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 17/2/05
|
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
|
Ms
Jowell even suggests that, as long as a digital film of a building
exists, then bring in the bulldozers
A
word from Editor Martin Townsend, Sunday Express, March 27, 2005
There
was a fascinating TV programme, aired a few weeks back, in which
various teenage members of an east London football team, most
of whom were of mixed race, were asked what nationality they considered
themselves to be.
Nearly
all replied 'British' or 'part-British', but one or two said 'English'
and were adamant about their choice. 'I have nothing against the
Welsh or Scots or Irish,' said one black lad, 'but I don't live
in those places. I live in England, so I am English.' None of
the boys on this programme was what a casual observer might call
'posh', and since I am not posh myself, I think that I'm more
than qualified to judge.
Yet
Tony Blair's Government continues to associate the 'English' and
'Englishness' - words its MPs can barely express without a flinch
of disgust - with the posh middle and upper classes. Its idea
of the 'English' has barely moved beyond the flannels-and-cricket
cliches of P.G. Wodehouse.
For
Labour, the 'English' are that lot who support the monarch, the
House of Lords and an independent judiciary, attend church every
Sunday in their best clothes, believe in the sanctity of marriage
and try to bring up their children to recognise the difference
between right and wrong.
What
a weird lot, eh? They even enjoy spending a nice Easter Sunday
like today nosing around country homes and gardens. It's no surprise
to me, therefore, that an organisation with 'English' in its name,
which looks after many of those big posh hoses we all like to
visit, should become a Labour target.
English
Heritage, a Government-funded body set up in 1984 under Mrs Thatcher's
government, takes care of 411 properties nationwide, including
Stonehenge and Dover Castle. This is less than half the 900-odd
sites managed by the National Trust, which is an independent charity.
Culture
secretary Tessa Jowell has already denied a recent newspaper report
that she plans to get rid of English Heritage, but there is no
doubt she has it in her sights. There may be some financial argument
in amalgamating the National Trust and English Heritage into one
body, though English Heritage doesn't think so; it points out
that the NT will need to take millions out of the public purse
to fund the extra work.
This
is not at the heart of Jowell's thinking, though. Her real gripe,
and this will outrage both organisations, is that the heritage
world is 'too middle class' and puts too much emphasis on grand
houses. She has set out this argument in an extraordinary and,
I believe, quite shocking 29-page pamphlet published this week.
Her
basic premise is that it's not for experts or the 'elite' to decide
what buildings we preserve, it's for the 'community' - and that
heritage is not really about old buildings anyway, it's about
all of us being happy where we live. It's mostly Blairite tosh
and driven not just by socialist hatred of the 'elite', the upper
classes and those who think themselves English, but by Labour's
determination to ride roughshod over questions of heritage and
demolish old houses to make way for new homes.
This
links directly to the row John Prescott had with English Heritage
earlier in the year over his plan to demolish thousands of Victorian
homes in northern England. Even the title of Ms Jowell's pamphlet
- Better Places to Live - gives the game away. So determined is
Labour to bulldoze what most of us think of as our heritage and
make way for Mr Prescott's rabbit hutches that Ms Jowell even
suggests that, as long as a digital film of a building exists,
to create a perfect 'virtual' moving image of a building inside
and out, then bring on those bulldozers.
As
she, very earnestly puts it: "When the choice is between
obliterating a historic building so that nothing is left but the
architect's drawings, and having a perfect digital record of every
square inch, available for students and historians for all time,
I know which I would rather have."
So,
historic sites can go hang. As we already know, Ms Jowell's department
is much more interested in funding museums and galleries and sport,
which is terribly trendy, global and politically correct. And
the figures bear this out: whereas funding for English Heritage
has increased by just 3% since 1997, museums and galleries have
had their funding increased by 50% and good old sport by 100%.
I
think we are judged as a people, by how we look after our historic
buildings. It is a clear reflection on how we feel about our past:
an indication that we are proud of what our forefathers achieved
- in building, in engineering, in innovation. Are we really going
to let Tessa Jowell, John Prescott and the rest take full control
of our historic sites, declare Year Zero and demolish whatever
the 'community' doesn't fancy?
|
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
|
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.
