Strategy or Happenstance? Reform UKs London Mayoral Choice and the Dynamics Left Unspoken

Reform UK’s decision to put forward Laila Cunningham as its candidate for London Mayor marks an unexpected turn in the capital’s political landscape. The announcement immediately drew attention – not only because Cunningham is a relatively new figure in frontline politics, but because her selection comes at a time when both major parties have struggled to understand the unique dynamics of London’s electorate.

For years, the Conservatives have attempted to unseat Sadiq Khan with candidates who, regardless of their individual strengths, were never positioned to succeed. London’s mayoral race is shaped by a distinctive blend of demographics, political culture, and electoral behaviour that the party has repeatedly misread. The result has been a series of campaigns that failed to resonate with the city’s diverse and often unpredictable voter base.

Against this backdrop, Reform UK’s choice of Cunningham raises questions. Ant Middleton, who had openly expressed interest in the role, had long understood that the decision would not fall in his favour. Cunningham’s media visibility may have played a part, but Reform’s leadership appears to believe her candidacy offers something more -perhaps a chance to broaden the party’s appeal or to challenge assumptions about who speaks for London. This is a bold calculation, especially with polling currently placing Reform at 19%, well behind Labour’s 32%.

The reaction to Cunningham’s Muslim background was swift and, in many quarters, hostile. It reflects a broader climate of suspicion that has grown around anything involving Muslims in public life. A counter‑establishment narrative has taken hold in parts of the electorate, one that frames Muslims as central to every perceived societal problem and warns of an imminent cultural takeover. These fears, though unfounded, have become politically potent.

Compounding the issue is the behaviour of public institutions. Across the UK, officials have often responded to sensitive cultural or religious matters with caution bordering on paralysis. This has created the impression – fair or not – that Muslims receive special treatment or are shielded from scrutiny. In such an environment, the emergence of a Muslim woman as a high‑profile political candidate becomes, for some, a symbol of the very anxieties they already hold.

Yet this interpretation overlooks a more grounded reality: many Muslims in Britain want to contribute to a future rooted in the country’s historic values and civic culture.

Cunningham’s candidacy could, if handled well, offer an opportunity to rethink the role of Muslims in public life and to challenge the simplistic narratives that have dominated recent debate.

Understanding the tension between perception and reality requires examining how Britain’s current image of Islam was formed. Over decades, geopolitical events, media coverage, and political rhetoric have shaped a picture that often bears little resemblance to the lived experiences of most Muslims.

The same system that has left many British citizens feeling ignored or exploited has also inflicted deep harm on communities abroad, pushing some toward ideologies that would otherwise hold little appeal.

Commentators such as Douglas Murray have highlighted a central challenge within Islam: its foundational texts were written for a world vastly different from today, and some interpretations insist these texts are immutable.

This creates a tension between traditionalist readings and the expectations of a modern, pluralistic society.

But this challenge is not unique to Islam; all religions grapple with the task of reconciling ancient teachings with contemporary realities.

Historically, religions have served as social frameworks – systems that guide behaviour, shape norms, and maintain order. They have been used to protect communities, but also to control them.

When people look back at periods in which Islamic empires flourished, they often point to eras when religious teachings were applied most literally. For some Muslims, this reinforces the belief that returning to those values is the path to renewal.

However, the rise of Islamic militancy cannot be understood without acknowledging the role of Western intervention. Wars, regime changes, resource extraction, and the installation of compliant leaders have destabilised regions and eroded local cultures.

While Western societies were encouraged to embrace consumerism and individualism, other nations experienced upheaval, corruption, and violence – often with Western support or involvement.

In this context, strict religious frameworks can become appealing to those who feel their societies have been dismantled.

This dynamic has fuelled a misconception in the West: that the conflict is between Muslims and non‑Muslims.

In reality, the tension lies between militant interpretations of Islam and the global systems – economic, political, and military – that have shaped the modern world.

Yet many people struggle to distinguish between extremists and ordinary Muslims, just as they struggle to see how Western policies have contributed to the anger and disillusionment that some now express.

The absence of political leadership on these issues has only deepened the divide. Few leaders are willing to speak openly about the historical and structural forces at play.

Silence has become the norm, not because the issues are too complex, but because acknowledging them would challenge the interests of those who benefit from the status quo.

Meanwhile, the system that created these tensions is showing signs of strain. Economic instability, cultural fragmentation, and declining trust in institutions suggest that a new approach is needed – one rooted in community, shared values, and a commitment to the common good.

Such a future must include Muslims who are willing to reinterpret their faith in ways that align with a modern, secular society.

In this context, Reform UK’s selection of Laila Cunningham may prove more significant than it first appears.

Whether by strategic design or political opportunism, the party has taken a step that could reshape public debate. Whether they are ready for the responsibility – or whether they will ever win the chance to exercise it – is another question entirely.

Strategy or Happenstance PDF_Vers1_8Jan26 Download

Power and Distance: Why UK Politics Fails the Public and How Local Governance Can Restore Trust

As a writer, commentator, and former local councillor, I witness the frustration, anger, and despair felt by individuals and groups – such as our farmers – who struggle with a system where politics and government no longer work for them.

I share some of these feelings myself, not simply because their experiences are clearly unjust. But because of the persistent, unwritten expectation from people who are being hurt by all this, that these problems are only temporary.

Too often the problems are dismissed as misunderstandings or assumed to be issues that will resolve once new politicians are elected. Yet very recent history has shown us that changing politicians changes nothing: the downward trajectory of growing unfairness and imbalance continues, remaining at best unchanged.

It is fair to say there is a widespread disconnect between what the public rightly expects from the system and what we actually receive. This gap exists in part because we have been conditioned to believe that government, politics, and the public sector operate in a very black‑and‑white way – clear, predictable, and straightforward in how they function.

Public Perceptions vs. Reality

Whilst this view should be one that we could all rely upon, the reality is very different.

The complexity and mechanics of policymaking and delivery are extraordinarily difficult to navigate – well beyond what most people imagine. And this is before we even begin to confront the thorny issue of corrupt or self‑serving behaviour, whether by a single individual, multiple actors, or indeed by politicians, executives, managers, and officers across a nebulous hierarchy that stretches through many levels and points of influence.

Most people believe that power in Parliament works like this:

An election is called.
We vote for the person we think will best represent us in our constituency (though in practice, most people base this choice almost entirely on political party affiliation).
That representative then decides how to act when a policy comes up for a decision, guided by what is best for us.
If our chosen political party forms the government, the policy is enacted.

And we believe that everything necessary happens as a result of this, because all the public servants working in government departments, quangos, NGOs, and any other service funded – and therefore led – by the government (in other words, paid for by us) simply follow the instructions of politicians. After all, it is the politicians who are the legislators, elected to make those decisions on behalf of us all – isn’t it.

That, in principle, is how public policymaking and implementation across the UK should work. Yet the reality is that it rarely does, largely because:

The hierarchical structures and systems reaching across the public sector are simply too vast – too much “big government.”
Most importantly, very few politicians or public servants actually see it this way.

Barriers to Effective Policy Implementation

Regrettably, the vast and convoluted structure of the public sector, with its top‑down nature and multiple ‘decision makers,’ often distorts the process.

Commands that reach them are reinterpreted, repackaged, and passed along in ways that suit the direction they wish those instructions to take.

As a result, the action at the point of implementation can look very different from the original decision – not because that decision was unclear, but because countless influences and policies, each carrying their own interpretations, reshape and redirect almost everything along the way.

This happens even before the protectionist prejudices of public servants add further obstacles.

The outcome is that two very different results – the one envisaged and the one delivered – can exist under exactly the same name.

And that, of course, is how it works – assuming that what government says it is doing, and has done, truly matches the actions it takes.

Yet the clever use of words and interpretation often means that, even before a decision leaves Westminster, the outcome we expect and the outcome intended are already heading in completely opposite directions.

If this already sounds complicated and conflicted enough, we must also consider what influences our politicians, and how those influences shape their decisions.

We should ask whether the people we see on TV and hear on the radio – the very individuals we elected – are truly the ones sitting at the top, occupying the seats where the ultimate responsibility rests.

The Mechanics of Power in UK Politics

Political parties select candidates to run in elections for Parliament, local councils, and mayoralties (typically only where local decisions reflect the interpretation of national policy once local policy is adopted). More often than not, his is also where elected politicians receive an allowance or salary.
Parties choose candidates who will follow instructions from the party – or more specifically, from senior politicians within it – regardless of the constituency they represent after a successful election.
The area or location itself doesn’t matter. It’s a numbers game: just as the first‑past‑the‑post system (FPTP) elects the candidate (and therefore the party) with the most votes in a given area, Parliament and councils also make decisions based on majority votes. This is why the party with the most seats after an election forms the government or administration – it is assumed that the result of all votes thereafter will fall in line with them and whatever decisions they make.
Locally and nationally, leaders of councils, mayors, and the prime minister become the de facto decision‑makers of their administration, mayoralty, or Parliament, because there is an expectation that members of the party holding power or the majority will always vote the same way and do as instructed.
Any party aligned politician who fails to vote as required by the party risks losing favour. Depending on the importance of the vote, they may be excluded from the party (have the whip removed), fail to be reselected as a candidate, or at the very least be sidelined until they are seen to be behaving as expected.
Whips act as party enforcers, pressuring and often bullying sitting politicians into remembering who put them in their “job” and what they are really there to do and who they are there to do it for.
Leaders and mayors are typically expected to follow whatever the party leadership or prime minister in London demands in relation to national policy, though they retain some flexibility where decisions are entirely local.
Prime ministers are seen to hold the ultimate executive authority over what happens in Parliament. This is why they can appear to function like a president—unless they take deliberate steps to remind everyone that we have a parliamentary system, where things do not always work in that way.

That is how most people working in or around politics and the machinery of government interpret the power structure today.

The prevailing assumption is that whatever Parliament, the prime minister, or cabinet ministers say the government is doing – and why – is usually how everything will unfold, once public servants play their part and make it happen as expected.

However, beyond the reality that political parties typically decide who represents us – even though we perceive the list of party candidates on our ballot papers as offering what a genuine choice – there is also an assumption that anyone elected as a politician, and therefore as a public representative, is automatically qualified, experienced, and possesses the knowledge, understanding, and capability required to carry out the responsibilities of the ‘job’ they have been ‘chosen’ to do.

In reality, while some individuals put themselves forward as political candidates with genuine public service in mind – and possess both the background and, most importantly, the integrity required to carry out the role of being a public representative properly – the majority of those who reach political office, appearing on TV and speaking publicly, do not.

The majority of our politicians sought the ‘job’ rather than the responsibility – even though some have never seen it this way. But they were willing to say yes to anything and do whatever was necessary to secure a position of control, allowing them to appear as though they were leading, when all the time, they have been led.

Yes‑men or yes‑women—it makes no difference. Anyone who advances by saying “yes” to those who hold power over their progress, and never pauses to say “no” when decisions affect the lives of the people they are meant to represent, does not truly understand what it takes to lead.

And any politician who claims they merely “played along” until they were in charge, promising they would then do the right thing, cannot credibly be believed.

Leaders who cannot truly lead depend on those around them. The people with ‘supportive’ jobs offering ideas, suggestions, or solutions that give the illusion they can.

When politicians, especially very senior figures or those ‘singled out for great things,’ have to rely upon others to supply the words that are later seen to come from their own mouths, they become highly vulnerable to anyone with influence who can reach them and exert control in a seemingly ‘helpful’ way.

Influence of External Actors

Unfortunately, the system we live within today is money‑centric, and our entire framework of values is shaped in the same way.

It follows, then, that money, big business, and those who control or are sanctioned by them have become the people – or influencers – that politicians increasingly turn to for guidance and solutions.

This reliance grows stronger as they approach power. Because it is the only way that out-of-their-depth politicians can identify solutions that appear to work within the very system they are supposed to control.

Politicians are just as captivated – if not more so – by big names and high‑profile figures in business, finance, and global governance organisations – entities that are closely aligned and working together with them because of what is perceived to be the symbiotic relationship between government and money.

The same relationship plays out between the most senior public servants and the policy teams for all of the organisations that have real influence. Much of their time is spent behind the scenes collaborating with counterparts who represent the real interests that set government direction.

At this stage, it should be clear that the real forces driving and controlling central government – and shaping both what it appears to do and what it actually does from Westminster – are those who advise, ‘support,’ and influence the government and its subservient politicians.

What we see is little more than a carefully staged performance: a well‑developed display of theatrics and political cosplay delivered by the political classes, rolled out in every direction where real power is supposed to reside, designed to make it seem as though that is how the system truly works.

Remember that the imposters are usually the ones who believe they should be there.

They don’t work for us. They work for them.

Some politicians are certainly honest. Yet even among those, many are either naïve or fail to grasp how the bigger picture operates within a system that is fundamentally corrupt.

This silent corruption stems from the way individuals act. Whether in their own interests, in service of their party, or according to personal beliefs.

In more extreme cases however, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest politicians have been compromised by their own actions or bought off with promises of post‑parliamentary jobs, directorships, speaking fees, or an endless array of sweeteners.

These incentives encourage them to vote in ways that align with the company they keep in London, rather than prioritising what truly needs to happen to benefit the local people in the constituencies they are meant to represent – That’s people like you and me.

Regrettably, it is not only politicians who are distorted by the distance created by the current system and structure of government across the UK.

Public servants, working across the many organisations and tiers of government funded by the taxpayer, primarily focus on and prioritise the agendas and practices handed down by their employers. Employers who have long forgotten what it truly means to be public service organisations.

Instead, they have fostered a protectionist culture that encourages risk avoidance and discourages anything that might compromise career paths, gold‑plated pensions, or the safety of sticking rigidly to tick‑box processes.

As a result, public servants often shy away from tailoring their workload to meet the specific needs of the very members of the public they are appointed to serve.

Consequences of Leadership Gaps

The simplest interpretation of the events that have led to this system‑wide malaise might be to conclude that no public servant works for anyone other than themselves.

Yet the reality is more complex: institutional factors have long created an environment in which protectionism thrives. Chief among these is the absence of genuine leadership in Parliament and across key public sector organisations – institutions filled with individuals beholden to agendas other than those of the people they are meant to represent.

As a result, the public sector has effectively been on autopilot for a very long time, propelled by inertia and sustained by the convenient myth that everything continues exactly as it always has.

Limits of Leadership Change in Westminster

Many people hope that another change in government will be enough to resolve the problems now facing the country – issues that just as many seem to accept as having been caused by the current Labour government, and in only the 17 months it has been in power.

Sadly, while it would be great for there to be a quick, overnight solution – or a set of solutions – that could be easily implemented and pushed through under some new scheme such as Reform UK’s proposed ‘DOGE,’ the reality is different.

As you may already have gathered from what you’ve read above, the problems are now beyond systemic.

Believing that simply cutting budgets and arbitrarily slashing costs will be enough for the public sector to regain balance and correct itself is, like so many politicians who fail to see the bigger picture, dangerously naïve.

Beyond the rot we have already discussed, one of the truly colossal problems in fixing public services is the influence that money, markets, and big business already exert.

Added to this are external power-centric players such as the EU and global governance bodies like the WHO, UN, and WEF, whose policies and power have become inextricably intertwined with almost everything the UK public sector currently does.

In reality, if Reform were to begin slicing and dicing across the public sphere without coordinating – and thereby subjugating – its policies to the demands of today’s ‘key’ influencers, the strategy it proposes would quickly resemble a game of Jenga. The players might believe they have steady enough hands to start by removing the foundational layers, but the structure would inevitably become unstable very quickly indeed.

The leaders of Reform may yet prove themselves to be the “Jenga Boys” of public policy, As bringing the whole house of cards down almost as quickly as they take power—if that is what happens at the next General Election, is the outcome their rhetoric currently indicates will be most likely if they lead the next government.

Without exception, all of our politicians are currently tied into the system that is backed and pushed by the establishment.

If all they intend to do is reach for sticking plasters and offer superficial fixes, the result will inevitably be the same, and their suggested approach will merely speed the process of collapse up – if it isn’t already complete by then.

Systemic Breakdown: Causes and Implications

The reason attempts to ‘fix’ the public sector as we know it will not succeed is the inseparable relationship it has with everything else beyond government and controlled by the elites – relationships that revolve around money and a financial system that is fundamentally flawed and now destroying everything.

Put bluntly, everything harming people today is a direct consequence of how the entire money centric system operates, and how it has been operating for a very long time.

Whether the collapse comes from factors seemingly beyond politicians’ control, or directly from actions the next government and its leaders are knowingly prepared and brave enough to take, the reality remains the same: the only way to restore balance, fairness, and justice for everyone across all areas of life is if the current money‑centric system is either deliberately brought down or allowed to collapse on its own.

Then – and only then – will the majority of us be ready to embrace the kinds of changes that must take place across every part of the economy, governance, and daily life, so that, in time, something recognisable as genuine sanity can be restored.

If those in power act only in ways that serve their own local interests, why shouldn’t your power remain local and stay with you?

It would be easy to stop here – having laid out the detail of what is wrong – and leave it at that.

Yet if you are reading this, the chances are you already sense that something much bigger and more profound is wrong, even if it defies logic and is difficult to grasp in terms of what exactly those wrongs are. Or rather what the true causes of the problems have been.

The reality is that there is nothing easy to accept about how government and the public sector operate, especially when measured against what any of us should reasonably expect – and what our lived experience increasingly shows us instead.

Members of the public are not alone in their disbelief. The reality we face is that many of those perpetuating the problems within government, politics, and the public sector are acting as they do simply because they are told that this is how everything gets done.

That excuse only goes so far.

Institutional Failure

For many, the real implications of institutionalised failure to take responsibility for those you serve are far from victimless.

They manifest in scandals such as Rotherham, the Grooming Gangs, and the Post Office cases. Stories brought into the light only because many different people, through their lived experiences which they effectively share, revealed events that can ultimately be understood and summarised as being the same thing.

Individuals are being failed by our system of government every single day. Not only structurally and institutionally, but also by the politicians and public representatives who hold local seats across every tier of government.

Too often, they act in ways that serve themselves, rather than doing what is right for the people they are meant to represent.

The damage of distance

The dangerous myth of the digital age – one we have been encouraged to believe – is that every kind of information and guidance we need for life can be trusted to appear on the nearest screen.

While this may feel intimate in nature, it is in fact a remote interface that creates distance not only between us and the sources we too readily trust but also erodes the value of genuine relationships and social interactions that once filled the space in between.

The irony is that politicians and decision‑makers continue to keep everything local when it comes to their own sources of information and guidance.

While this is no excuse for the consequences of their actions – or for the harm caused by the system they have enabled- it does reveal something important.

When people recognise that power rests with them, they naturally turn to local resources and relationships. Face‑to‑face interaction fosters trust in ways that distant sources never can, making it both sensible and effective to rely on what is close at hand rather than on remote influences.

The difference between us and the politicians – and those truly in power– is that they exploit the distance they have created between themselves and the public for their own benefit, all while constructing a narrative that insists whatever they do, and whatever harm they inflict, there is simply no alternative.

They can only do this because we have forgotten that the power they abuse is, in fact, ours.

If we were to recover, restore, and remember the true nature of our own power, we must return to relying on the people and communities around us – those who we can genuinely trust.

After all, the individuals you can look in the eye and interact with every day rarely have the opportunity to abuse that trust, and the behaviour such relationships foster and require makes exploitation far less possible.

A Vision for Local Governance and Economic Reform

Recognising how things could be different – and what it means to embrace an alternative system with all that comes with it – is an essential starting point for us all.

It will help shape or identify both the choices we will make and the responsibilities we must accept when the most obvious signs of collapse begin to appear.

When that moment comes, we will face a choice: to take a different path that restores power to ourselves, or to become fully enslaved and captive to a system that survives only because the power of each individual has been taken away and concentrated in the hands of one—or a few.

Be assured that once you realise you are there, those in control will have already put in place the safeguards necessary to ensure it can never be any other way again.

By now, everyone has heard of Orwell’s 1984 and the dystopian hell it depicts – a reality awaiting those who embrace and continue on the current path, only to discover, when it is already too late, that they have been stripped of all meaningful value.

The alternative is to reject the money‑centric, top‑down, hierarchical, and patriarchal system, that has long concealed the fact it has not only failed us. But has also enabled little more than sanitised or legalised criminal behaviour against us all.

Instead, we must embrace a system that places the dignity and freedom of every individual – rooted in people, community, and the environment – at the forefront of everything that we do.

The Local Economy & Governance System offers a new and alternative perspective, presenting the frameworks and rules that would shape a localised model of democracy and public policy‑making.

This system places what is right at the heart of every decision.

Decisions made by, or on behalf of, the people in each community, whose fates and destinies are inevitably and permanently intertwined.

Key Takeaways

Before exploring further reading and resources, it’s important to reflect on the central insights that we have shared.

The following key takeaways highlight the underlying causes of public distrust in UK politics, the influence of power structure and external actors, and the urgent need for reforms that refocus towards local governance.

These points offer a foundation for understanding both the challenges and the potential pathways toward restoring trust and accountability in public life.

Systemic Disconnect: There is a persistent gap between public expectations and the actual workings of UK politics and government. The complexity and hierarchical nature of the public sector often distort policy implementation, leaving many feeling unrepresented and frustrated.
Power Structures: Political parties and senior figures exert significant control over elected representatives, often prioritising party interests and external influences over genuine public service. This results in a system where decisions are shaped by those with power, rather than by the needs of local communities.
Influence of Money and External Actors: The increasing reliance on big business, financial interests, and global organisations has further distanced politicians and public servants from the people they are meant to serve. This money-centric system perpetuates unfairness and undermines trust.
Leadership Gaps: The absence of genuine leadership and accountability in both Parliament and the public sector has led to institutional inertia and protectionism, with public servants often prioritizing self-interest over public good.
Local Governance as a Solution: Restoring trust and balance requires a shift toward local governance, where decisions are made by and for communities. Face-to-face relationships and local accountability are essential for rebuilding trust and ensuring that power serves the public.
Call to Action: This work urges readers to recognise their own power, reject the current top-down, money-driven system, and embrace local, community-focused models of democracy and public policy-making.

Our Communities are the only place that a workable political solution can begin

Any Political Solution to the crisis we are in must develop and grow from our communities and grassroots; NOT from any existing Party that still wants to rule everyone Top-Down

One of the key problems with UK Politics today is that it operates as almost the mirror image of wider culture, where most people fall into the trap of believing that their own perspective is the right one. But that anyone with an alternative view of any kind – even in just the smallest of ways, is or will be fundamentally wrong about everything else, too.

Yes, you could easily argue that this is how tribes and groups work.

But politics or rather the UK political system is supposed to be about delivering public policy that is created and then implemented in the best interests of ALL British People.

The one thing that we can be sure of is that when it comes to the political classes who have been running Westminster and our local Councils for decades, there is very little about any of it – apart from the Election campaigns, that has anything to do with or what is best for us.

As I have been discussing in some of my recent blogs, time has now run out for the way that government and our economic system runs. Neoliberalism and everything such as MMT, FIAT money, and the increasingly illogically impractical schemes like Net Zero and everything that pushes people and businesses into being reliant on credit are no longer sustainable.

That is why everything is now in the process of crashing around the Labour Government’s head.

Yes, the politicians in power are incompetent.

No, the mess we are in didn’t begin the day after Labour were elected to power and Starmer arrived in No.10.

And No, not Labour, nor the Tories, the Liberal Democrats, Reform or any other group of politicians currently looking ahead to the next General Election are going to offer and deliver to us anything different. Certainly not in any way that the UK actually needs.

For a time, I was open to the idea that Reform could find itself pursuing a different way. One that would offer the cross-tribal consensus and answers that the UK now needs.

Instead, it has become clear that the mechanics of this 4^th evolution of the anti-EU movement certainly hasn’t moved on in any kind of people-centric direction.

Instead, Reform is just reforming itself, but in ways that have a very familiar likeness to political parties that have been in power before, who have increasingly aligned themselves and been led by the machinations of the establishment instead.

The mess over Rupert Lowe and the inescapable optics suggesting that at every level of the Reform Party, the whole thing is all about Nigel Farage, really does speak volumes for itself.

That’s before taking the time to read the outpourings of words from former party activists and ‘officers’ who have recently walked away. Just like better known voices associated with Reform such as those of Howard Cox and Ben Habib.

If any of the names instantly trigger feelings that suggest you have taken a side as you read – no matter the reason, it is exactly that kind of emotion that is our collective problem.

Disagreement over the smallest of things shuts so many of us down to the reality that we all have views about different things that we might never agree on. But when it comes down to all the things that are actually important, there is an awful lot of commonalities between all of us to be found.

Difficult to hear though it might be, it is the division that is deliberately sown between us over issues that we do have in common – by them being presented in ways that make them appear and trigger us as if they are something else – that really plays into the hands of the incompetent political classes that we regrettably have.

As things stand, and without a lot of us choosing to approach our relationship with politics very differently, the same people dividing us and guiding us to hate people we should not have any hate for, are set to keep guiding the ship that we are all beginning to sink on. And they will happily continue to do so, until the whole thing actually goes down.

Westminster is just the tip of the ruling iceberg that we can actually see.

Behind central government sits all the things like power, influence and the wealth accumulation that money controls and which is carefully kept outside of open view.

Because the truth is that the only people who benefit from us continuing to elect politicians who are under the spell of the establishment are those politicians and all those who are benefiting from the continuation of the establishment itself.

Whilst there is very good reason to believe that the wheels could fall off this broken bus at any moment in time, for those who have been aware and watching the direction of travel of the UK (and for that matter the whole of the Western world) for a considerable period of time, both the Global Financial Crisis and then the responses to the Covid Pandemic could, and arguably should, have already been the catalysts that introduced a genuinely new way of doing governance to the UK.

That these two massive events didn’t doesn’t indicate that change cannot or will not come.

The fact that we have been led to believe that what the politicians have done in response is in any way normal just tells us even more about how deeply embedded those who genuinely believe or work with this Top-Down, them vs us culture really are, right across the establishment.

We can see just how far they are prepared to take things in their attempts to stop the whole thing from crashing down, even now. Indeed, they are growing so desperate to maintain The System, they are even attacking the people who their ‘tribe’ have always typically helped.

Whilst the talk of absolutes will certainly sound like a contradiction to the words used as I began writing this Blog above, the one dividing line that we really do have no choice but to observe and then decide upon, is which side we sit between the establishment and all it stands for, and on the other side, the people and what putting people, our communities and the environment surrounding the places where we live and work, first.

Whilst even the Tories are successfully making themselves sound very plausible, just 8 months on from losing power, in the context of everything that the Labour Government is doing wrong, none of these political parties – and that almost certainly now includes Reform, show any sign of genuinely offering an alternative to establishment-directed public policy today.

However, it isn’t today and what is now past that we need to worry about. The most important thing is the future, and specifically what happens when we reach the next General Election and what must be ‘our time’.

The UK and we as its people cannot afford another General Election result that delivers power to any group – whether elected directly, or assembled as a result of some kind of post-election ‘deal’, that then goes on to do whatever the hell it likes.

No political party out there today, currently canvassing for votes in this years Local Elections is offering to do anything in any different kind of way.

We know this, because the way that they are running their election campaigns right now; how they are communicating and most importantly, how they are engaging with real people outside the bubbles of their own members and activists, is exactly the same as it has always been before.

To put it bluntly, we can no longer afford to take the risk that comes with accepting a choice of political candidates in any election, that not us, but the political parties themselves actually choose.

Change will not come in the way that we now so desperately need it, if we keep on doing politics at every level in the UK in exactly the same way!

It is our communities and the people who are around us every day who should be selecting the people who will represent us at all levels of government.

Not people we don’t know beyond the pictures, websites, social media and TV screens.

We need public representatives to represent us who have genuine skin in our game. People who are answerable only to us and who are committed to delivering locality-centric democracy, that is the only way that democracy can genuinely thrive, survive and most importantly, work.

Whilst government and the public sector really do now need to undergo massive change, the reality is that our communities could be working together to select and elect non-party candidates in all elections, right now.

We certainly don’t need any kind of change to the electoral system that just favours the election of more incompetent candidates. Ambitious and self-serving politicians whose actions will be made even worse by the guaranteed requirement for compromise on public policy that schemes like Proportional Representation as a replacement for First Past the Post would bring.

Power MUST come back to the people. Not through carefully crafted labels like ‘devolution’ and ‘devolved power’ that is nothing more than Regional Centralisation sold to us with a very misleading name.

The power – OUR POWER is already ours and that power can be made to work for us right now. IF we choose to use it. Look beyond the manufactured differences. And focus on working together, on the important things that we all have in common, and to deliver a new world and way of being that is happy, healthy, safe, secure and governs life with fairness, balance and justice for us all.

Anyone can begin this process of change and the appointment of new candidates to become the public representatives and politicians who will create and deliver our new future, right now. And we need them to, IF we are going to experience beneficial change.

That change will only be certain if we all change the way that we think. What we can be sure of, however, is that a good future for us all doesn’t and will not start where anything ‘new’ for the politicians and voices that we already recognise as public figures begins.