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 17/2/05
|
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
|
'Tick
Box' medicine
Patients
die as targets rule NHS, says doctor
By
Jenny Hope, Medical Correspondent, Daily Mail, March 25, 2005
Patients
are dying because of the government's target-driven 'tick box'
culture in the NHS< warns a leading doctor. Teams of doctors
do the minimum to avoid being sued - but with no one senior taking
charge of the patient's care, it is claimed.
Dr
Craig Gannon, a consultant in palliative medicine at Ashford and
St Peter's NHS Trust, blames poor continuity of care and preventable
deaths on a system geared towards meeting targets. In a searing
account, he writes today in the British Medical Journal about
the fragmented care of an elderly woman who died from kidney failure
which should have been diagnosed months earlier. Her untimely
death followed shortcomings in her care from six medical teams
at three different locations.
Although
many individual doctors carried out the tests they were asked
for, they did no more to help he concluded. Dr Gannon said: "Worryingly,
it was the system - increasingly engineered to medical technicians
rather than to professionals - that seems to be responsible. The
presiding tick box culture allowed and even fostered suboptimal
assessment."
His
warning comes amid rising concern about Government targets, including
a British Medical Association survey earlier this month showing
patient care being put at risk by four-hour waiting targets in
A&E units. NHS complaints have reached record levels, particularly
from patients and their families forced to appeal after failing
to get satisfactory answers from local hospital managers.
Dr
Fiona Godlee, editor of the BMJ, said Dr Gannon's case might be
the tip of the iceberg, with pending changes to the system likely
to make things worse. She added: "How many such stories lurk
in the corridors of today's NHS, and what do they tell us? While
individual clinicians are doing what they are asked, the UK's
new tick box, target-driven culture means they are doing no more
than required.
"If
this is, as Dr Gannon implies, a result of recent reforms, what
can we expect from the next phase of the Government's NHS improvement
plan? How do we know they won't result in more cases like this
one?"
In
his account, Dr Gannon describes the 'uncontroversial' progress
of an elderly woman's care which allowed 'avoidable' harm to the
patient to occur without evoking concern. She was admitted for
treatment for the build-up of an antidepressant drug in her body,
and discharged without any follow-up checks for mild kidney malfunctioning.
Two
months later, she was diagnosed with breast cancer and operated
on six weeks later. Although she was prescribed hormonal treatment
to prevent a recurrence, other follow-up measures were not carried
out, such as investigating signs of kidney trouble. Within seven
weeks she was seen promptly for anaemia, but once again investigations
to exclude bowel cancer failed to follow up worsening kidney problems.
Nine months after being originally seen, she was admitted for
progressive kidney failure. More surgical tests were carried out,
but there was no diagnosis or plan and no doctor in overall charge,
said Dr Gannon.
"Unfortunately,
preventable harm had already occurred. She continued to decline
and died shortly afterwards with the time to address end-of-life
issues unnecessarily shortened," he said. "The patient
did not have to wait longer than Government targets for any procedure
- but ticking boxes is not enough. Biases towards quantitative
measures (which are used to guard against litigation) can neglect
the quality of care. Healthcare systems must minimise errors."
|
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
|
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.
