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
|
Should
we build new nuclear power stations?
THE SCOTSMAN DEBATE - Fri 1 Apr 2005
YES:
Brian Wilson
Former
Labour energy minister
Those
who see global warming as our great challenge can’t duck
the nuclear option
Just
a few years ago, there were two imperatives driving energy policy
- affordability and security of supply. There is now a third right
up there in lights alongside them. It is the need to stop poisoning
our atmosphere with carbon emissions and other harmful gases and
thereby contributing to the rise of global warming.
Either
you think global warming is the great challenge of the 21st century
or you don’t. If the latter, then all this stuff about renewables
and carbon reduction is bunkum. That seems an increasingly eccentric
position, but at least it has the merit of consistency. If, on
the other hand, you do accept the global warming thesis then all
previous bets should be off - including entrenched hostility to
nuclear power.
That
is a nettle which thinking environmentalists such as James Lovelock
have been able to grasp. Whatever the problems associated with
nuclear power, and they are significant, they are as nothing compared
to the threat of global warming. Ergo, if nuclear power is part
of the solution to the greater problem, then being against it
without regard to the transformed context of the debate is not
only inconsistent but irresponsible.
At
present, Britain gets about 24 per cent of electricity from nuclear
power. The figure in Scotland is, of course, double that. Any
debate about whether such reliance was desirable is passé.
The fact is that it exists and will shortly go into decline. In
other words, at the very moment when there is an historic emphasis
on increasing the supply of carbon-free electricity, we may be
about to countenance the steady erosion of the one significant
source of the stuff that we’ve actually got. To put it another
way, everything we do on renewables for at least the next 20 years
is - in carbon-reduction terms - only going to replace the nuclear
power we are wishing away.
But
what are we doing on renewables? I think I have a reasonable record
of matching words with actions. But I am weary of constant battles
to build even the smallest hydro station, or the best-located
wind farm, or even the most technically innovative biomass plant.
And I have nothing but contempt for those who talk big on renewables
targets as a conscience-salving therapy, the function of which
is to wish away more difficult decisions but do nothing to actually
stand up for the projects which would bring such targets into
even remote proximity to reality.
What
leadership for instance has Charles Kennedy ever shown over the
case for the Highlands and Islands becoming a major location for
renewable energy? Not an iota. Being anti-nuclear is the easy
bit. But what are they actually in favour of? When I challenged
the Lib Dem spokesman recently on what energy mix they favour
for Britain, he replied that they did not have a policy but "a
direction" on the matter. Or maybe two directions - or, more
probably, one for each constituency.
In
fact, the direction will determine itself unless there is some
serious political intervention. Nuclear will run down. Coal will
decline. Renewables will increase but not on anything like the
scale required to fill the gap - bear in mind the two longer-established
imperatives of affordability and security of supply as well as
project-failure. So what’s left but gas in ever-increasing
proportions? Government projections envisage 70 per cent of our
electricity coming from gas by 2020. The problem is that, with
the North Sea in decline, 90 per cent of that gas would be imported.
That
is the other major contextual shift that has to be considered
before nuclear is ruled out. The market will undoubtedly supply
us with a great deal of gas - from Algeria and Azerbaijan, Qatar
and Trinidad. But we will not be the only buyers in the market
and experience shows, even in present-day circumstances, gas is
peculiarly volatile to massive price spikes, particularly once
the word inter-connector enters the equation.
The
case for nuclear is not yet conclusive - though 28 countries in
the world have decided differently and are going ahead with new-build.
I recognise that progress will have to be demonstrated on the
disposal of waste, though this is by no means a technological
show-stopper. Someone will also have to want to build them, so
the economics (based on consistency of reactor design and a sensible
price for electricity) will have to stack up.
But
Scotland would be inordinately foolish to opt out of that necessary
debate, given our current nuclear dependence, the jobs and skills
that depend on it, and the world-wide movement towards nuclear
power being driven by the global warming agenda. Renewables, gas,
clean coal and nuclear all have their part to play in an energy
mix that can satisfy the three classic criteria - security of
supply, affordability and the drive against global warming.
• Brian Wilson, Labour MP for Cunninghame
Nth was minister for energy from 2002-3.
NO:
Alistair Carmichael
LibDem MP for Orkney and Shetland
NO:
Don’t accept the myth - nuclear power isn’t a clean
and carbon-free energy source
The
publication by the Scottish affairs select committee of its report
on meeting Scotland’s future energy needs last week brought
a timely reminder of the power of spin. At one stage, I re-read
the report to check I had not missed something. The committee
called for "an audit of energy resources that are currently
available, and then to use that as the basis to work out the energy
requirements that will be needed in the future". Not quite
as catchy as "MPs to urge Scots nuclear option". The
nuclear lobby had clearly done a great job in spinning the report
ahead of publication.
Scotland’s
future energy mix is a vitally important issue. It is a complex
debate where some myths are repeated so frequently they are often
accepted as facts. The most frequently pedalled myth goes something
like this; climate change is the biggest threat facing this world
and nuclear power offers a clean source of energy which will help
cut carbon emissions.
It
is difficult to challenge the premise - climate change is indeed
the biggest threat facing the world. My problem is with the conclusion
- that nuclear power is a clean power. The generation of nuclear
waste materials, the disposal of which remains an unresolved problem,
should give the lie to that.
In
fact, nuclear power is not a carbon-free source of energy. If
you take the whole life-cycle of nuclear power, emissions from
uranium mining and constructing and decommissioning sites must
be taken into account.
Of
course climate change requires international action. If the pro-nuclear
argument is taken to its logical conclusion then to tackle climate
change we should promote nuclear technologies to developing nations.
This would aid any nuclear arms programmes these countries may
have and result in thousands of nuclear power stations across
the globe each producing highly dangerous waste. A recipe for
a cleaner and safer world? I think not.
The
defence of nuclear power on environmental grounds would be laughable
were it not for the fact that some take it so seriously. Reliance
on nuclear power for non-carbon energy is lazy, sloppy thinking.
In environmental terms it is a jump out of the frying pan into
the fire.
The
crux of the problem for the nuclear industry is that it has simply
failed to explain how it will deal with nuclear waste. Safely
decommissioning existing nuclear power stations will cost an estimated
£48 billion. If the government in Westminster is serious
about the development of non-carbon energy sources, then instead
of throwing money at nuclear power stations, it should put more
money into the development of renewable sources such as wind,
wave and tidal power and the promotion of energy efficiency.
The
second myth is that unless we have more nuclear power stations
in Scotland, the lights will start going out. Why couldn’t
we build combined gas cycle power stations instead? The answer
from the nuclear lobby is that it is too dangerous to depend on
imported gas.
Never
mind the fact the rest of Europe has done so for years or that
the entire US economy depends on imported oil. Scotland apparently
is different. At the drop of a hat, those pesky Russians will
cut off our gas supply. Scottish-Russian animosity stretches back
a long way and at long last they will be able to exact revenge
for... answers on a postcard please.
Gas
need not only come from Russia. I was present at the ONS Exhibition
in Stavanger in 2002 when Brian Wilson, then energy minister,
signed an accord with his Norwegian opposite number agreeing in
principle the importation into the UK of Norwegian gas. Why has
the government not concluded that deal? Even the nuclear spin-meisters
would be pushed to portray Norway as an unstable or hostile nation.
From
this month, the UK will for the first time be a single electricity
network. Scotland already generates more electricity than it requires
so the question really ought to be: do we want more nuclear power
stations in Scotland so there is less pressure in England to generate
electricity?
In
Scotland of course Lib Dems are part of the Executive. While energy
policy is a reserved matter, planning is devolved. Let there be
no doubt: Scottish Liberal Democrats oppose the development of
more nuclear power stations in Scotland. The partnership agreement
states: "We will not support the further development of nuclear
power stations while waste management issues remain unresolved."
When
I hear Labour politicians extolling the virtues of nuclear power
I often think the lights are on but no-one is home. Fortunately,
with investment by the Executive in a range of renewable energy
sources, the lights will be staying on in all of Scotland’s
homes, even those occupied by Labour MPs.
•
Alistair Carmichael, MP for Orkney and Shetland, is the Scottish
Liberal Democrat energy spokesman.
Your
views
The
nuclear cost -
We can’t afford to support another nuclear plant. Torness
is losing millions every quarter as it struggles to buy itself
out of a deep hole. Wind turbines on their own are not the answer.
One of the best ways to lessen the need for these is to ensure
all buildings have some capacity to generate their own energy
through renewables - solar, heat pumps, wind, hydro - and let’s
also make sure all new buildings are well insulated.
RON
MOULD from Fife
Wind
can't go alone
- Britain
needs a safe and reliable mix of base load power generation and
this must be continued into our future. Nuclear energy has a good
safety record in the UK and is free from carbon emissions. Volumes
of spent fuel are relatively small in size and methods of safe
storage and reprocessing have and will be secured. A large part
of Scotland’s electricity is already nuclear-generated. Wind
generators only have a very limited contribution to make to electricity
generation. They take up large areas of land for minor amounts
of electricity generated, in areas scenically important, require
expensive and unsightly transmission towers to centres of population
and are an unreliable source of continuous generation. Decisions
on building and replacement of nuclear power plants need to be
taken in the near future. - DONALD MATHESON
Only
real option - Half
Scotland’s electricity is currently generated by Hunterston
and Torness nuclear stations. Within about ten years, both will
have reached the end of their economic lives and will be shut
down. Where then will our electricity supplies come from?
1
Gas: We are now a net importer and much of our future supply must
come from volatile countries. Prices are sure to escalate.
2
Oil: North Sea and world supplies are past their peak and prices
can be expected to continue their upward trend.
3
Coal: We have reserves but extraction will become more unpopular
as most will be by opencast methods.
4
All these fossil fuels produce greenhouse gas emissions and will
cause problems with global warming and Kyoto.
5
Hydro: Scotland has exploited most of the economic sites and,
in any case, this can only meet around 10 per cent of our needs.
6
Wind: This subsidised, expensive form of generation is environmentally
damaging and unreliable.
7
Wave and tide: Probably has a limited contribution to make but
considerable research and development needed.
8
Nuclear: Replacing existing nuclear generation capacity is necessary
for us to maintain the status quo. For us to meet Kyoto requirements
means a programme of nuclear power station construction to give
Scotland even greater capacity. The conclusions are unavoidable;
we must go for significant new nuclear construction - soon.
DAVID
REEKS, Cedar Place, Strathaven
Makes
no sense
- Arguments
against nuclear power are probably the same as they have been
for years. I’m no economist but I can see there is absolutely
no point replacing old decrepit stations, which have cracked and
leaking reactors, with newer ones. Surely the same could happen?
Scotland
has a responsibility to protect ourselves and our beautiful countryside/wildlife.
The only realistic way to do this is to throw out those lame,
archaic, filthy ideas and maintain our resolve. I’d accept
the potential "eyesore" of wind/wave power. At least
that way we will still have a countryside/country, instead of
an accidentally radiated, dead, poisonous environment.
I
cannot see any pros in building a new reactor, we’d still
have to get rid of waste (which no-one wants) and pay through
the nose to buy in the uranium. It doesn’t make sense.
NICO
TOOZE
ScottishPower
silent - I
know when nuclear stations are due to close, but does anyone know
when Cockenzie and Longannet will be shut down? If they were still
in the public sector, I suspect their replacements would have
been built by now. The silence from ScottishPower is deafening;
unless it involves new wind projects, are they happy to let nuclear
stations do the "base load" work while they reap the
rewards from the "peak time" gravy train?
- DUNCAN
BRYCELAND
Too
expensive -
I
find it quite shocking how the nuclear industry is manipulating
the climate debate in an attempt to resurrect itself. Nuclear
power is a phenomenally expensive way of generating electricity,
even more so once the (still unresolved) costs of waste disposal
are factored in. In addition, the risks of nuclear power are many
orders of magnitude greater than for other technologies.
The
current level of energy wastage is amazing - even the most basic
energy efficiency measures are ignored and there is huge potential
to achieve substantial reductions in energy consumption. If a
fraction of the money which has gone into nuclear power research
was directed into energy efficiency diverse range of alternative
technologies, we would really be on our way to a more sustainable
future. - MICHAEL
WARHURST, Boston, US (former resident of Glasgow and Edinburgh)
Look
to alternatives - The
problems with nuclear power stations using current technology
are that they are:
• expensive to build
• cannot be built quickly enough to fill the projected shortages
in our energy needs
• come with risks of explosion, meltdown and contamination
• produce waste products that have to be stored for hundreds
of years before they are safe.
Rather than start building nuclear power stations again, we have
to look for alternative, clean sources of power AND take some
serious steps to reduce energy consumption.KATHARINE
TAYLOR
Plants
are safe
- Modern
nuclear power plants are absolutely safe and cannot melt down.
To restrict the nuclear debate to Scottish power generation is
selfishness; nuclear desalination plants could solve water shortage
problems in many parts of the world and help cure drought and
disease. Let’s start nuclear development now.
ALAN
CLAYTON - Strachur, Argyll
Dirty
and ineffective -
As
a Green, I am against the idea of building new nuclear power stations.
It is a thoughtless, ineffective, dirty way of producing energy
with nuclear waste lying around for hundreds of thousands of years
AND nobody knows how to seriously dispose of it. Renewables and
energy efficiency has to be the only way forward. The Scottish
Executive’s own figures (2001) show that Scotland’s
renewable capacity is around six times Scotland’s annual
electricity requirement, leaving enough spare capacity to power
most of England as well.
So
on behalf of myself and my family, both old and young, I say NO
to building more nuclear power stations. - HEATHER
JAMESON - Newton Stewart
Long-term
questions -
No!
We have no idea of the long-term implications of the waste created
by nuclear power. Why not have an energy supply based on renewable
resources, wind, wave, solar and biomass? - RACHEL
AVERY
Nuclear
lie
- It
is a lie to say the nuclear power industry generates no climate-changing
emissions. Carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, is produced
by uranium mining, milling and enrichment, fuel fabrication, reactor
construction, spent fuel and waste storage and disposal. Most
nuclear supporters conveniently forget these facts when promoting
nuclear as a solution to climate change. Research on the impact
of building and operating reactors concluded they would produce
around 50 per cent more greenhouse gas emissions than wind power.
- VIKKI
CHAD, Craigmillar, Edinburgh
|
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.
