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 are committed to achieving the ReformUK.org Aim. But the ReformUK.org Plan belongs 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 Plan remains in the memories of 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 protects our constitution, and therefore our monarch, 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 expecting its candidates to do this. The alternative would be a non-peaceful plan that disregards 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 the regime depends on first past the post!

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, from experience, 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 it 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:

• The movement of the ReformUK.org vehicle towards its destination depends entirely on us, in how much we fuel it. No mainstream/corrupt politicians are needed.

• Using the most direct route, there are no early obstacles or barriers that the ReformUK.org vehicle will have to overcome in order to make progress. That is, there is no barrier to entry. The only thing holding us back is ourselves.

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 powers that be for us to be divided up like this. 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 the civil service until ReformUK.org achieves its aim.

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

ReformUK.org is under no illusion about the enormity of the task ahead. Given that our country has general elections, the electoral system is the shield that protects the powers that be from the collective power of the British people. Voting reform will upend centuries of ingrained status, prestige, tradition, heritage, and (totalitarian) 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. Our lives, and the lives of future generations, depends on this.

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 have the following characteristics:

• Universal suffrage.

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

• Freedom of expression.

• The rule of law.

Universal suffrage is in place, despite public confidence in the published figures from elections being questionable. Freedom of expression, although in decline, is currently sufficient for us to publish, and spread word of, this website and our plan. As for 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 (both overseen by the regime). But our judiciary has, for the time being, sufficient integrity to protect our rights as we continue to implement our peaceful plan. That leaves the second bullet point from the top. 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 formality, rather than a position of power?

No. This is an idea that we have been indoctrinated with, through the mainstream media and public institutions. The oath of allegiance, royal assent, royal prerogative, the privy council, king's consent, royal secrecy etc are all kept in place for a very good reason. 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 country's base of 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, of course, as part of the arrangement, also gets a share of the wealth and status (but not the power).

On your homepage, you asked us to minimise taxable transactions, withdraw support for public and national institutions (including, unfortunately, our sports teams), and, where feasible, resign from all public-sector roles (including all those in the security and defence sectors). Why?

It is important to understand that every fibre of public money, public institutions (including, unfortunately, our national sports teams), public communications (including all mainstream media), and public roles is orientated to maintaining the political system that we have and to uphold our (written but not codified) constitution. That is, every fibre of public life is orientated towards upholding the concentration of power with our monarch, and the delegated power, delegated 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. 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 for the same reasons that strike action is effective: it will leverage the power of the masses. As individuals, with the first-past-the-post voting system that we have, we are but metaphorical dirt on the boss's shoe. But, as a collective, we command attention. As a collective, we have leverage. To give an extreme scenario, to help clarify the explanation, if all of us who work in the public sector resigned today, this action would deprive the regime of its:

• security forces and intelligence agencies, both personal and national;

• ability to maintain its relationship with the mainstream media;

• ability to bribe elites;

• ability to hand out public-sector jobs and contracts (in this extreme scenario, people don't want them, but even just paying less tax will help achieve this);

• ability to buy support through welfare payments, including pensions; and

• ability to influence election campaigns.

If, in this extreme scenario, the reason for all these resignations was to bring about voting reform, our monarch (and those who surround our monarch in the establishment) would have no choice but to agree to it. 

In reality, of course, this change will be gradual, not abrupt. By the traditional/establishment measures, and according to the government narrative, this will be asserted as anti-patriotic and a weakening of our country. But is a building with a faulty foundation and cracked structural walls stronger because the cracks are hidden from sight by all the interior decorations? The strength of a building's structural walls are limited by the strength of the foundation on which they are supported. And the same principle applies to the governance of our country: the strength of our armed forces, our police force, and our economy in general, are limited by the way in which we govern our country. And, to put it bluntly, the way in which we govern our country is weak.

These measures are comparable to going on a general strike. Our plan alone is enough to achieve our aim, but we can do more to accelerate its implementation, and this is what these bonus measures are for.

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 at all, 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 because this reform will amend our constitution (ReformUK.org MPs would anyway be single-policy MPs, so a vote for them at the general election is a vote for voting reform) but because, 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.

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? We know the answers to these questions. And 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 others. Even if a party is 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. (The same principle applies to voting for any candidate who does not make voting reform his/her only policy.)

Given that the regime's power depends on our current voting system, there is no chance that we would entrust the Reform UK party with voting reform, this most special and important of tasks. We need a form of governance that serves, and is loyal to, the British people.