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
|
David
Blunkett resigned on December 15, 2004
From
a servant to a sultan
By
Libby Purves - The Times - November 30, 2004
|
The
Blunkett affair
Your
leading article this morning eloquently reflects my own
concern about this rather sordid affair. I fear that the
Home Secretary had demeaned the dignity of his office, not
so much by the relationship itself but through its emerging
consequences.
Whatever
the truth of the allegations against David Blunkett I believe
his reputation has already suffered.
Letter
to THE TIMES newspaper
- Mr David R Smith, East Farnden, Market Harborough - Nov
29, 2004
|
In
the beginning, new Labour could inspire. Cynics may scoff, but
in 1997 we honest simpletons felt a healthful breeze blowing across
the political landscape. Tony Blair rallied his MPs in Church
House and affirmed the party's humility. "We are not the
masters. The people are the masters. We are the people's servants
... Remember, you are not here to enjoy the trappings of power
but to do a job and to uphold the highest standards in pub lic
life."
Reader,
I believed him. The late Tory years had sown a helpless yearning
for something new and clean. Now, on the far side of innumerable
disappointments (not to mention shockingly unservantlike behaviour
by bossy ministers) it reads as black comedy. But this week it
is the last sentence which resonates: the vow not to misuse the
trappings of power.
In
the David Blunkett affair, whatever the visa inquiry decides,
the most damaging thing is evidence of the way the Home Secretary
acted the sultan, allegedly cavalierly assuming that the perks
of office were his to share as he wished. The Westminster village,
which can be amazingly sentimental for a pack of jackals, has
been talking up the Home Secretary's "deeply moral"
nature. But read my lips, chaps: there is much in this business
which ordinary people really won't like. The political damage
is huge.
The
affair itself is obviously grim. I am no moral absolutist in these
matters, and happy to distinguish private from public life. I
defended the louse Robin Cook, regretted the loss of David Mellor,
and think Michael Howard was a fool over Boris. As for Clinton,
I always knew he'd get away with it after hearing the verdict
of a Midwest farmhand: "If Hillary don't got a problem with
it - I don't got one."
But
the Kimberly Quinn business is enough to make the most easy-going
flinch. It is black treachery to embark on a secret affair within
months of your marriage. Worse still to become pregnant twice,
apparently careless of the children's paternity, while your older
husband goes through reversal of vasectomy for your sake. This
cruel and dishonourable betrayal went on for three years. And
who was enthusiastically complicit in it? Why, the Home Secretary:
the man who orders citizens into parenting classes, and who -
the year before starting this affair - decreed that schoolchildren
be taught the sanctity of marriage. ("The
committment that is made by people through marriage is a way of
emphasising .... stability to children," Blunkett, 2000.)
Moreover,
once his mistress decided to renounce treachery and be forgiven
by good Mr Quinn, Mr Blunkett threatened to use the law to prove
paternity and blow their family apart.
That
is bad enough. But you could argue - just - that it is private
not public wickedness. The thing that tips it over into the public
domain is the fact that the Home Secretary apparently forgot that
he was not 'to enjoy the trappings of power'. Even if he did not
fast-track the nanny's visa, Mrs Quinn's e-mail to a friend suggests
that he let her think so. Visa forms are designed for poor English
speakers: what ordinary help could the publisher of the Spectator
need? Thus it is natural to suspect that it was extra-ordinary
help she solicited: the Home Office admits that Mr Blunkett brought
the form in to work. When Clive Soley, the senior Labour MP, says
emolliently that it is quite normal for an MP to help a citizen
by writing a letter or questioning officials, he seems to forget
that a letter signed D. Blunkett works rather faster than one
signed Bertie Backbench.
Beyond
that lies a host of small stuff, equally sultan-like. Two senior
civil servants were ordered to a meeting between Mrs Quinn and
her lawyers when the story was about to break: had they nothing
else to do, on our payroll? Mr Blunkett admits giving his lover
two first-class rail tickets at taxpayers' expense; Home Office
PR bleats that she was eight months pregnant and the couple were
in "a deep and close relationshipo". Yet she was not
broke, but highly paid and married to a millionaire director of
Vogue. The tickets - which Mr Blunkett claims not to know
were an abuse -have a strong whiff of being a 'trapping of power'.
So does his call to the American Embassy which produced a temporary
passport for her child within hours. Anybody who has even tried
to speak to a human being at the American Embassy - let alone
get them to hurry up - will be greatly impressed by this particular
trapping.
Then
there were the government chauffeurs, using cars full of official
papers to give Mrs Quinn lifts to Derbyshire; such a thing is
not normally available even to spouses.
None
of these thinkgs look enormous, individually. But they add up
to a picture of a man made arrogant and impatient by high office,
who saw no need to be careful how he impressed a silly woman with
his power. There is a line ascribed to him by Mrs Quinn's friends
about the DNA dispute - "The law is on my side. I know because
I made the law." We do not know if that is true, but it has
an awfully likely ring to it. It goes with the snappish Mr Blunkett
on the Today programme sneering at a question about Iraq, the
Mr Blunkett who said he felt like "cracking open a bottle"
when Harold Shipman committed suicide in the care of a prison
he answers for.
This
is a remarkable man, in many ways admirable, a survivor of great
personal misfortune and a reservoir of serious talent. But he
is also a bruiser and a bully. He likes his own way. He's the
Home Secretary, so he gets it. Politics will always need such
ruthless, opinionated men. But that is precisely why we build
structures of restraint to prevent them becoming self-serving.
When a minister as senior as this apparently starts kicking the
barriers down, and the Prime Minister ( another sultan, in his
way ) doesn't see that it matters, then we can't just shrug it
off kindly because the perpetrator was in love.
We
have to take notice. It is our duty as employers. Can't have the
servants of the people thinking it's OK to nick the spoons.
David
Blunkett resigned on December 15, 2004
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.
