The Citizen's Dilemma

 

To all my friends who are dissatisfied with the way we are presently governed—whether you support the two main parties, their minority middle party, or the two upcoming challengers Reform or Greens—this concerns all of us. Democracy demands more than just your vote

Let's start with what unites us: frustration. If you feel that British politics isn't working as it should, you're in good company. Across the political spectrum, people sense that something fundamental isn't functioning properly. We all share this frustration.

Perhaps you're frustrated that Brexit hasn't delivered what you hoped—or that we left at all. Perhaps you're angry about immigration levels—or about hostile environment policies. Perhaps you despair at climate inaction—or at net zero costs. Perhaps you're outraged by inequality—or by tax burdens. Perhaps you feel ignored by Westminster—or smothered by it.

Here's the remarkable thing: all of these frustrations are simultaneously valid and incompatible. This is the central paradox of governing a diverse nation of 68 million people. There is no policy configuration that satisfies everyone, no simple answer that resolves all tensions.

First and foremost, the premise we all agree on is freedom and democracy, to the extent they exist and we agree they need improvement. But we must be honest: our democracy faces genuine challenges that transcend party politics.

Consider the evidence:

• Trust in politicians has declined steadily for decades

• Turnout in local elections often barely exceeds 30%

• The gap between what governments promise and what they deliver grows wider

• Political discourse increasingly resembles tribal warfare rather than constructive debate

• Many feel their voice doesn't matter, that the system is rigged, that nothing ever changes

These aren't just vibes—they're symptoms of deeper problems in how we practice democracy.

Whatever the government that is in power right now, or has been over the past few years, you can agree or disagree with their policies and implementation. That's democracy functioning as designed. But whoever you plan to vote for in future, don't just swallow their rhetoric. ‘Just vote harder’ isn’t enough.

Let me give you three real examples of how rhetoric diverges from reality:

"We'll Build 300,000 Homes a Year"

This has been promised by governments of different parties for years. It sounds simple: build more houses, reduce prices, solve the housing crisis. But inspect the policies and see how it would work out in this complex world:

• Planning system: Local authorities often oppose development (their voters don't want it)

• Labour shortages: Construction industry lacks skilled workers post-Brexit

• Materials costs: Global supply chains affect timber, steel, concrete prices

• Infrastructure: New homes need schools, doctors, transport—who pays?

• Land banking: Developers may not build even with permission

• Nimbyism: "We need housing, just not here" is near-universal

• Environmental constraints: Nutrient neutrality, protected species, flood risk

• Finance: Higher interest rates killed many schemes' viability

None of this means we shouldn't build more homes. It means that anyone promising simple delivery is either ignorant or dishonest. The real question is: "How exactly will you navigate these obstacles, and what trade-offs will you accept?"

"We'll Stop the Boats"

Again, this sounds straightforward. But complexity emerges immediately:

• International law: Refugee Convention obligations, ECHR commitments

• Geography: We're an island with long coastlines and limited patrols

• Diplomacy: France has limited incentive to help us

• Rwanda scheme: Courts questioned legality, costs exceeded projections

• Asylum backlog: 100,000+ cases pending, decade-long waits

• Labour needs: Some sectors depend on migrant workers

• Public opinion: Divided between "control our borders" and "help refugees"

Simple slogans obscure difficult trade-offs: sovereignty vs international cooperation, border security vs labour market needs, deterrence vs humanitarian obligations.

"We'll Grow the Economy"

Everyone promises this. But how?

• Productivity puzzle: UK productivity lags France, Germany, US—why?

• Investment gap: Both public and private investment below peer countries

• Skills mismatch: Education system doesn't produce skills economy needs

• Regional inequality: Growth concentrates in London and Southeast

• Brexit effects: New trade barriers with largest trading partner

• Aging population: More dependents, fewer workers

• Global competition: China, India, US all pursuing similar growth

You can't just "grow the economy" by wishing. You need specific interventions in infrastructure, education, research, planning, competition policy, trade, and more—each with its own complications.

Economics is complex. Society is complex. History has left us with a mixed bag of potential but also has left us with many headaches.

This isn't an excuse for inaction—it's a reason for better action. Recognizing complexity should make us more demanding of our politicians, not less.

Complexity: The NHS Example

Consider the NHS, our most cherished institution. It faces genuine crises:

• Funding: Real-terms spending increased, but demand increased faster

• Demographics: Aging population with complex, expensive conditions

• Technology: Medical advances save lives but cost more

• Workforce: Staff burnout, retention problems, training pipeline issues

• Social care: Underfunded, creates hospital bottlenecks

• Prevention: Easier said than done (obesity, mental health, chronic conditions)

• Efficiency: Varies wildly between trusts

• Private sector: Debates about outsourcing vs in-house provision

Now, when politicians promise to "save the NHS," ask yourself: which of these problems do they actually address? How do their solutions interact? What's the implementation plan? What could go wrong?

If they say "just spend more money"—where exactly, and how will you ensure it improves outcomes rather than disappears into the system? If they say "cut waste"—which waste specifically, and who loses their job or budget? If they say "prevent disease"—how, when behavioural change is famously difficult?

This is what inspecting policies means. Not just reading manifestos, but thinking through implementation against real-world constraints.

History has given us advantages—rule of law, parliamentary traditions, civil service, international standing—but also burdens:

• Infrastructure: Victorian sewers, post-war housing, aging rail network

• Institutions: NHS structure from 1948, House of Lords from medieval times

• Commitments: Pension obligations, PFI contracts, nuclear submarines

• Geography: Overcrowded Southeast, declining northern towns

• Path dependency: Can't just redesign everything from scratch

How we solve it all is not going to be achieved with simple or isolated interventions. Anyone who claims otherwise is selling snake oil.

But recognizing this should empower you, not depress you. It means you can spot the charlatans. It means you can ask the questions that reveal whether someone has actually thought through their proposals.

Here's the good news: you have more power than you think. Here's the challenging news: exercising it requires more than voting every few years.

Challenge Party Representatives for a Full Account

Challenge the party representatives to give a full account of their vision for Britain in this complex world. Not soundbites. Not slogans. A real vision that acknowledges trade-offs.

When they knock on your door or hold a town hall, ask:

"Your party promises to [insert policy]. Walk me through exactly how this works:

• What's the implementation timeline?

• Which groups benefit most, and which bear costs?

• What are the three biggest obstacles, and how will you overcome them?

• What happens if it doesn't work as planned?

• Which manifesto promises might you have to drop if this becomes expensive?

• What evidence from other countries supports this approach?"

Most politicians aren't used to these questions. They're used to "What about the potholes?" or partisan attacks. Substantive questions force substantive thinking—or expose its absence.

Follow the money. Challenge how they are spending your tax money. In 2024-25, UK public spending will be roughly £1,200 billion. That's approximately £18,000 per person, or £45,000 per household.

Where does it go?

• Social protection (pensions, benefits): £340bn

• Health: £220bn

• Education: £120bn

• Debt interest: £120bn

• Defence: £60bn

• Public order and safety: £40bn

• Transport: £40bn

• Everything else: £260bn

When politicians promise more spending in one area, ask: "Where's the money coming from? Higher taxes (on whom?), more borrowing (sustainable?), or cuts elsewhere (to what?)?"

When they promise tax cuts, ask: "Which services get cut, or does borrowing increase?"

These aren't gotcha questions—they're the basic arithmetic of government. If a politician can't or won't answer them, they're not serious people.

Maintain continuous accountability. Keep challenging them whoever ends up as your representatives locally, regionally, or nationally. Your MP works for you. They have a duty to:

• Respond to correspondence (even if you didn't vote for them)

• Hold surgeries where constituents can raise concerns

• Explain their voting record when it conflicts with promises

• Account for their expenses and outside interests

• Represent the constituency even when it conflicts with party line

Use TheyWorkForYou.com to track your MP's voting record, attendance, and speeches. If they voted to cut school funding, ask why. If they claimed expenses for a second home, ask if it was necessary. If they missed a crucial vote, ask where they were.

This isn't harassment—it's democracy. They chose to seek power; accountability comes with it.

Lead by example. At the same time, fulfill your own obligations: pay your own taxes and contribute to your community and support those who are dependent on those with the broadest shoulders. Be the citizen that democracy needs.

This means:

Pay your taxes honestly. Yes, it's frustrating when others dodge them. Yes, you might disagree with how they're spent. But tax compliance is the price of civilization. If everyone who disagreed with government policy stopped paying tax, we'd have anarchy.

Contribute to your community. Democracy isn't just national politics—it's your parish council, your school governors, your residents' association, your local food bank. This is where you have the most direct impact.

Support those who need help. Whether through progressive taxation, charitable giving, or volunteering, those with broader shoulders bear more weight. This isn't altruism—it's enlightened self-interest. Societies with less inequality and better safety nets are more stable, prosperous, and pleasant to live in.

Model constructive disagreement. You can passionately oppose someone's views while treating them with respect. You can change your mind when presented with evidence. You can acknowledge when your opponent makes a good point. This is how adults behave.

Beyond holding current politicians accountable, we need to ask whether our democratic structures themselves need reform. This is the deeper game of structural reform.

Consider these questions:

Electoral system: First-past-the-post gives decisive results but creates "wasted votes" and two-party dominance. Proportional representation better reflects votes but can produce unstable coalitions. What's the right balance?

House of Lords: Unelected legislators seem anachronous, but they provide expertise and long-term thinking. What would replace them that's both democratic and effective?

Devolution: Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have varying degrees of autonomy. English regions want more control. How do we balance local control with national coherence?

Media regulation: Social media spreads misinformation faster than fact-checkers can respond. Should platforms be regulated more strictly? Who decides what's misinformation?

Party funding: Donations from wealthy individuals and unions influence policy. Would state funding be fairer? How much is too much?

Referendum use: Brexit showed both the power and the perils of direct democracy. When should referendums be used? What threshold for legitimacy?

None of these have obvious answers. But avoiding the questions doesn't make them go away.

You might be thinking: "This sounds exhausting. Why should I care so much?" The stakes are high, we all know it. This is the reason.

Because the alternative is worse.

When citizens disengage, democracy doesn't pause—it continues without you. But it responds to whoever does engage: the most organized, best-funded, most committed interests. These are rarely representative of the broader population.

When you don't challenge your MP, they face pressure only from party leadership, lobbyists, and activists. Your moderate, practical concerns get ignored in favor of ideological battles.

When you don't participate in local governance, planning decisions get made by whoever shows up—often those who oppose any change to their neighbourhood.

When you don't vote, politicians write you off and focus on those who do.

Disengagement doesn't punish politicians—it empowers them. It lets them off the hook for accountability. It allows them to govern for their base rather than the country.

Britain's democratic tradition is something we inherited, but it's not something we own. Each generation must renew it, defend it, improve it. Democracy is a practice not a possession.

The frustration you feel—across the political spectrum—is valid. Things could be better. Government could be more responsive, more competent, more honest.

But democracy isn't a product to consume—it's a practice to engage in. It requires:

• Critical thinking: Don't swallow rhetoric; inspect policies

• Long-term perspective: Quick fixes usually aren't

• Humility: Others might have legitimate points

• Persistence: Change comes slowly through sustained effort

• Civic duty: Rights come with responsibilities

The next election will come, and you'll vote for someone. Before you do, ask yourself:

• Have I actually read their manifesto, or just headlines about it?

• Do I understand the trade-offs their policies involve?

• Have I challenged them on specifics, or just accepted promises?

• Am I voting for genuine vision, or against what I fear?

• Will I hold them accountable after they win, or just complain?

Britain's future won't be determined by which party wins the next election. It will be determined by whether we, as citizens, are willing to do the hard work that democracy requires:

Engaging with complexity rather than retreating to simplicity. Holding power accountable rather than assuming powerlessness. Contributing to solutions rather than just complaining about problems. Treating fellow citizens as honourable opponents rather than enemies.

Democracy doesn't guarantee good outcomes—it only guarantees that we get what we collectively demand and deserve.

So: what do we demand? And what are we willing to do to get it?

The floor is yours.

---

Whatever your politics, I hope this provokes thought rather than just agreement or disagreement. Democracy thrives on constructive argument. I welcome your challenge to these ideas—that's the point.