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
|
They're
at it again! Two weeks after the outcry over their rocketing expenses,
MPs vote to give themselves yet another rise in allowances
By David
Hughes - Political Editor - Daily Mail, November 4, 2004
The
outcry over MPs' expenses flared up again yesterday when they
voted to hand themselves a big increase in office allowances.
The move comes just a fortnight after their huge expenses claims
were revealed and will cost the taxpayer up to £3million/year
extra.
Under
the plan, the amount MPs spend on paying their staff and running
their offices will increase by 8% to £72,000. Those with
three full-time staff will be able to spend even more - up to
a maximum of £80,460/year, an extra which was previously
available only to those with offices in London.
There
was anger two weeks ago when it was revealed that Commons MP's
expenses had soared by more than £20million in just two
years. Backbenchers claimed an average of £118,437 each
in expenses last year on top of their basic salary of £57,485
and a generous pension fund. One, Crosby MP Claire Curtis-Thomas,
received £168,889 in office, staff, travel and other costs.
Yesterday's
vote followed recommendations from the independent Senior Salaries
Review Body, which advises the Government on the pay of MPs and
senior civil servants. It said secretarial allowances should be
increased, but urged that the biggest rises be confined to London,
to reflect higher salaries in the capital. However, a succession
of MPs argued that all Members should get the £80,460 maximum.
Former
Tory Cabinet Minister Ann Widdecombe said the recommendation meant
MPs were effectively being ordered to base staff in London. "Whether
we base our staff in the constituency or at Westminster is a matter
for each Member to determine and the system should be neutral,"
she added.
Despite a warning from Leader of the Commons Peter Hain that ending
the difference would cost an extra £2million to £3million
a year, an amendment to make all MPs eligible for the maximum
staffing allowance was approved by 239 votes to 109.
MPs
were also angry at plans to cut their mileage allowance and early
retirement pension package to bring them more in line with the
rest of the public sector. At present, they can claim 57.7 p/mile
for the first 20,000 miles they drive and 26.6p/mile thereafter
- worth £16,860/year to an MP who drives 30,000 miles. The
Senior Salaries Review Body proposed cutting that to 40p for the
first 10,000 miles and 25p thereafter, in line with Inland Revenue
recommendations.
Tory
MP Sir Nicholas Winterton called the plan 'grotesquely unfair',
saying it failed 'to take into account entirely the size of a
constituency and the need for a member to use his car to undertake
constituency duties'. But his proposal to keep the higher rates
- which was supported by Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs - was
rejected by 193 votes to 118. The plans, along with those on staff
expenses, will come into force next April.
Mr
Hain faced more questions when he introduced proposals to reduce
what he called 'generous' provisions which allow MPs to retire
early on a full or nearly full pension. But despite protests from
MPs that they could not choose their retirement age, the recommendations
were carried without a vote and will be phased in following the
election after next.
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.
