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
|
Howard
savages 'grubby Government' - 21/12/04
Tory
leader Michael Howard has accused Tony Blair of leading
a "grubby Government" in the wake of the David
Blunkett affair.
Speaking
at Conservative Campaign Headquarters in central London
following publication of Sir Alan Budd's report into 'nannygate',
Mr Howard told journalists: "He (Mr Blair) leads
a grubby government, that gives favour for finance.
"A
grubby Government that is a stranger to the truth. A grubby
Government that intimidates people who don't agree with
it. In short a grubby Government low on integrity, light
on honesty and lacking in all humility."
|
Sorry,
but I DON'T feel much sympathy for him Commentary
by Melanie Phillips - Daily Mail, December 17, 2003
When
a government minister resigns after a scandal, there is usually
a feeling of closure. With the resignation of David Blunkett,
however, this has not been the case. It has left a bitter taste
in the mouth.
Flirting
with danger
Letter
to the Editor from GBENGA BADEIO, London N8 - Daily Mail
- December 21, 2004
David
Blunkett was simply courting sympathy when he hinted at
the depression and sadness he faces in the days ahead
as a result of his resignation.
He
lived by his own moral code, one which allowed him to
sleep with another man's wife and father a child by her.
If he had given any thought to the pressure on his pregnant
lover, he would have waited until she had given birth
before going to court to pursue his paternity claim.
Mr
Blunkett is an arrogant man who humiliated Stephen Quinn
by sleeping with his wife, by fathering children that
Mr Quinn believed were his, and by placing knowledge of
these matters in the public domain. He also humiliated
nearly all his Cabinet colleagues by suggesting that they
were soft, weak and indecisive.
Although
Tony Blair wrote that Mr Blunkett leaves the Government
with his integrity intact, most people would disagree.
It is a sad day for society when a Prime Minister who
prides himself on being a champion of family life describes
a man who had an affair with a married woman as having
any kind of integrity.
The
sadder point is that no reporters challenged Mr Blunkett
on this crucial, deceitful and ugly issue: intrusion and
destruction of another family.
Mr
Blunkett believes himself to be a good and decent man.
I don't think so. No good man tampers with the wife of
another, however flirtatious she may be.
**************
Letter
to the Editor of THE TIMES from TORBEN PETERSON of Richmond,
Surrey - December 10, 2004
Sir,
In
2000, David Blunkett decreed that schoolchildren be taught
the sanctity of marriage. "The commitment that is
made by people through marriage is a way of emphasising
stability to children" (Libby Purves, Comment, November
30).
Now
he says: "It would be dangerous territory if I wasn't
practising what I preach, which is to always accept responsibility,
always accept the consequences of your actions."
(BBC report, December 6)
In
other words, don't do as I do - do as I say!
|
Far
from expressing any contrition, Mr Blunkett has presented himself
as a noble figure, sacrificing him-self for the sake of the small
child he insists is his son. But he did not sacrifice himself
for his son. He was forced out when he realised that the Budd
inquiry had uncovered e-mails and faxes that would prove he had
indeed abused his public office for private gain. Other claimed
abuses of his office have been left unresolved.
Equally
sickening is the way he has tried to justify his behaviour towards
the Quinn family, claiming that he is entitled to a private life.
Of course, no one says that anyone who has broken up a family
and remarried should be barred from public office. What matters,
surely, is not so much the original lapse but how the erring person
then behaves. And on this count, Mr Blunkett has, in my view,
displayed an absence of judgment incompatible with the high office
he held.
For
against his ex-lover's wishes he has been trying to break up another
man's family, and destroy the stability and security of two tiny
children who would be torn apart between two competing fathers.
This is not to excuse Mrs Quinn's seemingly appalling behaviour,.
But she and her husband decided to make a fresh start for their
family. Mr Blunkett, however, appears to have rewritten the rules
of paternal responsibility.
He
has taken the principle that, after a relationship breaks down,
a father should not desert his offspring and stood this on its
head. For this doctrine was never intended to give the lover of
an adulterous wife the 'right' to destroy the family life of the
cuckolded husband - nor to use a biological claim to ruin the
lives of children brought up in that family.
Once-a-week
fatherhood - or even split parenting - makes the best of a bad
job, but very often involves inevitably destabilised or downright
miserable children. The idea that this is preferable to stable
family life and is a responsible way to behave in these circumstances
as Mr Blunkett claims, is grotesque.
In
addition, his behaviour in putting the heavily-pregnant Mrs Quinn
under so much stress that there are concerns for the safety of
her unborn child - the child which he has also claimed as his
- has been cruelly selfish. He has repeatedly insisted that he
will not talk about his private life, saying that he does not
want to expose his son to this public scrutiny. But since the
scandal broke, he has done little else but talk about his personal
life. His sentimental, self-pitying resignation interviews were
notable for failing utterly to put the interests of these two
children first. Instead, they were all about himself and what
he had been through.
Even
worse, he maintains that he has simply tried to act responsibly.
In fact, he has acted like a man possessed whose judgment has
simply deserted him. And he was no ordinary politician but the
Home Secretary - the lead minister, no less, on family policy.
Of
course, Mr Blunkett deserves compassion on account of his blindness
and his harsh upbringing. A lonely man under enormous pressure,
he fell into the clutches of an unscrupulous woman and lost both
his heart and his head as a result. But he is the last person
who would want to be treated any differently on account of his
disability. And - maybe because of it - he has shown serious flaws
of character. As a journalist, I have had dealings with Mr Blunkett
for a quarter of a century, since before he was even leader of
Sheffield city council. Like so many others, I hugely admired
two things in particular.
First
was his astonishing grasp of detail and prodigious memory for
facts, along with the strength of character which enabled him
to overcame his blindness and get to the top.
The
second was his decent refusal to fall in with the socially-destructive
fashions of the age. Instead, he kept faith with the beleaguered,
law-abiding majority who believed in doing the right thing.
So
what happened? I think that power changed him. Even before he
was appointed to Blair's Cabinet, he was displaying an arrogant
and overweening desire to have his own way, to reject all criticism
and to boast that he alone should take all the credit for transformations
in policy he insisted he had achieved.
The
result was that in both the Education Department and the Home
Office, he made some very serious mistakes because he simply refused
to listen. And now, this capacity for self-delusion has led him
to redefine irresponsibility as responsibility, abuse of public
office as integrity and the destruction of a family as a noble
personal sacrifice.
Tony
Blair told him: "You leave government with your integrity
intact." With that statement, which sticks in the craw of
so many who have been sickened by this whole tawdry spectacle,
the Prime Minister has allowed the personal tragedy of a flawed
but remarkable man to reflect the disturbing absence of both truth
and responsibility in the administration from which David Blunkett
has now made such an ignominious exit.
Please
also read Simon
Heffer and Max
Hastings on Blunkett and Blair
Is
Blunkett an honourable man? - NO!
How
can a government minister retain his 'honesty and integrity'
when he sent an e-mail to fast-track a visa and claimed
rail tickets for 'his lover'? Tony Blair tells him: "You
leave this Government with your integrity intact' and
says his Government is in politics to 'improve our lives'.
It
looks as though our elected politicians are there to improve
their own lives with high salaries, massive pension pots
and inflated expense claims, all paid for by the taxpayers.
I have yet to meet anyone who says that our elected politicians
have improved their lives.
Letter
to the Editor, Daily Mail from Henry McCully, Gosport,
HANTS - December 24, 2004
***********
I
was born illegitimate in the 1930s to an impoverished
mother who gave me up for adoption to her elderly aunt
and uncle. They reared me lovingly in a secure environment.
However, after a bitter row when I was seven, I learned
the truth about my birth.
I
never sought my 'real' father as my dear dad was all I
could have wished for, but the two mothers were very jealous
of each other. Stephen Quinn can be everything to those
children as he has put their needs first in the face of
dishonest and betrayal.
Letter
to the Editor, Daily Mail from Mrs Parkinson, Sutton,
Surrey - December 24, 2004
Is
Blunkett an honourable man? - YES!
I'm
sad to see David Blunkett have to resign over such a trifling
matter. I'm especially sad because although he has been
a very competent Home Secretary, he was hounded out of
office by the sleaze-ridden Tory Party in Parliament.
Shame on them for their actions.
If
all MPs and local councillors past and present, were to
resign because of having sponsored planning applications,
housing allocations, etc., for votes, not may would be
left unsullied. At the end of the day David Blunkett did
it for someone without a vote and not for personal profit
of any sort except his love for the mother of his child.
Letter
to the Editor, Daily Mail from Geoffrey Cupit, Bude, Cornwall
- December 24, 2004
***********
The
whole nature of the David Blunkett issue will nt emerge
for some time. His difficulties may have arisen because,
as a blind man, certain 'helpers' were always necessary
to him in making vital judgements and interpretations.
I'm sure that basically Mr Bunkett is a decent and honourable
man and we all wish him well for the future - but, unfortunately,
he had to go.
Letter
to the Editor, Daily Mail from Zoltan Szabo, LONDON SW16
- December 24, 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.
