Rescuing
Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected
Dictatorship
|
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
|
Don't grow
old in Blair's Britain
Comment
- Daily Mail , October 13, 2004
Time
was when Britons worked all their lives, paid taxes and National
Insurance and looked forward to a comfortable old age, financed
by a pension they felt they had earned through those fiscal contributions.
Not an unreasonable expectation, you might say.
Forget
it. Now, it seems, we must work until we drop. Or pay even more
tax. Or retire on a pittance. So, welcome to the great pensions
con trick.
Put
to one side the fact that people are working harder than ever,
that most families now need both parents to work just to survive
and that tax is at an all-time high. This pensions problem, we
are told, is ours to solve and - you've guessed it - has nothing
to do with Britain's politicians (who all have gilt-edged inflation-proofed
pensions guaranteed for their old age).
Time
was when windbagging Neil Kinnock could warn voters not to grow
old if the Tories (whose record on pensions is far from blameless)
were re-elected. But who would be a pensioner in Blair's Britain?
Yesterday's
report from Adair Turner sums up the sickness in a once healthy
system: a £57billion annual pensions black hole ...12 million
not saving enough ... company schemes closing by the day .. the
case for urgent action is compelling. But don't hold your breath.
This Government has already produced a slew of reports on this
fiasco, but done precious little about it. Inevitably (and cynically)
there is no chance of reform until the election is out of the
way, because Turner's solutions are so unpalatable.
That
we, a civilised society in the 21st century, should even contemplate
putting up the retirement age is deeply offensive. Do people,
after working all their lives and paying nearly all their income
to the state, not have the right to a few years of dignified retirement?
How little we seem to have learned in the 100 years since socialist
dreamers first talked of a decent retirement for all workers.
It
may not be Government's fault that Britain is ageing. But in the
way it has handled this issue - right from the beginning when
its own actuaries ludicrously failed to spot that the population
was growing older - its every decision has turned a problem into
a crisis.
Take
the miserably inadequate state pension, which so often has to
be topped up by Gordon Brown's means-tested pensions credits.
The result is an expensive, bureaucratic nightmare. Worse, it
penalises those who save and rewards the feckless. Put bluntly,
those on less than £30,000 a year would be mad to set money
aside for old age, because they would be better off dependent
on the state.
No
wonder savings have all but collapsed. Meanwhile, Mr Brown's £5billion-a-year
raid on dividends in the private pension industry undermines a
system that was once the best-funded in Europe. Now our stock
market under-performs other G7 nations, because our sickly pensions
providers can't afford to invest in shares, which continue to
languish (placing further strain on the pensions industry). A
vicious circle indeed.
What
now? How can people afford to save for old age, when so much money
is wasted on the kind of rampant welfarism visible in the 120-page
public jobs supplement in every Wednesday's Guardian
Yes,
there may be a case for compulsory pensions savings - but only
if accompanied by real tax breaks. And only if any such scheme
is protected from politicians. One thing is certain. We are simply
not getting value for money from this crazy welfare carousel.
And the more we are taxed to pay for it, the less we are able
to provide for our families or ourselves.
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.
