Rescuing Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected Dictatorship

You will notice that, since New Labour came to power, not a single leading Cabinet member or party 'heavy hitter' has appeared on the programme (BBC's Question Time). 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

Howard: Blair's lost credibility

Michael Howard's response in the House of Commons following publication of Lord Butler's report - 14/07/2004

"In his statement the Prime Minister relied on a finding in the Report relating to the good faith of the Government. That finding is at paragraph 310. The Prime Minister read that paragraph out. It refers specifically to allegations that the intelligence in the September dossier had knowingly been embellished and states that it agrees with Lord Hutton on those allegations.

It does not refer to other findings in the Report. It does not refer to what the Prime Minister said. It does not give the Prime Minister a defence.

In January this year the Prime Minister said and I quote his words: “the issue vis a vis my integrity is; did we receive the intelligence and was it properly relayed to people?” (The Observer, January 25 2004)

So the question which arises from that statement is this: was the intelligence given to the Prime Minister accurate and did the Prime Minister give an accurate account of it to the country?

So let us examine on the basis of the Butler Report what the intelligence services told the Prime Minister, and then what the Prime Minister told the country.

On 15 March 2002 the Joint Intelligence Committee said: “Intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles programmes is sporadic and patchy”. Let me repeat: “... sporadic and patchy.” (Paragraph 330, Butler Report)

On 21 August 2002, the Joint Intelligence Committee said: “We have little intelligence on Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons doctrine and know little about Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons work since late 1998”. Let me repeat. “We have little intelligence … and know little.” (Paragraph 330, The Butler Report)

On 9 September 2002, the Joint Intelligence Committee said: “Intelligence remains limited”. Let me repeat. “Intelligence remains limited”. (Paragraph 330, Butler Report) That’s what the Joint Intelligence Committee said to the Prime Minister.

Now let’s look at what the Prime Minister said to the country.

In his signed foreword to the September 2002 dossier, the Prime Minister said: “I am in no doubt that the threat is serious and current”. “The assessed intelligence” he said “has established beyond doubt that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons”.

I repeat. The Prime Minister said he was “in no doubt” and that the intelligence was “beyond doubt”.

On 24 September 2002 the Prime Minister told this House that the picture painted by the intelligence services was “extensive, detailed and authoritative”. (Hansard, 24 September 2002, Col.3) Not “sporadic and patchy” but “extensive, detailed and authoritative”.

Isn’t that why Lord Butler concludes that – and I quote: “It was a serious weakness that the Joint Intelligence Committee’s warnings on the limitations of intelligence underlying some of its judgements were not made sufficiently clear”? (Paragraph 332, Butler Report)

Isn’t that why Lord Butler concludes that the failure to include the limited intelligence base on which some of those assessments were made was - and I quote: “significant”? (Paragraph 330, Butler Report)

Isn’t that why Lord Butler concludes specifically in relation to the language used by the Prime Minister that it may have “reinforced the impression” that there was “fuller and firmer intelligence behind the judgements” in the September dossier that was in fact the case? (Paragraph 331, Butler Report).

So I return to the central question – was the intelligence given to the Prime Minister accurate and did the Prime Minister give an accurate account of it to the country?

It is now clear that in many ways the intelligence services got it wrong. But their assessments included serious caveats, qualifications and cautions.

When presenting his case to the country, the Prime Minister chose to leave out those caveats, qualifications and cautions.

Their qualified judgements became his unqualified certainties.

The question the Prime Minister must answer today … is why?

The Prime Minister said that mistakes were made and he accepts responsibility. But it is not a question of responsibility. It is a question of credibility.

I hope that we will not face another war in the foreseeable future. But if we did and this Prime Minister identified the threat, would the country believe him. If we did and this Prime Minister asked the country to rely on intelligence would the country have confidence in him? And if this Prime Minister said that in his judgement war was necessary would the country trust him?

The issue is the Prime Minister’s credibility. The question he must ask himself is does he have any credibility left?"

Rt Hon Michael Howard QC MP
14/07/200

Before you vote please read Michael Howard's challenge to Tony Blair in the House of Commons on the day the Butler report was published, and the latest news on John Scarlett. A devastating report by hugely respected BBC Panorama journalist, John Ware, raises new questions about No. 10 and the 'truth', which are even more disturbing. Also read Rifkind on Blair and a letter from one of the normally silent majority in the United Kingdom.

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

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).

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.