Frequently Asked Questions (F.A.Q)
FAQ: About Democracy Plus
Is Democracy Plus a political party?
No, democracy plus is not a political party, we are a campaign group. We do not and have no plans to field candidates in elections.
Are you affiliated with a political party?
No, Democracy Plus is not affiliated with a political party, we are completely independent. However, we welcome the support of political parties and other campaign groups who support our goals.
Do you accept Donations?
Yes, we always appreciate campaign funds.
FAQ: Electoral Reform
What is a First Past the Post Electoral System?
First Past the Post (FPTP) also known as plurality voting. Is the electoral system we have in British Local and Parliamentary Elections. Voters are divided into constituencies and each district elects a candidate using "winner takes all" plurality. This tends to result in a disproportionate number of seats been allocated to the party with the largest vote share, see below.
| Political Party | Popular Vote Share | Number of Parliamentary Seats | Percentage of Parliamentary Seats |
| Labour | 35.3% | 356 Seats | 55.1% |
| Conservatives | 32.3% | 198 Seats | 30.6% |
| Lib-Dems | 21.1% | 62 Seats | 9.6% |
| Others | 10.3% | 30 Seats | 4.6% |
Notice how Labour had only 35% of the popular vote, yet they hold 55% of the seats in the House of Commons. Bizzare!
What is Proportional Representation (P/R)?
Proportional Representation is an electoral system which delivers a close match between the percentage of votes that the political parties obtain in elections and the percentage of seats they receive parliament or local government. Proportional Representation would go a long way to correcting the discrepancy highlighted above.
Wouldn’t P/R mean and end to constituency MPs?
Not necessarily, proportional representation can be mixed with a plurality system, resulting in the bulk of MPs being elected using the FPTP system and then the remaining MPs selected from party lists based on the national or regional vote share. This system is currently used in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly Elections.
Couldn’t Party Lists be used to appoint really unpopular MPs who stand no chance of been directly elected?
In theory yes, but any party which used such an underhand tactic would receive a lot of bad press and suffer at the polls as a result. Though in any case, when voting at General Elections very few people vote for the best local candidate, instead they vote for the political party or party leader they want to form the next government. So the views of people who vote for political parties and there leaders have to be given some weight, the best way of doing this is by allocated some or more of the parliamentary seats using Proportional Representation.
FAQ: House of Lords
How are the Members of the House of Lords Chosen?
Membership of the House of Lords is by appointment from the Prime Minister and each appointment is subject to review by the House of Lords Appointments Commission, except for the 26 ‘Lords Spiritual’ who sit by virtue of their ecclesiastical offices in the Church of England. There are 75 remaining hereditary peers following the reforms of 1999.
What was the Cash-for-Peerages row all about?
The Cash-for-Peerages row emerged when it was alleged that Labour Party lenders were offered peerages (membership of the House of Lords) in return for loans to the party or for sponsoring government initiatives. The incidents are still under investigation by the metropolitan police and highlighted the flaws in the current House of Lords appointments system.
FAQ: Human Rights Act
What is the Human Rights Act?
The Human Rights Act incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into British Law. This meant Human Rights cases could be heard in British Courts, rather than forcing people to take their case to the European Courts.
Why did we use a European Act why didn’t we use our own?
Well firstly the European Convention was actually drawn up by a British Lawyer, so it is many ways British. Secondly, we were already party to the treaty and finally, whilst there have been pieces of legislation through the ages guaranteeing certain rights to British Citizens, there has never been a comprehensive Bill of Rights in British Law.
Don’t Criminals use the Human Rights Act to get away with their crimes?
No, this has never happened, nor is there any provision in the Human Rights Act to prevent reasonable punishment for criminal activity. This is a tabloid myth.
One Instance has occurred when the parole and probation services have backed-off from there responsibility of offender management, wrongly believing that enforcing their obligations and protecting the public would be a breach of the offender’s human rights. Not only was this thinking flawed, the decision on what constitutes a breach of human rights was not theirs to take.
The reality is the parole and probation services are massively under resourced and stretched to breaking point. The Human Rights Act was just a convenient place to lay the blame for their foul-ups.
What about the Afghan Hijacker Case?
The Afghan Hijacker Case is often cited as an example of the Human Rights Act going wrong. This is again a tabloid misconception, which has been pounced upon by much gusto by the Labour and Conservative Party.
The story began back in the year 2000 with a group of pro-democracy Afghani intellectuals feeling Taleban death squads in Afghanistan. (This was prior to the 2001 invasion to oust the Taleban.) To escape certain death or torture for them and their families, these men hijacked an internal Afghani flight and flew the plane half way around the world before finally landing in Britain.
In Britain they were arrested, charged and convicted of hijack. The court of appeal overturned their convictions in 2004 on the basis that the jury in their original trial had been misdirected over actions under duress. Under British Law you are not guilty of an offence if you committed the offence whilst acting under duress. However, by the time their convictions were quashed most of the men had already completed their sentences.
They were originally refused asylum but used the Human Rights to overturn that decision. The Human Rights Act did not in any way affect their conviction for hijack or the subsequent annulment of that conviction.
Given these men were now vindicated and the resurgence of Taleban fighters in Afghanistan, they were given temporary leave to remain in the United Kingdom until such time as the situation in Afghanistan is stable enough for them to return.
Come on Human Rights always favour the criminals not the victims
No in fact, the human rights act has been used quite notably to protect victims. For example, until one woman used the Human Rights Act against the British government, rape victims in England were subject to cross-examination in court by men who were alleged to have violated them.
What’s wrong with the Human Rights Act why do we need another Bill of Rights?
Technically there is nothing wrong with the Human Rights Act, other than the fact that politicians, under pressure from tabloid misconceptions might damage it or worse repeal it.
We’d like to see either the Human Rights or a separate equivalent bill of rights enshrined into a British Constitution so it cannot be messed with to satisfy the popularist urges of politicians.
