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
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
|
The
great pensions black hole
Under
Labour private and public pensions have been devastated with dire
consequences for millions of Britons
by
Edward Heathcoat Amory - Daily Mail, April 19, 2005
The
cautious Tories, who are promising voters only a modest £4bn
of tax cuts, have allocated one third of this money to a plan
to encourage people to save more for their retirement. While it
is a very modest step, they should at least be lauded for moving
in the right direction. For the truth is that Britain faces a
full-blown pensions crisis, and it is one of Labour's own making.
But
whether Tories have the political will to tackle the heart of
the problem - the £690bn bill we will all have to pay for
spiralling public sector pensions - remains to be seen.
Back
in 1997, British politicians were pretty smug about our pensions.
There had been difficulties - the personal pensions mis-selling
scandal, for one - but for the most part we enjoyed generous,
well funded pension provision.
But
within days of taking power in 1997, Gordon Brown imposed a stealth
tax on British pension funds that has so far taken £100bn
out of our pension schemes.
Perverse
Next,
Labour introduced a series of schemes to raise the incomes of
poorer pensioners - the latest is pensions tax credit - that did
more harm then good. The people most in need couldn't wade through
the complex application process and the perverse incentives built
into the system also meant it was not worth anyone on an annual
income of less than £30,000 saving for their retirement.
Finally,
Labour has accelerated public sector employment, hiring another
860,000 workers since 1997, twice the job creation rate in the
private sector, a decision that added massively to the public
sector pensions bill for future generations of taxpayers.
The
results of these policies have been catastrophic. Private companies
have replaced most of their final salary pension schemes (workers
pensions fixed to the amount they earned in their last working
year) with less generous alternatives.
Before
the last General election, 60% of the workforce sheltered under
this umbrella. But about two-thirds of these are now closed to
new entrants; in a generation they will have died out. And many
of the schemes that remain open have huge deficits. Indeed Britain's
largest 100 companies are thought to have a £65bn hole in
their pension funds.
In
response, Labour has pout in place a Pensions Protection Fund
that will pay out if any of them fail. But money from the fund
is taken from the good schemes to bail out the bad ones - in effect,
an additional tax on companies and a typical new Labour reward
for failure.
Significantly
yesterday, financial experts warned that the fund, whose first
big job may be to bail out Rover pensioners, has nothing like
enough money in it. At the same time, people have just stopped
saving for their retirement. Regular payments into pension plans
fell from £2.4bn in 2001 to £1.9bn last year, and
over the same period there's been a 40% fall in the number of
us signing up to new pensions plans.
The
truth is that more than 11 million of us aren't contributing to
any form of private pension plan. The savings ratio - percentage
of our annual incomes that we put aside - has fallen under Labour
from 9.9% to 5.6%. The result is that many Britons will face a
far from comfortable retirement.
A
recent report, commissioned by government, concluded that the
average pensioner will soon be one third worse off in real terms
than the current generation, unless they either start saving more
for retirement, or there is a very substantial increase in taxation.
Meanwhile,
the size of the public sector pensions bill has grown terrifyingly.
Experts now say there is a £690bn shortfall over the next
50 years in the amounts needed to pay pensions to public sector
workers.
The
sums have grown so large because of Mr Brown's new public sector
jobs, and because virtually all state employees enjoy generous
index-linked final salary pension schemes that, thanks to Government's
policies - are becoming extinct in the private sector.
Pathetic
One
recent study found that the huge percentage of British workers
in the public sector enjoy twice the pension rights the rest of
the workforce is getting. It is completely unsustainable (economically)
that the productive sector of the economy should pay for the unproductive
sector to have double the money in their retirement.
There's
the problem, but can anything be done about it?
So
far, Labour proposals have been pathetic. They talked about shifting
the retirement age in the public sector to 65, but John Prescott
panicked when faced by the prospect of workers striking in protest
immediately before the election, and he dropped the plan.
Yesterday,
Labour's pensions secretary Alan Johnson was insisting that he
had no ideas for any changes in the next five years.
As
for the Tories, they have a couple of sensible policies. Raising
the basic pension, thereby freeing millions of pensioners from
the tyranny of complex means tests, is a good thought. Yesterday's
proposals to reward basic-rate taxpayers with 10p for every £1
they saved in their pension isn't a bad idea either. But neither
tackles the nub of the problem, which is the vast over-hang of
public sector pensions. No one begrudges generous retirement rewards
for teachers, nurses and doctors.
Leeches
But
while the number of nurses has risen by 17% since 1997, the number
of bureaucrats has gone up by 45%. The public sector is stuffed
with useless leeches - mainly chiefs, inclusion managers, rights
officers - as far from the front line as you can imagine. Do they
deserve comfy retirements on our money?
This
brings s to the least deserving group of all - MPs. In 2002, these
650 parasites on the body politic put aside party differences
to vote themselves a 25% increase in their already well-padded
final salary, index-linked pension scheme. They don't have to
worry about the future - they've now got a scheme that is twice
as generous as that available to teachers and nurses.
And,
of course, they don't need to worry about black holes, as taxpayers
put in £25 million last year to plug the shortfall. It is
a national scandal that our once rock-solid pensions provision
is collapsing about our ears while those responsible for the mess
should be protected from it with our money.
Any
political party which really wanted to send a message about their
determination to tackle the pensions issue would start by promising
to scrap the MPs' scheme and replace it with the same sort of
rough deal that the rest of us have to put up with.
Apparently,
Michael Howard has considered this plan. With just 17 days to
go before the election and the polls looking bad for the Tories,
this is the right moment for him to put his country before his
colleagues.
|
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
|
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.
