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
|
I
won't rest until Blair is punished
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.
More
lies, and more reasons to vote Blair out
Commentary
by Reg Keys - who is fighting the PM at the ballot box
Daily
Mail - April 25, 2005
Tony
Blair's elaborate web of deception over the Iraq war is rapidly
untangling. It is now becoming ever more clear that his decision
to take this country into military conflict was not only politically
misguided but legally unfounded. And his subsequent attempts to
justify his actions have increasingly smacked of desperation and
duplicity.
Principles
amid a fog of fudge
By
Peter McKay - Daily Mail, April 25, 2005
Retired
ambulance driver Reg Keys is contesting the PM's constituency,
Sedgefield, Co. Durham. He believes Tony Blair lied about
the reasons for going to war in Iraq and is fighting him
on behalf of his dead son, Tom, who was killed there.
Former
broadcaster, Martin Bell, who fought a single-issue campaign
himself against Tory sleaze - and won - says Mr Keys is
a 'plain-spoken, ordinary, decent man who says what he
means and means what he says ..."
He thinks the Key's campaign 'has a buzz about it'.
Maybe,
maybe not. The last PM to lose his Parliamentary seat
was Labour's Ramsey MacDonald in 1935. That too was a
Co. Durham constituency, Seaham. MacDonald at that time
headed a predominantly Tory 'National' government.
So
it would be interesting if Mr Blair lost his seat over
Iraq - or had his majority reduced humiliatingly - because
he made common cause with the Tories. Their leaders Iain
Duncan-Smith, and later Michael Howard, backed the U.S-led
invasion. It was clear almost from day one that we were
led astray by Labour and the Tories.
There
were no weapons of mass destruction, far less ones which
could be fired at us in 45 minutes. The only evidence
of their existence was concocted by the security services
at the behest of Tony Blair.
Neither
America nor ourselves had a legal right to invade Iraq;
that was plain from the beginning, too. Saddam Hussein's
wrongdoing, which we'd been prepared to over-look, or
even assist, in the past, didn't give us that right.
Attorney
General Lord Goldsmith warned them this was so - although,
for party reasons, he appears to have rowed back on his
advice. The Government's response to yester-day's leaking
of his warnings - 'The Attorney General has always stressed
that the war was legal and that he arrived at that judgment
independently' - is, like their previous statements, the
work of proven lawyers.
Blair
voters in Sedgefield know all this, of course, but they'll
weigh the PM's crimes in Iraq, and Mr Keys' sorrow about
the death of his son, against their tribal loyalty to
New Labour. Voting for Mr Keys isn't going to bring back
his son, they might say. It's time to move on. Usual excuses
His
campaign, though, is a single light of principle in a
fog of fudge. All the other claims and counterclaims made
by the major parties are as nothing compared to this.
Taking your country to war on the basis
of lies - and persisting with the untruths - is surely
a form or treason.
Mr
Keys would have been heartbroken by the death of his son
even if the war had been a just one, of course. But having
your son die on the basis of what you see as shabby lies
must make it harder to bear.
Time
and again in recent months, Mr Blair has said that he
understands those who oppose him over Iraq. He always
adds, though, that he would do the same again on the same
evidence. In other words, he acted in good faith. He
won't, he cannot concede that he fiddled the evidence.
He
is a former lawyer. He speaks and thinks like a lawyer.
He has a case and he's sticking to it. It's up to us to
prove otherwise. And that's difficult because, as Prime
Minister, he controls the information.
It
seems as if he has got away with it. We are bored with
the subject. Iraq, it seems, won't be a deciding issue
in this General Election when it ought to be the only
one. If New
Labour loyalists in Sedgefield believe he knowingly took
us to war on the basis of lies, they ought to vote against
him and for Mr Keys.
Mr
Blair could lose his seat, and his job, while his party
wins the election. Wouldn't that be a fitting outcome,
proving that our system of Parliamentary government is
sound by punishing those at the top with power to take
such grave decisions while failing to reward those - the
Tories - who went along with the deceit in question.
|
The
Prime Minister always insisted that the written advice of Attorney
General, Lord Goldsmith, provided legal backing for the war. But
despite persistent requests to make public this advice, in full,
Mr Blair has refused to do so. The suspicion remained that he
had something to hide. And so it has now proved, with the leak
yesterday of the Attorney General's first memorandum on the legality
of the conflict.
The
very fact that Mr Blair was willing to deceive not only the British
public but even his political colleagues highlights the depths
which he has plumbed in his enthusiasm for Bush's attack on Iraq.
But then everything about this grim saga has smacked of lies and
deceit.
Indeed,
the entire justification for invasion was built on a glaring lie:
that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction which could be launched
within 45 minutes of the order being given.
Soldier's
lives should not be sacrificed for the sake of propaganda. But
that is what happened - as I know to my bitter cost. My 20-year-old
son, Tom, a Royal Military Policeman, was killed by a 400-strong
mob while serving in Iraq two years ago in the aftermath of the
Allies' so-called victory.
In
my determination to expose Mr Blair's lies and hold him to account
for his actions, I am standing against him as independent candidate
in his Sedgefield constituency.
As
I continue my campaign in the North East, people sometimes say
to me that I should accept the risks attached to military life.
After all, they argue, my son knew he was putting his life on
the line when he signed up for the Army. Now, I never tried to
avoid the fact that my beloved son might be killed in action -
indeed, in full knowledge of the dangers I contersigned the document
giving my parental approval to his joining up because he was under
18 at the time of his recruitment. If he had been killed defending
his country, I would have accepted it.
But
what I cannot accept is the way my son was sacrificed as a political
pawn. He was slaughtered on the altar of Blair's political expediency.
He gave his life, not for the honour of his people, but for the
shabby dishonesty of a dissembling Prime Minister. Because he
died for a dirty lie, I owe it to his memory to fight for the
truth about the war.
Already
my campaign in Sedgefield is yielding results in forcing Blair
on to the defensive. On the doorstep, I am finding a huge amount
of disillusion with the Prime Minister over his tactics of spin
and deception. Many die-hard Labour supporters feel that Blair
had brought their party into disrepute. On the advice of a lawyer,
I have also launched an official complaint with the Bar Council,
the regulatory body for barristers, against the behaviour of Lord
Goldsmith, whose behaviour over the whole legality of the war
may be in breach of the Council's code of conduct.
The
three grounds on which he may have acted improperly include: behaviour
likely to undermine confidence in the legal profession; compromising
his integriy and independence; and compromising his professional
standards in order to please his clients (in this case, Mr Blair).
After
initial hesitation, the Bar Council has agreed that my complaints
are worthy of investigation. Its professional committee is consulting
a constitutional lawyer about the Attorney General's position.
To me, it has always been blindingly obvious that the war was
illegal. All the soft words and convoluted phrases used by Blair
amount to nothing but sophistry.
There
was no UN backing for the conflict; in fact Kofi Annan, the UN
Secretary-General, said the invasion was in breach of all statutes.
Moreover, it is illegal to launch a pre-emptive strike against
a country which does not represent a direct threat, which Iraq
never was to Britain or America.
Some
might argue that these are nothing more than legal niceties; that
the crucial point is that Saddam has been toppled and the Iraqi
people freed. But that is not the basis on which we went to war
or why my son died. We fought because of Saddam's supposed arsenal
of weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be non-existant.
In 2003, Blair explicitly ruled ot regime change as a justification
for action.
Yet
now, as his edifice of lies collapses, he is falling back on that
excuse. Well, it will not wash - and the leak of the Atorney General's
advice further exposes his dishonesty. I have always been a patriotic
man. I revere and love my country. But that is why I cannot stand
aside and see it being so cruelly misled by the Prime Minister.
Soldiers
give their loyalty to their country, not to their political government.
If ministers betray that loyalty, they have to pay the cost.
|
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.
