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
Virtues
of a secret ballot
Sir
- Concerning postal votes (report Mar 23) what is the
first principle of a democratic political vote? Answer:
THE SECRET BALLOT.
It
is obvious that a postal ballot is only as secret as the
moral strength of the voter. With the infinite propaganda
powers of today's electronic media, it is frighteningly
easy for devious politicians to promote politically correct
or "cool" or, most wickedly, "honest and
transparent" voting patterns, where someone failing
to vote "with his/her group" must "have
something to hide".
Postal
voting should, at best, be allowable only to persons who
are required to be stationed away from their constituency
on government business. A few temporary disfranchisements
may result, but nothing is perfect.
Letter from J. B. Lewis, Bognor Regis, West Sussex - The
Daily Telegraph, March 25, 2005
|
Immigration
and the demonising of decency
The
Melanie Phillips column - Daily Mail, April 11, 2005
The
stoical, phlegmatic British may be slow to anger. But when they
are roused they are implacable, a national characteristic politicians
ignore at their peril. It was no surprise, therefore, that Michael
Howard chose to set immigration at the very forefront of his electoral
stall yesterday, the opening day of the campaign after the royal
wedding and the obsequies for the Pope.
Immigration
and Labour evasion
Comment
- Daily Mail, April 11, 2005
Calmly
and lucidly Michael Howard yesterday spelt out the Tories'
plans for sensible controls on immigration. There would
be an annual quota .. special border control police ..
24-hour security at ports .. and an Australian-style points
system for work permits giving priority to those with
the skills we need.
Mr
Howard is talking a lot of sense. But how typical of New
Labour that within minutes, Cabinet Minister Peter Hain
was accusing him of using 'the most scurrilous Right-wing,
ugly tactics'.
There
has been nothing more malign in this election campaign
than the insidious way in which Ministers try to brand
as racists those wanting to debate immigration. They could
not be more wrong.
The
Tory leader like most Britons believes we should offer
sanctuary to those fleeing persecution and welcome skilled
workers from overseas. And he acknowledges the huge contribution
made by immigrant communities.
But
there is also deep concern in Britain that many asylum
seekers are economic migrants in disguise, playing the
system to stay as long as possible, and that others enter
the country and work here illegally.
Of
course, these are matters for legitimate public discussion
in an election. The real reason that New Labour doesn't
want one is because it knows this would expose the way
it has surrendered even the pretence of controlling our
borders.
Officially
average net inflow has trebled under New Labour to 157,000/year,
though the real increase is certainly much higher. The
truth is this Government has no idea how many illegal
immigrants there are and lets asylum seekers vanish while
their applications are being processed. It turns a blind
eye to those who are smuggled in as it can then claim
the number of asylum-seekers has fallen.
And
crucially, it has given away
Britain's veto on immigration and border controls to Brussels.
New Labour says it wants to fight on it's record - but
it won't debate the issue that concerns people most of
all.
|
For
he knows that public fury about immigration could bring Tony Blair
down. As a weekend poll showed, some 69% want tougher controls
or a halt to immigration altogether. On this single issue the
Tories are streets ahead, and Labour has little chance of addressing
the situation.
To
the horror of Tony Blair, he has discovered that voters' hostility
on the subject is drowning out everything else that Labour is
saying. This is because the enormous rise in immigration since
he took office is simply changing the face of the country - as
yesterday's report by the independent think-tank MigrationWatch
makes plain - and putting key public services under intolerable
strain. Colleagues are advising him that his policy on this issue
needs to be much clearer and tougher.
Concealed
Indeed,
it could hardly be less clear and less tough. Labour
has done everything possible to conceal the true scale of immigration.
It has played down, or even denied, the huge numbers who have
already come here or are projected to do so. And it persistently
failed to get the crisis under control, with policy changes that
amount to little more than window dressing.
By
contrast, the Tories are very clear. In saying that Parliament
would set an annual limit for the number of immigrants, pull out
of those treaty provisions which prevent Britain from controlling
immigration and policing asylum, and establish round-the-clock
border police, they have thrown Labour firmly onto the back foot.
This is because the immigration crisis can be tackled only
by such root-and-branch measures (although the proposed quota
for asylum-seekers might have to be rethought, since it appears
to confict with the moral duty to admit genuine refugees).
As
a result, Labour's response was demonstrably feeble. Wheeling
out Charles Wardle, a discredited former Tory minister who had
the whip withdrawn, was clearly born of desperation. Indeed neither
he nor Alan Milburn had anything to say except vaguely protest
that Tory policy was unworkable.
The
plain fact is that, whatever details need to be fine-tuned, a
cap on immigration is the only policy that would work to bring
down the numbers. But Labour refuses to go down this road for
one overwhelming reason: It actually wants to encourage immigration
- a fact which is so anxious to conceal.
Ministers have repeatedly
said they envisage no upper limit to the number of new immigrants.
The
former Tory cabinet minister Peter Lilley pointed out in a recent
pamphlet that, although it has paid lip service to controlling
illegal entrants, the Government has actually been encouraging
mass immigration by systematically making it easier - without
ever informing the public of such a momentous change of policy.
Smearing
By
any normal reckoning, it is not only legitimate but essential
that such a fundamental change be debated openly and honestly.
But, of course, Labour won't put this policy to the public because
it knows that people wouldn't tolerate it for an instant. Instead,
the Left tries to shut down debate altogether by smearing anyone
as a racist for voicing such concerns.
While
Mr Blair carefully refrains from such gutter politics, some of
his supporters have no such scruples, accusing Michael Howard
of using immigration to 'play the race card'. Yesterday, Peter
Hain continued in similar vein, accusing the Tories of 'scurrilous,
Right-wing, ugly tactics'.
But
concern about immigration has nothing to do with race. Much of
it is simply about justice, since most asylum-seekers are not
genuine refugees but trying - at present with considerable success
- to bust immigration law. People are aghast that both the character
and smooth running of their country should be compromised by admitting
unsustainable numbers of newcomers. And to be called racist for
saying so is to add insufferable insult to injury.
Moreover,
many of the immigrants in contention are white people from Easter
Europe. The argument is not about the desirability or otherwise
of immigrants but the numbers who are coming in. Indeed, some
of the most vociferous critics of the immigration crisis happen
to be ethnic minorities and even recent immigrants, who seem to
understand that illegal scams and unlimited numbers threaten the
national values they they found attractive in the first place.
To
suggest that any such criticism is racist is effectively to entertain
no policy other than open borders and totally unlimited immigration.
Yet no one but a handful of extremists would actually argue this.
The stench of hypocrisy on this issue is overwhelming.
Shambles
The
purpose, of course, is to stifle debate. Smearing people as racist
is the Left's favourite weapon of intimidation. But in deploying
it in this way, they are insulting millions of decent British
voters, who are not only deeply concerned about the scale of immigration
but find themselves demonised as racist even for thinking such
things.
They
are incandescent that the issue has become a no-go area for public
debate. Indeed, this effective disenfranchisement is one of the
reasons why they are so dangerously disillusioned with politics.
After all, what is the use of politicians too cowed by political
bullying to address the extraordinary fact that, in the face of
a terrorist threat, the country has lost control of its borders?
By
tackling the issue head-on - and crucially, using the language
of values in calling the asylum shambles 'inhumane' and 'unjust'
- Mr Howard was not only protecting himself from the taint of
racism. He was also signalling to the beleaguered majority that
at last they have a champion who will stand up for mainstream
decencies against the lies and smears of political correctness.
Mr
Blair thought that on immigration, as on so many other issues,
he could pull the wool over people's eyes. He has made a major
error. For it touches some of the deepest feelings of the British
people - about fair play, bullying and them make-up and orderliness
of their country. They know they are being taken for a ride, and
that something of inestimable value is being lost.
And
they know something else, too - that the issue is not just about
immigrants. It is nothing less than the demonisation of decency.
That's why Mr Blair is right to panic. For to all these most serious
of charges, he simply has no answer.
|
Tactical
Voting
As
UKIP member for several years, I believe the greatest
threat facing the British is the potential loss of our
independence to govern ourselves. Once Brussels gains
complete control, everything else we are voting for in
the coming election is academic. The real decisions will
be made in Brussels by people we can't vote out.
Much
as I support UKIP's aims, I now believe the single most
important goal for British voters is to remove Blair and
his rotten Government before they complete the process
of removing our sovereignty. Only a vote for Michael Howard
will do this - Letter to the Daily Mail from Tony Beverley,
London SW10 - April 7, 2005
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.
