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
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
|
Why
I believe Mr Blair is a war criminal
Corelli
Barnett, Fellow of Churchill College, Cambridge - Daily Mail,
April 29, 2005
The
leaking to the BBC and Channel 4 of the critical section of the
13-page top-secret advice by Attorney General Goldsmith on March
7, 2003, has now forced Tony Blair to publish the entire document
- an act of candour towards the British people which for two years
he had stubbornly refused to countenance.
Well,
we can now understand why he was so keen to keep Goldsmith's advice
under wraps. It is because the Attorney General warned that an
attack on Iraq could be deemed unlawful without a further UN Security
Council resolution. In the event, there was no further UN resolution,
and Blair (alongside Bush) attacked Iraq just the same.
Goldsmith's
report is, in my view, the 'smoking gun' which identifies Tony
Blair as a man guilty of planning and launching aggressive war
- in other words, a war criminal. The report equally confirms
Blair to be a serial liar who set out to win backing for his war
by deceit of the public, Parliament and even members of his own
Cabinet. As we now know, goldsmith's secret advice was never circulated
to all members of the Cabinet.
Remember,
Blair and that true man of straw, the Foreign Secretary, have
repeatedly argued that the famous UN Security Council Resolution
1441 (of November 2002) itself provided authority for war without
the need for a second resolution. That argument was pronounced
by Goldsmith to be dubious and disputable. But Blair and Straw
used it just the same.
Remember,
Blair justified his war policy to the House of Commons on March
18, 2003, on the score that Saddam Hussein was 'unequivocally'
in breach of UN resolutions calling on him to scrap his alleged
WMD. But in fact Hans Blix, leader of the UN inspection team,
was just then reporting to the Security Council that Saddam WAS
complying. So it is no wonder that Goldsmith warned Blair: "You
will need to consider very carefully whether the evidence of noncooperation
and non-compliance by Iraq is sufficiently compelling." That
evidence simply did not exist.
Remember
also: Blair told the Commons on March 18, 2003 (and repeated yesterday)
that he and George W. Bush were compelled to go to war without
a second UN resolution because France had stated that she would
veto it 'in any circumstances'.
The
truth was that France had actually said she would veto such a
resolution at that particular moment,
when Hans Blix was doing good work and needed more time. So what
advice did the Attorney General give Blair on this crucial point?
He
wrote: "There are no grounds for arguing that an 'unreasonable
veto' would entitle us to proceed on the basis of a presumed Security
Council authorisation ... it is likely to be difficult on the
facts to categorise a French veto as 'unreasonable'."
All
in all then, Goldsmith's advice, full of doubts and caveats, was
very far from a clear endorsement of war on Iraq as lawful. We
can imagine the unhappiness of the Chief of Defence Staff, Admiral
Sir Michael Boyce, with 45,000 British soldiers, sailors and airmen
deployed in the Gulf about to go into battle. We can understand
why he demanded a catergorical assurance that the war would be
legal.
And
we can also imagine just how it came about that Goldsmith then
reversed the whole tenor of his previous advice and on March 14
gave Boyce the assurance he wanted, repeating the gist three days
later to Parliament in a 337-word statement written on a single
sheet of A4.
After
all, we saw a similar convenient fix under Downing Street pressure
in the case of the 'dodgy dossier' of September 2002, when doubts
and cavils in the original Joint Intelligence Committee report
became absolute certainties in the published version.
it
also seems likely that Goldsmith was swayed by persuasion from
Washington. Today we have Goldsmith absurdly standing by his March
17, 2003, public endorsement of war as legal, even though this
blatantly contradicts his secret advice ten days earlier. Well,
he would stand by it, wouldn't he?
We
have Jack Straw on television just as absurdly arguing that Goldsmith's
A4 sheet of public advice was a true summary of his 13-page secret
advice. We have a desperately rattled Blair wafting away with
his faux sincerity in his Press Conference yesterday with those
same stale old fibs of his about Saddam's failure to disarm and
the French veto on a further UN resolution.
He
also claimed that a war he sold to Parliament as vital in order
to disarm Saddam Hussein of WMD can now be justified as spreading
democracy in the Middle East. But nowhere in the UN Charter and
International Law can be found any sanction for spreading democracy
by force. So there can be no doubt that if Blair's true purpose
was indeed to aid George W. Bush in doing so, he again stands
convicted of planning and launching a war of aggression.
Blair
and his anxious defenders will argue that, no matter what the
opinions of lawyers, to go to war was a political decision which
he as Prime Minister had to take - a decision that he endlessly
yammers on was 'right'. But if a leader can take his country to
war without any legal justification simply because he himself
believes it is politcally 'the right thing to do', then Adolf
Hitler's decisions to invade Poland in 1939 and the Soviet Uion
in 1941, were equally right.
However,
the dispute over Goldsmith's shifting legal opinion conceals a
deeper reality; by March 2003, Blair - and Britain - were inescapably
committed to joining in George W Bush's war to bring about 'regime
change' in Iraq.
TheAmerican
military timetable demanded that the war should start before the
end of March, so that the conquest of Iraq could be completed
before the onset of the summer heat. Now, it is true that the
flexibility of modern armed forces would have made it operationally
possible to bring back the British forces, or at least withhold
them from the campaign. But politically it was by now impossible
to leave the Americans to it.
More
than that, it was personally unimaginable for Tony Blair to let
down his dear chum George, after all those joint press conferences
in which Blair had assured Bush that Britain was with him all
the way, even (in Blair's ghastly words ) 'to paying the blood
price'. Just think of the loss of personal prestige!
This
was why the Attorney General's secret advice must have caused
a tremendous panic in Downing Street - as must have Admiral Boyce's
consequent (and courageous) demand for an unambiguous ruling on
the legality of the coming conflict. This was why the Cabinet
as a whole never saw, never debated, the Attorney General's report.
Just think of the political meltdown if the Cabinet, the Labour
Party or the House of Commons had known that Britain was ineluctably
committed to launching a probably illegal war before the end of
the month, and that any debate was therefore now utterly futile!
To
persuade Goldsmith to change his mind was clearly a matter of
desperate urgency. After all, political survival of Tony Blair
was at stake. Armed with the Attorney General's conveniently revamped
advice, Blair could face the House of Commons on March 18. And
adrenalin-fuelled by the knowledge of how dicey his case for war
truly was - and how much was at stake for him personally - he
could make an impassioned, mendacious and successful plea for
the House's backing.
But
even deeper questions still remain. Why, back in the spring and
summer of 2002, did Blair unreservedly commit himself and his
country to the grandiose global ambitions of George W. Bush and
Co? We must remember that Bush has stated the fundamental inspiration
for his expansionist foreign policy. "It is not America which
wants to free the peoples of the world. It is Jesus Christ who
wants to free them."
Did
Blair, a committed Christian and crypto-Roman Catholic, share
this dangerously ideological view of international relations,
the mirror image of the convictions of militant Islam? Or was
Blair's pledge of loyalty to Bush really the product of his swollen
and well-documented vanity? We can all remember a shirt-sleeved
Blair at Camp David imitating the President's arms-outward swagger.
We can all remember Blair's too evident gratification at sharing
a rostrum in the White House with The Most Important Man in The
World .
Today
the euphoria has worn off. During this election we have heard
little mention from Blair of his once-dear chum, George. Their
joint enterprise in Iraq has gone horribly wrong. Instead of a
quick war ushering in a happy democratic Iraq, we have had a quick
war ushering in two years of savage violence that not even American
firepower can quell.
Indeed,
General Richard Myers, Chairman of the American Joint Chiefs of
Staff, has admitted the Iraq insurgency is as strong today as
a year ago. We have a new Iraqi police force and army which are
neiher well enough trained, motivated, nor equipped to defeat
the insurgents. We have a new Iraqi government which faces the
colossal problem of uniting all the racial and religious groups
behind an effective parliamentary regime.
So
the chances are remote indeed that by the end of 2005 Britain
will be able to withdraw all, or most, of her 7,500 servicemen
at present stuck in Iraq. It can hardly surprise us that Blair
looks so beleaguered, with his famous grin now a mechanical grimace,
his tired eyes sunk into their bags, his forehead beslimed by
a mixture of sweat and pancake make-up, and his glib answers wilder
and wilder in his attempt at self-exculpation.
For
he now stands exposed as the man who unscrupulously manipulated
his country into a disastrous war and a protracted entanglement
in Iraq that has so far cost the lives of 87 British servicement
and two British hostages, to say nothing of £4billion in
military expenditure alone.
How
Clem Attlee, Prime Minister during Labour's golden age after World
War II and a man of few words and iron integrity, would have despised
Tony Blair for his self-loving, self-serving, self-deceiving,
vain, glib sanctimony.
|
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.
