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
|
One
in 20 asylum seekers has HIV (And treating them can cost £150,000
each)
Steve
Doughty, Social Affairs Correspondent, Daily Mail, Mar 7, 2005
Country
Somalia
Iran
China
Zimbabwe
Pakistan
Iraq
India
Afghanistan
Turkey
Congo
TOTAL
|
Asylum
seeker numbers
3,355
3,080
2,682
2,270
1,885
1,710
1,580
1,405
1,345
1.090
20,402
|
Numbers
HIV positive
33
9
4
764
4
5
11
4
3
85
992
|
One
in twenty asylum seekers is HIV positive and it can cost the NHS
£150,000 to treat each of them, a team of Aids doctors has
said.
The
figures for Zimbabwe applicants are particularly alarming - during
a 12-month period,m 764 out of 2,270, more than a third, were
HIV positive. The doctors' report reveals that between 2,000 and
5,000 HIV positive applicants may have come to Britain each year
over the past eight years.
The
cost to the NHS is certain to have run into billions of pounds,
according to Professor Brian Gazzard and three other leading Aids
doctors. Their report provides new fuel for the asylum and immigration
debate that is becoming a key issue in the General Election.
The
doctors whose findings have been seen by the Daily Mail, say that
922 HIV positive asylum seekers came here between October 2003
and September 2004. They arrived among 20,4402 applicants from
the tend countries that sent the highest numbers. The great majority
of HIV positive asylum seekers were from three African countries.
764 from Zimbabwe, 85 from the Democratic Republic of Congo, and
33 from Somalia.
Treatment
for each HIV patient with retroviral drugs costs the Health Service
£15,000 a year and is likely to have to continue for at
least ten years. So even if only 10,000 asylum-seeking HIV cases
have come into the NHS, they are likely to have cost £1.5billion,
enough to build 15 general hospitals. But denying retroviral drugs
will be far more expensive in the end, say the doctors.
Untreated
cases would spread the virus and handling the results could cost
between £500,000 and £1million a year for each applicant.
At present, many asylum seekers who are HIV positive prolong treatment
on the NHS by dragging their cases trough the immigration appeal
system.
Labour's
new immigration laws aim to cut the number of appeals and the
time they take. The Conservatives promise medical screening for
all asylum seekers. Those who were HIV positive could be turned
back if it were judged that their intention was not to flee persecution
but to gain free NHS treatment.
The
doctors' findings endorse those of the think-tank MigrationWatch
UK, which has called for health screening at borders. Migrationwatch
chief Sir Andrew Green long advocated spending money on HIV treatment
inside the applicants' countries rather than here. He says this
would make it possible to treat many more patients much more cheaply.
The
doctors' rrport, to be published in full tomorrow, is based on
figures from the Home Office and the National Association of NHS
Providers of Aids Care and Treatment. The authors are anxious
to see NHS rules changed so HIV treatment is stopped at the point
where applicants are turned down for refugee status rather than
after lengthy appeals.
The
figures for asylum seekers from Zimbabwe are so high because treatment
there is negligible. It is likely that more than one in three
nationals is HIV positive.
In
a separate report, Migrationwatch warned yesterday that Government
claims of mass immigration helping Britain's economy are based
on myths and 'dodgy statistics'. It attacks a key claim that immigrants
pay £2.5billion more a year in tax than they receive in
benefits or state services. It says the figures are based on 1999
returns, when the population as a whole paid more tax than it
received in services.
The
report also accused the Government of being 'disingenuous at best'
when it claims immigrants contribute 0.5% of gross domestic product
(GNP). In fact, when extra housing, schooling and healthcare are
taken into account, the benefit is no more than 0.1%.
|
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.
