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
Blair wants to leave his
mark on history - looks more like a stain to me.
Peter Thorndyke, Diss,
Norfolk - Daily Mail, May 23, 2005
I know I'm me - why do I
need an ID card?
"Sorry, officers, I
don't have an ID card. I never applied for one. It seemed a bit steep
at 300 quid. I do have my free passport, my driving licence and my
London freedom travel pass, each with my photograph. I have my NHS
medical card, with its lengthy number, given me at birth, my RAF
service book with my Armed Forces number, and a chit authorising me to
wear a few gongs -including a General Service Medal with Malaya bar,
for fighting communist terrorists on behalf of my country, or so they
told me.
"I've also got various credit
cards and store cards, all with my signature on the back, generally
good for buying the everyday requrements for life as well as the odd
luxury. If you decide to arrest me, I suppose I'll have to be
photographed and given another number, besides my PINs.
"I'm afraid I haven't got a
pension book; it was taken away."
"By thieves, sir?"
"No ... well, not exactly. By the
Government. By the way, may I see your warrant cards please, gentlemen?"
Oh dear, they've disappeared. E.
Harry Gumer, Romford, ESSEX - Daily Mail, June 1, 2005
NO means NO
When does NO mean MAYBE?
When it's not the answer the EU wants. With the courageous French
NON resounding in their ears, shabby, undemocratic self-interested
leaders of Europe propose ignoring the part of their precious
constitution that requires ratification by all members and
continuing without one of the biggest founder members to
prevent derailing the gravy train.
As in Ireland,
they refuse to accept any NO votes, ignoring the will of the people,
and re-stage votes until they can engineer the 'correct' answer. Sadly,
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw dances to their tune like a puppet on a
string. With tactics such as these, how can anyone really believe the
EU has our interests at heart. Letter from Steve Penny, Kingsnorth, Kent - Daily
Mail, June1, 2005
Surely
the French result makes the £1million the EU recently spent on a
treaty signing ceremony seem a trifle premature and extravagant. Letter from Keith Wiseman, Bury, Lancs. - Daily Mail,
June1, 2005
|
Britain has
traditionally been one of the biggest net contributors to the EU
because we do not get as much money back from Brussels in farm and
regional subsidies as our rivals.
According to
Treasury figures, between 1995-2002, Britain's average contribution
taking the rebate into account, was £2.6billion, or £43.55
per head of population.
The French -
the biggest recipient of farm subsidies - contributed £1billion a
year or £16.08 per head of their population.
|
May
15, 2006 (1101 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 2443 US - 111 UK - >60,000? civilians - 25 media
|
Tony
Blair should know that respect comes by example - from the
top. If a country's leader has no respect for the rule of
international law and no respect for the truth, how can
he expect anyone to have respect. Letter
from P.J.Atkinson, Ashford, Kent - Daily Mail, January 12,
2006
The
Chancellor's single greatest act of vandalism in almost
nine years in office has been his wanton destruction of
Britain's private retirement industry. By slapping a massive
tax on pension funds, now worth
£7.3billion a year, he has helped to turn
the best private retirement industry in Europe into a basket-case
in perpetual crisis. Together with the adoption of European
accounting rules - which make it much riskier to operate
a company pension scheme - hundreds of firms have shut their
final salary plans to new employees and slashed benefits
to existing staff.
From
Allister Heath: "I've seen the future and its grey"
in THE SPECTATOR - April 15, 2006
|
For
once Blair is right. But who trusts him now?
Commentary
by Max Hastings - Daily Mail, May 18, 2006
To
applaud Tony Blair hurts, but sometimes we must make sacrifices.
His declaration of support for nuclear power seems courageous
and right. Much of his party is viscerally hostile. The instinct
of a government in as much trouble as this one is to duck hard
decisions, but Blair spoke out.
Unless
we now address Britain's future energy needs, this country will
find itself in grave difficulties in 20 years' time. Every strategic
projection shows that the world is entering an era of bitter international
competition for fuel. China, India and other rising Asian nations
are becoming huge consumers. Oil prices are likely to stay sky-high.
The cost of gas can only rise. Putin's Russia is Europe's key
supplier, and will soon be Britain's. Moscow is making increasingly
threatening noises.
Many
thoughtful people believe that the great conflicts of the 21st
century will be about access to resources. It is not fanciful
to draw a comparison with water. Of course, environmentalists
will say :'Stop, stop. Don't you listen to a word we say about
renewable sources?"
Greenpeace,
for instance, a passionate opponent of nuclear power, insists
that there are safer and cheaper alternatives. It asserts that
the 'real solution' lies in locally generated power supplies,
founded upon 'renewable energy sources (which) are abundant and
provide the energy we need on a large scale right now.' Wind and
wave power offer ways of supplying our homes and industries at
less cost and without the huge risks involved in building a new
generation of nuclear power stations. The terrible example of
Chernobyl is cited. Isn't it much better, say their campaigners,
to build wind farms which can do the job without such hideous
risk? None of the answers is easy. As the debate gathers pace
and tempers rise in the months ahead, we shall be told some shocking
fibs by all the rival lobbyists.
The
nuclear industry has always grossly underestimated its costs.
The government has had to provide £56billion to clear up
our last generation of nuclear power stations. Yet nuclear technology
has advanced a long way, and only the staggering incompetence
and recklessness of the old Soviet Union could have produced a
Chernobyl. Experts believe that nuclear power stations provide
nothing like as tempting targets for terrorists as say, mass transit
systems.
Even
if a suicide plane crashed into Sizewell's Suffolk reactor would
be unlikely to create a major catastrophe. The truth is that,
for the next generation, nuclear power probably offers the cleanest
and most reliable energy sources we can hope for. Other nations,
notably in Asia, are building nuclear stations as fast as they
can go.
Meanwhile,
it remains unlikely that wind power could produce anything like
enough power to meet our needs. Huge Government subsidies are
needed to erect turbines and it would take a wind far the size
of Exmoor to produce the same power output as a single nuclear
plant.
Until
recently, the International Energy Agency, a genuinely independent
body, recently refused to endorse nuclear power. But its scientists
are due to deliver a report supporting nuclear energy. Faith Birol,
the agency's chief economist, said this week that nuclear power
should be 'a key part of the solution'. She pointed to Moscow's
willingness to use its gas supplies for political purposes, 'Such
statements are a warning sign, and should open the eyes of European
politicians,' she said.
Likewise
Patrick Moore, a co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace, who
has become a prominent convert to nuclear. He highlights the fact
that one in five American homes and businesses now uses nuclear
energy.
The
US will need 45% more power to meets its needs by 2030 - and this
will have to come from nuclear generation. The same applies in
Britain. Of course research should be lavishly funded on all forms
of renewable energy, some wind farms built, and experiments increased
with wave power. These technologies might indeed provide a way
forward for industrial societies by 2020.
But
right now, it is reckless to claim that renewables can do the
job.
Many
of us are appalled by the notion of building wind farms on the
colossal scale that would be needed, despoiling our shrinking
landscape. Every time I pass Reading on the M4, and see by the
roadside a long, was turbine slowly twisting in the wind, I am
put in mind of some fearsome artefact of Tolkien's Mordor.
Recent
polls suggest that the British are evenly divided about a nuclear
future. I would accept at face value almost nothing we are told
by any expert - except that we face a real energy crisis which
will demand hard choices. The safest, commonsense answer seems
to go for a mix of sources - gas, nuclear, renewables - and maybe
even coal.
Looking
ahead to 2020 - and even if a new generation of power stations
is commissioned now, they would not come on stream until then
- few of us want out homes or factories exclusively dependent
on Russian gas, Iranian oil, wind turbines - or nuclear energy.
It seems vital insurance to invest in all these sources, until
we see what the future brings.
For
those of us who want at least a stake in nuclear power, Tony Blair's
pronouncement is brave and right. Unfortunately, it comes from
a Prime Minister holed below the waterline, whose judgment much
of the British people would not trust about whether it is Thursday
or Friday.
The
tragedy of being ruled by a foundering government is that it is
almost incapable of getting anything done . We need action now
to meet Britain's energy requirements a generation hence. Whatever
Blair says, the changes of getting this are alarmingly small.
If you have
suggestions for additional subjects, or material to include in the
pages linked to the subjects listed, please contact the webmaster.
