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
|
IRAQ:
Is this the smoking gun?
Censors,
spin and lie after damn lie
Commentary
- By Stephen Glover, Daily Mail, March 25, 2005
There
is a general principle in life that if you tell one big lie, you
will have to tell another and then another. That is the hole in
which Her Majesty's Government finds itself over the Iraq war.
On
Wednesday, the government told its latest big lie. Under the Freedom
of Information Act, it released a copy of a letter of resignation
written by Elizabeth Wilmshurst, deputy chief legal adviser at
the Foreign Office, on March 18, 2003, on the eve of war with
Iraq. But it removed one critical paragraph from the letter in
which the expert in international law noted that until March 7,
the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, had shared her view that
war against Iraq would be illegal.
Why
did the Government suppress this passage? There is only one possible
explanation. It did not want to draw attention to the fact that
the Attorney General had changed his mind about the illegality
of the war in a very short space of time. We already know that,
on March 7, Lord Goldsmith had sent a 13-page letter to Tony Blair.
Although he softened his all-0ut opposition to war against Iraq,
he still warned that British participation could be ruled unlawful
by an international court. Yet on March 17 he released a cursory
nine-paragraph parliamentary answer which blithely asserted that
war against Iraq could be perfectly legal.
Most
people will find it very difficult to believe that the Attorney
General could so alter his mind in two weeks. How could an experienced
lawyer, who had many months to consider this crucial issue, have
had a sudden change of opinion at the 11th hours? For weeks, the
Government had been trying to secure a new, second resolution
at the United Nations Security Council authorising war. Mr Blair
moved heaven and earth to try to get this. In early March 2003,
he still had high hopes that such a resolution would be forthcoming.
By
March 17, the chances of a second resolution looked extremely
remote. So Lord Goldsmith informed Parliament that Resolution
1441, which had been passed by the UN Security Council the previous
November, was perfectly sufficient to provide a legal basis for
war. If that was the case, why had the Government gone to such
lengths to secure a second resolution?
On
the available evidence, there is one inescapable conclusion. Lord
Goldsmith believed - as did Elizabeth Wilmshurst in the Foreign
Office's legal department - that it would be illegal to invade
Iraq without a second UN resolution. But when it became clear
that France, Russia and others, would not agree to such a Resolution,
Downing Street leant on Lord Goldsmith, who happens to be a personal
friend of the Prime Minister, to change his mind.
We
already know how Alastair Campbell put pressure on his friend
John Scarlett, then Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Commission,
to harden up the infamous September 2002 dossier which invoked
wholly bogus 'weapons of mass destruction'. Before its publication,
Mr Scarlett wrote to Mr Campbell: "We have strengthened language
on current concerns and plans." He added: "Turning to
your detailed points, we have been able to amend the text in most
cases as you proposed."
The
September 2002 dossier was a farrago of nonsense, calculated to
make our hair stand on end. Even worse was the now largely forgotten
February 2003 dossier, which was entirely the work of Mr Campbell's
mendacious hand. Cited admiringly by Colin Powell, the then U.S.
Secretary of State, it incorporated, without attribution, chunks
of an academic article based on a 12-year-old thesis written by
an Iraqi exile, as well as passages, again without attribution
lifted from six-year-old articles published in Jane's Intelligence
Review.
So
that British troops could go to war alongside the U.S., Mr Blair
allowed downright lies to be told in the hope that the British
people would be fooled. And of course we were. We believed the
September 2002 dossier and we took on trust - at least until its
fabrications were revealed - Campbell's February 2003 fantasies.
However much we might have doubted the veracity of individual
politicians, it diid not occur to us that our own Government could
tell lies so systematically on so important an issue as war.
When
it later emerged that the Government had misled us over weapons
of mass destruction, the shameless Campbell set out to destroy
the BBC, which had had the temerity to investigate the truth,
and recommended revealing the name of Dr David Kelly, the weapons
expert, to the media with no thought for his welfare. This same
Alastair Campbell is now back at Mr Blair's side, helping him
to try to win a third term.
There
is no merit in arguing, as some do, that whatever lies were told
to justify the war, the outcome is a good one - the removal of
the wicked tyrant Saddam Hussein and his murderous gang of thugs,
and the establishment of the shaky beginnings of democracy. To
say this is to ignore the harm that persistent lying has done
to our political system, our very democracy. British service-men
were told they were going to war because Saddam Hussein posed
a real threat - not because he should be removed for the sake
of the Iraqis.
If
Downing street had not lied, lied, and lied again over Iraq, one
might be tempted to give Lord Goldsmith the benefit of the doubt.
Is it just possible that he did have a genuine, and independent,
change of heart? Is it remotely conceivable that he was not leant
on by Mr Blair and Alastair Campbell? Perhaps, without pressure
or persuasion, he sincerely decided that his original view - that
war against Iraq would be illegal - was wrong.
I'm
afraid the truth is that after all that has happened, after all
the manifold lies we have been told, only a fool would believe
this. Maybe in deference to his professional standards we can
pay Lord Goldsmith the compliment of saying that he may have convinced
himself that he had genuinely changed his mind, and that he was
not fully aware that he had been sucked in and spat out by New
Labour's lie machine.
Now
this same machine has suppressed part of a letter because it fears
that the British public, on the eve of a general election, might
find it difficult to credit that the Attorney General could switch
sides so nimbly. Downing Street knew it would look deeply fishy,
and so the letter was censored.
If
No 10 has nothing to hide, let it publish all Lord Goldsmith's
advice to the Prime Minister. Of course it won't., To do so would
reveal the ultimate lie - that the Attorney General believed that
Resolution 1441 did not give us a sound legal basis, and that
we needed a further resolution to go to war.
One
day history will establish the truth - which is that the Prime
Minister made up his mind to take this country to war before even
the September 2002 dossier. He can never admit that. He can never
say that a story was spun to justify a decision that had already
been taken. No mere Attorney General was going to be allowed to
stand in the way of Tony Blair's war.
|
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.
