Rescuing
Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected
Dictatorship
|
Come
back Gilligan, all is forgiven. Penny Young, Diss, Norfolk,
to The Guardian, February 24, 2005
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
Power
cut, please
Labour's
pollsters have Tony Blair running scared, because they have
informed him that if turnout at the next election is below
50%, the result will be a hung parliament. This would be
good news for those of us who, viewing the damage inflicted
by recent governments, would like nothing better than a
Parliament powerless to do anything. Letter from Ron
Phillips, London W14 - Daily Mail, February 17, 2005
|
Tony
Blair's pledge cards made no mention of pensioners. Perhaps
they're the jokers. Letter to the Daily Mail from Brian
Green, Daventry, Northants - February 22, 2005
The
Guardian's Polly Toynbee says 'a profoundly nasty streak'
among voters worried about poverty, crime and immigration
might cause them to vote against the Government. Isn't
it time we replaced the present electorate with one more
to Polly's liking? Ephraim Hardcastle, Daily Mail,
February 24, 2005
Back
to the future
'Forward
not Back' is quite wrong: we must go back - back to clean
hospitals with more medical staff and fewer managers;
back to education with proven standards.
Back
to police on the street and solving crime; back to increased
employment in industry, back to ministers who stand up
for this country and back to democratic government. Then,
perhaps, we can move forward. Letter from S, M. Butler,
Shoreham-by-Sea, Sussex - Daily Mail, March 23, 2005
Virtues
of a secret ballot
Sir
- Concerning postal votes (report Mar 23) what is the
first principle of a democratic political vote? Answer:
THE SECRET BALLOT.
It
is obvious that a postal ballot is only as secret as the
moral strength of the voter. With the infinite propaganda
powers of today's electronic media, it is frighteningly
easy for devious politicians to promote politically correct
or "cool" or, most wickedly, "honest and
transparent" voting patterns, where someone failing
to vote "with his/her group" must "have
something to hide".
Postal
voting should, at best, be allowable only to persons who
are required to be stationed away from their constituency
on government business. A few temporary disfranchisements
may result, but nothing is perfect.
Letter from J. B. Lewis, Bognor Regis, West Sussex - The
Daily Telegraph, March 25, 2005
SIR
- Why on earth are people still insisting on voting for
the Labour Party this May 2005. It has lied and cheated
the public again and again during the Iraq war, immigration,
violent crime and hospital waiting list figures. It has
introduced stealth taxes and even been caught rigging
the postal voting system. To the Editor, Daily Telegraph,
from Philip Priestley, High Wycombe, Bucks. April 19,
2005
|
Surgeon
says 'I've had enough'
Blair
squirms over NHS targets on BBC's Question Time
Petty
targets and despots in suits
By
Clair Rayner - Daily Mail, April 26, 2005
Experienced
British nurses are leaving the National Health Service in their
thousands and I, for one, am not in the slightest bit surprised.
Why would anyone want to work for an organisation that is badly-managed,
under-staffed and has little time to give patients the care they
desperately need.
|
Out
of touch with the real world
(Comment,
Daily Mail, April 30, 2005)
It
was perhaps the most telling image of the week: a sweating,
floundering Prime Minister reduced to open-mouthed confusion
when confronted with problems of real people in a real world.
On
BBC's Question Time special, Mr Blair was 'absolutely astonished'
to discover that GPs are refusing to make appointments more
than two days in advance, to comply with Whitehall's requirement
that patients must be seen within 48 hours. He thought it
'absurd'.
But
even then, he didn't grasp the point. He said he was sorry
for the experience of 'one person', only to provoke a storm
of complaints from the audience that they too had suffered
such bureaucratic, target-driven nonsense. A chastened Mr
blair promised to investigate.
Eight
years on, isn't it a little late to wake up to what is really
happening in the NHS? He makes much of the extra billions
for health and paints a glowing picture of new buildings,
more MRI scanners and faster treatments. And to be fair,
there have been some improvements.
But
the rose-tinted view from Downing Street is far from the
full story. The appointment fiasco is only one example.
Need to see your family doctor in the early evening or at
the weekend? Hope for a home visit late at night? Forget
it. Under their new contract, GPs no longer need to be available
out of hours.
Meanwhile,
the targets culture distorts clinical priorities. The BMA
warns that lives are jeopardised in A&E departments
because of Whitehall's demand for patients to be treated
within 4 hours. Doctors must cut corners to meet that target,
often by pushing patients into inappropriate wards just
to get them out of casualty by the deadline. That leads
to bed shortages and cancelled operations.
Lives
are put at risk in other ways too. The MRSA superbug rages
in hospitals, partly because managers are blocking requests
to close infected wards so they can be cleaned properly.
Reason? Performance targets again.
On
and on it goes. Mr Blair points proudly to new scanners,
while a third of them stand idle or under-used because of
a shortage of radiographers. But there is plenty of money
for the bloated army of bureaucrats appointed to enforce
New Labour's obsessive targetting.
His
failure to introduce genuine reforms in the NHS encourages
mismanagement and waste on a colossal scale. But, as on
Iraq - where he enthuses over democracy while closing his
eyes to the 60 terrorist attacks a day - this Prime Minister
sees only what he wants to see.
Rarely
has the chasm between rhetoric and reality yawned so wide.
Rarely has a politician seemed so woefully out of touch.
(Comment, Daily Mail, April 30, 2005)
|
Nevertheless,
the scale of the annual exodus of homegrown nurses from the NHS
is seriously alarming. According to new figures from the Royal
College of Nursing, a staggering 35,000 nurses born in Britain
- nearly 10% of the NHS's total nursing staff - retired or left
the service in the year to March 2005. Over the same period, around
20,500 new entrants from this country joined the UK nursing register.
As
a former nurse myself - who worked at patients' bedsides for 12
full years - I applaud every one of those plucky youngsters brave
enough to give one of the world's most demanding jobs a try. But
you don't have to be Einstein to do the maths, do you?
Over
the year, the number of British nurses fell by nearly 15,000.
If it hadn't been for the nearly 13,000 nurses recruited overseas,
the NHS would have a nursing crisis on its hands of truly terrifying
proportions.
Of
course, there is nothing new about a shortage of nurses - there
have always been more sick people than there have been nurses
willing, trained and able to look after them. That is why the
job has always involved hard work and , at times, gruellingly
long hours. That, in turn, was why people used to talk about nursing
being a vocation - you had to really want to do it.
A
good matron, I was told when I was training, could smell vocation
on a new applicant. Well, something seems to have happened to
that sense of vocation. Young women - and these days, of course,
young men - are still joining the profession but these days they
seem to be leaving it just as quickly.
Beverley
Malone, general secretary of the RCN described the situation very
well when she said: "They are coming in at the front door
and they are falling out of the back."
So
why is it happening/
Part
of the problem lies with the heightened expectations of today's
modern young women, and I'll come to that in a moment.
A
much bigger cause of the nursing exodus is the working nightmare
the NHS has become. It's now a difficult and often unrewarding
place to work. And no, not because it is full of sick people but
because it is full of grey-suited managers, brandishing clip-boards
and setting targets for everything.
A
nurse shouldn't have to worry about bed occupancy rates and average
lengths of stay, for Heaven's sake - her job is to look after
someone who is sick, and do her best to make them better. What
none of these meddling bureaucrats seem to understand is that
not all sick people are the same. Some are sicker than others
and some will take longer to recover from the same illness than
others. Nurses have always understood this and been able to adjust
their individual care regime accordingly.
But
not nowadays - if a patient isn't up and out in the specified
number of days, then hospital managers will be marching into the
wards and demanding to know why. You try holding on to a sense
of vocation in those circumstances, especially when you're not
very well paid in the first place, have constant childcare problems
and keep hearing worrying things about your pension.
Given
the chance I'd abolish all targets from the NHS immediately, a
move which would transform life on the wards. Patients would stay
until they were properly better rather than being sent home early,
just to clear a bed, with the nursing staff all-but certain in
some cases that they will be back as an emergency admission inside
48 hours.
I
don't believe average length of hospital stays would increase
significantly. After all, sending home people who just days ago
had been desperately sick but are now recovered is the principle
perk of the job.
But
is a joy and pleasure that, all too often, today's nurses miss
out on. They simply don't have the time. People are people not
widgets on a production line, and hospital managers would do well
to remember that. They also need to introduce far more family
friendly working practices.
Nursing
remains a prediminantly female profession and women today have
never had more pressurised lives. They need to earn a living,
they are likely to have children, they may have elderly relatives
to look after - the list goes on and on.
Hospital
terms of employment need to be sufficiently flexible to reflect
the realities of a working woman's life, but very often they still
don't. It is no surprise then that so many experienced nurses
eventually come to the conclusion that it's just not worth the
effort and walk away.
There
is nothing new about nurses leaving the profession either, but
it is possible to tempt them back a few years later when their
families are grown up. There are, I am certain, still thousands
of former nurses, now in their 40s and 50s, who could be coaxed
back into the profession by improved pay and status, and more
flexible working hours.
Their
medical knowledge may be a little out of date but their experience
- not just of nursing but of life - could transform morale on
our horribly hard-pressed wards. They could also serve as mentors
to younger nurses, who are clearly finding modern nursing very
tough indeed. And who can blame them? Nursing is tough and it
has never been easier for bright and resourceful young women to
find alternative employment that is infinitely less arduous.
Why
emply bed pans and make beds when you could be selling designer
clothes in a boutique? Why dress nasty wounds on a poorly-cleaned
ward when you could be sashaying around swanky offices of a public
relations firm or advertising agency?
Too
many young nurses are asking just those sorts of auestions and
clearly failing to find the right answer. They know - and they
are right - that there is easier and better money elsewhere.
Unless
something is done, the outlook for nursing in this country is
dire. In all conscience, we cannot continue to paper over the
cracks by hiring nurses from developing countries that need them
even more than we do.
Nursing
remains a vocation. I'm quite sure of that, but we must make it
easier for nurses of all ages to turn that vocation into a career.
That means better pay, pensions and ultra-flexible working patterns.
And
it means less of endless red tape and meaningless, stupid, time-wasting
targets.
But
our new Health Secretary, whoever that may be, must also move
quicly to improve the job satisfaction that nursing offers. Patients
need to become people again and nurses have to be givcen the time
to do what nurses do best. Get the ill properly well again.
|
Tactical
Voting
As
UKIP member for several years, I believe the greatest
threat facing the British is the potential loss of our
independence to govern ourselves. Once Brussels gains
complete control, everything else we are voting for in
the coming election is academic. The real decisions will
be made in Brussels by people we can't vote out.
Much
as I support UKIP's aims, I now believe the single most
important goal for British voters is to remove Blair and
his rotten Government before they complete the process
of removing our sovereignty. Only a vote for Michael Howard
will do this - Letter to the Daily Mail from Tony Beverley,
London SW10 - April 7, 2005
Perhaps
Ann Widdecombe was right about Michael Howard, but it
should have been KNIGHT with a K, and he could have saved
us from the monsters Blair and Campbell - Letter to
the Dail Mayil from Les Fletcher, Rhos-on-Sea, Colwyn
Bay, Wales - February 18, 2005
After
a clear vote against them, we still got eight non-elected
Regional Assemblies. When we vote against the EU Constitution,
we'll get them anyway. Letter from P.Cove, Aylesbury,
BUCKS.- Daily Mail, January 31, 2005
THE
TIMES slavish support for the Government worries some
members of the paper's staff, not to mention any perspicacious
readers who are left. Political editor Philip Webster
was questioned about this when he addressed colleagues
as part of an in-house 'masterclass' exercise. Small wonder.
One of his Blair-worshipping subordinates wrote a news
story yesterday poo-pooing the row over Labours anti-semitic
poster mocking Michael Howard, saying it was merely £5million
worth of 'free publicity' for the party. Ephraim Hardcastle
- Daily Mail, Febrauary 2, 2005
Hold
the front page
Further
to BBC bias (Mail), very often on BBC Breakfast and Breakfast
With Frost, coverage of the morning papers is censored.
If the front page of the Daily Mail is critical of Tony
Blair and his Soviet-style Government, it is not shown,
although the front pages of all the other newspapers are
shown. A supposedly independent broadcasting body is acting
as censor for this Government - an absolute disgrace.
Letter from Peter Fish, Chippenham, Wilts. .- Daily Mail,
February 17, 2005
SIR
- Why on earth are people still insisting on voting for
the Labour Party this May 2005. It has lied and cheated
the public again and again during the Iraq war, immigration,
violent crime and hospital waiting list figures. It has
introduced stealth taxes and even been caught rigging
the postal voting system. To the Editor, Daily Telegraph,
from Philip Priestley, High Wycombe, Bucks. April 19,
2005
|
The
REAL NASTY PARTY- How
Labour is the true home of spite, bigotry and contempt for the
public
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.
