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
|
Czar
claims our A&Es are envy of the world
Government's
accident and emergency czar was ridiculed last night for
his claims that Britain's casualty wards are becoming
'the envy of the world'.
Sir
George Alberti said there had been 'really remarkable
improvement' in A&E performance, yet admitted casualty
departments had 1/3 the consultants they need. The professor
claimed 96% of patients now spend 4 hours or less in A&E
from arrival to admission.
However,
a study in August by the Commission for Health Improvement
found more than a third of patients wait more than 4 hours
on a trolley for a bed after being admitted to casualty.
The watchdog found that 5% wait more than 24 hours.
Sir
George's claims, made in a report to the Government, were
slammed yesterday by MPs. Lib Dem Paul Burstow said: "This
Government report is utterly complacent. Overworked staff
and frustrated patients will not recognise this perfect
picture of a shiny, happy A&E.
|
Cancer
patients suffering in NHS targets shambles
By
Jenny Hope - Medical Correspondent - Daily Mail, October 27, 2004
Cancer
patients are being denied the best chance of survival because
of targets and the shambolic distribution of funds, according
to a damning report by MPs. Attempts to end the postcode lottery
in cancer care - where patients in some areas get better treatment
than others - are being undermined by the Government's funding
system.
The
report from the all-party parliamentary group on cancer published
today, paints a damning picture of Labour's attempted reforms
in cancer care. While some national targets can be useful, the
report says local health officials admit that meeting a goal set
by Whitehall often becomes 'the end in itself'.
For
example, those with suspected cancer who are referred as 'urgent'
cases by their GPs should be seen within two weeks. But this target
is 'causing delays elsewhere in the system', the MPs said. It
also creates a divide between 'urgent' and 'non-urgent' referrals
that is not always justified. Ministers gave extra money for cancer
services 'without any clear mechanism for ensuring that the money
is spent as intended'.
The
MPs also questioned the ability of GPs to identify and refer cancer
patients. Local primary care trusts were given financial control
of cancer services this year. They now spend more than 75% of
the NHS budget and take responsibility for commissioning cancer
treatment from hospitals. They also monitor national targets at
a local level.
But the new funding system is breaking down because of a lack
of experience at local level, MPs say. They warn that many of
the country's 302 primary care trusts are 'struggling' to cope.
The problems are hampering attempts to end delays in diagnosis
and treatment, and hindering the purchase of drugs and equipment.
The report recommends scrapping the current system and handing
control of funding to England's 34 'cancer networks' - regional
groups of professionals, including GPs and cancer specialists.
Liberal
Democrat health spokesman Paul Burstow said: "The Government
has set more national targets than local health trusts can fund.
Targets for cancer diagnosis and certain cancer treatments mean
that patients not covered by the targets wait longer. Targets
are distorting priorities and stopping doctors from treating the
sickest quickest."
Labour
MP Dr Ian Gibson, chairman of the all-party group, said: "The
Government says cancer is a national priority, yet the system
that's expected to deliver it is too fragmented. Primary care
trusts are struggling to cope."
The
Department of Health rejected the criticisms. A spokesman said:
"We have the fastest falling death rates for lung cancer
in men and breast cancer in women in Europe. We are delivering
better treatment more quickly to more people than ever before
with unprecedented investment - an extra £570million in
2003-4 alone. We believe that strategic health authorities and
primary care trusts are best placed to respond to local needs."
Matron
can't do it all on her own
|
Andrew
Alexander - writing in the Daily Mail on November 12, 2004
Labour's
passion for targets is a new as well as a tiresome phenomenon.
Perhaps it comes from its Marxist past and a lingering admiration
for modernisation programmes of the Soviet Union, the first
nation to go target mad.
All
those five-year plans called for a rise to so many million
tons of steel and coal, of wheat, heads of cattle, tractors,
lorries, pairs of shoes, door knobs and everything else.
The supposed success of these targets resulted so much from
false returns from plant managers, frightened for their
lives, that the mathematicians at the state planning agency,
Gosplan, tried to calculate 'a coefficient of lying'.
Perphaps
we need something similar.
|
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.
