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
|
At
last the courage
I
agree with the Conservative Party's plans for coping with
immigration: a different system is badly needed. I have
a much-loved daughter-in-law and several good friends
who are Asian and Caribbean immigrants. It isn't racist
to be concerned about the numbers who are coming into
this country: our housing, health and education systems
won't be able to cope if things continue as they are,
and this will cause ill-feeling and racial tension.
Lib
Dem leader Charles Kennedy is wrong: this is not desperation
on the part of the Tories but common sense and in everyone's
best interest.
Letter
from C. M Russell, Windsor, Berks. - Daily Mail, January
25, 2005
BRITAIN'S
FULL - a Labour MP speaks out to reveal the true cost
of our immigration shambles
|
A
bold step. Now let's have a REAL debate on immigration
The
Melanic Phillips Column - Daily Mail, January 23, 2005
The
Conservative Party is finally taking the bull by the horns. Today,
Michael Howard will put asylum and immigration at the centre of
the party's election campaign by undertaking significantly to
restrict the numbers coming to Britain. Yesterday, he raised the
profile of this announcement to the maximum by taking out a full-page
advertisement in a Sunday newspaper, in which he promised that
Parliament would set annual quotas for immigration and asylum
along with a curb on work permits through an Australian-style
points system and 24-hour security at the ports.
At
last, the party has realised that instead of running scared from
the expected taunt of a 'a lurch to the right' or 'playing the
race card', it has to take this issue head on and show there is
nothing extreme or unprincipled about acknowledging the urgent
need to deal with it in a robust fashion.
Of
course, newcomers bring much of value to this country. And of
course Britain must not turn its back on genuine refugees.
Asylum
Facing
up to the truth
Comment,
Daily Mail, January 23, 2005
This
paper has always believed Britain should provide a refuge
for those genuinely fleeing persecution, that workers
from overseas with the skills we need should be welcomed
and that the contribution of immigrant communities should
be celebrated.
But
the sad truth is our hospitality has been abused. Many
asylum applicants are economic migrants in disguise, playing
the system to stay as long as possible. Others just enter
and work here illegally.
Michael
Howard, himself the proud son of Jewish immigrants, deserves
much credit for courageously refusing the accept the orthodoxy
of our smug liberal elite who want to suppress real debate
on this issue. He says a Tory Government would introduce
an annual limit on immigration, quotas for asylum and
stricter work-perniit system. There would be 24-hour security
at ports to counter illegal entrants.
What
a contrast to New labour which talks tough but makes no
serious attempt to tackle the problem preferring to fiddle
figures, smear honest whistle-blowers and turn a blind
eye to abuses.
The
result? since 1997, net immigration has averaged 157,000/year
compared with 50,000 between 1993 and 1997, and there
are now 250,000 failed asylum seekers still living here.
Mr
Howard's plan to introduce quotas is an important first
step. But one consequence would surely be a sharp increase
in illegal immigration - our borders are so porous that
even tougher controls will have limited effect.
To
deal with this a Tory Government would have to take the
tough measures New Labour has ducked. That means repealing
the Human Rights Act, whose interpretation by politically-correct
British judges has sent a green light to asylum seekers.
The
Tory leader must also be prepared to throw out those who
are here illegally and ensure the benefit and support
system no longer encourages them to remain.
The
truth is that the only effective way to solve this crisis
is to send a message that Britain is no longer a soft
touch.
|
Courage
But
with around 160,000 new immigrants a year - the equivalent of
a city the size of Birmingham every five years - the numbers are
too high for any country to sustain without destroying its social
fabric. And a full three-quarters of those claiming asylum are
not genuine refugees but are abusing the system.
The
Tories have finally screwed up their courage because they have
understood the fury of the public, for whom this issue is at the
top of their concerns. The Government is picking up the same public
anger. Indeed, its response yesterday was highly revealing, with
ministers saying they, too, acknowledged the seriousness of the
problem and were about to bring forward (yet more) new proposals
of their own.
This
lame response concedes the validity of the argument - once so
incendiary - that immigration numbers are a cause for proper concern.
And it reveals a Government firmly on the back foot. For without
ever putting such a massive policy change to Parliament, it has
promoted mass immigration on economic grounds that don't stack
up.
Yet
at the same time, it has talked tough about controlling the abuse
of asylum - on which it has so conspicuously failed, with hundreds
of thousands of illegal immigrants having vanished in Britain
without trace. The resulting build-up of popular agitation is
being dangerously exploited by neo-Nazi groups.
So
today's announcement poses two questions for the Tories. Have
they finally arrived at an immigration and asylum policy which
actually works, and will both protect the interests of this country
and uphold the principles of a decent and civilised society? And
will it enable them at this late stage to transform public contempt
into popular support?
Their
policy is far more radical and promising than they have so far
been given credit for. In a speech last September, Mr Howard said
he would do two extremely important things. He would pull the
UK out of the 1951 Geneva Convention on refugees; and would redraw
Britain's support for the European Convention on Human Rights
(ECHR) by effectively negating those parts of it that prevent
this country from deporting illegal immigrants.
With
this policy, which will be reiterated today, no one should be
in any doubt that for the first time the British people will be
offered an approach that actually gets to the heart of the asylum
crisis. For the reason the Government has never been able to get
to grips with it lies in the way these two measures have been
interpreted by both the English and European courts.
The
Geneva Convention was never designed to deal with the current
phenomenon of mass migration from undeveloped to developed world.
What's more, the English courts have interpreted it far more broadly
than other countries, so that many more migrants have been encouraged
to claim asylum here.
Transformed
As
for the Human Rights Convention, a key judgment by the European
Court of Human Rights in 1969 made it impossible to deport terrorists
if they argued they would face ill-treatment if they were returned.
The result of both was that Britain became a magnet for asylum
seekers.
Having
neutered both these measures, the Tories say the next step would
be for Parliament to write its own law defining a refugee and
setting an annual quota for both asylum and immigration. It is
here that the party may trip up. For there is a moral duty not
to turn away genuine refugees; but its proposal for reconciling
this duty with a quota, apparently through the establishment of
holding camps abroad, had better be properly though through or
the whole policy will implode.
Nevertheless,
the proposal to tackle the Geneva Convention and the ECHR is an
extremely bold step for which Mr Howard deserves much credit.
For make no mistake, the opposition will be formidable, from both
the English judiciary and from the UN which will scream blue murder
that the British worm is finally turning.
The
Government's muted response yesterday suggests it has understood
that, perhaps for the first time, the Tories have now presented
it with a difficult challenge. So will today mark the point at
which Mr Howard starts to persuade the public that his party has
been transformed from a mortally crippled cruise line giving refunds
to its passengers into the Blue Riband of the electoral fleet?
Partly,
this depends on whether the policy falls to bits when the details
are subjected to close forensic questioning. But the broader problem
is that it may simply be too late to counter the already widespread
impression of the party's opportunism. Indeed, if this is seen
as policy born of desperation it might even reinforce it. And
this is because, however good the policy may be, it is not part
of a coherent position.
What
voters want above all is to trust a party to address its concerns.
To trust it means feeling that what you hear from that party is
what you are going to get, that you know exactly where it is coming
from because everything it says hangs together.
Message
Unfortunately,
this has not been the case with Tories. Their twists and turns
over Iraq, their hesitation over gambling deregulation or their
support for identity cards have conveyed the impression they merely
react to whatever seems to be the prevailing mood.
There
is a blindingly obvious message to deliver which millions of people
are desperate to hear. This is that the party will defend the
nation against the war increasingly being waged upon its fundamental
values and traditions - on everything from mathematics teaching
to multiculturalism, from casinos to the Common Agricultural Policy,
from under-age abortion to asylum.
The
Tories continue to damage themselves - maybe irrevocably - by
failing to grasp the nature and full extent of this culture war
and what side of it to be on. As a result, they have a self-imposed
mountain still to climb. But it is just possible that with this
immigration package, where they will be leading from the front
instead of trying desperately to follow in Tony Blair's shadow,
they may finally rouse the public from its indifference and disdain
- simply through the almost forgotten policy of being themselves.
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.
