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
|
Every
year a city the size of Peterborough settles in Britain. It's
NOT racist to say that this can't go on
By David Davis, Shadow Home Secretary - The Mail on Sunday, January
23, 2005
How
many times over the past seven years have you read or heard news
that highlights what a chaotic shambles the British asylum system
has become. At the same time, we have had numerous headline-grabbing
announcements from a Labour Government trying to fool people into
thinking they're fixing it. But very few people other than Mr
Blair would say that the situation is improving.
Most
people who claim asylum in our country are not genuine refugees
fleeing persecution. Only two in ten cases are given asylum and
another two in ten are allowed to stay on humanitarian grounds.
In fact, according to Home Office figures, three-quarters of the
people seeking asylum in Europe do not meet the official criteria
for full refugee status. And because failed asylum seekers are
rarely removed, it encourages even more people to make false claims.
Only
around one in five failed asylum applicants is removed by the
authorities. This means there are now more than 250,000 failed
asylum seekers who have not left Britain but who should have been
removed since 1997. It is hardly surprising , then, that Britain
is seen as a soft touch. People who are not genuine asylum seekers
know that even if their claim is rejected they are likely to be
allowed to stay anyway.
Our
asylum system is undoubtedly used as a means of getting round
immigration controls.
Peter Gilroy, the strategic director of social
services for Kent County Council - the man responsible for the
social services needs of asylum seekers arriving at Dover, the
UK's busiest port of entry - has estimated that 50% of asylum
seekers are 'in the category of coming here because they are trying
to seek work and to make a better life for themselves'.
This is profoundly
unfair on those who play by the rules and apply to come to Britain
legally.
These
problems have been mostly of the Government's own making. The
numbers claiming asylum have increased dramatically since 1997,
peaking at nearly 85,000 in 2001. The reason is simple - Labour
foolishly abolished key reforms introduced by Michael Howard as
Home Secretary. At the same time, Jack Straw described proposals
to withhold benefit from those who did not claim asylum as soon
as they arrived as 'profoundly unfair'.
Thankfully,
Labour realised its error and reintroduced these proposals. This
led to a drop in applications but the numbers are still far higher
than when Mr Blair took office.
Britain
still takes more than her fair share of the world's refugees.
We take more applicants than almost any other industrialised country
- including Germany and America. So much for Mr Blair's promise
to deliver 'a swift and fair asylum system'.
Conservatives
believe it's time for real reform of our asylum system. The current
approach is not only a shambles - it also sustains the international
trade in people smuggling. These gangs' cynical disregard for
humanity was brought into stark relief when the bodies of 58 Chinese
immigrants were found in the back of a sealed container in a lorry
at Dover in 2000. they had all suffocated. It later transpired
that each had paid tens of thousands of dollars to Chinese smuggling
gangs, known as snakeheads to get into the UK.
It's
time Mr Blair focussed on people's priorities- rather than fighting
with Gordon Brown over the future of the Labour Party. But his
obsession with quick fixes and gimmicks means that he is incapable
of sorting out the shambles that our asylum system has become.
Britain
has a proud tradition of giving refuge to people fleeing persecution.
It is a tradition that the Conservatives are determined to maintain.
We have a duty to take out fair share of the world's genuine refugees,
but at the moment we are failing in our duty. This has to change.
Conservatives
are clear. Immigration must be controlled. That is why a Conservative
Government will introduce an annual limit on immigration and a
quota for asylum. We will put in place 24-hour security at ports
to cut illegal immigration and introduce an Australian-style system
for work permits - giving priority to people with the skills Britain
needs. These policies will substantially reduce immigration.
Some
people say it's racist to control immigration. This is completely
untrue. Britain cannot possibly admit the millions of people from
other countries who would like to settle here. We cannot accept
all of them and it would be totally irresponsible and counterproductive
to do so. Immigration must be brought under control.
Every
year a city the size of Peterborough settles in the UK. Our communities
simply cannot absorb newcomers at today's pace. Firm but fair
immigration controls are essential for good community relations,
national security and the management of public services. And that
is what the Conservative Party will deliver.
Tomorrow
Michael Howard and I will be setting out the final stages of our
plans to create a fairer process for dealing with asylum. And
over the next few weeks we will be outlining our plans to bring
our shambolic immigration system under control. Our solutions
will mean that we can again be proud of a system that provides
shelter to those in need and opportunity for those who want to
contribute.
People
will face a clear choice at the next Election: unlimited immigration
under Mr Blair and limited immigration with the Conservatives.
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.
