Silent Majority Speaks

Rescuing Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected Dictatorship

The REAL NASTY PARTY- Labour - true home of spite, bigotry and contempt for the public

Blair is a stomach-turning liar

BLAIR - King of Duplicity

Write this letter to your Labour MP to get rid of Blair

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 Blair cannot ignore our outrage over Iraq Tony Blair's speech after the election appeared contrite. His admission that he had lacked experience was impressive. But it turned my blood cold when our Prime Minister said that in the case of Iraq, it was time to 'move on'. Can any phrase so callously and insidiously wipe the slate clean? 'Moving on' is now part of the lexicon of British life and I think it's dangerous. Blair's contrite speech reminded us that if you want to stand up against the status quo in this country, you won'tk be merely disagreed with - a welcome and natural part of democratic life - you'll be made to fell you're speaking from some weird place called 'The Past', not the right-on Labour concoction known as 'The Future'. You haven't 'mlved on'. How can any society that seeks to challenge its Prime Minister on the legality of a war that killed thousands, sit there while its leader sweeps it aside, telling it, in that grubby little phrase, to 'move on'. A large secgion of British society has embraced the vaacuity oif the words 'moving on' without examining the destructive power of the message. Our lives, in private and public, are littered with examples of people casually rationalising a my8riad selfish and destructive actions with the nauseating observation: "Yeah, it was wrong, but it's time to move on ... " 'Moving on' is a linguistic short-cut to a guilt-free zone. Guilt is regarded like cellulite or yellowing teeth, inherently bad and in need of banishment. But guilt has a vital function because it reminds us all that our actions may be wrong. How does Labour plan to enforce anti-social behaviour laws and discipline in schools if the prevailing message is 'I don't want to look at my guilt. Let's move on'. This Government's obsession with ditching the past and pursuing the future is creating a sordid ideology of relative moralities. So let's all stop using the horrible little phrase 'moving on'. Our actions, good and bad, aren't erased by it. In domestic trivialities, it's cheap. In war, it's obscene. Fiona MacDonald Turner - Warninglid, W. Sussex - Daily Mail, May 11, 2005

May 11, 2005 (741 days since war ended)

Death Toll: 1,610 US - 88 UK - >6,164? Iraqi - >17,300 civilians - 25 media

 

WWW silentmajorityspeaks.com

STOP PRESS

The future lies in nuclear fuel

By the Rt Hon Brian Wilson Energy Minister 2001-2003 - Daily Mail, May 16, 2005

Our nation's industrial history is based on producing enough energy for our needs. We shipped coal to the world and then, for the past 30 years, enjoyed the bonus of North Sea oil and gas. But this happy history of self-reliance is about to end. So too is any semblance of a balanced energy policy.

According the the government's own projections, within 15 years from now we will be relying on gas for 70% of our electricity - and 90% of that gas will be imported. That is not sensible. It will make us dependent on the security of pipelines from and through Russia. We will be vulnerable to price spikes in a commodity that will also be needed to fuel the economic growth of China and India.

And I question the environmental responsibility of buying up the world's gas, only to turn it into electricity. This proposed reliance on imported gas is the logical follow-through from our short-sighted determination to get rid of nuclear power, which provides Britain with almost a quarter of our electricity. Whatever lip service is paid to renewables, the truth is that imported gas is expected to fill the void left by the running down of nuclear and coal-fired generation.

We have to recognise that the old debates about nuclear power are passe. Forty years ago, when Anthony Wedgwood Benn was bequeathing a fleet of nuclear stations to the nation, opposition was shaped by a perception of civil nuclear power as the other side of the military coin.

But whatever the origins, the present-day value of nuclear energy is as our only significant source of electricity that does not produce harmful emissions. The ethical debate about splitting atoms has been overtaken by a far more urgent one about the need to combat climate change. If we are remotely serious about that objective, how can it make sense to eliminate the carbon-free nuclear component in our energy mid?

The short answer is that it makes no sense at all - as enlightened environmentalists such as James Lovelock of Gaia fame are recognising. Nuclear critics argue that we still do not know what to do with all the waste. That is not a unique dilemma to the UK - yet 26 countries are pursuing nuclear new-build programmes.

Whether or not there is a new generation of nuclear power stations, the waste issue will have to be addressed. Anything added by new, and much more efficient, stations will be strictly at the margins. Before new nuclear power stations can be built, the main questions to be answered are financial. Nobody is going to invest in nuclear power stations unless there are some guarantees about price stability.

The memory of British Energy's rapid journey to the verge of bankruptcy is far too recent - and it is also instructive. Because, for all the right reasons, nuclear generation is a heavily-regulated industry with irreducible basic costs. British Energy could not withstand a slump in electricity prices which proved to be of extremely short duration.

The net result was that costs which could not be passed on to the consumer in the form of slightly higher electricty bilsl were passed onto the taxpayer instead. This was an object lesson in why it is a mistake to adopt a market-driven approach with the sole objective of making energy as cheap as possible.

You do not encourage people to use less electricity by making it so cheap that our most reliable and cleanest supplier of baseload power is almost destroyed in the process. I'm in favour of encouraging renewables and diversifying out of wind power to wave, tidal and biomass. We should also promote clean coal technology which, globally, will do more for the environment than renewables ever will. Along with nuclear power, these should be the cornerstones of a diverse and indigenous energy policy - which will only serve to lessen our reliance on imported gas.

Is nuclear power unfairly maligned?

Daily Mail, May 17, 2005

YES Dr Leonard Brookes, Ph. D., Fellow of the Energy Institute, Ringwood, Hants.

NO Dr David Lowry, c0-author: International Politics of Nuclear Waste, Stoneleigh, Surrey

Nuclear power stations didn't turn out vastly more expensive than predicted. Apart from Dungeness B, they kept close to budgets, and nuclear waste was safely managed for 50 years. A tonne of Uranium is equivalent to 200,000 tonnes of coal. Only 3% of fuel is highly active waste and even that reverts to being no more radioactive than the original uranium in the ground after 300 years. - unlike toxic chemical or heavy metal wastes. The privatised nuclear power industry was profitable until this Government introduced a new trading system that allowed the foreign-owned electricity companies with distribution arms to undercut wholesale prices by making their losses good by overcharging their retail customers. The 'rescue package' didn't cost the taxpayer a brass farthing. The loan was never fully taken up and has been fully repaid with interest. Now that the company has recovered as electricity prices have risen and gas-fired power become more expensive, the industry is being bled by government to meet decommissioning in the public sector which is Government's liability, not the private sector nuclear company's.

There is no evidence that new nuclear power plants will be cleaner, safer, cheaper and will produce less radioactive waste than their predecessors. I agree that the public will be far more sceptical about promises made about nuclear energy this time around - and rightly so. The promoter of this allegedly cheaper safer nuclear plant is Westinghouse, a US subsidiary of state-owned British Nuclear Group, part of BNFL, the operator of Sellafield,. Westinghouse even claims its new design- the so-called AP1000 - is around 100 times safer than existing stations. Phooey! You can't operate nuclear power plants with-out creating very long-lived radioactive waste, which will remain radioactive for hundreds of centuries. We will be passing on to future generations a toxic legacy for which our own generation has found no agreed solutions among the nuclear science community. In addition, all nuclear power installations - and the transport of nuclear fuels and waste between them - provide a tempting target for terrorists. If we want a secure energy future we should minimise the contribution from nuclear - not increase it.

Tory abstinence Hardly a day goes by without some failed Tory politician or media commentator talking of the Conservatives 'having to reach out beyond their core vote'. What rubbish. They haven't even got their core vote any more - which is why they've lost three elections on the trot. The 'core vote' of genuine Conservatives went to the Referendum Party, then to UKIP, or (the majority) to that largest party of all - 'abstainers' - and they still haven't come back. Digging in dustbins for Liberal Democrat policies, trying to attract those who aren't Conservatives at all is a recipe for disaster. All the party needs is to go back to the principles that produced 18 years of successful government - cut the parasite state, lower taxes, bring back freedom, enterprise, the family and democratic nationhood. - Letter to the Daily Mail from Rodney Atkinson, Gateshead - May 11, 2005 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

 

STOP PRESS

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

Mr Blair has lied and deceived us over Iraq. He must resign at once. Do you agree? Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly Don't know Don't care Please click one of the links above to cast your vote Current results

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.

STOP PRESS