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
|
A
man who is becoming the past
This
election represents the onset of a divorce between Blair and the
British people, writes Max Hastings in the Daily Mail - May 7,
2005
This
was an election that represented the onset of divorce proceedings
between a Prime Minister and the British people. Outside the court
there were the usual strained faces, dark-suited figures clutching
their files. One party, Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, was seeking
to put a brave face on humiliation. The other, a majority of this
country's voters, laid bare their bitterness at the ballot box.
Many
months of wrangling lie ahead about custody and access but the
outcome is plain. Blair will quit the premiership, because he
is no longer liked or trusted by a large part of the electorate.
Many who voted Labour on Thursday did so despite the party's leader
The result offers a banquet of speculation about the future of
British politics. But its one clear message is that Blair is a
spent force.
Who
can doubt that, if Gordon Brown had been Labour's standard-bearer,
the party would have gained an extra 15 or 20 seats? I
suggested here last week that Blair had become his party's
principal liability. So it has proved. He can never again wield
from Downing Street the personal authority which he had come to
treat as his birthright.
I
was too pessimistic about the inertia of British voters. Some
may have acted erratically, even perversely; but significantly
more people roused themselves to go to the polls than in 2001.
This was great news for us all. No one can doubt that eagerness
to punish Blair over his Iraq falsehoods spurred millions of people
to take a stand. Election night may have generated some oddball
results and strange local victories, but a common strand was rejection
of the prime Minister, if not yet of his party.
No
reasonable person could welcome George Galloway's triumphalism
after victory over Blairite Oona King in Bethnal Green, on an
anti-war ticket targeting muslim voters. But Labour's lost seats
in Scotland and Wales significd a trend which must frighten party
leadership. Scotland and Wales are their vital powerbases. In
the former, hostility to the Iraq war cost Labour a lot of votes.
After
1997 and 2001, the opposition parties seemed to command only islands
in a Labour ocean. Today, once more, the political map of Britain
is a patchwork of blue, red and gold. It would be premature to
say that democracy in Britain is back in business. But this election
gives it a chance.
It
is essential to be realistic, of course, and acknowledge that
labour has been returned to office with a majority which, in earlier
political times, would have been regarded as substantial. Tories
ran Britain after three election victories in 1951, 1955 and 1959
which gave them majorities of 17, 58 and 109 respectively. Ted
Heath gained power in 1970 with a majority of 30. Margaret Thatcher's
first majority in 1979 was 43.
But
it counts for much to have broken the spell of Blair, to have
exposed the fact that he is not invincible.
Labour's
front-benches have recited repeatedly over the past 24 hours:
"We have a mandate." But it is a mandate based on the
smallest share of popular vote gained by a ruling party in British
electoral history. Save for the monstrous unfairness of many constituency
boundaries, to which the Tories so rashly acquiesced in their
glory days, Labour would be lucky now to retain power.
Meanwhile,
Charles Kennedy's followers are the only ones celebrating without
much inhibition. The LibDems hold more seats than any third party
in Britain since the Twenties. But now the challenge for Kennedy's
people in the years ahead is to show whether they can make the
transition from serving as a refugee centre for disgruntled Labour
and Tory voters, to becoming a party fit to share in government.
The
omens are not auspicious. Iraq and Iraq alone, gave LibDems vital
momentum on Thursday.
It
is hard to believe that anything like as many voters will again
support a party of the Left which is committed without reservation
to Europe, higher taxes and higher public spending, if there seems
a chance of those policies ever being put into practice, even
as part of a Lib-Lab coalition.
And
so to the Tories. Michael Howard said early yesterday morning
that his party had begun its advance back towards government.
Yet hours later, he announced his decision to stand down as Conservative
leader. Before polling day, senior conservatives said privately
that they needed to win 209 seats to declare a respectable result.
This was the number held by Michael Foot's party after the 1983
election, the it floor of Old Labour's fortunes.
As
it is, Howard's candidates fell several short of this figure.
The party now possesses just under 200 MPs. This restores to them
a real voice in British politics, brings new blood into their
ranks and keeps alive the chance of a Tory election victory in
2009.
But
the Conservatives set out to fight this election against a Prime
Minister grievously damaged by breaches of public trust. They
still proved unable to lift their share of the vote about its
2001 figure.
However,
the most alarming statistic, from a Conservative viewpoint, is
that some 65% of those who voted supported more or less Left-wing
parties - for, of course, LibDems, Nationalists, Independents
are all left of Labour. Significantly, less than one-third of
MPs in the new House of commons will be Conservatives. The Tories
can never regain political power in Britain merely by mobilising
their core vote. They must capture the allegiance of millions
of people in the middle ground, who this time spurned them in
favour of the LibDems.
Michael
Howard plainly decided that yesterday's result could not be interpreted
as a personal vindication, and thus announced that he would quit.
This is a very great pity. Howard is a better and nicer man than
his foes, and even some of his supporters, give him credit for.
The election outcome was not a Tory success, but neither was it
an absolute humiliation.
It
would have rendered immense service to his party is Howard had
stayed to hold the tiller steady for a season, while his followers
considered the future. In 2001, in similar circumstances after
William Hague resigned, the Tories made the disastrous decision
to surrender their fortunes to Iain Duncan Smith.
This
time, it is vital for the Conservative's survival that they should
choose the right successor o win for them in 2009 or 2010. Another
blunder could be fatal. Several possible runners for the leadership
are still quite untested in the front rank of politics. Others
properly belong to a freak show. It is something close to a tragedy
that the Tories will have to choose a new leader within months,
while still shocked by relegation to another term in the wilderness.
No
opposition leader could have toppled a ruling government at this
election, when the economy has fared so well, and the nation has
been basking in prosperity. These circumstances may well be about
to change. No decent person could wish to see the economy falter,
but there are many signs to suggest that it will do so.
Gordon
Brown's fantastic luck, as well as skill may be running out. Probably
as Prime Minister rather than Chancellor, he will face massive
problems in funding public spending and sustaining growth. Chillly
winds are stirring across the world, which are likely to blow
painfully through many households in this country before we are
much older.
It
is unlikely that by the next General Election, the British will
feel the same material contentment they have experienced in years
past. Then will come a true Tory window of opportunity, if the
party is in a fit state to exploit it.
The
Tories have learned from this third election defeat that exploiting
popular grievances is not enough to gain power. The issues of
crime, asylum-seekers, stamp duty on housing and university top-up
fees were insufficient to win the backing of uncommitted voters.
It
wasn't so much that Howard's people got these things wrong, as
that they seemed not to have one big thing. Norman Tebbit said
yesterday about the Conservative campaign: "There were lots
of bits, but I couldn't see a cohesive whole." The party
offered no convincing alternative vision of Britain's future,
wrapped in the sort of inspirational rhetoric of which Tony Blair
proved himself a master in 1997 and 2001.
For
the future, the Conservatives must show themselves to be a party
of 21st-century Britain, not of nostalgia for the Britain of Margaret
thatcher. It is most unlikely that, in the absence of a national
catastrophe, the British people will again elect to power a visibly
right-wing party.
The
task for the Tories now is to carve an identity to which modern
Britain can respond, and then use it to save us from a Labour
elective dictatorship in 2009. A succession of sobered Labour
voices has been saying since Thursday night that henceforward,
we shall be governed in a new 'listening', 'responsive', fashion.
Heaven knows what that means. Will business regulation diminish?
Or border controls tighten, schools be empowered to exercise discipline,
the euro dropped from the agenda, the Armed forces properly funded,
the countryside treated with respect, local government once more
enabled to make choices for local communities?
It
will be very hard for Blair's people to break the habits of eight
years. Once the shock of losing their huge, abnormal parliamentary
majority fades, it is not unduly cynical to fear that the familiar
authoritarianism of Blair's ruling class will reassert itself.
Labour MPs will say to each other: "What are we frightened
of? Tories are still few, we are many. And of course, we know
that we are right."
Yet
for one man, old certainties cannot return. Tony Blair loves to
be loved. Now he knows that he is loved no more. Tools of power
still lie around him in Downing Street, with deferential courtiers,
an army of loyal aides, the chauffeurs and helicopters and tennis
court at Chequers. But he must perceive that the eyes of his own
party, never mind those of the country, are today fixed on Gordon
Brown who, for better or worse, is the future. They are no longer
on him, who is becoming the past.
If
he has any self-knowledge, he must realise that Iraq will be written
on his heart in his political grave, as surely as Mary Tudor believed
that Calais was written on hers, almost four centureies ago.
It
is ironic that Labour's first achievement of a third term of power
signals not an oppportunity for the victor to celebrate, but instead
an orgy of pitiliess speculation about how long he can survive.
|
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.
