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
|
BOOZING
BRITAIN : ANOTHER COVER-UP
Blair
buries a report on how one million drunks a year besiege the Accident
& Emergency wards
By
Steve Doughty, Social Affairs Correspondent - Daily Mail, January
18, 2005
Downing
Street was accused yesterday of suppressing a second damning report
on the binge drinking culture. Tony Blair has been warned that
a million drunks a year already besiege casualty departments even
before the introduction of 24-hour drinking. The figures can only
get worse if the licensing laws are changed, says Professor Colin
Drummond, a leading expert on alcohol and addiction.
But
the Government, which commissioned his research, chose not to
make it public. In his report, Professor Drummond found that of
all patients in hospital A & E departments, four out of ten
are drunk - and after midnight the proportion rises to an overwhelming
seven out of ten. His analysis is the second piece of key information
apparently covered up because of the Government's determination
to liberalise the licensing laws.
Not
listening Comment
- Daily Mail, Jan 18, 2005
Another
day, another series of disturbing insights into the recklessly
ill-judged plans for 24-hour drinking.
We
now learn that No 10 has covered up another damning
report on this issue. Not content with suppressing expert
criticism of this 'reform', it has also failed to publish
details of the huge burden alcohol abuse is inflicting
on the NHS.
Meanwhile,
Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell,calls on pubs to foot the
bill for extra policing when 24-hour drinking is introduced,
an unwitting admission that changing the law will cause
mayhem.
The
public doesn't want this measure. Police don't want it.
The Royal College of Physicians and the BMA don't want
it. Former Home Secretary David Blunkett doesn't want
it. The Commons Home Affairs Committee has objections.
Doesn't
it begin to smell to high heaven that the Government still
won't listen.
************
Spare
beds for drunks - Letter to Daily Mail
- January 21, 2005 from Bryan Peters, St Ives, Cambs.
After
many months' wait, I was in hospital for an operation
and noticed that two beds in the ward were routinely kept
empty. When I asked about this, embarrassed staff explained
that they were kept for any drunks, etc., who might need
them.
During
my post-operation period, while sleeping off the anaesthetic,
I was woken to be told I was to be moved to the annex
so my bed could become one of these 'spares'. Fortunately,
I was sufficiently compos mentis to decline this
'invitation'. Another patient agreed to be moved, but
asked staff to contact his solicitor. Neither of us was
moved for the rest of my week there, but presumably some
other unfortunate was.
On
several nights, the two beds were used from about midnight,
mainly by people sleeping off the effects of drink before
being collected at about midday.
Will
the Government's proposed 24-hour drinking mean four beds
will be on standby in future.
|
Last
week the Daily Mail revealed that international evidence showing
how extending pub hours brings heavier drinking and more violence
and disorder was cut out of Downing Street's 'alcohol harm reduction
strategy'. Andrew McNeil, of the independent think tank, the Institute
of Alcohol Studies, said yesterday the report on the NHS had been
deliberately kept quiet. "The Government has certain requirements
and anything which does not say what it wants has been buried,"
he said.
The
new accusations against Downing Street come amid deepening trouble
for the Government over its law that will allow pubs and bars
to open around the clock by this autumn. A Daily Mail campaign
has revealed that a majority of police chiefs stand alongside
the huge weight of medical opinion in believing the change will
be disastrous. Even influential figures in the drinks industry
are turning against the liberalisation plans.
And
ministers are floundering. Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell yesterday
called for the drinks industry to contribute to the extra costs
of policing city centres that the new law will bring. This idea
was mooted and dropped only last week by other ministers, and
in any case runs counter to Government's insistence that longer
drinking hours will reduce violence and disorder.
The
Drummond investigation contributes powerful new evidence to show
the impact of drunken disorder. It was carried out for Tony Blair's
Strategy Unit and the Department of Health, supposedly to provide
information to guide the Government's alcohol harm reduction policies.
Researchers watched 34 A & E departments from 9 am on Saturday
to 9 am on Sunday during a June weekend in 2003. The majority
of patients were between 18 and 24 and most were involved in assaults
or fighting near licensed premises. Others had fallen over or
been run over while drunk. Comparatively few cases involved assaults
by drunks on sober and innocent bystanders.
Professor
Drummond warned that hospitals are likely to face worse problems
if the 24-hour drinking law go into effect. "The figures
cannot show the level of violence and intimidation suffered by
NHS staff and police," he said. "Many of the people
involved have been fighting, and some want to go on fighting when
they are in hospital. A very high proportion of those who arrive
at accident and emergency units under the influence of alcohol
do so by ambulance or escorted by police. All of this does mean
that people with non-alcohol-related problems which need emergency
attention are at a disadvantage," he added. "Staff in
A & E departments are at risk of violence. A typical case
might involve two drunk men brought in with injuries after fighting.
They wake up next to each other and immediately want to start
fighting again."
The
scale of alcohol-related incidents at the 34 A & E units suggests
that hospitals are dealing with a million drunks a year who need
emergency attention, said the professor. He declined to criticise
the Government's decision not to make the research public, saying:
"They have taken it into account, and they have not stopped
me from publishing it."
The
report is to appear in a medical journal in the near future. Mr
McNeil of the Institute of Alcohol Studies said: "A very
careful selection of material was made before the harm reduction
strategy was published last year. The dossier was
very definitely sexed down. There were reports provided
for Downing Street which didn't fit the picture they wanted to
put out. This report on A & E departments was clearly left
unpublished because it said the wrong things."
Jonathan
Fox, of the Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel, said:
"The Government have a tendency to ignore findings they do
not agree with. We are apolitical and we have no axe to grind
but I have to say this is a very relevant piece of information
that has been excluded from the debate. It contradicts Government's
line. We have grave concerns that the introduction of 24-hour
drinking will affect the capacity of the ambulance service to
deal with serious emergency calls. We believe the changes should
be put on hold."
Downing Street said last night : "The findings
of this report were fed into the alcohol harm reduction strategy
that was published last year. It was never intended that this
report should be published. Many papers from lots and lots of
scientists were received by the Strategy Unit and they were not
published."
In
another blow to the Government's plans, the powerful Commons Home
Affairs Committee is to raise a string of doubts about the controversial
licensing reforms. Today it is expected to hear criticisms from
the Association of Chief Police Officers and the charity Crime
Concern.
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.
