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 myriad 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
It's
right to criticise Tony Blair for his desire to 'move
on' from Iraq. Blair's strategy has always been to move
the news agenda on to avoid criticism and accountability.
This was exemplified by spin doctor Jo Moore's 'good day
to bury bad news' e-mail of 9/11. she became a scapegoat
for a tactic endemic of New Labour culture.
They
think 'managing' news in this way is what brought them
back to office in 1997 when in fact they profited more
from public disgust at Tory sleaze. Even when promoting
his policies, Blair always states the situtation as he
would like it to be, not as it is, with his performance
often falling short of his goals.
This
is not uncommon among politicians, but in Blair it has
become pathological. With him, the greater the lie, the
greater the denial.
The
roots of this lie deep in human nature but when in manifests
itself in something as serious as Blair's illegal war,
the culture which allows it to happen is in need of reform.
The electoral system would benefit from a revision to
reflect the nation's wishes more clearly. The electorate
may have given Blair 'a bloody nose' this time, but it
has effetively voted for more of the same.
Electoral
success occupies the main political parties more than
any issue of public concern., As a result, the self-interest
of individual politicians and their parties works against
the integrity of our political culture. Until that is
dealt with, all we can do is vote against what we dont
want, not for what we do. Letter from G. Brewis, Earith,
Cambs. - Daily Mail, May 16, 2005
|
BLAIR
- The King of Duplicity
'Like
a fish, Labour is rotting from the head down. For the sake of
David Kelly and Tom Keys, it is time for decapitation' writes
Rory Bremner in the Daily Mail
April
29, 2005
When
Tony Blair first arrived in Downing Street, he set out the standard
by which he wanted his government to be judged. "It will
be a government," he declared, "which restores people's
trust in politics in this country."
However,
his unqillingness to trust his own Caninet with the full legal
background during the key period of debate about the legality
of war in Iraq reveals the most serious abuse of power by a British
Prime Minister in recent memory.
Betrayal
of our fighting forces
Comment
- Daily Mail, April 29, 2005
So
now we plumb the depths of Prime Ministerial duplicity.
Tony Blair was not only prepared to send British troops
to fight and die on a bogus prospectus. He exposed them
to the very real risk of being dragged before the International
Criminal Court on charges of war crimes.
It
is difficult to imagine a colder betray of the brave men
and women who are prepared to sacrifice every-thing. They
were sent into actinic in Iraq with a cast-iron guarantee
that the invasion was unequivocally lawful. But we now
know from the hitherto secret legal advice Mr Blair was
forced to publish yesterday that this 'guarantee#' was
worthless.
Not
only did Attorney General Lord Goldsmith warn that the
government was wide open to challenge at the UN. He raised
the possibility that our soldiers could find themselves
in the dock for alleged breaches of the Geneva Convention
and could even be prosecuted for murder or aggression.
'There
are a number of ways in which opponents of military action
might seek to bring a legal case against the UK, members
of the Government, or UK military personnel,' Lord
Goldsmith warned bleakly. 'It
would not be surprising if some attempts were made .We
cannot be certain they would not succeed.'
Not
certain? Over war crimes? Murder? Aggression? The mere
possibility of such charges would have devastated our
fighting forces. It would have rocked the Cabinet. And
it would certainly have enraged the MPs who voted so reluctantly
for war a couple of weeks later.
Had
the Attorney's advice of March 7, 2003, got out at the
time, it is doubtful that the invasion would have gone
ahead. The lives of 87 British troops and thousands of
Iraqi civilians would not have been lost. But examine
how this devastating document was overturned and suppressed
by Mr Blair.
The
then Chief of Defence Staff, Lord Boyce, was so appalled
by the threat to our troops that he demanded an absolute
guarantee of the war's legality, eventually receiving
'two or three lines stating that our proposed actions
were lawful'.
The
doubts and caveats had miraculously vanished. So on the
very eye of war, our Armed Forces were grossly misled.
Cabinet was treated just as shabbily. Most Ministers were
never shown detailed advice. Instead - in an outrageous
breach of the Ministerial Code of conduct, which says
they should have had access to all legal documents - they
were fobbed off with a brief assurance from Lord Goldsmith
that the war was lawful, with no mention of his earlier
reservations.
And
MPs? They were conned too, with a 337-word statement asserting
the war's legality but failing to mention any doubts.
Thus
every aspect of this squalid scandal reveals a Prime Minister
who taints all that he touches. Having sent troops into
action oftener than any predecessor, he betrays them for
his own purposes. Having treated Parliament with contempt
for years, he misleads it into voting for war through
lies of omission.
Having
trampled on cabinet rule in favour of 'sofa government'
by cronies and unelected officials, he keeps Ministers
in the dark on an issue of life and death. Having ruthlessly
politicised a once proudly impartial civil service, he
tears up the Ministerial Code of conduct knowing the Cabinet
Secretary won't stop him.
Having
crassly undermined our constitution on every-thing from
Lords 'reform' to his attempt to abolish the ancient post
of Lord Chancellor, he suborns the Attorney General whose
job is to safeguard law and the constitution.
This
is the corrupt way we are governed now, with deception,
dodgy dossiers and downright lies.
|
Had
he taken his Cabinet coleagues into his confidence, it is possible
he might have lost the argument, and with it the debate which
finally sealed Britain's participation in the invasion - an undertaking
he had unilaterally promised Presidednt Bush many months before.
We now know, as we suspected before, that Attorney General Lord
Goldsmith's advice changed from originally setting out his serious
concerns about the legal case for war on March 7, to overcoming
them so heroically ten days later.
Resolution
Blair
and Straw would probably claim this shows Goldsmith's brilliance.
Normally, if you want two different opinios, you have to ask two
different lawyers. Not with Lord Goldsmith. He'll give you his
own considered legal advice on Friday and the one you want a week
on Monday.
His
opinion apparently changed for two reasons. First, because Blair
assured him that Saddam was still not cooperating with the UN.
But the truth is (as Goldsmith himself indicated) that this wasn't
Blair's call but that of UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, who
had just reported that Saddam's cooperation was accelerating.
And,
second, because the extra UN resolution Goldsmith said was needed
was unlikely to be passed. At which point, hey presto, it was
decided we didn't need it after all. Yet Blair continues to maintain
that the legal advice was clear, and Straw continues to say it
was thoroughly discussed in Cabinet.
We
should no longer be expected to swallow this guff. On the evidence,
it is not surprising that Michael Howard and others have accused
Blair of lying. The problem is this doesn't really get us very
far, because Blair has demonstrated time and again that he is
technically incapable of telling a lie, for the simple reason
that he absolutely believes in the truth of whatever he happens
to be saying at any particualr time.
What
is more serious is the abuse of power. From the moment Blair gave
his commitment to Bush the die was cast and everything else had
to be made to fit, From 2002, this country was governed by a Prime
Minister for whom the facts had to be assembled to fit the policy,
not the other way round.
In
her resignation speech, International Development Secretary Clare
Short attacked 'the centralisation of power in the hands of a
Prime Minister and an increasingly small number of advisers who
make decisions in private without proper discussion'.
Lord
Butler's report also reprimanded Blair for limiting discussion
and reducing the Cabinet's ability to prepare adequately by not
circulating key papers in advance. It is to the shame of some
sections of the British Press that this government has repeatedly
been allowed to spin the report as having cleared it of any wrongdoing.
The
same applies to the earlier Hutton Report, which set out the frantic
internal e-mails during the cobbling together of the Iraq dossier.
Let's
be clear. Government - or rather Blair and his close circle of
associates - played fast and loose with the intelligence in compiling
their dossier and then play fast and loose with the legal advice
in the week before war. It is simply not good enough for the Prime
Minister to throw up his hand and say: "What was I to do,
with troops on the boarder and a decision to be made?"
The
truth is that he had made the decision long before, and nothing
- not intelligence, not the UN, not Hans Blix and certainly not
the Cabinet - was going to stand in his way.
Key
questions are now: does this matter? And what can we do about
it?
Impeachable
Blair
says what matters is that Saddam has gone. Pause for universal
approval. But the way he went about his removal means that for
this Prime Minister, international law doesn't matter, the UN
doesn't matter, the Cabinet doesn't matter, weapons expert David
Kelly doesn't matter, Parliament doesn't matter.
When
most other newspapers yesterday were leading on the scandal
of the manipulation of the Attorney General by Tony Blair
over the war in Iraq, one paper stood out from the crowd.
Increasingly
resembling Pravda in its sycophancy to the Government,
THE TIMES relegated this highly-damaging tale about its
hero Tony Blair to Page 2 with the astonishing headline
- Leak of Iraq war letter 'shows attack was legal' and
led instead on the non-story about how there would be
no referendum on the euro in the next Parliament.
How
much longer before Alastair Campbell, Blair's own propaganda
chief dn Times sports columnist, is formall promoted to
Editor.
Ephraim
Hardcastle - Daily Mail, April 29, 2005
|
All
that matters is what he promised the U.S.President in secret (An
impeachable offence, incidentally) If these things really don't
matter to us, we have no right to live in a democracy.
The
fact that Labour is apparently ahead in all the polls doesn't
mean people aren't bothered about all this. It means they don't
really like the opposition parties either. There is clearly no
great appetite for a Conservative government, and the Lib Dems
are not yet felt to be a strong enough challenge.
Yet
there is another challenge to tony Blair. His name is Reg Keys.
His soldier son, Tom, paid the ultimate price for the war in Iraq
- he was killed in action. Keys nos now standing against Blair
in Sedgefield.
If
people still feel comfortable enough to vote Labour, but do not
want Tony Blair, voters of Sedgefield hold the key. If all disillusioned
Labour voters in Sedgefield vote for Keys, it could be enough
to overturn Blair's 17,000 majority. It's possible.
Incidentally,
the same strategy could apply to voters in Blackburn, who could
rid themselves of the egregious Jack Straw by voting for Craig
Murray, the former diplomat who exposed the government of Uzbekistan
for boiling dissidents alive.
Fleecing
Like
a fish, New Labour is rotting from the head down. Decapitation
strategy could be the best way to deal with a leadership having
more in common with the conglomerates and corporations fleecing
our public services with their lucrative PFI contracts than with
the hard-working teachers, doctors and nurses who provide photogenic
human shields for ministers at election time.
Just
imagine. If Reg Keys were to win, we could end up with a Labour
Government (as polls suggest we will), but no Blair. since Labour
has fought the election everwhelmingly on the economy, and Blair
has been fulsome in his praise for the Chancellor as the architect
of Britain's relative success, it's only fair that the man responsible
for that economic record should run the Government.
Opinion
polls suggest that is what the voters want. It's not what |blair
wants; he wants a third term so he can redeem his own political
reputation. But that's not what the office of Prime MInister should
be about.
And,
after all, didn't he assure Gordon Brown that he would step down
before this election anyway? Or was that just another throwaway
line that he absolutely, sincerely meant at the time, but has
since forgoteen?
So
do it , Sedgefield. Do it for Tom Keys (by voting for his father
Reg). Do it for David Kelly. Do it, as the man said, for a government
that will restore trust in politics in this country.
|
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.
