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
|
May
11, 2005 (741 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 1,610 US - 88 UK - >6,164? Iraqi - >17,300 civilians
- 25 media
'However
you vote, give Blair a bloody nose,' says the Mail
Comment
- Daily Mail, May 4, 2005
That
this election has been utterly dishonest is a truism; we are being
asked to vote for a fake-tanned Premier when almost certainly
it won't be him but his chancellor who will lead the party.
Yes
- dishonest, unedifying and all too often, irrelevant. Indeed,
the most astonishing aspect of this campaign has been the absence
of issues that are vital to this country: nothing on the EU constitution,
nothing on the huge crisis facing our pensions and nothing on
our woefully depleted defence spending or the need to modernise
Britain's nuclear deterrent.
Meanwhile,
transport, education and energy policies have been all but ignored.
So what ARE Labour's achievements? To quote Bill Clinton's slogan,
it's the economy, stupid. And here much credit must be given to
Gordon Brown's initially prudent stewardship - though the golden
legacy he inherited from the Tories should never be forgotten.
Yes,
these have been benign years under Labour. The problem is that
brown - obsessed by the belief that the state can solve all problems
- has turned into a spendthrift. While a million manufacturing
jobs have been lost (with the death of Rover and the crisis at
Marconi presaging worse to come), a staggering 850,000 jobs have
been created in the unproductive public sector.
Little
wonder that since 1997 Britain has dropped from 9th to 27th in
the world competitive league. Little wonder that the nation's
borrowing escalates at an unsustainable rate, and that independent
economists on both Left and Right are unanimous in predicting
that taxes must go up.
And
what are we getting in return for all the extra state spending?
Yes, the NHS is slightly better, but the improvements don't begin
to reflect the extra billions pouring in. Meanwhile, MRSA continues
to shame our hospitals.
In
teaching (where the exam system has been corrupted) and the police
(who now seem more concerned with political correctness than with
catching villains), endless form-filling has damaged morale. But
then all our public services are debilitated by the same malaise,
a top-down, command-and-control strategy to impose discipline
and productivity through dishonest targets that demean professional
staff, destroying their pride and independence.
The
truth is that after 8 years in power, New Labour - the party that
promised to think the unthinkable on the welfare state - hasn't
even scratched the surface of the reforms necessary to revitalise
our public sector. And all the billions of your money it has spent
can't disguise this failure.
But
for the most serious charge against Mr Blair - and one that has
damaged Britain far more than his public mis-spending - is, quite
simply, that he has undermined the integrity of our institutions
and, indeed, our very democratic process. His performance on ITV1
this week said it all. Without a blush he told us he had never
claimed that Saddam Hussein was a threat to this country. This
was simply untrue - but then, it came from a man who can no longer
distinguish truth from falsehood.
Iraq,
of course, isn't an aberration in this Prime Minister's career.
The arrogance, carelessness with the truth, and flawed judgment
he showed when misleading Britain into war is part of a pattern
that goes all the way back to the Bernie Ecclestone affair in
1997.
This
is the politician who promised to be 'purer than pure', but who
has been up to his neck in sleaze ever since, from Ecclestone
to the Hindujas and Lakshmi Mittal to Geoffrey Robinson. This
is the leader who twice brought back Peter Mandelson after scandals,
most recently and disgraceful appointing him our commissioner
in Brussels.
This
is the autocrat who ruthlessly politicised our once proudly impartial
civil service, sending his liar-in-chief Alastair Campbell to
bully and bluster and corrupt decent standards in Whitehall. This
is the Premier who has consistently treated the Commons with contempt,
who tried to neuter the Lords and now packing our Second Chamber
with cronies and placemen to act as his rubber stamp.
This
is the 'reformer' who tried to abolish the ancient post of Lord
Chancellor without telling the Queen, Parliament or anyone else,
though the post is central to the working of our constitution.
This
is the man who presided over a crazed vendetta against the BBC,
using compliant officials to present secret intelligence for propagandist
purposes - rewarding one of them, John Scarlett, with a promotion
to run MI6.
This
is the Prime Minister who, in the greatest of all election deceits,
has the effrontery to present himself as the bosom buddy of Chancellor
Brown, who famously and bitterly remarked to Blair: 'There is
nothing you could ever say to me that I would ever believe.' This
is the politician who again and again in this election has told
untruths about Tory spending 'cuts' and non-existent plans to
'charge' for NHS operations.
Much
more seriously, this is the national leader who knowingly exposed
this election to the very real possibility of fraud by recklessly
expanding our system of postal voting and rejecting every warning
of the dangers. And he invited this corruption,hoping to win grubby
party advantage.
But
it is Iraq that sums up Mr Blair at his worst: the dodgy dossiers,
the wildly exaggerated intelligence, the trampling on legal advice
and now the rewriting of history. So what of the Tories?
Even
their greatest admirers would be hard-pressed to say that theirs
has been an inspiring campaign. But it is to Michael Howard's
great credit that they are no longer the shambolic rabble they
once were. They have discovered discipline and the will to win.
Their policies are carefully worked out and meticulously costed.
Today, they offer some genuinely radical and necessary ideas on
cutting the bloated bureaucracy of an ever-expanding and over-mighty
state.
Mr
Howard has shown enormous stamina and courage in reviving party
morale. He has been particularly brave in refusing to be silenced
on immigration, an issue that matters deeply to millions of voters
but which has for too long been censored in the name of political
correctness.
The
Tories may still seem something of a one-man-band. But at least
they offer hope of restoring integrity to public life, of renegotiating
more sensible terms with Europe, of restoring genuine prudence
to the economy and re-energising the public sector.
It
is because we believe these reforms are vital to the future of
Britain that this paper supports them. yet if we're being honest,
our support for a Conservative victory which we concede is unlikely
- is superseded by an even greater imperative to diminish the
powwr of an overweeninglyarrogant Mr Blair and restore healthy
democracy to this country.
For
these reasons the Mail asks all its readers - whatever their political
outlook - to think long and hard before casting their votes tomorrow.
We cannot believe that there are many honest Labour, LibDem or
Tory voters who don't recoil from the prospect of a Blair with
another huge majority.
Today
we publish details of the 60 crucial marginal constituencies in
Britain. The switch of even a few votes across these seats could
have a major impact, reducing Mr Blair's majority sharply, so
that in future he will be obliged to listen.
Whatever
your political persuasion, we urge you to vote tactically to get
the Labour candidate out, even if it means going against your
usual inclinations. Britain deserves better than Mr Blair and
his contempt for the integrity of public life. The solution to
giving bim a bloody nose lies in your hands.
|
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.
