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
|
Blair's
costly legacy
Tony
Blair has lost his credibility. He was remined in the
terrorism debate, when using the police as a prop, that
he had said the same about weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq, using the intelligence service as an authoritative
witness. He is setting himself up as a martyr and defender
of Britain, but has conveniently forgotten that it was
his deception in leading us into war with Iraq that has
made us a target for terrorism.
Bair's
premiership has done nothing for our Parliamentary democracy
and has cost untold innocent people's lives. This will
be his legacy. Letter from Douglas Wathen, Salford
Priors, Worcs.- Daily Mail, November 14, 2005
|
'Liar'
taunts haunt Blair
Hollow
words of a rattled Blair
THE
TRUTH
One
year, nine months and four days after the death of Dr Kelly, Blair
finally confesses: "We did name him"
BY
Paul Eastham, Deputy Political Editor, Daily Mail, April 22, 2005
Tony
Blair's reputation suffered new damage last night after he finally
admitted he did authorise the naming of Dr David Kelly. After
insisting for two years he did not sanction the exposure of Dr
Kelly - who was subsequently found dead - the Premier said he
believed he had 'no option' but to disclose the name'.
How
the story has changed
22
July 2003
Prime Minister's aircraft to Hong Kong he was asked: Why
did you authorise the naming of David Kelly?
He replied:
That is completely untrue
Asked
again: Did you authorise anyone in Downing Street or in
the MOD to release David Kelly's name?
He replied:
Emphatically not. I did not authorise the leaking of the
name of Dr Kelly.
20
April 2005
PAXMAN:
Do you accept any responsibility at all for the death
of Dr David Kelly?
BLAIR:
Aah ...(pause) It was a terrible, terrible thing to have
happened. I don't believe we had any option, however,
because I think had we failed to do so, that would have
been seen as attempting to conceal something.
|
Mr
Blair's U-turn amazed Westminster and sent Labour spin-doctors
into confusion. His words made nonsense of the denials he has
given ever since the body of the 59-year-old expert on Iraqi weapons
was found on an Oxfordshire hillside in July 2003.
Last
night Tory leader Michael Howard seized on Mr Blair's confession,
declaring: "It shows yet again that Mr Blair is a stranger
to the truth. People should hardly be surprised by this when even
Gordon Brown says that there is nothing that Blair could ever
say that he could ever believe."
Mr
Blair's admission came in a heated confrontation with interviewer
Jeremy Paxman on BBC2's Newsnight. Mr Paxman demanded: "Do
you accept any responsibility at all for the death of Dr David
Kelly?"
The
Premier replied: "Ash (pause). It was a terrible, terrible
thing to have happened. I don't believe we had any option however,
but to disclose his name."
His
confession undermined the denials he gave to reporters two days
after Dr Kelly died. He was asked on a plane flying into Hong
Kong on July 22,2002: "Why did you authorise the naming of
David Kelly?" He replied: "That is completely untrue."
Pressed
on whether he asked anyone in Downing Street or the Defence Ministry
to do it on his behalf he replied: "Emphatically not. I did
not authorise the leading of the name of David Kelly."
Mr
Blair's abrupt change of stance comes at a dangerous moment for
Labour because it highlights his Achilles heel - the dwindling
trust of the electorate. The last thing party managers wanted
was for Mr Blair's unpopular decision to commit British troops
fighting in Iraq - and the untruths that were told to justify
it - to be thrust to the to of the election agenda.
Dr
Kelly was pushed into the media spotlight after being identified
as the man the Government believed was the source for a damaging
BBC report. It had said Downing Street 'sexed up' a dossier on
Iraq's weapons capability. The scientist admitted to his managers
he had met the Today programme's Andrew Gilligan, although he
insisted he cold not have been the only source.
Mr
Blair's communications director, Alastair Campbell, expressed
his desperation in his diary to get the scientist's name released.
He wrote: "G.H (Geoff Hoon) and I agreed it would f*** Gilligan
if that was his source" and "spent much of the weekend
talking to Tony Blair and Geoff Hoon re the source".
Dr
Kelly was subsequently named by newspapers as the official in
question. Journalists said that they were told by the Defence
Ministry press officer on July 9 that any names put to them would
be confirmed or denied. Two days after facing a savage grilling
from a committee of MPs, he was found dead. Facing Lord Hutton's
inquiry into the circumstances of the death in August, Mr Blair
subtly changed his story.
Instead
of completely denying any involvement in the disclosure, he hinted
its release was desirable. But he implied that the government
had simply 'confirmed' the scientist's name once it had got into
the hands of the press. Mr Blair said: "My concern was to
get that information not concealed but out there so no one could
say afterwards that this was something you were trying to cover
up."
When
it was pointed out that Mr Campbell and the Defence Ministry had
confirmed the identity to a number of journalists, he said: "That
was a completely different matter once the name was out there."
His
testimony was thrown into question at a subsequent hearing in
October. The MoD's top civil servant, Sir Kevin Tebbit, told Lord
Hutton that Mr Blair chaired a meeting which agreed the strategy
that led to Dr Kelly's name becoming public.
However,
to widespread surprise, Lord Hutton's findings exonerated Mr Blair
and declared there was no underhand government strategy to name
Dr Kelly.
|
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
|
So
do it , Sedgefield. Vote for Reg Keys. Do it for David Kelly.
Do it, as the man said, for a government that will restore the
trust in politics in this country.
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.
