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, February 17, 2005
|
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
Virtues
of a secret ballot
Sir
- Concerning postal votes (report Mar 23) what is the
first principle of a democratic political vote? Answer:
THE SECRET BALLOT.
It
is obvious that a postal ballot is only as secret as the
moral strength of the voter. With the infinite propaganda
powers of today's electronic media, it is frighteningly
easy for devious politicians to promote politically correct
or "cool" or, most wickedly, "honest and
transparent" voting patterns, where someone failing
to vote "with his/her group" must "have
something to hide".
Postal
voting should, at best, be allowable only to persons who
are required to be stationed away from their constituency
on government business. A few temporary disfranchisements
may result, but nothing is perfect.
Letter from J. B. Lewis, Bognor Regis, West Sussex - The
Daily Telegraph, March 25, 2005
SIR
- Why on earth are people still insisting on voting for
the Labour Party this May 2005. It has lied and cheated
the public again and again during the Iraq war, immigration,
violent crime and hospital waiting list figures. It has
introduced stealth taxes and even been caught rigging
the postal voting system. To the Editor, Daily Telegraph,
from Philip Priestley, High Wycombe, Bucks. April 19,
2005
Blair
cannot ignore our outrage over Iraq
Tony
Blair's speech after the election appeared contrite. His
admission that he had lacked experience was impressive.
But it turned my blood cold when our Prime Minister said
that in the case of Iraq, it was time to 'move on'.
Can
any phrase so callously and insidiously wipe the slate
clean? 'Moving on' is now part of the lexicon of British
life and I think it's dangerous.
Blair's
contrite speech reminded us that if you want to stand
up against the status quo in this country, you won'tk
be merely disagreed with - a welcome and natural part
of democratic life - you'll be made to fell you're speaking
from some weird place called 'The Past', not the right-on
Labour concoction known as 'The Future'. You haven't 'mlved
on'.
How
can any society that seeks to challenge its Prime Minister
on the legality of a war that killed thousands, sit there
while its leader sweeps it aside, telling it, in that
grubby little phrase, to 'move on'. A large secgion of
British society has embraced the vaacuity oif the words
'moving on' without examining the destructive power of
the message.
Our
lives, in private and public, are littered with examples
of people casually rationalising a my8riad selfish and
destructive actions with the nauseating observation: "Yeah,
it was wrong, but it's time to move on ... "
'Moving
on' is a linguistic short-cut to a guilt-free zone. Guilt
is regarded like cellulite or yellowing teeth, inherently
bad and in need of banishment.
But
guilt has a vital function because it reminds us all that
our actions may be wrong. How does Labour plan to enforce
anti-social behaviour laws and discipline in schools if
the prevailing message is 'I don't want to look at my
guilt. Let's move on'.
This
Government's obsession with ditching the past and pursuing
the future is creating a sordid ideology of relative moralities.
So let's all stop using the horrible little phrase 'moving
on'. Our actions, good and bad, aren't erased by it. In
domestic trivialities, it's cheap. In war, it's obscene.
Fiona
MacDonald Turner - Warninglid, W. Sussex - Daily Mail,
May 11, 2005
|
May
11, 2005 (741 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 1,610 US - 88 UK - >6,164? Iraqi - >17,300 civilians
- 25 media
Forget
the French . . . . it is now more vital than ever that we British
have our say
N
O N!
French give kiss of death to EU Superstate
Europe
and a conspiracy of silence
With
Strasbourg's diktat on working hours reminding us how much power
we have already surrendered to Brussels ......
By
Simon Heffer - Daily Mail - Friday, May 13, 2005
The
question of Europe was hardly mentioned during the election campaign.
The British public could, therefore, be forgiven for thinking
that the role of the EU in our lives was, if not negligible, then
at least under control.
Dragging
us down
Comment
- Daily Mail - May 13, 2005
So
much for Blair's manifesto commitment to 'working hard
with Labour MEPs to ensure that EU regulations are proportionate
and better designed'. Just one week after elections his
promise is in tatters, leaving Britain dangerously exposed
to yet another bureaucratic assault on prosperity and
jobs.
With
its vote to end our opt-out from the 48-hour working week
- using the risibly bogus pretext of 'health and safety'
- the Strasbourg Parliament is not only challenging this
country's right to determine its employment policies,
but also making a mockery of the economic liberalisation
Europe claims to want.
And
the consequences could hardly be more serious. In 12 years
since John Major's hard-won opt-out, Britain enjoyed uninterrupted
growth, partly because our flexible labour market has
helped us avoid the long dole queues blighting Germany,
France and Italy.
And
now all that is put at risk by remote, second-rate European
politicians - shamefully aided and abetted by Labour MEPs
- who have so far been notable only for refusing to allow
proper scrutiny of their bloated, taxpayer-funded expenses.
So
Mr Blair must now try to save our opt-out at next month's
EU summit. But even if he succeeds it'll be a hollow victory.
For isn't he still hell-bent on surrendering what's left
of our sovereignty by signing the EU constitution.
Consider
the corrupt political culture he hopes to embrace. In
Germany yesterday, deputies in the Bundestag obediently
ratified the constitution after being assured by Chancellor
Schroeder that they needn't bother with details.
Meanwhile,
Brussels seems likely to offer a huge bribe to French
voters by dramatically slashing VAT on restaurant meals
- this when the Commission has already showered France
with favours unheard of in the rest of Europe to secure
a 'yes' vote in the referendum on May 29, 2005.
Bad
faith, cynical bribes, prescriptive regulation, economic
sclerosis .. we are again witnessing a Europe that never
listens, never learns and never reforms. And as usual,
this country's interests matter not one jot.
|
How
wrong they would be. The European Parliament, voting at Strasbourg
on Wednesday, decided millions of British workers had to abide
by a maximum 48-hour working week. Failure to do so would result
in our Government being hauled up before the European courts and
threatened with massive financial punishment.
Welcome to the world of supra-national
sovereignty.
The
fact that Europe was not an election issue, given the astonishing
power the EU now has over us, begs various questions. The answers,
though, would be pretty depressing. Labour did not want to talk
about Europe because its record of capitulation to Brussels would
horrify most voters. Its unequivocal support for the European
Constitution says all one needs to know about its real regard
for our sovereignty.
Despite
the imminence of a referendum on that constitution - to be held
in a year's time - the Tory Party also chose to say nothing. As
the party that took Britain into the club in 1973, with then Prime
Minister Edward Heath deliberately misrepresenting the consequences
- it, too, has a difficult track record. Also, in the 2001 election
it went to the other extreme and ran a campaign about Europe and
little else, which partly explained the electoral disaster it
suffered.
And
the Lib Dems, with an approach to Europe even more extreme that
Labour's in the desire for federation, also realised that discretion
would be the better part of valour.
Sacred
And
so, in this conspiracy of silence, profound issues about the vast
and expanding right of a foreign power to dictate to our country
remained undebated. Truth is that the 48-hour week compromises
one of the most sacred relationships in our national life: the
contract between boss and employee. It has always been a matter
of mutual agreement what the terms and conditions of service in
any job will be.That includes the exact nature of an employee's
working hours.
John
Major won an opt-out in 1993 from the Working Time Directive that
would have spelled the end of this freedom. Our European partners
have always resented this, because the lack of a working hours
restriction gave our firms a competitive advantage over those
on the continent.
Now
that the big European economies - notably France and Germany -
are basket cases with low growth, massive unemployment and falling
shares of the markets, their anger with us is even more pronounced.
That explains why the European Parliament was so keen to bring
us into line. What is more embarrassing for the Government - which
knows the damage that would be done to our economy if the opt-out
were revoked, with 85% of construction and transport firms saying
it would make their lives more difficult - is that the motion
so was passed with the help of Labour MEPs.
The
EU not only seems oblivious to our needs, but also to the needs
of the whole of Europe. Enforcing such restrictive practices will
further reduce Europe's competitiveness, which is already suffering
from the effects of far more efficient economies in the Far East.
This
proposal is but a token of the levels of damaging interference
Europe can inflict upon member states. And it exemplifies betrayal
of the electorate implicit in the main parties'' decision to avoid
debate on this issue.
Gigantic
And
because, unlike most other European countries, Britain inevitably
plays by the rules, the effect of this directive being implemented
would be devastating. Many firms would simply not be able to operate
and would close before going bankrupt. Unemployment would rise.
Costs
of enforcement would also be gigantic.
High-minded
talk by Labour MEPs and many trades unionists about improving
'work-life balance' would look absurd when, for many, there was
no work with which to balance 'life'. Government has said it will
fight the imposition of the directive, but without big allies
among other governments, its hopes are by no means certain.
As
is the case with our immigration policies, it will simply be a
case of our masters in Brussels telling British politicians to
do as they are told rather than allowing them the traditional
power to act independently. With the referendum on the constitution
coming closer, this reminder of our enslavement to Brussels could
not have come at a worse time for a #government that wants that
constitution imposed on our country.
There
can be no pretence that it will put an end to this violation of
what has always been considered the sovereign right of its peoples.
The whole point of the exercise is to take even more areas of
sovereignty (such as foreign affairs, for example) away from us
and give them to Europe.
Of
course, Mr Blair is hoping to avoid a referendum - something he
will probably be able to achieve if the French say 'Non' in their
vote a fortnight on Sunday. He reckoned without the spectacularly
corrupt proposal by the EU, debated yesterday, to seek to allow
the French to cut the rate of VAT on one of their great national
pastimes - eating in restaurants - from 19.6% to 5.5%. News that
this bribe was even being considered was enough to reverse the
trend of 21 consecutive opinion polls, and put the 'oui' vote
six points ahead almost overnight.
Regardless
of what happens in France, the constitution looks set to be vetoed
in Britain - it is hugely unpopular, as is the Prime Minister
who is its chief advocate. However, the removal of our opt-out
on working hours would kill it stone dead, and would open up once
more to scrutiny what we have already given up to the #EU, and
the nature of what we might lose next.
In
the event of the EU letting us keep the opt-out - and that is
by no means certain - it would only be in return for some massive
surrender on another front. That is how the EU works.
Handicaps
The
fact is that, outside the euro, and less regulated than our neighbours,
Britain is imply too economically successful for some of its partners,
and so handicaps must be shackled on to us. So it is no wonder
that none of our leading politicians wants to remind us of their,
and or, impotence in the face of our true rulers in Brussels.
And
while it is typical that the Government should promise to fight
to save our rights, it will also be typical that the fight will
end, one way or the other, in defeat for our best interests.
How
appropriate it was, though, that this startling reminder of the
relentless power Europe has over us should come so soon after
we have gone to the polls. For unless we take radical steps to
win some of that power back, at the next election, there will
be hardly any point in voting at all.
|
Tory
abstinence
Hardly
a day goes by without some failed Tory politician or media
commentator talking of the Conservatives 'having to reach
out beyond their core vote'. What rubbish. They
haven't even got their core vote any more - which is why
they've lost three elections on the trot. The 'core vote'
of genuine Conservatives went to the Referendum Party,
then to UKIP, or (the majority) to that largest party
of all - 'abstainers' - and they still haven't come back.
Digging
in dustbins for Liberal Democrat policies, trying to attract
those who aren't Conservatives at all is a recipe for
disaster. All the party needs is to go back to the principles
that produced 18 years of successful government - cut
the parasite state, lower taxes, bring back freedom, enterprise,
the family and democratic nationhood.
- Letter to the Daily Mail from Rodney Atkinson, Gateshead
- May 11, 2005
Tactical
Voting
As
UKIP member for several years, I believe the greatest
threat facing the British is the potential loss of our
independence to govern ourselves. Once Brussels gains
complete control, everything else we are voting for in
the coming election is academic. The real decisions will
be made in Brussels by people we can't vote out.
Much
as I support UKIP's aims, I now believe the single most
important goal for British voters is to remove Blair and
his rotten Government before they complete the process
of removing our sovereignty. Only a vote for Michael Howard
will do this - Letter to the Daily Mail from Tony Beverley,
London SW10 - April 7, 2005
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
SIR
- Why on earth are people still insisting on voting for
the Labour Party this May 2005. It has lied and cheated
the public again and again during the Iraq war, immigration,
violent crime and hospital waiting list figures. It has
introduced stealth taxes and even been caught rigging
the postal voting system. To the Editor, Daily Telegraph,
from Philip Priestley, High Wycombe, Bucks. April 19,
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.
