's power does not lie in the day-to-day running of our country, but in our (written but not codified) constitution. And our constitution is built around serving our monarch and his/her family. The establishment, as part of the arrangement, gets delegated power, and a share of the wealth (our wealth) and status.

On your homepage, you asked us, where feasible, to choose a lifestyle of civil disobedience. Why?

Every aspect of government, parliament, the judiciary, public spending, public institutions, and public roles, is orientated towards upholding the concentration of power with our monarch, and the delegated power, shared status, and shared wealth within the establishment. When we fill a public role that our monarch needs us to fill, when we pay our taxes, and when we support our national institutions, we align with, support, and help to uphold, the status quo. So our requests here, to the British people, are aimed at disrupting the status quo, not by breaking any laws, but by cutting back, by living a less materialistic (but far more prosperous!) life. But this isn't just disruption for disruption's sake, or as a protest. Its purpose is to accelerate the execution of our plan, and it will achieve this by leveraging the power of the masses through everyday lifestyle choices. It will be effective in the same way that strike action is effective.

By traditional/establishment measures, and according to the government narrative, this will be branded as anti-patriotic and a weakening of our country. Quite the opposite: it is patriotism at its bravest and best. Is demolishing one's home to fix its weak foundations an act of self-harm? Of course not. In fact, the opposite is true. To continue to live in that home is to choose to live with the risk of the walls and roof failing!

Our regime's power depends on our civil obedience. By weakening the regime in this way, we harm its funding, and we harm its ability to spin, lie, deceive, and mislead us. Furthermore, civil disobedience will help expose the harsh realities (the weak foundation) that we must face up to. This civil disobedience may seem like a step backwards, like a reduction in the quality of our life, but we ask Britons to keep the home-foundation analogy firmly in our minds. To be clear, we are not asking the 99.9 % to live an unhealthy life. We are asking the 99.9 % to cut back on the extravagances, the indulgences, the excesses, and the "nice-to-have's". Yes, we are asking for our military and police personnel to resign, but the reality is that our personnel would not all resign overnight. Instead, the process will be gradual (although we hope that the process will also be fast). And this gradual trend would be enormous pressure on all of us to implement the ReformUK.org plan as soon as possible.

Our plan alone is enough to achieve our aim, but we can do more to accelerate its implementation, and this is what civil disobedience will achieve.

As soon as we achieve our aim, the snap general election will be the next vehicle for reform. At that point, we will need to go back to our productivity- and economy-driven lifestyles in order to drive the economic growth that our country will need in order to deliver the security and standard of life that we all want.

According to your plan, even if you had a majority of MPs in the House of Commons, that would not, in itself, be enough of a mandate to achieve your aim. Why?

Our current voting system is such that ReformUK.org would be able to control parliament with minority support from the public, as measured by vote shares. Indeed, it is normal for our country to be governed in this way, with minority public support. ReformUK.org does not consider this to be a sufficiently strong mandate to govern, let alone use it to reform part of our constitution.

So if a majority of MPs does not, in itself, give you the mandate that you need, will a majority vote share be sufficient?

If the ReformUK.org vote share across all 650 constituencies was greater than 50 %, ReformUK.org would still not consider this to be a sufficient mandate to achieve its aim. The reason for this is not that this reform will amend our constitution, and that changes to our constitution require a bigger mandate. (Because ReformUK.org MPs are anyway be single-policy MPs, so a vote for them at the general election is a vote for voting reform.) No, the reason is that, as a result of decades of using the first-past-the-post voting system, much of the electoral population is politically disengaged (please re-engage for ReformUK.org!). This is why we use the more stringent PMP metric (explained on the Metrics page of this website) to gauge the mandate that we have, and why we require that the ReformUK.org PMP is greater than 50 %. While the PMP is 50 % or less, and at the same time as seeking to grow the PMP mandate, we will seek to achieve the mandate that we need by holding a referendum on whether or not to achieve our aim.

In your plan, you state that the referendum that ReformUK.org pushes for is one for which a simple-majority result (greater than 50 %) will be legally binding. Why do you not require a greater mandate, given that voting reform is constitutional change?

For most (perhaps all other) constitutional reform, we have the view that a greater mandate (e.g. greater than a two-thirds majority) would be needed to enact the reform. However, this particular reform's sole purpose is to give the electoral population meaningful choice in how they are governed. After this voting reform is enacted, the electoral population will be free, should we wish, to return to first past the post, by simply voting for it. In fact, it would be easier for the electoral population to do this than it would be for the electoral population (not the regime), within the current political system, to assert our wish to stick with first past the post (should that indeed be our wish). In summary, it is our view that constitutional reform that gives the electoral population more meaningful choice in how we are governed should require only a simply majority for the reform to be enacted.

There is a political party called "Reform UK". If you want reform, why not support that party?

Firstly, a party's name is just a name. Secondly, is the Reform UK party just another establishment party? That is, does it serve, and is it loyal to, our monarch, not the British people? Is the regime, through the mainstream media, pushing for increased support for the Reform UK party? Is the regime, through the Reform UK party, selling the British people another lie? We know the answers to these questions.

Loyalty must come first. Without loyalty, everything else is irrelevant. That's why ReformUK.org considers the Reform UK party to be no different to the Labour party, the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrat party, the Scottish National Party, and all other parties that don't make voting reform their only policy. Even if a party appears to be pro-reform, to participate in elections, parliament, and government without making voting reform its only policy is to validate and support the constitution and the regime's corrupt system of governance. (So too is to vote for any candidate who does not make voting reform his/her only policy.)

We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. An independent commission on voting systems will be appointed early to recommend a proportional alternative to the first‑past‑the‑post system.

Labour Party manifesto, 1997

Tony Blair, and the Labour Party, serving in the monarch's name, did not honour this pledge. If we, the 99.9 % of the British people, are not able to learn from this that we cannot entrust our monarch, or an establishment party, with voting reform, we're not sure whether we will ever learn this lesson.

We at ReformUK.org choose not to bury our heads in the sand. We choose not to put our fingers in our ears and make "la la la" noises. We choose to face the truth, to accept reality, however cold and hard it may be. Our minds are able to twist and subvert much of reality, to try to protect us, but they can only do so much. If we don't eat, we die, no matter how much we want to believe that we are not hungry. If a bullet has passed through us, we are injured, no matter now much we might want to believe that we are not. These are the laws of nature, and no amount of spin, brainwashing, and indoctrination can change them. If we don't act now, our day of reckoning will come. We will come, as we have done in our wartime past, face to face with the laws of nature. We must be brave. We must face up to the truth.

We would rather drive a million miles (if that is how long it will take) to achieve our aim, knowing that each mile driven is one mile closer to our aim, than to waste our efforts in a web of lies, deceit, trickery, deception, and corruption. We at ReformUK.org will not snap up the bones that the regime throws us. We are wise to that. We know better.

To conclude: there is no chance that we would entrust the Reform UK party with voting reform, and therefore our lives.