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
|
David
Blunkett resigned on December 15, 2004
Politics,
a private life and the public right to know
By
Stephen Glover - Daily Mail, November 30, 2004
|
As
Education Secretary in July 2000, David Blunkett issued
guide-lines to schools on Personal, Social and Health Education
that stated:
"Within
the context of talking about relation-ships, children should
be taught about the nature of marriage and its importance
for family life and for the upbringing of children."
As
a result of statements like this, Mr Blunkett has, been
privately and widely accused of rank hypocrisy.
Read
Libby Purves
|
Home
Secretary David Blunkett was treated gently in the Commons
on Monday after torrid weekend coverage of he and ex-mistress
Kimberly Quinn. How unlike the scene there in 1993 after
it emerged that then Tory Health Secretary, Viginia Bottomley,
had been a pregnant 19-year-old before marrying childhood
sweet-heart, Peter Bottomley, the baby's father.
This
wasn't much of a scandal. Yet Mr Blunkett prefaced a Commons
question to her about family planning with the sarcastic
sords: "Given the Secretary of State's special understanding
of the feelings and emotions of unmarried mothers ....
"
Mrs
Bottomsly said she was 'a little surprised by the Rt Hon.
Gentleman's approach' before congratulating him graciously
for his work on family matters.
Ephraim Hardcastle December 1, 2004
|
David Blunkett is fighting to keep his job as
Home Secretary. The BBC and the Press have suddenly become obsessed
with his survival. Could he be forced to resign? The media are
concerned with little else. And yet the same media were last week
barely interested in the saga of Mr Blunkett and his former lover,
Kimberly Quinn. They could not summon up a flicker of interest
as to whether Mr Blunkett was the father of Mrs Quinn's young
son and of the baby whom she is expecting in January. The
BBC was clear that Mr Blunkett's love life was absolutely his
own affair. It was left to this newspaper, with the intermittent
support of one or two others, to plough a lonely furrow.
Now everything has suddenly changed. 'Friends'
of Mrs Quinn - possibly Mrs Quinn herself - have made damaging
allegations to the Sunday Telegraph. Of these, the most serious
is the suggestion Mr Blunkett helped Mrs Quinn obtain a visa for
her Filipino nanny to allow her to stay in Britain indefinitely.
If this is true, Mr Blunkett would be guilty of having abused
his powers.
Improperly
The
first point is that had one or two newspapers not shown an interest
in the bitter accusations being swopped between Mr Blunkett and
Mrs Quinn, we would never have heard the allegations of wrong-doing.
Of course, they may be wholly untrue. But if Mr Blunkett has behaved
improperly, we can safely say that we will only know because some
news-papers have thought it permissible to take an interest in
his private life.
There
is a great gulf in thinking here. The BBC and much of the media
now take the position that what a politician does in his or her
private life is not the business of the rest of us, so long as
it is legal. On the face of it this seems a reasonable proposition.
Politicians are obviously entitled to some privacy. They must
have some protection against the prurient interest of newspapers
with an eye for a salacious story.
But
the idea that a politician's private life is no business at all
of the media is equally mistaken. It rests on a false premise
- that the private and public self are two disconnected halves
with little or nothing to do with each other. This is untrue.
No one can build a wall between his public and his private self.
Private experience may influence public action. Because we live
in a democracy, we have an interest in knowing if it has.
When
Mr Blunkett's three-year-old affair with Mrs Quinn, a married
woman, became known several months ago, most people were inclined
to take a tolerant attitude. No newspaper called for his resignation.
The general feeling was that, although in an ideal world it would
be better if home secretaries did not have affairs with married
women, Mr Blunkett had done nothing that called into question
his fitness to be a senior minister.
The
plot thickened, not because any section of the media wanted his
scalp, but as a result of Mr Blunkett's own actions. He was, and
is, anxious to establish his paternity of Mrs Quinn's son and
her unborn baby through DNA tests. Some people will think this
attempt misguided since it is very likely to bring distress to
Mrs Quinn and her family. Others will say that a man has the right
to know whether he is the father of a child - as well as the duty
to provide for it if paternity is established.
We
should not rush into judgment on this point. But a picture of
an obsessive Mr Blunkett does emerge- as does a rather unfeeling
Mrs Quinn who, only months after their affair has ended, resists
any attempt by Mr Blunkett to establish his rights in respect
of those who may be his children, and then sets about blackening
his name in the Press.
Infatuation
Unpleasant
though this may be, it is useless to pretend that Mrs Quinn's
allegations do not raise questions about Mr Blunkett's judgment.
I repeat that the allegations may be baseless. But if they are
true, they show a Home secretary who has thrown caution to the
wind in the course of his infatuation, and broken several minor
rules and - if he did intervene over the visa - one major rule,
all of which would call his judgment into question.
Here
is a minister responsible for some of the most draconian legislation
this country has ever seen. Most people are probably inclined
to accept these authoritarian measures - the new ID card unveiled
yesterday by Mr Blunkett is only the latest example - on the basis
that they trust his assessment of the threat posed by terrorism.
My own willingness to trust him is undermined by the picture of
a lovelorn Home Secretary bending rules in Mrs Quinn's favour,
as well as the way in which he has attempted to establish, without,
it seems, much consideration for their welfare, that he is the
father of her children.
Sir
Alan Budd has been appointed to investigate the charges that Mr
Blunkett has abused his position. If he exonerates the Home Secretary,
Mrs Quinn and her loquacious 'friends' will have some explaining
to do. Even so, will Sir Alan be able to dispel doubts surrounding
Mr Blunkett's judgment?
Effrontery
Whatever
happens, I hope that journalists who unthinkingly repeat the mantra
that a politician's private life is absolutely his own business
will think again. Sexuality is only a part of what may interest
us. It would be absurd to say that Mr Blunkett's blindness has
not helped to form his character. Are we not justified in trying
to work out how it may have affected him? I want to know as much
as possible about the foibles, hobbies and preferences of our
leading politicians since they may well have some bearing on the
laws which they pass, and the things they make us do.
Those
who mourn the past, when deferential newspapers did not have the
effrontery to pry, or cite the example of France, where thanks
to a draconian privacy law they still do not, are in effect saying
that we should not delve into the motives and interests of politicians
who seek to rule us. If they had their way, we would have no knowledge
of the allegations against Mr Blunkett, or the disquieting issues
which they raise.
Let
him take Mrs Quinn as his lover. That is not a cause for resignation.
It is the actions resulting from this obsessive (on his part)
love affair that may be. Whatever Mr Blunkett got up to with Mrs
Quinn is not our business. But the Home Secretary's judgment and
possible misdemeanors are very much our business, and we only
know about them because we have been told about this affair.
David
Blunkett resigned on December 15, 2004
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.
