Rescuing
Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected
Dictatorship
|
Come
back Gilligan, all is forgiven. Penny Young, Diss, Norfolk,
to The Guardian, February 24, 2005
Spin,
not face-to-face confrontations with the voters, is the
Government's chosen method of communication. Ordinary
people are dangerous. Ordinary people might ask a question
which throws a politician 'off message'; the Cabinet member
might reveal himself or herself to be a human being like
us, and not a programmed android. Worse still, he or she
might tell the truth. Ann Leslie - Daily
Mail, September 16, 2004
Power
cut, please
Labour's
pollsters have Tony Blair running scared, because they have
informed him that if turnout at the next election is below
50%, the result will be a hung parliament. This would be
good news for those of us who, viewing the damage inflicted
by recent governments, would like nothing better than a
Parliament powerless to do anything. Letter from Ron
Phillips, London W14 - Daily Mail, February 17, 2005
|
Tony
Blair's pledge cards made no mention of pensioners. Perhaps
they're the jokers. Letter to the Daily Mail from Brian
Green, Daventry, Northants - February 22, 2005
The
Guardian's Polly Toynbee says 'a profoundly nasty streak'
among voters worried about poverty, crime and immigration
might cause them to vote against the Government. Isn't
it time we replaced the present electorate with one more
to Polly's liking? Ephraim Hardcastle, Daily Mail,
February 24, 2005
Back
to the future
'Forward
not Back' is quite wrong: we must go back - back to clean
hospitals with more medical staff and fewer managers;
back to education with proven standards.
Back
to police on the street and solving crime; back to increased
employment in industry, back to ministers who stand up
for this country and back to democratic government. Then,
perhaps, we can move forward. Letter from S, M. Butler,
Shoreham-by-Sea, Sussex - Daily Mail, March 23, 2005
Virtues
of a secret ballot
Sir
- Concerning postal votes (report Mar 23) what is the
first principle of a democratic political vote? Answer:
THE SECRET BALLOT.
It
is obvious that a postal ballot is only as secret as the
moral strength of the voter. With the infinite propaganda
powers of today's electronic media, it is frighteningly
easy for devious politicians to promote politically correct
or "cool" or, most wickedly, "honest and
transparent" voting patterns, where someone failing
to vote "with his/her group" must "have
something to hide".
Postal
voting should, at best, be allowable only to persons who
are required to be stationed away from their constituency
on government business. A few temporary disfranchisements
may result, but nothing is perfect.
Letter from J. B. Lewis, Bognor Regis, West Sussex - The
Daily Telegraph, March 25, 2005
SIR
- Why on earth are people still insisting on voting for
the Labour Party this May 2005. It has lied and cheated
the public again and again during the Iraq war, immigration,
violent crime and hospital waiting list figures. It has
introduced stealth taxes and even been caught rigging
the postal voting system. To the Editor, Daily Telegraph,
from Philip Priestley, High Wycombe, Bucks. April 19,
2005
|
Shamed
by Blair
Mr
Blair says that instead of questioning his integrity we
should be asking if the invasion of Iraq was right. What
reaction does he expect from those of us who were in favour
of the invasion of Iraq all along? Does he seriously imagine
we believe in his integrity?
Those
of us who supported the war have all the more reason to
despise a Prime Minister who by his lies has discredited
the case for firmness against out enemies.
Letter
from Alan Pillinger, Rome, Italy - Daily Mail, April
29, 2005
|
So
do it , Sedgefield. Do it for Tom Keys (by voting for his father
Reg). Do it for David Kelly. Do it, as the man said, for a government
that will restore trust in politics in this country.
BLAIR
LIED AND LIED AGAIN
Blair's
credibility blown to shreds by bombshell leak of Attorney General's
grave doubts over the legality of Iraq invasion. Had they been
shown to the Cabinet and Parliament, Britain might never have
gone to war
'This
will stain Blair for ever'
By
David Hughes, Political Editor, Daily Mail, April 28, 2005
Damning
evidence of Blair's dishonesty
Comment
- Daily Mail, April 28, 2005
I
have never told a lie. Tony Blair insisted
on SkyTV last night. But within half an hour, a devastating
bombshell on Channel 4 News blew his credibility to smithereens
and proved conclusively that over Iraq he was again lying
through his teeth.
No
longer is there any room for doubt. This Prime Minister
not only took Britain to war on false pretenses. He also
misrepresented the confidential legal advice from Attorney
General Lord Goldsmith to give a dishonest summary to
MPs and even his own Cabinet.
Mr
Blair has insisted all along that the war was unequivocally
legal, that he had been given no caveats or conflicting
advice and that the Attorney General had never changed
his mind. But those words are now exposed as utterly false.
Lord
Goldsmsith warned that failure to secure a second UN resolution
authorising war would force Government 'urgently' to reconsider
it's legal case. He
warned that to invade Iraq without a second resolution,
'we would need to demonstrate hard evidence of non-compliance
and non-cooperation'.
Yet
no such 'hard evidence' existed. Indeed, chief UN weapons
inspector Hans Blix was at that very moment making it
clear that Saddam was starting to comply. Consider what
happened next in this squalid saga.
All
the Attorney General's doubts were sent to Mr Blair on
March 7, 2003. Yet somehow none of them appeared in the
'summary' of his advice given to MPs and the Cabinet ten
days later, on March 17. This
affair stinks to high heaven.
It
is now clear that the Government's chief legal officer
- the very cornerstone of a healthy democracy - has prostituted
his office for political ends. We also have ineluctable
evidence that Cabinet was denied the opportunity to see
his full report - in itself a flagrant breach of the Ministerial
Code of Conduct.
Make
no mistake: if Blair had told the truth about the legal
reservations, it is very possible that Parliament would
never have voted for war. The lives of 85 British troops
and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians might not have
been lost.
So
what happened in those ten days to produce such a dramatic
change in Goldsmith's legal advice? Were his arms twisted
in Downing Street by friend Charlie Falconer and Baroness
Morgan? One thing is sure. Unless he can produce very
convincing explanations, his reputation is damaged beyond
repair.
And
the Prime Minister? The BBC spent all yester-day trying
to denigrate the latest Tory poster. It shows Blair's
picture with the lacerating slogan:
"If
he's prepared to lie to take us to war, he's prepared
to lie to win an election"
Never
were words so prescient..
It
is difficult to remember any precedent in recent times
for such an attack on the personal integrity of a party
leader. But then, it's hard to recall any recent Prime
Minister who has so demeaned his office. And it isn't
simply because of his record on Iraq, with its dodgy dossiers,
his denial that he had any part in hounding weapons expert
Dr David Kelly to his death and now his lies about the
legal case for war.
He
once claimed he would be 'purer than pure', but has been
up to his neck in sleaze from Bernie Ecclestone to the
Hindujas and Mandelson (twice) to Lakshmi Mittal. This
is the man who has politicised the civil service, undermined
the integrity of our intelligence agencies, disdained
the Commons, neutered the Lords, opened the way to electoral
fraud through a reckless expansion of postal voting, promoted
useless cronies and encouraged his liar-in-chief Alastair
Campbell to corrupt decent standards in public life.
Mr
Blair's mendacious behaviour over the Attorney General's
memorandum brings shame and discredit to his office.
He
is unfit to be Prime Minister.
|
Tony
Blair's credibility was blown to shreds last night by the bombshell
leak of the Attorney
General's
top-secret legal advice on invading Iraq. It revealed that the
Prime Minister persistently lied to parliament and the public
about the legal basis for the war. For two years Mr Blair has
refused to publish the advice, citing confidentiality, while insisting
Lord Goldsmith was 'unequivocal' that the war was lawful.
Last
night's sensational leak to Channel 4's News reveals the true
reason for its suppression - it was chock-full of warnings that
the invasion could be illegal. It means that the Prime Minister
has not told the truth on the pivotal question - was the war legal?
The
staggering revelation came minutes after Mr Blair declared on
Sky TV: "I have never told a lie."
Lord
Goldsmith's advice, handed to the Prime Minister personally on
March 7, 2003 and never shown to the Cabinet, was so guarded and
equivocal it would have made an invasion impossible to justify
to Parliament. Yet just ten days later, under pressure from Downing
Street, the Attorney General published new advice stripped of
all the caveats. It was on this 'doctored' advice that Blair sent
our troops to war.
In
a statement last night, Lord Goldsmith confirmed that the leaked
document was genuine. But he insisted it 'stands up the case the
Government have been making all along'. In his judgment, the war
was lawful and that was what he had said to Government, the Cabinet
and in public at the time.
With
polling day only a week away, last night's disclosure threatens
to derail Labour's entire election strategy. Leading constitutional
expert Professor Peter Hennessy said: "The whole thing reeks.
There is only one word for it. It reeks. Even if the Prime Minister
wins handsomely on polling day this will stain him and his premiership
as long as people remember it, just as Anthony Eden's name is
forever associated with Suez."
Shadow
Attorney General Dominic Grieve said Mr blair had been guilty
of a 'gross deception' on Parliament and the public. Experts said
the Prime Minister's failure to show the Attorney General's initial
advice to his Cabinet was a clear breach of the ministerial code
and leaves him politically isolated. He cannot now shelter behind
collective responsibility.
Liberal
Democrat spokesman SirMenzies Campbell said he believed other
members of the Cabinet, as well as Robin Cook, would have resigned
if they had seen Lord Goldsmith's original opinion.
Tory
leader, Michael Howard said: "It is now obvious from this
legal advice that on March 7, 2003, the Attorney General raised
specific reservations about the legality of war in Iraq. But Mr
Blair has said the Attorney General's advice to the Cabinet on
March 17 was 'very clear' that the war was legal, and that the
Attorney General had not changed his mind. It is obvious he did.
What the public must now have an answer to is this: what, or who,
changed the Attorney General's mind?"
Liberal
Democrat leader Charles Kennedy said: "We urgently require
a full public statement from the Prime Minister and the Attorney
General as to the events that took place over the ten days in
question."
The
document reveals that Lord Goldsmith warned Mr Blair that failure
to secure a second United Nations resolution, explicitly authorising
military action, would force the government 'urgently' to reconsider
it's legal case. He said: "I remain of the opinion that the
safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further
resolution." He also raised the possibility that the Government
could be hauled before the International Criminal Court if the
invasion went ahead.
Lord
Goldsmith warned that invading on the basis of UN Resolution 1441,
passed in November 2002, 'will only be sustainable if there are
strong factual grounds for concluding that Iraq has failed to
take the final opportunity. In other words, we would need to be
able to demonstrate hard evidence of non-compliance and non-cooperation'.
A
few days after presenting this heavily-qualified advice, Lord
Goldsmith attended a meeting with Mr Blair's trusted colleague
Lord Falconer and his politcal 'fixer' Baroness Morgan. On March
17, he presented a new opinion to Cabinet and later to Parliament,
stripped of any of these qualifications - fuelling suspicions
that he had been 'leaned on'.
Last
night's dramatic events left Mr Blair's political standing at
a new low and dashed Labour's frantic efforts to regain control
of the political agenda. The Tory poster campaign pictureing Mr
Blair with the messsage 'If he's prepared to lie to take us to
war, he's prepared to lie to win an election' had already rocked
Labaour.
Gordon
Brown was forced to come to th Premier's aid, insisting that the
war had been a collective Cabinet decision and that the Prime
Minister was not a liar. Mr Blair himself offered up his head
if the country decides he hasn't told the truth. "If you
believe that I stood up there and told a whole lot of lies, then
that is a reason for not voting for me," he said on ITV News's
Ballot Box Jury.
And
a few minutes later he echoed George Washington as he told Sky
TV: "I have never told a lie. No, I don't intend to go telling
lies to people. I did not lie over Iraq." He insisted Lord
Goldsmith's advice was not changed between March 7 and March 17.
But even as he was speaking, Channel 4 News was unleashing its
Exocet.
|
Tactical
Voting
As
UKIP member for several years, I believe the greatest
threat facing the British is the potential loss of our
independence to govern ourselves. Once Brussels gains
complete control, everything else we are voting for in
the coming election is academic. The real decisions will
be made in Brussels by people we can't vote out.
Much
as I support UKIP's aims, I now believe the single most
important goal for British voters is to remove Blair and
his rotten Government before they complete the process
of removing our sovereignty. Only a vote for Michael Howard
will do this - Letter to the Daily Mail from Tony Beverley,
London SW10 - April 7, 2005
Perhaps
Ann Widdecombe was right about Michael Howard, but it
should have been KNIGHT with a K, and he could have saved
us from the monsters Blair and Campbell - Letter to
the Dail Mayil from Les Fletcher, Rhos-on-Sea, Colwyn
Bay, Wales - February 18, 2005
After
a clear vote against them, we still got eight non-elected
Regional Assemblies. When we vote against the EU Constitution,
we'll get them anyway. Letter from P.Cove, Aylesbury,
BUCKS.- Daily Mail, January 31, 2005
THE
TIMES slavish support for the Government worries some
members of the paper's staff, not to mention any perspicacious
readers who are left. Political editor Philip Webster
was questioned about this when he addressed colleagues
as part of an in-house 'masterclass' exercise. Small wonder.
One of his Blair-worshipping subordinates wrote a news
story yesterday poo-pooing the row over Labours anti-semitic
poster mocking Michael Howard, saying it was merely £5million
worth of 'free publicity' for the party. Ephraim Hardcastle
- Daily Mail, Febrauary 2, 2005
Hold
the front page
Further
to BBC bias (Mail), very often on BBC Breakfast and Breakfast
With Frost, coverage of the morning papers is censored.
If the front page of the Daily Mail is critical of Tony
Blair and his Soviet-style Government, it is not shown,
although the front pages of all the other newspapers are
shown. A supposedly independent broadcasting body is acting
as censor for this Government - an absolute disgrace.
Letter from Peter Fish, Chippenham, Wilts. .- Daily Mail,
February 17, 2005
SIR
- Why on earth are people still insisting on voting for
the Labour Party this May 2005. It has lied and cheated
the public again and again during the Iraq war, immigration,
violent crime and hospital waiting list figures. It has
introduced stealth taxes and even been caught rigging
the postal voting system. To the Editor, Daily Telegraph,
from Philip Priestley, High Wycombe, Bucks. April 19,
2005
|
The
REAL NASTY PARTY- How
Labour is the true home of spite, bigotry and contempt for the
public
For
the health of our democracy, we, the people of the United Kingdom,
must find a way to force Mr Blair to resign
Such
defiance of the democratic process and the will of the majority
of we people of the UK, must be exposed by voters as a matter
or urgency, and not just in the two by-elections we have had this
July and the European elections in June 2004. But how can this
be done?
The
most effective way of getting our deceitful PM to resign would
be to mobilise the army of Labour MPs currently in the House of
Commons and get them to demand it, the loss of their seat to be
a penalty if they did not. All voters in Labour-held constituencies
need to write a letter along these lines to their local Labour
MPs:
|
Dear
Despite
his absolute and unequivocal assurances over the past year
of the serious risk to our security of Saddam Hussein's
'weapons of mass destruction', Prime Minister Blair
has admitted, that the threat was non-existent. For that
critical error of judgement and for his gross incompetence
in handling this very important issue, I ask you to take
immediate steps to ensure that Tony Blair does the honourable
thing and resign without delay..
I
would therefore be much obliged if you would propose and
help mobilise a Parliamentary vote of 'No Confidence' in
Mr Blair which, despite Labour's huge majority, would leave
the PM with no option but to resign.
If
I get no reply to this letter, I shall assume you will continue
to support Mr Blair as our Prime Minister. In such circumstances
I shall not vote for you in the forthcoming General Election.
Signed:
|
Simple,
non-violent, protest letters along these lines on a variety of
issues could be the basis for re-vitalising our democracy and
increasing voters' interest and participation in politics. Download
a printable copy of the above letter here.
There
is another way for the voice of the silent majority to be heard,
a voice that made sure broken promises would not only be revealed,
but punished in subsequent elections.
In
the year available before the General Election expected in 2005,
many topics are available as ammunition, each one asking questions.
A weapon for our purpose will be the results of Opinion Polls
in individual constituencies using ICM, NOP, Gallop, Mori
or YouGov.
Questions
suggested for this purpose are listed here.
CAST
YOUR VOTE ON A VARIETY OF OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES HERE.
Current
and prospective Parliamentary candidates of all Parties running
for election could share a platform at public forums in every
constituency. They would be presented with the results of
polls on this issue expressed by the majority of voters in that
constituency.
The candidates could be asked if their own views and that of their
Party manifesto corresponded with the polls, and if not, how they
intended to represent the will of the majority of local voters.
Local and National Press, Radio and TV coverage would be arranged
and the results published on this web site.
Here
is another powerful strategy for using your vote effectively in
the forthcoming General Election. Send your sitting and prospective
MPs a letter defining your requirements if they want your vote.
This example deals with the proposed
EU Constitutional Treaty.
Your
letters would end: "If you do not answer
this letter, I shall take it that you intend to follow the Government
line. I shall act accordingly in the forthcoming General Election.
Or
why not create a questionnaire that you send to all the candidates
in your constituency, getting them to give yes/no answers to questions
of your choice, and ending it with the same paragraph(above).
Download
a printable example of the questionnaire.
It
is high time for the people of this United Kingdom to stop allowing
themselves to be manipulated by politicians. We need our representatives
in Parliament to genuinely reflect the view of the majority in
their own constituency, even if this means going against their
personal and/or their party's policy. While they may argue their
case, hoping to change the minds of the majority in their constituency,
they should ultimately be obliged to reflect the majority view
of those who elect them.
It
will be argued by politicians of all parties that most voters
don't have the knowledge necessary to express an opinion on important
subjects at issue, and that our vote is a form of delegated democracy.
We should argue that it is their duty to ensure that we voters
do have ready access to such information as is necessary to form
an intelligent opinion. That, after all, is one main purpose of
Opposition Parties in our Parliamentary Democracy.
Most
important of all, such proceedings would rekindle in voters their
latent interest and obligation to cast their vote, knowing that
the candidate of their choice would be more likely to act in accordance
with their wishes. A much higher turnout in elections would be
the result.
Contact
your local Party Chairman. Gain his support for setting up public
forums in your constituency on these, as well as any other relevant
topics, well before the next General Election expected in 2005.
You should then, depending on the integrity of the candidate of
your choice, feel fairly certain that your view on any subject
being debated in Parliament will more accurately be reflected
by your representative in that assembly.
