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
|
We
knew he was lying, but did he?
Andrew
Alexander - Daily Mail, May 6, 2005
From
a psychological point of view, Tony Blair has been easily the
most interesting party leader to watch. The
rest of us knew that he lied about Iraq. But the question troubling
me by the end of the contest was whether he
knew. The problem is not the facts in the case, but
the perception.
It
struck me increasingly as evidence unfolded that the most useful
comparison was not Pinocchio, but Jeffrey Archer. Of course, Archer
has told many lies in his time. But there is little doubt that
he also came to believe, among other things, those fibs he regularly
told in his CV.
Likewise,
Blair seemed also to have become a fantasist, recollecting motives
he never had, air-brushing out those he did have and wiping out
facts which were inconvenient. A very interesting study, in short.
However, we should not be too surprised. It is an important fact
of life that politicians regularly become the prisoners of their
own propaganda (though Blair and Iraq seems an extreme case).
They are like salesmen, who convince themselves that their product
is all that they say about it. The political problem is not new.
A
book reviewer in the FT magazine recently unearthed this wonderful
line from an Austrian in 1909, writing of how the world was ruled.
Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they
read. For diplomats read politicians and the case is nicely made.
We can easily enough enlarge the picture of self-deception beyond
Blair, but that would require a book, not an article. However,
the rule is simple: the most baleful effect of propaganda is on
the propagandists.
How
this election will come to be viewed by historians must be a matter
of speculation. But their conclusions are very likely to be wrong
because historians like the grand view and the big issue. They
assure us that elections over the past century or more were 'about'
this or that great matter: curbing the power of the House of Lords,
free trade, inflation, Europe, taxation, and all the rest.
It
is a pity historians so rarely get down to the mundane business
of canvassing. Then they would find that voters have their own
very personal and homely concerns which will regularly swamp the
supposed big issue. Politicians say they are going to the country
about a particular grave topic, but a host of lesser irritants
and wishes will commonly decide the outcome.
Ted
Heath claimed that the 1974 election would be about 'who rules
the country' - Parliament or the National Union of Mineworkers
(then involved in a monster strike threatening the whole economy).
He
lost. It was not because the voters had any patience with the
NUM, but because they had a host of grumbles about other matters
which swayed their decision. The inability to impose a particular
political agenda on an electorate is a lesson so often learnt
the hard way.
An
eccentric example of how even politicians delude themselves about
their own past elections was provided recently by Baroness (Shirley)
Williams who commented that the 1959 election had been about Hola
Camp.
For
younger readers I should explain that Hola Camp was in Kenya,
where warders had beaten 11 Mau Mau terrorists to death and a
huge effort had been made to hush it up. It was the occasion,
incidentally, when Enoch Powell launched a harsh attack on the
Macmillan administration for failing to treat the event as a straightforward
crime. Having already resigned from the Treasury on the issue
of rising government spending (he was right on that, to) this
confirmed his reputation as a tiresome maverick.
Shirley
Williams and her friends may have talked of little else but Hola
in the election. On the doorstep it did not resonate. The Tories
then swept to victory because voters, to use Macmillan's phrase,
had 'never had it so good'.
The
price for insulting the intelligence of voters - a hard-fought-for
award - should probably go to Chancellor Gordon Brown for his
speech pointing out that all sorts of individual Tory candidates
were demanding higher spending: we must keep open the local hospital,
we must fight for the bypass, etc. In short, the usual stuff from
candidates of all parties.
Clearly,
argued Brown, a Tory government's spending would run out of control
(footling as the sums he mentioned were). To his credit, he spoke
with a certain air of unease. Perhaps he was conscious of how
he was insulting our intelligence. One can only wonder who put
him up to this ridiculous exercise.
On
the other hand, there was a high point when trade and Industry
Secretary Patricia Hewitt spoke up for entrepreneurs who went
bust. It may take two or three tries before someone hits success,
she said. Bankruptcy should be understood, not seen as an automatic
disgrace.
I
remember Sir Keith Joseph, as shadow Trade and Industry Secretary,
declaring in the Commons in 1975:"We need more millionaires
and more bankrupts." Labour howled with derision and many
Tories looked very uncomfortable - what on earth would the mad
monk say next?
At
least we have become more mature since then.
|
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.
