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
|
|
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
|
Hollow
words of a rattled Blair
Comment
- Daily Mail, April 23, 2005
Hypocrisy
doesn't sink much lower. From a Prime Minister who has desperately
tried to shut down debate on immigration and still presides over
a campaign of smears against Michael Howard's 'nastiness' for
daring to raise the issue at all, comes a breathtaking demonstration
of double standards/
Suddenly,
Tony Blair has discovered that - to use his own words - 'concern
over asylum and immigration is not about racism. It is about fairness'.
INDEED!
But
isn't that precisely the point the Tories have been making all
along? And haven't they been demonised for doing so, despite Mr
Howard's punctilliously non-inflammatory language?
Now
the Prime Minister steals the words and phrases he once so dishonestly
misrepresented. Not content with that, he shamelessly filches
policies Labour once rubbished as extreme and unworkable.
So
we apparently have a Damascene conversion: the Blair who embraces
an Australian-style points system for migrants; the Blair who
promises a strengthened border police, the Blair who will lock
up failed asylum seekers, the Blair who wants English language
tests.
Miraculous?
Yes indeed, if only he could be believed. But of course this isn't
a serious attempt to take a grip. When it is difficult to recall
a single occasion that he devoted an entire speech to immigration,
it has to be asked why he is doing it now.
The
answer is plain. He is badly rattled. The Tories have struck a
resounding chord on this issue. Voters know that under this Government,
Britain has lost control over its own borders. They see the system
as a demeaning shambles.
And
they bitterly resent the way Labour politicians use the 'racist'
smear to bully them out of debating what is happening in their
own land (even though many illegal migrants are white).
Mr
Blair's private polls will have told him all this. Along with
the issue of trust and the alarming increase in violent crime,
immigration reveals his Government at its weakest and worst.
So
now, as usual, he resorts to spin, smoke and mirrors to create
an illusion of competence. Now he has the effrontery to claim
things are improving with 'workable controls'. But examine the
reality behind his self-serving rhetoric.
The
Blair who boasts that he has taken immense trouble 'to see for
myself what has been happening' was reduced to wriggling incoherence
by Jeremy Paxman, when he couldn't give one straight answer on
the number of illegal immigrants here, despite being asked 20
times.
And
it isn't a question of clueless ignorance. He is well aware of
the scale of the problem but doesn't dare admit the truth. As
we now know from a leaked Home Office report, an independent analysis
estimates that up to 500,000 illegals have vanished into the ether
- and that isn't counting their dependents.
Why
should anyone be surprised? The appalling failings of the system
were exposed all too tragically by the case of the ricin terrorist
and police killer Kamel Bourgass, who was able to plot mass murder
in this country, untroubled by the authorities, even though his
asylum applications were turned down twice.
Now
this Government no longer requires immigrants to give details
of their criminal records. And still Blair boasts of success.
He massages the figures, pretends progress where none exists and
even lays claim to the moral high ground (this from the politician
who this week let slip that he sanctioned the naming of weapons
scientist Dr David Kelly - who later killed himself - when for
two years he has denied doing any such thing).
Some
morality. Some nerve. How sad that Mr Blair is once again undermining
public trust in politics and politicians.
The
REAL NASTY PARTY- How
Labour is the true home of spite, bigotry and contempt for the
public
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.
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.
