Silent Majority Speaks

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

 

WWW silentmajorityspeaks.com

They're at it again! Two weeks after the outcry over their rocketing expenses, MPs vote to give themselves yet another rise in allowances

£175,000-a-head per year - MP expenses gold mine

MPs' EXPENSES £120,000 - total possible Second home - up to £20,902 Office space - up to £19,325 Staff costs - up to £77,534 Plus stationery and travel costs MPs are paid £57,000 a year, but expenses for travel and housing can amount to an extra £120,000 per MP Overall expenditure on MPs in 2002-2003 was £78m - which did not include their basic salaries

Details of how much individual MPs claimed in expenses and allowances over the past three years will be published by House of Commons authorities forthe first time ever this October 2004. These figues, showing exactly how much each one of the 659 MPs costs taxpayers. Details of the expenses over the past three years have been kept secret until now, but are being published ahead of changes to the Freedom of Information Act in January.

The latest official figures suggest the cost of paying their expenses andallowances has soared in recent years. The bill for MPs, their secretaries, travel and other expenses in 2003 was £75.4million, up on the £49million bill in 2001. Over the same period, the salary bill for MPs rose from £35.1million in 2001 to £39.8million in 2003. In effect, this means each Westminster MP is costing the taxpayer £175,000.

Though the accounts will offer unprecedented insight into MP's expenses claims, they will not give the public a complete picture. For instance, though they will show how much each MP spends on travel, they will not show whether they travelled first or second class - or even if they went by road, rail or air.

One controversial payment is the 'second home' grant, worth £21,000/year. Officially known as the Additional Costs Allowance, it is used to subsidise the cost of accomodation in London. Many MPs have used it to finance huge mortgages and make a profit from the capital's soaring house prices.

About 50 MPs also use some of their £75,000 staffing allowance to employ relatives. Husbands, wives and children have been hired to carry out duties ranging from administrative tasks to tackling constituent's problems,.

Travelling expenses can also mount up, with motoring claims of £200/month taken on trust. With expenses of up to £19,325/year to meet the cost of office accommodation and up to £77,534/year for staff, MPs can claim £120,000/year each on top of their salaries. On top of their annual salary and pension contributions, MPs who do not live near the House of Commons can claim up to £20,902 a year for accommodation in the capital. They may also claim costs for up to three trips to Europe a year, providing the country they are going to has a parliament.

There were uncofirmed reports of MPs contacting officials to pay back dubious expenses before today's publication. The former MP Martin Bell welcomed the publication of the figures, saying it was "public scrutiny at its best". "There's an issue of value for money here," he told BBC Breakfast News.

It's question time, Clair As one of Clair Curtis-Thomas's constituents, I was interested in her comment 'I'm worth it' with regard to her expenses. When I and other residents campaigned for a year for a local road to be cleared up, rubbish removed on a regular basis and rat infestations to be dealt with, her contribution appears to be zilch. When we were trying to get youth disturbances and drug-dealing dealt with, a campaign which led to 200 phone-calls to the police, her contribution appears to be zilch. I have been to many meetings about local problems, but I never saw Ms Curtis-Thomas at one of them. Yet she rarely misses a photo-opportunity. Despite here huge expenses claims for postage, not all of my letters have been responded to, and I am at a loss to see what she had contributed to Crosby. She might sit on Government committees and place herself behind Tony Blair at Prime Minister's Questions, but that has not helped me. Rather than use the train, she flies between the constituency and London. She has been quoted as saying that trains are unreliable. Or is it that she doesn't want to travel with ordinary people and likes to avoid meeting unhappy constituents? Is Claire Curtis-Thomas worth it? I think not. It is time she brushed up on her CV. Letter to the Daily Mail, November 2, 2004 - from Philip Coppel, Liverpool ******* It's question time, Diane While it is understandable that MPs representing far-flung constituencies should be entitled to claim house and travel expsenses, it is inconceivable that those living within 30 miles of Parliament should be subsidised in the same way. I was astonished when Diane Abbott, who lives in Hackney said that her travel expenses were high because she had to go home and cok her son's tea. How many other employers pay travelling costs between an employee's home and the workplace? The excuse from Andrew Dismore, MP for Hendon, for having a Central London flat was that he has to be at work by 8 am. Ordinary folk just get up earlier to arrive at work on time. It would certainly appear that there are many self-centred, pompous twits sitting in Westminster. Letter to the Daily Mail, November 2, 2004 - from Martin Andrews, Newport Pagnell, Bucks

Do you agree that MPs should be accountable to voters in their constituency for the expenses they claim? Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly Don't know Don't care Please click one ot the links above to cast your vote Current results

 For the health of our democracy, we, the people of the United Kingdom, must find a way to force Mr Blair to resign

Mr Blair has lied and deceived us over Iraq. He must resign at once. Do you agree? Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly Don't know Don't care Please click one of the links above to cast your vote Current results

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.