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
|
Exposing
Labour's moral vacuum
Comment
- Daily Mail, December 1, 2004
No
political leader has flaunted his moral superiority more than
Tony Blair. In opposition he harried the Tories over sleaze -
both real and imagined. In Downing street he said New Labour would
be 'purer than pure' and that his ministers would 'uphold the
highest standards in public life'.
Thus
did the British people welcome him as a man who might make a great
change. Seven years on, however, we all know the chasm between
rhetoric and reality. In office, Mr Blair has been dogged by real
sleaze .... Bernie Ecclestone ... Peter Mandelson ... (twice)
...the Hindujas ... Mittal ... Cheriegate ... we could go on.
As
for his claim to be a 'straight kind of guy', this is the man
who appointed as his press spokesman Alastair Campbell - the Liar-in-Chief
who did so much to poison politics and undermine trust in public
life. New Labour ruthlessly set about destroying all those in
its way, from Dr David Kelly to Pam Warren, the Paddington crash
survivor who campaigned on behalf of other victims, to Rose Addis,
who was smeared as a racist when her family dared to complain
about NHS standards.
And
now we see the real character of a Prime Minister who has abandoned
any pretence of moral leadership. Asked about David Blunkett's
affair with Kimberly Quinn, he said he was only concerned with
the performance of public duty, insisting Ministers are 'entitled
to private lives the same as anyone else'.
That
argument is unsustainable. For, in the very week the Queen was
telling Parliament about a legislative programme packed with his
department's bills, Mr Blunkett's mind must have been diverted
by his efforts to secure the DNA test that would determine if
he was the father of his mistress's son.
Whatever
the rights and wrongs of their behaviour, the Home Secretary's
ability to do his job is affected by his private life. And, anyway,
Mr Blair's distinction is also ethically wrong. For how can he
say his Ministers need no moral compass to lead their lives, while
presiding over a government which only last week claimed the right
to meddle in the way parents bring up their children.
But
isn't Mr Blair's aim to distract attention from the real issues
facing his Home Secretary - a strategy which was unfortunately
undermined last night by the revelation that his mistress's nanny
was granted residency in just 19 days after being told it would
take at least nine months.
Mr
Blunkett has always denied the allegations by Mrs Qunn that he
pressured officials to fast-track the application. The new evidence,
which on the face of it raises questions about Mr Blunkett's version
of events and his admission that he was wrong to give a rail card
intended for MP's spouses to Mrs Quinn (someone else's spouse),
makes the case for limiting Sir Alan Budd's investigation to the
visa issue totally unsustainable. For in doing so it excludes
perhaps the most potentially damaging accusation of all - that
civil servants were dispatched to a firm of divorce lawyers to
press Mrs Quinn into issuing a statement saying her marriage was
over.
But
hasn't New Labour always dealt cynically with uncomfortable questions
about its own behaviour? By choosing a 'safe' chairman and defining
the terms of any inquiry so narrowly, it invariably gets the answer
it wants. This time, however, the plan is not working.
Yesterday
Sir Alastair Graham, the chairman of the Committee on Standards
in Public Life, criticised the decision to allow the Home Office
to hand-pick the inquiry chairman rather than having a genuinely
independent appointment and upbraided Mr Blair for seeming to
pre-empt the result of the inquiry by declaring he was sure Mr
Blunkett would be exonerated.
The
documents obtained by The Mail make that seem less than certain.
Mr Blunkett resigned on December
15, 2004
Please
click one of the links above to cast your vote
|
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.
