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
|
Bigotry,
class war and a gipsy charter that betrays a hatred of Middle
England
By
Simon Heffer - Daily Mail, March 12, 2005
Without
the help, support and general decency of the middle classes, no
British government could last more than five minutes. If the law-abiding
majority did not play by the rules, pay their taxes and generally
conform, our country would be ungovernable.
Sadly,
in return for this long-term goodwill the Government seems determined
to make the lives of middle-class people as unpleasant as possible.
Seldom has this gratuitous persecution been better exemplified
than in John Prescott's guidance this week to councils to go soft
in applying planning laws to a group that represents the polar
opposite of the middle glasses: Gipsies.
Although
there is a politically-correct pretence about this allegedly oppressed
minority, anyone who has come into contact with them knows Gipsies
are far more likely to be doing the oppressing. When neighbours
of Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer imprisoned for shooting two
Gipsies who were burgling him, urged the arrest of other Gipsy
thieves, the police said they could not guarantee the safety of
anyone who testified against such criminals.
When
Jack Straw, as Home Secretary, talked a few years ago of 'criminal
gangs' of Gipsies that posed such problems to the police and to
society, he was rounded on by self-appointed guardians of such
minorities. In fact, his was almost the only example of a senior
minister owning up to the unsavoury reality of the Gipsy experience
recognized by all too many Britons.
Gipsies
or travellers, however they are defined, have certain things in
common. They are largely unknown to the Inland Revenue or to the
local revenue-raising authorities. Despite having no official
employment, they exhibit sometimes quite ostentatious signs of
wealth (such as driving £112,000 Bentleys), raising inevitable
questions about how they cam by it. They readily resort to threats
and violence when challenged.
Worst
of all, they have no regard for private property. They set up
their camps where they will and show no desire to move on. (A
perfect example is the fetid encampment in Wickford, Essex, high-lighted
in the Mail this week). If forced to leave, the squalor they leave
behind - and which has to be cleared up at taxpayers' expense
- is often sickeningly indescribable.
And
when they acquire land legally - paying for it with money they
somehow 'earn' - they then feel the planning laws that circumscribe
everybody else shouldn't apply to them. This, indeed, was a key
point of Mar Prescott's guidance to councils this week: he decided
that when a Gipsy's planning application is turned down, it may
be because of 'racial discrimination' and therefore should not
be so readily refused.
This
makes a mockery not only of the principles of British justice,
but also of Labour's own sloganising. First, the age-old precept
that we are all equal under the law in this country seems to heave
been abandoned. And, second, what are we to make of Labour's promise
- repeated ad nauseam since 1997 - to govern 'for the many, not
the few'?
Here
is a blatant example of governing in order to advance the interests
of a small unrepresentative minority who make little visible contribution
to our country and doing so at the actual and moral expense of
the law-abiding majority. However, there is a barely-hidden agenda
here. Mr Prescott has often shown his utter hatred of the middle
classes and their values, and particularly of country dwellers.
A
prickly, thin-skinned, not over-bright and above all class-conscious
man, he delights in punishing those who by their thrift, hard
work and sense of responsibility have made something of their
lives. Nothing else can explain his desire, at a time when the
North of England, Wales and Scotland are crying out for investment,
to allow the concreting over of the Home Counties, East Anglia
and the South of England with millions of new homes.
It
is no coincidence that these are the areas that still return Tory
MPs, for which they must clearly be taught a lesson. Even if Mr
Prescott were clever enough to appreciate the damage done to the
rule of law by saying that planning rules be disregarded to allow
these anti-social elements to blight the lives of others, he would
still be happy to do it.
In
the interests of extending his version of social justice and equality,
such a sacrifice (even if also causing serious damage to the environment)
is a small price to pay. Although this is not purely a rural problem
- there have been terrible problems with suburban Gipsy encampments
- the fact that much of the damage will be done in the countryside
is further indicative of ministerial ignorance. In thrall as it
is to urban Britain, its culture and its problems, Labour has
only contempt for the rural way of life.
It
has shown this time and again. Its utter mishandling of the foot-and-mouth
crisis four years ago not only put some farmers out of business,
it also caused a number of suicides. It has now put thousands
of rural jobs under threat by banning hunting. Shooting is next.
It
has been oblivious to rural poverty, or to the closure of post
offices, shops, pubs and other focal points of rural life upon
which people depend. Yet had such a similar swathe been cut through
life and livelihoods in urban Britain, we should never have hear
the end of it, and money would have been lavished on its prevention.
It fits in nicely with Mr Prescott's prejudices that his own departmental
guidance on 'Diversity and Equality in Planning' should have recommended
that councils should do more to reach an accomodation with Gipsy
groups.
Yet
it is also a sign of the complete amorality with which Labour
governs: most law-abiding residents cannot begin to see why anything
should be done to accommodate those who wilfully disregard the
law. No one should have a right to violate planning law just because
their origins make them 'diverse'. Equality? the law-abiding majority
who are not allowed to build on Green Belt land, or to foul other
protected areas, have no equality this respect with the Gipsies.
The
guidance Prescott has sent out completely undermines all notions
of natural justice and proper procedure. It is utterly indefensible
for those reasons: all the more so because it is borne of spite,
class hatred and ignorance.
Perhaps
if the middle classes start to behave like the Gipsy minority
- putting up illegal homesteads, withholding local and national
taxes, and funding their operations substantially by questionable
activities - the Government would treat them with more respect
too. As it is, this order confirms not just the bigotry of one
class-obsessed politician, but that of a whole administration
determined not just to assault the middle classes, but to make
them its enemy.
|
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.
