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

 

WWW silentmajorityspeaks.com

The hollow man of British politics

Comment - Daily Mail, October 9, 2004

The Government has already apologised for faulty information over Iraq, declared Trade Secretary Patricia Hewitt on BBC's Question Time. And the audience reaction said it all. There were gasps of incredulity, a shout of protest, a rumble of discontent. she could only blink in dismay as Labour's latest exercise in spin began falling apart.

The moment seemed to sum up the issue that haunts the Government and has been the central theme of the Tory Conference this week: the collapse of trust in politics among an electorate sickened by war and disillusioned by lies, excuses and bare-faced attempts to rewrite history. Miss Hewitt's performance was a classic example.

Not only was she wrong to claim that the Government had apologised - when patently it had not - but she then issued her own misleading 'apology' using a formula that shrieked of spin doctoring. "From the Prime Minister down", she declared, "all of us who were involved in making an incredibly difficult decision are very sorry and do apologise for the fact that that information was wrong. ..."

The words sound disarming but - like Mr Blair's non-apology at Labour's conference - they're deceptive. Isn't it the reverse of the truth to pretend the Cabinet was misled by poor intelligence. As we know from evidence to the Butler inquiry, our intelligence services did NOT make a case for war. Their information was 'patchy' and 'sporadic'. That wasn't what Mr Blair told Parliament. He said evidence for Saddam's weapons was 'extensive, detailed and authoritative'.

He kept saying it. He authorised the dodgy dossier, introduced the bogus claim that Saddam could deploy his weapons in 45 minutes and insisted WMDs would be found. And he allowed his liar-in-chief, Alastair Campbell, to launch a vendetta against the BBC for reporting - truthfully - that the case for war had been 'sexed up'.

Heads have rolled at the BBC (and Dr Kelly killed himself). But Campbell - in another appalling error of judgment by Mr Blair - is set to return to front-line politics for the election. Meanwhile the debacle of the war goes from bad to worse.

While it would be wholly wrong to condemn the Prime Minister for the murder of poor Ken Bigley -blame lies with the killers, evil men without conscience or mercy - he is certainly culpable for a wretchedly misconceived invasion and a bungled occupation.

Bit the problem - and a very worrying one - is that Mr Blair is in denial. He shows no genuine contrition. Instead, he wriggles and spins. And now, while cutting Britain's forces to the bone, he poses absurdly as the saviour of Africa, promising more troops for that continent.

So what are the political implications? Having broken the umbilical cord of trust that must exist betwen any democratic leader and the electorate, Mr Blair is now the hollow man of British politics. His governance of this country is destined to weaken by the day. He may still be the actor extraordinaire, but his days are numbered. Quite simply, he will never be believed again.

For the Tories, this is a huge opportunity. They have enjoyed their best conference in years. Michael Howard looks every inch a Prime Minister in waiting (though arguably the Tories under his command seem something like a one-man band). Above all, he and his party are addressing this crucialiissue oftrust by refusing to make promises they can't keep. That is the one note of optimism in a week that has otherwise been dire for the reputation of British democracy - a reputation that will not be restored until Mr Blair has left the scene.

 For the health of our democracy, we, the people of the United Kingdom, must find a way to force Mr Blair to resign

Mr Blair has lied and deceived us over Iraq. He must resign at once. Do you agree? Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly Don't know Don't care Please click one of the links above to cast your vote Current results

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.