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
|
Iraq:
Is Tony away with the fairies?
To
commit us without apology - in fact with relish - to fighting
a war in a terrorist state that he(Blair) has been instrumental
in creating is nothing less than a sign of madness.
By
Stephen Glover - Daily Mail, September 21, 2004
All
the discussion over Tony Blair and Iraq has centred on the question
of whether or not he lied. A majority of people think he did,
according to opinion polls. Others say he was merely misled. A
few maintain that he was neither misled nor did he lie.
But
is it possible that all are wrong? That all parties are missing
the point? There is another explanation of Mr Blair's behaviour
over Iraq, which is that in a very limited and controlled part
of his brain - though also a potentially lethal one - he is not
completely sane.
The
charge is a serious one in respect of a person who can not only
tie his own shoelaces but has also held down a high office, and
dealt with many problems, some of them satisfactorily, without
showing any obvious symptoms of madness. Nevertheless, there is
a welter of evidence to consider.
Take
his remarks about Iraq delivered on Sunday (September 19, 2004).
Without a blush, he informed his audience that a full-scale 'new
Iraqi conflict' was under way. That country had become the 'crucible'
in which the future of the battle against terrorism would be determined.
The
Prime Minister conceded that the war to remove Saddam Hussein
had been 'deeply divisive' and that there were many questions,
some of the 'perfectly legitimate' which were 'still unanswered'.
All the same, 'in this new Iraqi conflict, there is only one side
for decent people to be on'. His message was that we are at war
again, and there is no saying how long this war will last.
Mr
Blair is right that Iraq has become the 'crucible' of the war
against terror, but he does not say that it is the Anglo-American
invasion of Iraq that has made it so. Saddam Hussein was a brutal
dictator who, despite a few low-level contacts with Al Qaeda,
did not tolerate terrorists on Iraqi soil. So long as he was in
power, there was no prospect that Iraq would become a 'crucible'
for terror.
Since
the end of the war in April 2003, Iraq has become a magnet for
Al Qaeda and other terrorists who have targeted American and British
soldiers, as well as westerners in general, and Iraqis who identify
with the new US-backed regime. The latest kidnap victims are Kenneth
Bigley, a Briton, and two Americans. Last night, as the deadline
for their threatened execution passed, one of the Americans was
reported to have been beheaded. In the past week more than 300
people have died in Iraq, nearly all of them at the hands of terrorists.
The
wonder is that Mr Blair should seek our support in the 'new Iraqi
conflict' without mentioning that it was the Anglo-American invasion
of Iraq that turned the country from being a terrorist-free zone
into the terrorist capital of the world. Some people will see
in this the deepest and most despicable cynicism. Perhaps, yet
it seems to me that the Prime Minister's call for our support
betrays, rather than cynicism, a capacity for self-delusion that
borders on the insane.
Mr
Blair has a Messiah-complex, which he generally keeps under control.
The most famous expression of it came at the 2001 Labour Party
conference when he suggested that the problems of the Congo and
Rwanda could be swiftly dealt with. The passage is worth quoting
in full because it does not convey a balanced mind.
|
"This
is the moment to seize. The kaleidoscope has been shaken.
The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle down again.
Before they do, let us re-order the world around us."
|
Perfectly
sane? Even allowing for the febrile nature of party conferences,
this was an extraordinary outburst. Similarly, some of the speeches
he made before the Iraq war were so odd that it is difficult to
understand now why he was not put in a straitjacket and bundled
away. He told one Labour audience that anti-war protesters would
pay for their misguidedness with the 'blood' of innocent Iraqi
civilians crushed under Saddam's regime of terror.
His
eve-of-war address to the nation reads in part like the disjointed
ramblings of someone who had taken leave of his senses. He spoke
of 'threats (which) come together and deliver catastrophe to our
country and world'. He finally went into Labour Party conference
mode, speaking of 'these challenges and others that confront us
- poverty, the environment, the ravages of disease - (which) require
a world of order and stability'.
Of
course, these lunatic utterances were made in the context of many
apparently reasoned statements, which presumably explains why
we did not all consider him mad at the time. yet what seemed sane
then - his assertion that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction
that could be unleashed with 45 minutes, for example - turns out
to have been highly fanciful.
Mr
Blair has later said that on the eve of war he did not know that
these weapons were thought by our intelligence chiefs to be only
short-range. Many critics - including his former ally Greg Dyke,
former director-general of the BBC - find this difficult to believe.
I am not so sure. Mr Blair was so determined to take us to war
that he did not care to inquire into these much-vaunted weapons.
He did not want to risk weakening the case for war in his own
mind.
Documents
just leaked to the Press establish that long before the war against
Iraq, Mr Blair was warned that governing the country after a successful
invasion would be well-nigh impossible and could not be done without
the presence of large numbers of troops for many years. He does
not appear to have taken this very seriously either.
Tony
Blair is drawn to war not because he is bloodthirsty or cruel,
but because war is for him a way of re-shaping the world. War
in Kosovo, war in Afghanistan, war in Iraq. What he said on Sunday
amounts to another declaration of war. He said the words: we are
at war again. Oh, joy! This is what his apocalyptic imagination
years for: perpetual struggle. The war against Iraq is written
off without apology or expression of regret. It does not even
matter whether we supported it or not. If we are decent people,
we will rally to him in the next phase of apocalypse.
There
is, in truth, no option to pull out of Iraq. It would be utterly
amoral if we did so. We would leave the country in an infinitely
worse state than we found it in, having created a state where
terrorism thrives more than anywhere else on earth. We have to
stay. Yet, with things going from bad to worse, it would take
a very great optimist to forecast that things will be any better
in a year's time.
What
a terrible mess this is. Nearly everyone can see that. If Tony
Blair were merely trying to put a brave face on things, one could
almost accept it. But there is much more here than mere political
evasion. To commit us without apology - in fact, with relish -
to fighting a war in a terrorist state that he has been instrumental
in creating is nothing less than a sign of madness.
The
Blair Mutiny
Write
this letter to your Labour MP to get rid of Blair
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.
