UK Democracy: A political morphology; Liberal Democracy reaches for Illiberal electoral autocracy. A narcissistic isolation from reality.

Initially, I provide a brief description and definition of the UK state and British Liberal democracy and its features. This will be followed by an introduction to the topic of this article, namely, examining the UK State, Democracy and Governance.

What is the state

Definitions

Max Weber: Explains, a state is a "human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate physical violence within a given territory." This definition emphasises the state's role in maintaining order and security. The Montevideo Convention of (1933) is an international treaty outlines the criteria for statehood, including a permanent population, defined territory, government, and capacity to enter into relations with other states.

A state is a "political organization of society, or the body politic, or, more narrowly, the institutions of government." This definition highlights the state as a form of social organization.

Distinction between State and Government

While the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, the state is a broader concept than the government. The government is the specific group of people in power at a given time, while the state is the enduring structure of institutions and authority. A nation is a group of people with a shared identity, culture, and history, while a state is a political entity with defined territory and government. A nation may or may not have its own state. States can vary greatly in their form of government, such as democracy, monarchy, or dictatorship, and their level of centralisation, for example, unitary or federal, and their role in the economy ( capitalist, socialist). A state is a complex political entity with a defined territory, permanent population, government, sovereignty, and recognition by other states. It plays a crucial role in maintaining order, providing services, and representing its people in the international arena.

UK Type of Democracy

The UK is a Constitutional Monarchy that operates as a unitary parliamentary democracy. The Head of State is the monarch (currently King Charles III), but their power is limited by our historical constitution. The monarch's role is largely ceremonial, and they do not have significant political influence. Power is concentrated in the central government (Westminster) meaning unitary. While some power is devolved to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, the UK remains a unitary state.

Parliamentary Democracy: The government is formed by the party that wins a majority of seats in the House of Commons during general elections. The Prime Minister is the head of government and is usually the leader of the majority party. The government is accountable to Parliament, which can remove the government through a vote of no confidence.

Key Features of UK Democracy

Parliamentary Sovereignty: Parliament is the supreme law-making body in the UK.

Rule of Law: Everyone is equal under the law, including the government.

Independent Judiciary: The courts are independent of the government and Parliament.

Free and Fair Elections: Elections are held regularly, and citizens have the right to vote for their representatives.

Freedom of Speech and Assembly: Citizens have the right to express their opinions and to gather peacefully.

Introduction

Democracy erodes from the top.

According to the VDEM report 2024, all features and principles of democracy are in decline in most countries worldwide with levels of democracy in a global context reversed to 1982 levels. In recent times the UK's democracy has come under sustained attack across many components associated with liberal democracy. While many commentators may be under the false assumption these attacks are a relatively new iteration of a neoliberal globalised world, the UKs democracy has been undermined by the two mass parties for the last hundred years, although has become more pronounced and noticeable, beginning with the Thatcher Premiership 1979-1990 via enhanced cartelisation of the political system and later by Blair through May and Starmer. Essentially, features of cartelisation in terms of Katz and Mairs's thesis, converge around how Political parties create obstacles that prevent new parties from thriving in our (UK) political system, meaning the electorate is left with little choice but to vote for one of the two dominant mass political parties. See more here on cartelisation of political systems. This in and of itself would not be of any particular relevance if indeed the mass parties represented the electorate of the UK in terms of addressing the popular will.

There has in the last twenty years been no meaningful attempt by Labour or the Conservatives to honour manifesto commitments, society has been led completely top down, and is illustrated in high definition by the complete failure of either party to address the will of the electorate, particularly on issues of immigration, failure of multiculturalism, erosion of British identity, and the threat of Islamism, alongside poor economic vision, perhaps the most important factor politically and impacted negatively by some of the formerly mentioned issues. The answer to poor economic growth by both parties is more immigration, considering the substantial evidence of no real economic benefit, importing huge amounts of human capital with no skills, then expresses as negative equity across the board of socio-economic metrics for the UK. Taking account of this, leads to the assumption, that both mass parties are completely incompetent or if not incompetent, then there is an ideological aspect pervasive in both parties and or an ideological outlook entrenched in the state apparatus run by the civil service and Whitehall mandarins, clouding reality via ideological mystifiers and inversions in maintaining a fragile status quo. Ideologies that are not attended to consistently, tend to forgo realism and pragmatism, in favour of fantasy wish lists, and in this knowledge, Globalist illiberal regressivism (GIR)is no different.

GIR has been hiding behind the banner of liberal progressivism for almost 30 years and it exasperates me when people describe what has happened in the political sphere as a liberal iteration. It is not, none of the tenets of liberalism demand we accept something illiberal as liberal. Not equity as equality, not inclusivity as exclusivity, and not diversity as a strength. Neither does liberalism demand we tolerate the intolerable nor does it demand we accept depravity. Globalist Illiberal regressivism does however demand citizens accept inverse, harmful illiberal antidemocratic ideas as a necessary evil in its aims.

How has Globalist illiberal regressivism impacted our political system, democracy, and national sovereignty?

GIR is a standalone ideology, to some extent influenced by Marxist critical theory although, primarily informed by the global society, global citizen, and globalised economy discourses, pervasive, primarily in Universities, therefore, all institutions that are interconnected or associated with the global governance matrix, try finding anyone without university credentials in any global governance unit. There are two features to the Globalist ideological outlook; market and justice (Globalised economy and free movement of human capital) and cultural heterogeneity, with the ultimate aim, being cultural homogeneity, indirectly forced by the former and directly attributable to global society discourses. The discussion that follows will be centred on democracy, and how this ideology (GIR) in reaching its aims has undermined democratic governance in the UK. Initially, the discussion will take a look at intra-party democracy in the UK and will then move across further features, principles, and functions of democracy. Concluding the UK is an illiberal electoral autocracy with the state and political party system colonised by agents of Globalist illiberal regressivism.

In the UK political parties all have a system of intra-party democracy. Systems whereby each party selects leaders and potential MPs to represent their party positions in parliament, and more salient as representatives of the electorate. Intra-party democracy is a form of quality control, however, in the last three decades, this function of political parties has developed dysfunction and is more concerned with aesthetics than quality or in fact competence. Intra-party democracy like many aspects of British society has fallen to the demands emanating from illiberal concepts, particularly DEI. We now have two political parties and numerous smaller parties whose selection process is driven by a DEI selection process. This means political parties forgo merit-based selection and default to aesthetic representation, on the misinformed but programmed assumption it is more important to project an image, the front-looking face of a political party that appears to represent all groups in society, an aesthetic image which replaces the depth that competence brings. The flaw in this type of thinking is that many who are selected do not represent meritocracy, a key feature of a democratic society and are unfit by incompetence to represent the nation. They do not possess the skills or knowledge needed to bring a society together in unity, and in the wider picture to lift the nation to its full potential, through economic success, raising the standard of living and well-being of the British social order.

Not only is DEI impacting selection processes but for those MPs who are not in a protected group, they must resort to an inverse form of virtue to signal their allegiance. A method where MPs signal to other party members and MPs they are on board with the global society project, for example, on issues related to open borders, pro-mass immigration, climate catastrophism and anti-free speech legislation. This is a strategy for moving through the ranks to ministerial positions. It is no mistake that Keir Starmer has been groomed for party leadership, his human rights lawyer linkages are instrumental as to why he has been ushered through the Labour ranks. A man devoid of leadership abilities, with an unstatesmanlike manner, afflicted with an uninspiring character with a hollow heart, rigidly confined to his field, and frigid to alternate perspectives.

Human rights law is a major consideration for the global governance matrix. As many political observers have noticed human rights law is deconstructing nation-state boundaries, undermining democracy, social solidarity, and its by-product, social cohesion. The global cosmopolitan fantasy/naivete serviced by human rights law is leading Britain to a nation that, in the not-so-distant future, will see a form of sectarian violence that will have implications way beyond the troubles in Northern Ireland and will continue well into the future, with multiple groups in societal conflict. Cosmopolitanism is all well and good, however, there are caveats in that there are limitations as to which cultures can live side by side in harmony. This of course relates to cultural compatibility and the unworldly notion by those who are immersed in global governance discourses as achievable. It is not, at least not functionally for the UK at present rate and numbers. History, sociology, psychologies, and anthropology inform us this is only achievable, in particular cases, where cultures and the social psychologies that flow from those cultures are closely aligned. Large societies can tolerate small numbers from incompatible cultures, as they represent no threat and over time are absorbed by the dominant cultures. Drawing from this we can see why those who have been indoctrinated in Universities initially and later in public service and political institutions into a global society outlook, are attempting to social engineer our societies. Primarily this is via oppression, and illiberal attacks on the cornerstones of democracy, through the legislature and legislation that limits free speech and expression, freedom of association and ultimately smothering the popular will. The UK form of democratic governance has been hijacked by globalist illiberalism. Methods employed to compel incompatible cultures to live alongside each other are force/coercion, through law and legislation, and most notably propaganda by the legacy media that does not align with lived realities, and in the fullness of time leads to low trust and high-tension societies where the populace retreats to their tribal colours. Britain's future is hovering on a knife edge, where we have two choices, either a century of sectarian violence or a stable functional society with a common culture. This means abandoning illiberal conceptions and frameworks to restore liberal democracy.

In recent times we have witnessed the Conservative and Labour governments both employing the legislature as a cudgel against the popular will over a multiplicity of tensions in British society, due to anti-social illiberal concepts and the unresponsive attitude of an insular anti-democratic political elite and its consensus. The mass uncontrolled importation of negative equity-human capital is placing public service provision in an unassailable position. The UK electorate has watched as public service provision falls into disarray over many public institutions, from the National Health Service to GP surgeries through social housing, the Criminal Justice System, Education, Refuse collection and Benefits. Hence there is a need to oppress the voice of the people, expressing their concerns and where human rights law is paradoxically eroding the human rights of the British citizenry indirectly, via anti-democratic legislation, that is in service to the global society project, and not the national interest.

Early forms of this type of legislation can be found in the Public Order Act 1986 and later amended by the Religious Hatred Act of 2006 where a maximum sentence of 7 years imprisonment is attached for anyone falling foul of this legislation. The Criminal Justice Act 1994 and The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 are further Acts that contain provisions that amend the earlier Public Order Act of 1986. And in Scotland the Hate Crime and Public Order Act 2021 is perhaps the most pernicious piece of speech legislation in British history. Free speech has been consistently attacked since the mid-eighties, coinciding with Thatcher ushering in the neoliberal order to facilitate a globalised economy/market.

Brexit Referendum

The first clear early signal that the UK political party system had been infiltrated and dominated by GIR was demonstrated after the 2016 Referendum. Where the globalist illiberal regressive sections that dominate both mass parties colluded to overturn the democratic result of the 2016 referendum. When it became apparent this would not be possible, did all in their power to sabotage the leaving of the anti-democratic supra-national EU. Still to this day, almost a decade later the UK is ensnared in EU law, the consequences of this subversion of democracy, mean the UK has not realised the full potential of leaving the EU. The current Labour government is working behind the scenes to retrofit Britain with the EU supra-national global governance unit policies and laws. No surprise there, considering Starmer is an ideological fanatic, aligned with the illiberal ideology servicing the global society project. In the aftermath of the 2016 referendum, the veil (liberalism) was pulled back slightly and we got a sneak peek of what was hiding behind her, we glimpsed liberalism's grotesque antithesis, a deformed and illiberal abomination to democracy. Later in 2020, its deviance stepped out boldly from behind the veil. If one were to imagine this ideology as an image it would appear as something akin to the sexual product conceived by Sam Smith and Stalin, a visual coupling representing an inbreeding of depravity, authoritarianism, and illiberalism with an inherent nihilism, submerged in inversion.

Covid pseudo-pandemic

When viewing the era of covid it is then easy to see how and why illiberalism and the assault on democracy are intrinsic to the global governance matrix. Without illiberal and anti-democratic methods of governance, it would not be possible to force entire populations to relent to clearly illogical, irrational, and antiscientific measures of containment. To abandon a century of tried and tested national health policy and create medical fallacies as credible on the hoof. The Rejection of proven and tested methods that mitigate the impact of viral infection was ignored. All decisions were made top-down by the WHO, initially and radiated outward from its centre through the periphery (nation-states) overriding national health policy.

The legacy media, once an important feature of UK democracy, was used as a willing and enthusiastic propaganda tool and simultaneously as a hammer to crush any dissent, to ruin careers and reputations, creating fear and intimidation. The criminality that ensued by the UK political class has yet to see any accountability. Accountability is a feature of democratic governance and is yet another victim of illiberalism. The Conservative Party nor Labour pushed back against the interference in national health policy by an external entity that is rife with corruption and funded by special interest parties both in the context of private individuals like Bill Gates, and national governments, banks and a plethora of global governance unit donors. This should have been the signal that all was not well with our democracy and that those elected to represent the interests of the electorate are in essence a fifth column, with many knowingly culpable (Principles) and others acting in part, (Accessories) therefore, guilty by collusion and attendance at the site of the crime, Westminster. We have a small minority of representatives in terms of the UK population, in a cartelised political party system, who were gifted authority by the electorate and abused their power by acting against the interests of the UK nation-state. The populace was forced/coerced to accept these measures and among other things compelled to participate in a scientific experiment, with no informed consent and no ethical oversight. Contrast this with the illiberal elite, who flouted the measures at every opportunity, as most were aware it was all theatre. The theatre was compounded with party leaders using strong rhetoric in Westminster threatening expulsion of any MPs guilty of not following the restrictions and yet flouting the measures themselves, both Johnson and Starmer were guilty of breaching restrictions, among many others in either mass party. Pluralism is a feature of democracies, during the Covid period, there was no countervailing power that scrutinised the Conservative government's position and their legislative instruments to hold them accountable. The Labour Party were in full agreement with the measures taken by the Conservative Party, with zero opposition. In some instances, the Labour Party called for an enhanced form of draconian measures to be implemented. In terms of plurality of ideas, the UK political and media elite policies monopolise the UK political system, meaning no input from the majority electorate; this is a feature of authoritarian regimes. The term uni-party was self-evident during this period and resembled a one-party state system. It must be added during the vote to implement the Coronavirus Act 2020, it completed all phases in the commons procedures in one day with no opposition. The Act is similar in its power to Article 38 used by Hitler to suspend fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, in its aim to control a fairly innocuous virus.

Participation in the democratic process

The 2024 election of the Labour government highlighted the crisis in UK democracy by poor participation in the electoral process. Where after 2 decades of being ignored by the illiberal unresponsive political class, the electorate retreated from the voting process. One of the worst ever turnouts in UK General elections, only equalled by the turnout in 2001. As we can see in the graph below electoral turnout has only dropped below 60% on three occasions in the last century, with two of those occasions, being in the last 2 decades. Participation is a good indicator as to how healthy a democracy is and in light of the turnout falling below 60% twice in the last two decades indicates disenfranchisement. Meaning voters feel they have been disenfranchised from the voter franchise by having no power to influence any major decisions that are salient to the national trajectory. Perhaps the most striking indicator of this graph is the turnout for the Brexit referendum vote, where turnout reached 72% the highest turnout since the general election (GE) of 1992. Striking, in that it indicated a clear will of the British people to leave an antidemocratic supranational organisation, the EU, to bring home sovereignty relinquished by decades of the fifth column collusion in Parliament, and showing a clear will by the electorate to address the irresponsible levels of immigration.

Electoral turnout is but one indicator of democratic participation. Party membership can also signal how strong democracy is and points to dis/satisfaction with political parties. The UK has witnessed a decline in party membership since the early 1950s with the Conservatives fielding around 2.8 million members and Labour around 1 million members during this period. Political party membership is viewed as a civic indicator of participation and shows a long-term downward trend of party membership disengagement. Conservatives’ membership numbers in 2024 were sitting at 131,000 and Labour in 2024 with 370,000 members according to figures reported by Labour List and The Standard. Juxtaposed to this, is the phenomenal upswing in party membership of the Reform Party, surpassing numbers of the Conservative party, in December 2024. Considering Reform is a relatively young political party then questions may be asked why this has occurred. At this juncture, it is not difficult to make informed assumptions as to why, on the face of it, it appears there are a significant number of voters willing to support the Reform party, most likely due to dissatisfaction with the unresponsiveness of both mass parties and a hope for change.

Source: Statista 2025

Linsey Hoyle’s impartiality

In terms of more recent anti-democratic events, and one that can be placed at the feet of immigration and multiculturalism, and in part by features of cartelisation. This concerned a Labour Amendment to the Gaza cease-fire debate. Highlighted by the Linsey Hoyle/Keir-Starmer incident, where a democratic vote was manipulated by the speaker due to a fear MPs' lives were in danger from Islamic radicals. Additionally, there is a further aspect suggesting the Labour government feared they would be defeated in the vote and Keir Starmer threatened Linsey Hoyle's position as speaker, this was denied by Starmer, although there are considerable grounds that indicate there would have been a rebellion among Labour party ranks and would have split the party. Further, the outcome of the vote was expected to alienate a large section of Labour's electoral support via the Muslim block vote.

Blasphemy laws and Employment law

Labour's enthusiasm for speech-limiting legislation is a further indicator that there is an illiberal anti-democratic thought collective at its heart and is further illuminated by proposed employment law changes. The proposed changes are intrinsically linked to the pseudo-moral arguments of GIR and in essence, in the short term, are to limit free speech in social arenas such as pubs, restaurants, or cafes, and in the long term to socially engineer changes in social psychologies to mitigate opposition of future unpopular GIR policies that will mean demographic change, cultural erosion and social dysfunctionality. In the latest attack on free speech is the plan by Angela Rayner to create an Islamophobia council to draw up plans that will usher in new rules on anti-Muslim discrimination. The argument is that there is a need for a new official definition of Islamophobia. This is a strategy that GIR uses in almost every instance where their policies have caused tension in society they redefine or create new words with definitions to smother the root cause of the social dysfunction. In place of dealing with the groups that are the centre of tension, is then deflected as a failing of the majority. Free speech groups have criticised the government's wilful blindness and its blinkered Orwellian disregard for free speech.

If current trends continue, sectarian violence will become the norm in UK life

Islam will be the catalyst for sectarian violence in the not-so-distant future; I have absolutely no doubt the UK will be plunged into a cycle of sectarian violence, no matter what legislation is conjured up to stifle reasonable criticism of Islamism. This will only be averted if Islam and its communities are policed in the manner all other communities are policed in the UK, without fear or favour. By expressing the former I fall into the category listed on Prevents program criteria as extreme right, by the suggestion Britain has a two-tier policing strategy, obvious to almost anyone observing how Islamic communities in the UK are policed in comparison to other communities. The Prevent program run by GIR adherents and other interested parties is primarily focused on a small number of extreme right individuals and groups, ignoring the very real threat of Islamist terrorism. The paradox, and in some regard, I believe this is intentional, is that all methods currently used by the state will produce a very lively radical right in the future, and it will be in response to immigration levels, cultural erosion, and Islamism.

When this occurs, the state will use their imported proxies to murder their opposition, as has occurred recently in the Salwan Momika case in Sweden. A less but equally pertinent example, is the Bately school teacher who is still in hiding fearing for his and his family's lives. The Islamophobia council set up by Reynar is an attempt to placate their Muslim voters and, in doing so, will develop legislation that is a Trojan horse carrying a blasphemy law at its core. The electorate in the UK is being mugged by a relentless and malignant ideology, that is antithetical to the UK form of democratic governance, liberal democracy.

Cancelling of elections and the failed fourth estate

Putting aside the attacks on free speech and expression, an equally sinister threat to democracy is the proposed cancellation of local elections due to a reorganisation of local government. If those local councils who have applied for a delay of the May 2025 elections until May 2026, proceed, this will be the first time since WWII, elections have been cancelled. Most councils that have applied are Conservative-held local authorities. The implications to democracy are writ large; Labour is in a difficult position as it is looking ever more likely those areas will be won by Reform. As of writing, the decision has been confirmed, that Suffolk, Norfolk, Essex, Thurrock, Surrey, East Sussex, West Sussex, Hampshire, and the Isle of Wight local elections will be cancelled, with millions not allowed to vote in the May 2025 local elections. This is an attack on the bedrock of UK democracy, one of free and fair elections. Even though there is apparently some precedent for a delay, it is an additional anti-democratic indicator and points to Labour not being concerned with upholding the democratic process. Labour has been accused of rushing the restructuring process. Shadow Community Secretary Kevin Hollinrake stated that local councillors have had a gun placed to their head. Nigel Farage has commented only dictators cancel elections and this is a collusion to mitigate the threat of Reform. The regional local authority restructuring is a national gerrymandering of constituencies that will see the new authorities swallow up small rural Conservative boroughs and district council voters, that will be neutralised by the larger more dominant urban areas.

The British legacy media were once known as the fourth estate and a functioning feature of democratic governance, colloquially known as the free press, with a duty to hold power accountable. This is no longer the case the media are now an arm of the state. A GIR propaganda vehicle that determines what political parties can and cannot say and one that confines Overton’s window to the size of a postage stamp. Since the 1980s, the legacy media news sections have become highly subjective, overlayed with an ideological framework in place of objective reporting. The British Broadcasting Corporation is the exemplar, promoting GIR's ideological vision. You only have to watch programmes made by the BBC to observe that the global society and global citizen outlook of GIR is overarching in plot and characters. The Funding of the BBC is largely by the British public through legislative coercion and additionally by donor derivatives of the global governance matrix, for example, Global Affairs Canada, USAID, European Commission, UNICEF, Counterpart International, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency and the UK FCDO.

The British public has been battered, corralled, berated and coerced to accept the policies of GIR via propaganda and shaming in the legacy media and their ideological automatons in authoritative positions in the civil service and its sub-departments, via anti-free speech legislation that would not be needed if the electorate were asked and allowed input in national direction. The UK electorate has steadily over four decades been threatened, intimidated and then disarmed of democratic redress by hate speech legislation, Non-Hate Crime Incident reports (NCHIs), and incoming employment law that will prevent particular conversations from being held in social venues. When looking back at the Pakistani Muslim rape gangs and how they were allowed to predate on little white girls, it is evident how the above have converged to socially engineer a society and its safeguarding institutions to look the other way, to avoid upsetting particular communities. Some may say it is unintentional consequences, a completely odious idea, this would have been known as an inevitable outcome. If the communities that were involved in the rape gangs were policed and safeguarded by liberal principles, the entire criminal enterprise would have been nipped in the bud before it was allowed to spiral out of control. Control and social functionality go hand in hand. Albeit to achieve functionality in terms of longevity, all communities must be subject to the same control mechanisms, and this is how and why these communities (Pakistani/Muslim predominantly), spiralled outward on a tangent of racial grievance, and sexual torture.

The Rule of law

The rule of law is a concept that describes the supreme authority of the law over governmental action and individual behaviour. It corresponds to a situation where both the government and individuals are bound by the law and comply with it. It is the antithesis of tyrannical or arbitrary rule (Valke 2012).

What rule of law, is it international, or is it national? The public of the UK expects the Rule of Law as a principle to be inherently focused as a national tenet in a liberal democratic form of government, traditionally Western-centric. We do not live in a global society by definition or by fantasy ideological outlooks. The Rule of Law principle can only work in an ordered community of people closely aligned by religion, culture, historiography, defined territories and their distinct institutions. This definition can not be met in a global context, simply by the fact all nations and countries have differing religions, cultures, histories, and distinct institutions. However, the adherents of GIR, wish to undermine the Rule of law distinctly formed by each nation's constitutional and institutional makeup, which is influenced at the national level. International law was initially conceived as an agglomeration of customary legal precepts where the expectation is sovereign nation-states would agree to abide by advisory legal propositions. In recent times, this customary position has been replaced by demands from entities like the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as obligatory and all countries signed up to the ICJ are then obliged to adhere stringently to their legal precepts. As a global ideal, The Rule of Law is an elusive term. Nevertheless, is understood by GIR as rule by law or lawyers and not the generic understanding by the electorate that everyone is equal before the law. The UK has over the last 4 decades abandoned the Rule of Law on multiple fronts, most notably in the contemporary era by increased thought and behaviour coercive legislation, that is arbitrary and tyrannical simultaneously. Not only has the Rule of Law fallen at the political level but on the social level, with judges handing out light sentences to particular groups due to cultural and religious behavioural deficits. Where some are being given soft sentences because they are recent arrivals and did not realise raping a 13-year-old girl was unlawful or where a migrant's wife withheld sex, was then interpreted as an exogenous mitigating reason for raping children. Additionally, there is a clear disparity in sentences handed out to those from the middle and working class, due to cultural and social capital's influence on judges, with lighter sentences being given to those holding higher social status.

Parliamentary sovereignty

Parliamentary sovereignty was an issue during the Brexit referendum and is yet to be fully handed back to the UK Parliament. Parliamentary sovereignty belongs to the electorate and is gifted to parliament by the people to run the country, not to be handed to foreign powers or organisations. The large GIR contingent in the civil service and their mandarins have been working tirelessly to subvert political party policy agendas on issues of sovereignty relating to immigration and border control. This is one among many issues with Parliamentary sovereignty, in recent times our GIR-infested parliament were willing to hand over more of Parliamentary sovereignty in the fashion of a drunk man with ten arms to the WHO. Furthermore, the ICJ is undermining parliamentary sovereignty via outdated human rights law, while at the same time has made our borders porous. Without defined borders, the UK is not a nation-state democracy but a satellite orbiting illiberal global governance units.

First Past The Post (FPTP)and Proportional Representation (PR)

Addressing the UK electoral system of First Past The Post (FPTP), particularly in light of the recent Labour victory, many will feel let down. However, this is largely due to an extremely poor level of participation. FPTP is a simple majority electoral system where the candidates in each constituency with the most votes win. Some commentators would say produces unfair electoral results; it is then tempting to think the UK need a Proportional Representation (PR) system; this would be a schoolboy error. Lest we forget, PR was the electoral system of the Weimar Republic of 1919-1933 and was partially responsible for Hitler's rise to infamy. This was due to the nature of PR and how its assumption of appearing more representative creates stable governance. This is not the case; it may give the impression of fairness; however, it creates a situation where political parties must compromise their policy agenda with other parties in a coalition to gain a majority and form a government. In reality, PR creates weak coalition governments that stagnate and prevaricate over every detail that separates them, while society becomes entrapped in a never-ending cycle of uncertainty and instability. PR is the electoral system equivalent of identity grievance politics, a divisive form of politicking that causes socio-political atomisation. The argument for and against each system elicits considerable debate in political science literature. My opinion is that PR is a fool's errand and should be avoided at all costs.

Summary

The UK has descended into an anti-democratic illiberal abyss, with a state apparatus that is working against the will of the people. The state currently does not have a monopoly on violence, this is evidenced by the consistent attacks on the British citizenry by Islamist cultural degenerates from third-world cesspits and by its intimidating nature has recently impacted a democratic vote in Parliament with no response by the state to mute this threat. And in the instances where British citizenry have been threatened with death, due to Islamist fatwas. The Bately school teacher is an example of this Islamist intimidation that put the teacher and his family in fear for their lives. His family are now in hiding, and the state failed to respond robustly to these threats. The security of the British people has been put in jeopardy by open borders, allowing massive numbers of illegal aliens to cross our borders. People who in large part have a deep contempt for our way of life, our culture, our laws, and our political system. It is becoming ever clearer that the GIR influence perpetuated via UK public institutions, foremostly, by universities, has created a class of political elite who no longer believe states have a role to play in the contemporary world. In recent polls they suggest UK students are holding ever more illiberal attitudes, while simultaneously believing they are liberals. What the hell is going on in our universities, most of us know this answer. Over the last four, but more overtly in the last two and a half decades, this thought collective has concentrated itself in Whitehall, Westminster and Regional governments and is subverting not only democracy but British statehood. The increasing cycles of channel crossings indicate the UK no longer have a defined territory and in due course, if present mass uncontrolled immigration trends continue, will not have a permanent population. We will, though, be a regional territory of an antidemocratic, illiberal Global governance system, if the UK electorate/population do not take back our democracy. Each successive government since Thatcher has thrown away UK sovereignty to a plethora of global governance units, through climate accords, World Health Organisation (WHO) and United Nations treaties, signed up to the International Court of Justice, although this has been the case since 1947, and a raft of other agencies and organisations populated with unelected global governance unit bureaucrats. The globalised economy and financial system have undermined UK democracy, specifically by its ousting of Liz Truss. GIR agents in the Bank of England (BoE) made it so for their preferred candidate, installing Richi Sunak as prime Minister. No matter one's personal views of Truss, this was a clear attack on UK democracy by the GIR automatons with influence over the financial system. In a robust sovereign Liberal democracy respecting accountability, the BoE hierarchy would have been gutted, with Andrew Bailey being fired and possibly criminal charges levelled against him. The Legacy media played cover for BoE GIR agents that attacked UK democratic governance, with Reuters being the front line of defence. The legacy media are actively trashing democratic processes and features, and it is long before the time that the rules of news reporting are retrenched in objectivity. Parliamentary sovereignty is paper thin when parliament are hamstrung by external global governance units; this needs to end. When a nation-state cannot stop invaders at their border, it is no longer a nation-state. The UK legislature, while obsessed with legislating control/management measures against the UK electorate, is neglecting to legislate against those illegally crossing our borders, employment law could easily be amended to make arriving in the UK illegally a thoroughly unpleasant experience, and a strong preventative strategy. However, this is unlikely to be implemented unless the UK votes for a party that is not influenced by GIR and their agents. Reform is the only current viable option, where this may be a possibility. DEI, Critical Race theory, gender ideology, queer theory, climate catastrophism, anti-white programming and antiracism-white racism are all derivatives employed by the Global Society project managers. All the formers are either regressive or illiberal concepts and anti-democratic vehicles, founded on fantasy logic and inversion that immolate liberal values, contribute to an erosion of British democracy, insult realism and assault morality. Hate speech legislation, HNCIs, employment law and pub talk, security bills, cancellation of free and fair elections, political party donations, covid, the gaoling of journalists, and diminished trust in institutions, a politicised Judiciary and Criminal Justice System all indicate the UK as an illiberal electoral autocracy. Finally, from now forward, I would encourage everyone not to describe the political and media class as the liberal elite but to call them out for what they are, illiberal regressives, beholden to the global governance project.

References

Cammack, P., (1998) Globalisation and the death of Liberal Democracy. European Review, 6(2), pp 249-263

Clarke, D., (2025) Voter turnout in general elections and in the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom from 1918 to 2024, available at: UK voter turnout 2024 | Statista

Scotto, J., Sanders, T., and Reifler, J., (2017) The consequential nationalist-Globalist policy divide in Contemporary Britain: some initial analysis. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion Parties, 28(1), 38-58://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2017.1360308

Valcke, A., (2012) The Rule of Law: Its Origins and Meanings (A short guide for practitioners). Encyclopedia of Global Social Science Issues, ME Sharp publishing, Forthcoming.