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
cannot ignore our outrage over Iraq
Tony
Blair's speech after the election appeared contrite. His
admission that he had lacked experience was impressive.
But it turned my blood cold when our Prime Minister said
that in the case of Iraq, it was time to 'move on'.
Can
any phrae so callously and insidiously wipe the slate
clean? 'Moving on' is now part of the lexicon of British
life and I think it's dangerous.
Blair's
contrite speech reminded us that if you want to stand
up against the status quo in this country, you won'tk
be merely disagreed with - a welcome and natural part
of democratic life - you'll be made to fell you're speaking
from some weird place called 'The Past', not the right-on
Labour concoction known as 'The Future'. You haven't 'mlved
on'.
How
can any society that seeks to challenge its Prime Minister
on the legality of a war that killed thousands, sit there
while its leader sweeps it aside, telling it, in that
grubby little phrase, to 'move on'. A large secgion of
British society has embraced the vaacuity oif the words
'moving on' without examining the destructive power of
the message.
Our
lives, in private and public, are littered with examples
of people casually rationalising a my8riad selfish and
destructive actions with the nauseating observation: "Yeah,
it was wrong, but it's time to move on ... "
'Moving
on' is a linguistic short-cut to a guilt-free zone. Guilt
is regarded like cellulite or yellowing teeth, inherently
bad and in need of banishment.
But
guilt has a vital function because it reminds us all that
our actions may be wrong. How does Labour plan to enforce
anti-social behaviour laws and discipline in schools if
the prevailing message is 'I don't want to look at my
guilt. Let's move on'.
This
Government's obsession with ditching the past and pursuing
the future is creating a sordid ideology of relative moralities.
So let's all stop using the horrible little phrase 'moving
on'. Our actions, good and bad, aren't erased by it. In
domestic trivialities, it's cheap. In war, it's obscene.
Fiona
MacDonald Turner - Warninglid, W. Sussex - Daily Mail,
May 11, 2005
|
'Liar'
taunts haunt Blair
More
lies, and more reasons to vote Blair out
Bombshell
breaks silence over Iraq
By
David Hughes - Political Editor - Daily Mail, April 25, 2005
The
war in Iraq returned to haunt Tony Blair yesterday as devastating
evidence emerged that the invasion could have been illegal. The
leaking of Attorney General Lord Goldsmith's original legal advice
shattered repeated Government claims that he had always viewed
the invasion as 'lawful'.
How
the row unfolded
Mar.
7, 2003: Attorney General warns Blair that war could be
challenged on six counts under international law, according
to leak in original legal advice.
Mar.
13 : Blair allies, Lord Falconer and Baroness Morgan,
'lean on' Lord Goldsmith at meeting, critics claim. He
fiercely denies this.
Mar.
17 : Lord Goldsmith apparently changes his views on legality
of war. In a written parliamentary answer he says it is
'plain' that Iraq is in material breach of UN resolution
1441` and war is therefore legal.
Mar.
18 : Foreign Office legal adviser Elizabeth Wilmhurst
quits in protest, later saying she believes war against
Iraq was unlawful.
Feb.
26, 2004: Blair insists: "There was never any question
of us being able to go to war without the Attorney General's
advice being clear. It was clear throughout and we acted
upon it."
Jul.
18 : It emerges that Lord Goldsmith attended only two
of 24 Cabinet meetings held about the war between April
2002 and March 2003.
Nov.
10 : He tells the Lords he was 'never leaned on' and that
military action was lawful.
Feb.
25, 2005 : Blair insists the parliamentary answer of March
2003 was a 'fair summary' of Lord Goldsmith's full advice.
Mar
9: Blair tells Commons that Attorney General's statement
was not at odds with his legal position.
Apr.
22 : Lord Goldsmith's original legal advice is leaked,
reigniting row
|
It
left the Prime Minister facing the most savage personal attacks
of the 2005 campaign. Michael Howard accused Mr Blair of telling
'lies' to take the country into war. Charles Kennedy warned that
the entire election campaign could become a 'referendum' on Mr
Blair's decision to invade Iraq - a them the LibDem leader will
develop in a speech today.
And
former labor Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who quit the Cabinet
over the war, said: "I deeply regret that the Government
has left this issue to fester to the point at which it has become
public at the worst possible moment for the Government."
With
the Prime Minister's trustworthiness thrust centre stage and Iraq
dominating the campaign for the first time, his political strategists
reacted with alarm, fearing there could be mass desertion from
Labour ranks over the war, and they have been desperate to keep
the issue under wraps.
The
leaking of the Goldsmith legal guidance to the Mail on Sunday
has torpedoes those tactics. The publication of details from the
13-page document revealed that on no fewer than six counts Lord
goldsmith believed an attack on Iraq could be open to legal challenge,
He said:
*
The
United Nations, and not the US or UK, was the appropriate body
to decide whether Saddam Hussein was in 'material breach' of resolutions
aimed at curbing his weapons of mass destruction programme.
*
The UN had not authorised the use of 'all
necessary means' to enforce its resolutions against Saddam Hussein
- UN jargon for military action.
*
A second UN resolution was necessary before
hostilities began.
*
Earlier UN resolutions authorising military
action were no longer valid.
*
UN weapons inspector Hans Blix was reporting co-operation from
Iraq
*
The US's legal position on the validity
of war did not apply in the UK.
It
amounts to a devastating catalogue of doubts - yet within days
they had mysteriously evaporated.
After
delivering his 13-page on March 7, 2003, Lord Goldsmith was called
to Downing Street six days later to meet Mr Blair's trusted friend
Lord Falconer and his political 'fixer' Baroness Morgan. It was
at this meeting, say his critics, that he was 'leant on'.
Four
days later, on March 17, he briefed the Cabinet in an oral statement
that the war was lawful - and issued a Parliamentary answer to
that effect the same day. Despite his extraordinary flip-flop,
Lord Goldsmith has repeatedly denied changing his advice under
pressure from Downing Street.
A
spokesman said yesterday: "The Attorney General presented
his view to Cabinet on 17 March 2003 that military action in Iraq
would be lawful. It was his own genuinely-held independent view."
But
the latest revelations, coming on top of claims that Mr Blair
lied to the British people over the threat posed by Saddam's weapons,
pose serious questions about the Prime Minister's personal integrity.
Mr Howard, interviewed by the BBC's Sir David Frost, said that
on May 5 the voters had a final opportunity to make a judgment
on Mr Blair's character.
"He
has told lies to win elections," said the Tory leader. "On
the one thing on which he has taken a stand in the eight years
he has been Prime Minister, which is taking us to war, he didn't
even tell the truth on that. And this is the last chance the British
people will have to send a message to Mr Blair, to say to him
we are fed up with your broken promises, we are fed up with the
way you lied to win elections - as over tax - and we are fed up
with the way you lied to us over the war."
Mr
Kennedy also stepped up the pressure on the Premier, demanding
he publish in full Lord Goldsmith's advice. "This war was
a dreadful error, carried out on the basis of the wrong arguments
and for the wrong reasons," Mr Kennedy told Radio 4's The
World This Weekend. "The longer it goes on the more corrosive
it becomes for Tony Blair as Prime Minister, for the government,
and for people's sense of trust in the whole political establishment.
The longer he remains unwilling to publish in full the Attorney
General's advice, the more people are going to view this election
as an issue of trust and as a referendum on the trust which they
felt was so badly lacking over the decision to go to war."
The
LibDems will turn up the heat on Labour with advertisements in
today's newspapers warning that 'never again must this country
be led to war on the basis of 'questionable intelligence' and
without the sanction of the UN.
|
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.
