Introduction

The first is what I am proposing. The second is what we, and most countries, have got, but even that principle has been hi-jacked by party-politics.

The polarisation of the representatives has confused the issue to the point that the polarisation is the prime function of the government i.e. the perpetuation of the party is the prime objective.

Yet is it? The vested interest's who fund the whole operation, also have a motive, is it to keep the public's 'eye off the ball'? If one looks at the growth of some companies it makes one wonder. How can it be that the growth of certain company's have grown to such an extent in a disproportionate length of time, and only since the advent of political parties? It is even more intriguing to look beyond the companies, and then find that there are a few people controlling the whole thing via the financial sector. 'Fact? Fiction? or Hypothesis?' barely scratches the surface. Confusion, on an international scale, is the objective.

Local	'Parish' Council 'District' Council 'County' Council
Regional	Scotland. assemble Wales. assemble England. none
National	Member of Parliament House of Commons House of Lords Monarchy

There is no direct link between the local hierarchy and the regional or national hierarchy, or even within the local structure.
An MP is often the representative of constituency in at least two 'Districts', and two MP's covering parts of the same 'District'.
MP's from regional assemblies sit in the 'National' parliament and vote on policies that effect English, yet English MP's cannot vote on Regional policies i.e. there is no regional assembles in England, but there are 9 regions.

The ONLY link between the different levels is the political parties, and if that is not a prime example of institutionalised confusion, I'd like to know what is.

It could be assumed that this is merely political anomaly of the UK, it's not, look at the system in any other country and you will find similar oddities. I worked with animals long enough to recognise when I'm being herded into a pen, and I don't like it.

A typical National government is elected on the votes of about 30% of the TOTAL qualifying voters, which must mean 70% of the electorate do not agree with them, of the 30% it is likely that half of them voted for the "least of the two evils".

Local government (all levels) is based on the number of elected members who subscribe to a political party.

Added to this hierarchy is the civil-servants, the Sir Humphrey's of 'Yes, Minister' fame, the un-elected officers of the 'council' who play one party against the other in order to achieve THEIR objectives.

Candidates (all levels) are selected by the party selection committees, these select on the basis of the ability to obey "the masters voice", by implication this means the ability to follow the needs of the party, yet they are required to swear an oath that obliges them to serve the country and the inhabitants, nowhere does it mention serving the party first, or last.

Yet I can find no evidence of Democracy in any of the Parties. The 'sales pitch' (manifesto) they give the voters, does not correspond with the reality when they become government.
Why is this? the answer lies in the fact that in order to get enough money to become a government, they need money, in order to get money, they have to go to the people with money, the 'hidden' agenda that they sell them, has to be paid back in 'services rendered'. The 'hidden' agenda is a lot near the reality of government than the manifesto.

The latest, and most dangerous, threat to democracy, is the current fad of 'cabinet decision making', this over-rides the involvement of the parliament, who are given a decision that has been made to vote on. As the 'cabinet' is the majority party, the other MP's either have to fight their own party (that will be the day), or back it. With the present government, it has been taken one step further in that the party makes the decision which is presented to the cabinet. Hence, Tony Benn's, amongst others, complaint of Tony Blair's presidential style of politics.