Rescuing Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected Dictatorship
|
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
Blair wants to leave his
mark on history - looks more like a stain to me.
Peter Thorndyke, Diss,
Norfolk - Daily Mail, May 23, 2005
I know I'm me - why do I
need an ID card?
"Sorry, officers, I
don't have an ID card. I never applied for one. It seemed a bit steep
at 300 quid. I do have my free passport, my driving licence and my
London freedom travel pass, each with my photograph. I have my NHS
medical card, with its lengthy number, given me at birth, my RAF
service book with my Armed Forces number, and a chit authorising me to
wear a few gongs -including a General Service Medal with Malaya bar,
for fighting communist terrorists on behalf of my country, or so they
told me.
"I've also got various credit
cards and store cards, all with my signature on the back, generally
good for buying the everyday requrements for life as well as the odd
luxury. If you decide to arrest me, I suppose I'll have to be
photographed and given another number, besides my PINs.
"I'm afraid I haven't got a
pension book; it was taken away."
"By thieves, sir?"
"No ... well, not exactly. By the
Government. By the way, may I see your warrant cards please, gentlemen?"
Oh dear, they've disappeared. E.
Harry Gumer, Romford, ESSEX - Daily Mail, June 1, 2005
NO means NO
When does NO mean MAYBE?
When it's not the answer the EU wants. With the courageous French
NON resounding in their ears, shabby, undemocratic self-interested
leaders of Europe propose ignoring the part of their precious
constitution that requires ratification by all members and
continuing without one of the biggest founder members to
prevent derailing the gravy train.
As in Ireland,
they refuse to accept any NO votes, ignoring the will of the people,
and re-stage votes until they can engineer the 'correct' answer. Sadly,
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw dances to their tune like a puppet on a
string. With tactics such as these, how can anyone really believe the
EU has our interests at heart. Letter from Steve Penny, Kingsnorth, Kent - Daily
Mail, June1, 2005
Surely
the French result makes the £1million the EU recently spent on a
treaty signing ceremony seem a trifle premature and extravagant. Letter from Keith Wiseman, Bury, Lancs. - Daily Mail,
June1, 2005
|
Britain has
traditionally been one of the biggest net contributors to the EU
because we do not get as much money back from Brussels in farm and
regional subsidies as our rivals.
According to
Treasury figures, between 1995-2002, Britain's average contribution
taking the rebate into account, was £2.6billion, or £43.55
per head of population.
The French -
the biggest recipient of farm subsidies - contributed £1billion a
year or £16.08 per head of their population.
|
December
28, 2005 (959 days since Iraq war ended)
Death Toll: 2,172 US - 98UK - >>30,000?
Iraqi - 25 media
Janyary
16, 2006 (978 days since Iraq war ended)
Death Toll: 2,219 US - 98UK - >>30,000?
Iraqi - 25 media
February
3, 2006 (993 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 2248 US - 100UK - >>6,164? Iraqi - >>17,300?
civilians - 25 media
| Tony
Blair should know that respect comes by example - from the
top. If a country's leader has no respect for the rule of
nternational law and no respect for the truth, how can he
expect anyone to have respect. Letter
from P.J.Atkinson, Ashford, Kent - Daily Mail, January 12,
2006 |
Revenge
of Parliament
Ever
since he came to power, Mr Blair has tried to destroy Parliament.
Now history has come full circle and the Commons is destroying
Blair
By
Peter Oborne - Daily Mail, February 2, 2006
On
Tuesday night in Parliament, something very dramatic and irrevocable
occurred: the death of an experiment in government. When Tony
Blair obtained power in May 1997, he self-consciously set out
to rule Britain in a different way than ever before.
He
turned his back on a tradition of representative democracy and
the British House of Commons. Instead he sought to rule like a
foreign president, directly answerable to the people without the
burdensome restraint of mediating institutions like cabinet and
parliament. Tuesday night showed that Blair's presidential project
is over. Power is back in the House of Commons, where it belongs
- something which all of us should celebrate, whatever out political
persuasion.
No
Prime Minister since the post was invented by Sir Robert Walpole
almost 300 years ago has ever voted less than Tony Blair. Even
Margaret Thatcher, who was often accused - not least by Labour
- of ignoring Parliament, voted in around 30% of all divisions.
Tony Blair has struggled to turn up more than 5% of the time.
One
very senior official, who worked closely with the Prime Minister
for many years, once told me: "Basically, in 10 Downing Street
there is a contempt for Parliament, and that attitude permeates
the whole Government."
Humiliation
On
Monday night, Tony Blair paid a deadly price for that casualness
and contempt. His failure to pay serious attention to Parliament
caused him to lose key measures from his religious hatred Bill
in a Commons vote. But much more important than the damage to
a single piece of legislation is the grievous blow to Tony Blair's
personal authority.
Tuesday
night's humiliation follows the rebellion against the Government's
terrorism Bill last November. It means Tony Blair's government
has been defeated on vital legislation twice in just three months.
There are now growing doubts about the Prime Minister's ability
to get his business through the Commons. He is being forced to
weaken many other pieces of legislation - above all, his flagship
Education Bill - in order to avoid similar defeats.
Tony
Blair's parliamentary weakness recalls Jim Callaghan in 1978/79
or John Major in 1996/97.
And
yet Blair - unlike Major and Callaghan, who led minority governments
- has a comfortable majority and won a general election victory
only nine months ago. Blair's weakness is a direct result of his
long-standing contempt for Parliament.
In
all previous administrations, Labour or Tory, the chief whip has
been one of the most senior figures in the entire government,
on occasions more powerful than Chancellor of the Exchequer or
the Foreign Secretary. Francis Urquhart in Michael Dobbs's novel
House of Cards is the model for these traditional chief whips:
devious, Machiavellian and much feared by rank-and-file MPs.
By
contrast, Hilary Armstrong is just a harmless drudge. She commands
as much mystique as a wet blanket and inspires as much fear as
a tabby cat. It is the chief whip who keeps the troops in order,
using threats if need be. Poor Armstrong threatens nobody. It
is the job of the chief whip to act as an early warning system,
scenting trouble. But poor Armstrong hasn't a clue what is going
on. Even her fellow ministers treat her as an absurdity.
It
was Armstrong who gave Tony Blair disastrous advice to stand out
for 90 days detention without trial in the Terrorism Bill - advice
which led to defeat. And on Tuesday night it was Armstrong who
preposterously told Blair that it was safe to leave the Commons
just before the Government lost by a single vote.
The
recent collapse of discipline on the government backbenches is,
of course, Armstrong's responsibility. But it was Tony Blair who
gave her the job.
Foolhardy
He
did so after destroying the authority of the whips' office by
booting them out of their traditional and very grand office in
12 Downing Street and replacing them with his hubristic media
operation led by Alastair Campbell. He would never have made this
foolhardy chance if he understood the weight and importance of
the British Parliament. That lack of understanding reveals everything
about Tony Blair's attitude to government.
One
needs only to look back through history to realise the astonishing
importance of Parliament in the creation of the British nation.
In the 1640's the tyrannical rule of Charles I was confronted
and defeated through the House of Commons.
Two
hundred years ago an idealistic Tory MP named William Wilberforce
abolished the slave trade through persuasion in the House of Commons.
In the United States this was achieved 60 years later - and not
through debate, but by civil war.
Sixty-six
years ago, as the German bombers roared up the Thames before dropping
their cargoes of destruction, Winston Churchill uttered his great
speeches of defiance against the evil menace of Hitler from the
sweaty cockpit of the parliamentary chamber.
Shallow
But
New Labour has never cared for British history. Chancellor Gordon
Brown demonstrated this insouciance in the most dramatic way possible
when he delivered his speech on 'Britishness' last month. He earnestly
sought to define the British nation through abstract qualities
like freedom, fairness and responsibility.
There
is nothing wrong with any of these qualities. Yet nowhere in his
speech could the Chancellor bring himself to define out country
through our greatest institution of all - the British Parliament.
And
yet is Parliament, more than anything else, that defines who we
are and the wonderful things we stand for as a nation. Parliament
has sat beside the Thames at Westminster for 700 years. It contains
far more truth and wisdom than a shallow politician like Tony
Blair can begin to comprehend.
It
is easy to understand why a modernising New Labour politician
fond of vapidly boasting that Britain was a 'young country' should
have wished to make this greatest of all institutions an irrelevance.
It is easy to see why a Prime Minister who saw himself as a President
should dislike having to rub shoulders with fellow MPs who bring
him down to size.
And
it is easy to understand why Tony Blair should have hated the
House of Commons for the irritating way in which it called his
authority into question and opened him up to public criticism.
Almost
ten years ago, when Tony Blair became Prime Minister, he set out
quite consciously to destroy the power of Parliament. Now history
has turned full circle, and Parliament has come back to destroy
Tony Blair.
Peter
Oborne is Political Editor of The Spectator
If you have
suggestions for additional subjects, or material to include in the
pages linked to the subjects listed, please contact the webmaster.
