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
Blair wants to leave his
mark on history - looks more like a stain to me.
Peter Thorndyke, Diss,
Norfolk - Daily Mail, May 23, 2005
I know I'm me - why do I
need an ID card?
"Sorry, officers, I
don't have an ID card. I never applied for one. It seemed a bit steep
at 300 quid. I do have my free passport, my driving licence and my
London freedom travel pass, each with my photograph. I have my NHS
medical card, with its lengthy number, given me at birth, my RAF
service book with my Armed Forces number, and a chit authorising me to
wear a few gongs -including a General Service Medal with Malaya bar,
for fighting communist terrorists on behalf of my country, or so they
told me.
"I've also got various credit
cards and store cards, all with my signature on the back, generally
good for buying the everyday requrements for life as well as the odd
luxury. If you decide to arrest me, I suppose I'll have to be
photographed and given another number, besides my PINs.
"I'm afraid I haven't got a
pension book; it was taken away."
"By thieves, sir?"
"No ... well, not exactly. By the
Government. By the way, may I see your warrant cards please, gentlemen?"
Oh dear, they've disappeared. E.
Harry Gumer, Romford, ESSEX - Daily Mail, June 1, 2005
NO means NO
When does NO mean MAYBE?
When it's not the answer the EU wants. With the courageous French
NON resounding in their ears, shabby, undemocratic self-interested
leaders of Europe propose ignoring the part of their precious
constitution that requires ratification by all members and
continuing without one of the biggest founder members to
prevent derailing the gravy train.
As in Ireland,
they refuse to accept any NO votes, ignoring the will of the people,
and re-stage votes until they can engineer the 'correct' answer. Sadly,
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw dances to their tune like a puppet on a
string. With tactics such as these, how can anyone really believe the
EU has our interests at heart. Letter from Steve Penny, Kingsnorth, Kent - Daily
Mail, June1, 2005
Surely
the French result makes the £1million the EU recently spent on a
treaty signing ceremony seem a trifle premature and extravagant. Letter from Keith Wiseman, Bury, Lancs. - Daily Mail,
June1, 2005
|
Britain has
traditionally been one of the biggest net contributors to the EU
because we do not get as much money back from Brussels in farm and
regional subsidies as our rivals.
According to
Treasury figures, between 1995-2002, Britain's average contribution
taking the rebate into account, was £2.6billion, or £43.55
per head of population.
The French -
the biggest recipient of farm subsidies - contributed £1billion a
year or £16.08 per head of their population.
|
|
Tony
Blair should know that respect comes by example - from the
top. If a country's leader has no respect for the rule of
international law and no respect for the truth, how can
he expect anyone to have respect. Letter
from P.J.Atkinson, Ashford, Kent - Daily Mail, January 12,
2006
The
Chancellor's single greatest act of vandalism in almost
nine years in office has been his wanton destruction of
Britain's private retirement industry. By slapping a massive
tax on pension funds, now worth
£7.3billion a year, he has helped to turn
the best private retirement industry in Europe into a basket-case
in perpetual crisis. Together with the adoption of European
accounting rules - which make it much riskier to operate
a company pension scheme - hundreds of firms have shut their
final salary plans to new employees and slashed benefits
to existing staff. From
Allister Heath: "I've seen the future and its grey"
in THE SPECTATOR - April 15, 2006
Nine
years ago the British people were sold a fantasy of clean
and competent government of principle and honesty. Its shiny
wrappings stripped away, the product now reveals its true
nature: Personal greed, arrogance, incompetence, shamelessness,
rash warmongering and an inability to accept - as is clear
to almost everyone else - that it is time to go. Editorial
- The Mail on Sunday, May 28, 2006
|
June
29, 2006 (1146 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 2529 US - 113 UK - >60,000? civilians - 25 media
Anyone
who questions mass immigration is accused of 'playing the
race card' to shut down debate, says Labour's Frank Field.
We asked him why he is concerned by an issue ignored by the main
parties
by
Frank Field, Former Labour Minister - Daily Mail, June 30, 2006
Newcomers
to Britain are arriving at such a rate that, over a five-year
Parliament, the population increase will be equal to 47 new Parliamentary
constituencies. On the other hand, the rate at which a number
of our fellow citizens are deciding to go in the opposite direction
and make their lives beyond our shores is equivalent to 26 constituencies.
The
result is a turnover in our population of almost a million each
year. This statistic is based on official figures for 2004 - the
latest available. But the recent trend shows a sharp escalation.
The truth is that this is simply not sustainable.
Over
the centuries, Britain has generally been a net exporter of people.
There was only one year during the period from 1964 to 1982 when
there was a net migration into this country. In 1983, there was
a net migration of 17,000 - and the figures have swollen to almost
a quarter of a million by 2004.
The
Government's estimate of future movements of population is so
wide of the mark it's pitiful. While both France and Germany placed
curbs on the number of citizens from the new EU accession countries
crossing their borders, Britain did not. Our Government was confident
that the influx of people from Eastern Europe would total no more
than 13,000 in the first 12 months. But today, 18 months later,
this guesstimate has been shown to be out by almost a factor of
30.
In
fact, the numbers coming here are recorded as 329,000. Of course,
none of these figures include illegal immigrants.
Day
of the Jackass
Littlejohn
- Daily Mail, June 30, 2006
When
did we start handing out National Insurance numbers like
sweeties? More than 9,000 have been issued to foreigners
in Slough alone. This in a town where, according to official
figures, only 300 immigrants settle each year.
Does
anyone have any idea just who are these people being given
NI numbers, which makes it simple to obtain other official
documents, open bank accounts, gain a British passport?
And, more importantly, claim benefits.
We're
told most of the newcomers are from Eastern Europe and
they have come here to work, That may be true. But what
about those who may have come here with more sinister
objectives?
More
than 30 years ago, the anti-hero assassin of Frederick
Forsyth's The Day Of The Jackal had to go to extraordinary,
ingenious lengths to establish a false identity, These
days, all The Jackal would have to do is turn up at the
DSS in Slough and he'd be laughing.
|
Movements
of population on this scale are having a massive social impact
which will, if not addressed, cause sweeping political changes
and which, perhaps, will determine the future of the Labour Party.
For it is the Labour heartlands that the first and full impact
of mass migration on this scale is being felt.
The
BNP, not surprisingly, did best in this year's local elections
in those areas where recent immigration was highest. It is England
that is being most affected. The Government's projections for
future population growth, which is now driven by immigration,
show a net migration policy in England producing the equivalent
of a new city of Birmingham every five years.
Given
that new arrivals concentrate in the poorest areas - although
the geographical spread of such areas is on the increase - the
sheer numbers arriving in such a short space of time transform
the communities into which they arrive. Within the space of five
years, an English working-class community, with first-generation,
settled immigrants and their children, is transformed out of all
recognition. Neighbourhoods in which people have spent the whole
of their days are literally being changed before their eyes.
There
are, of course, gains from immigration and these must feature
in any cool, rational public debate. But we need to be precise
over what those gains are.
Studies
in the U.S., Canada and Holland have found that, understandably,
most of the benefit accrues to the immigrants themselves. The
benefit to the host community is of the order of 0.1% if GDP per
head per year. The Government's claim that net immigration adds
0.4% to growth takes no account of the 0.26% increase in population,=.
So the benefit per head falls to 0.14%, or a £2-a-week boost
to the average family.
But
immigration on the present scale also affects wage levels. Again,
some people see a benefit. The government correctly stresses that
Britain is experiencing probably the longest economic boom it
its history. Part of the reason for that is the Chancellor's radical
decision to entrust an Independent Monetary Policy Committee with
an inflation target.
A
second reason is that with an increasing labour force, and people
coming here very anxious to work, the traditional rise in wages
which has destroyed most previous booms in the post-wear period
has not operated. But there is another way of looking at these
figures. Immigration on this scale is pushing down wage rates.
My
constituency of Birkenhead has not yet been affected by the scale
of the current increase in immigration, although there is a settled
immigration community in the town. Yet, last Friday, I had the
first example of a middle-aged man who had worked every year since
leaving school but was now finding it impossible to get a plastering
job. His wage rates were being undercut ruthlessly by newcomers
in the area.
Here
is one of the crunch questions that Middle England must face.
Up until now, it has been the clear winner from the government's
immigration policy. It has benefited from out ubiquitous Polish
plumbers and those other skilled workers, many of whom operate
in the cash economy.
But
Middle England is 'sleepwalking' towards segregation - to use
the words of Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the commission for
Racial Equality. An Australian study has found that some British
cities now rank with the top 50 segregated American cities, such
as New York, Miami and Los Angeles. The high concentration of
70% of the new arrivals coming to London and the South East renders
integration more difficult.
'White
flight' is occurring, with an estimated 10,000 people leaving
London each year. In six London boroughs, births to foreign-born
mothers account for 60% of all babies born. If we continue our
sleepwalking approach, I believe the political impact will be
seismic.
Without
immigration, the BNP would hardly exist, but it exploits the situation
in the nastiest of ways. Mainstream Britain has to be thankful
that the BNP has yet to throw up a leader of even modest political
skills. If it ever did, and the three major parties remained unwilling
to participate in a debate, we could be facing quite shocking
results.
During
the last General Election campaign, Tony Blair and the then Tory
leader, Michael Howard, promised a cool, calm and sustained debate
on immigration. But that debate has yet to begin.
People
have a right to expect the major parties to be mature enough to
discuss those issues which most affect us. Excluding immigration
from the debate makes it even easier for the riff-raff on the
Far-Right to exploit voters' natural concerns. The Prime Minister
needs to begin the debate.
First,
does England want to see immigration as the driving force for
a rapidly rising population over the next 30 years.
If
the answer is 'no', we should begin discussing the possible implementation
of David Blunkett's points system, regulating the numbers of immigrants
at any one time coming to Britain.
This
debate is about the kind of Britain we want to see created. We
are not Little Englanders. We have a great history of engagement
with vast parts of the globe.
But
Britain is sleepwalking into becoming a global labour station.
If the Prime Minister believes this scenario is right, he has
a duty to test it openly with the electorate.
The
issue of whether this country goes to war is seen as too important
to be left to that high command. Similarly, the future of a great
country like Britain cannot be decided by a very small group of
politicians who are not prepared to discuss and defend their decisions
in public.
If you have
suggestions for additional subjects, or material to include in the
pages linked to the subjects listed, please contact the webmaster.
