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

April 21, 2008 (1756) days since war ended)

Death Toll: 4039 US - 176 UK - >1,000,000? civilians - 25 media

April 28, 2008 (1763 days since war ended)

Death Toll: 4052 US - 176 UK - >1,000,000? civilians - 25 media

GM crops 'are not the answer'

GM corn 'could cause kidney and liver damage'

EUROPE ADMITS WE DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT GM HEALTH RISKS

'Bizarre' plea for testing of GM crops to be made less stringent

Labour backs the use of GM suicide seeds

GM 'could harm your unborn baby'

GM food can be labelled as organic, says Europe

GM farming can sterilise our fields for generations

Our tainted crops

Britain has second-worst rate of GM contamination

Bu Robin Yapp, Science Reporter - Daily Mail, June 2, 2005

Demands for tighter controls on 'Frankenstein foods' were made yesterday as the first register of contamination incidents showed Britain is one of the worst-hit countries. There were 8 incidents of crops, food or animal feed tainted with GM - second highest number for any country in the world after the US with 11.

Case by case, causes for concern

1999: Contamination found in four in 21 food samples tested.

2000: Advanta Seeds imports oilseed rape variety contaminated with 1% GM variety. Farmers ordered to plough up the crop.

2000: Avantis says some of its field trials with herbicide-tolerant GM sugar beet contain a second unauthorised line of sugar beet resistant to two herbicides.

2001: Trading Standards officers in Kent find 10% of processed foods sampled contain GM levels above 1% level requiring GM label under EU law.

2002: Avantis (now Bayer) says oilseed rape used in GM crop farm-scale trials was contaminated with an unapproved GM seed variety.

2002: Food standards Agency survey finds GM soybean in some products labelled non-GM. None were above 1%.

2002: Soil Association finds GM soy-bean in organic animal feed. GM is not allowed in organic products.

2004: Study shows ten in 25 health or organic foods tested had GM soybean contamination at levels below 1%. Eight were labelled non-GM or organic.

Campaigners said the list revealed the true extent of the problem, allowing the public to see exactly how, where and when contamination has occurred. They said governments must impose tougher regulation on genetically modified foods to stop further cases. In all, the record includes 63 cases of GM contamination in 27 countries, ten cases of illegal planting or importation and six of negative agricultural side-effects.

Details appear on a website launched by Greenpeace and Genewatch UK to coincide with a meeting of governments in Canada to decide who is held responsible for incidents of GM contamination and how they are made to pay. Sue Mayer, Director of Genewatch UK, said: "No government or international agency has established a public record of contamination incidents or other problems associated with GM crops. The official approach of 'turning a blind eye' is not good enough when dealing with a technology like GM, where living organisms are released into the environment." Doreen Stabinsky, of Greenpeace International, added: "If States don't act and set strict rules now, GM crops will further contaminate lands, seeds, and food around the world."

The register includes details of all known contamination of food, animal feed, seeds, and wild plants since the first GM tomatoes were grown commercially in the US in 1995. It says that although GM crops were grown on nearly 200mn acres in 2004, there has until now been no global monitoring system. Only incidents which have been publicly documented are included and campaigners say there may be others that are 'as yet undetected'.

Illegal releases of GM crops into the environment or food chain have occurred in Argentina, Brazil, China, Croatia, Germany, India, Thailand and the US. Illegal GM maize also entered the European food chain after being mistakenly exported to France and Spain.

The worst single incident to be recorded involved Starlink maize, which was detected in taco shells being sold in the US five years ago even though it was approved only for use in animal feed. Before the contamination was detected, it was exported and has now been found in six other countries - Canada, Bolivia, Egypt, Nicaragua, Japan and South Korea.

Examples of damaging side-effects of GM on the environment include the emergence of herbicide-tolerant 'superweeds' in Argentina, the US and Canada, and GM cotton that failed to grow properly.

GM corn that harmed rats coming to our plates

Cultivating GM crops devastates wildlife

Axe for the watchdog that spells out the fears on GM food

G M Crops

The Labour-dominated Commons Environmental Audit Select Committee, chaired by Tory MP, Peter Ainsworth, has condemned the Government for approving the planting of GM crops, accusing Ministers of "wilful or careless misinterpretations" of arguments against the crops.

Four days after this report was unveiled, Ministers snubbed this committee by announcing that a type of GM maize which is fed to cattle could be commercially grown. The dismissive tone of the reply so incensed MPs that they attached a 2-page rebuttal when the document was published yesterday.

"We're living in a slight fantasy world here because the industry has effectively walked away from the commercial growing of GM crops. So we have the ridiculous situation where the Government appears to be more pro-commercial GM growing than GM industry itself," Mr Ainsworth said on the BBC Radio 4's TODAY programme, adding: "We believe decisions about GM, given the uncertainty still of the nature of the science around the issue, need to be based on very clear and sound science. I am afraid at the moment that evidence is not there." He was strongly supported by former Environmental Minister, Michael Meacher.

Mr Meacher said Ministers were 'hell-bent' on pushing GM crops when there was good reason to reject them outright. He added:"If the government wants to restore trust it doesn't help to have a nationwide consultation, find 85% don't want GM crops, and the proceed in the other direction." (Summary of a report by Graeme Wilson, Daily Mail, May 6, 2004)

This is the most blatant example by far of a Government with a massive majority of tame MPs ignoring the demand of a majority of British people. So lets answer the following question, and shout the wishes of the silent majority in this country loud enough for the Government to hear.

This matter is urgent, because a six-year EU moratorium on new GM foods ended on May 19 this year (2004) after bureaucrats in Brussels approved imports of a GM sweetcorn despite health worries, appeasing GM supporters in the US where the sweetcorn is grown. This decision was only supported by Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Italy and, of course, Britain, which has a record of backing US efforts to win approval for GM food and crops in Europe despite massive consumer oppostition.

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."

Blair's defiance of the will of the majority of we, the people of the UK, over the invasion of Iraq 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:

Here's one to get Tony Blair to resign:

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.

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).

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.