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
scandal of postal votes and the question: can we trust this General
Election?
Daily Mail Comment - April 6, 2005
One
question should never have to be asked in this mature democracy.
One doubt should be utterly unthinkable as the nation goes to
the polls. But the issue is now inescapable: can voters have any
real confidence in the honesty, fairness or integrity of the result
on May 5?
Time
was when the merest suggestion of something wrong and rotten in
our democratic process would have been laughed to scorn. Britain
has always been proud - and rightly so - of its unmatched ability
to run elections properly. Ever since 1872, when Gladstone introduced
secret allots to prevent newly-enfranchised working men being
manipulated by landlords and employers, the honesty of our elections
has never been in doubt, Trust has been the cornerstone of the
whole system.
Until
now. For the baleful truth is that millions of postal votes are
now certain to be cast under a system so wide open to abuse that
it would, in the words of a High Court judge this week, 'disgrace
a banana republic'. We now face the real possibility that this
election will be seriously compromised, with a slew of closely-contested
results challenged in the courts and lingering suspicions that
contests have been stolen.
And
the blame lies squarely with the almost insane recklessness of
a Government that has opened the door to electoral fraud for the
sake of party advantage. The full dimensions of this scandal were
laid bare with the devastating judgment on vote-rigging in Birmingham,
where Labour councillors and officials were up to their necks
in corruption and intimidation to hijack last year's local elections
by stealing postal votes.
This
isn't simply a Birmingham affair. Police are investigating claims
of similar vote fraud in six other areas. The implications for
the whole country could hardly be more serious. In the scathing
words of Judge Richard Mawrey QC, this Tammany hall electoral
fix wasn't just the work of a few hothead activists, but was a
'massive, systematic and organised fraud'.
The
judge revealed how the whole system is an open invitation to cheat.
No identity checks are made, and the ballot papers are clearly
identified. As Mr Mawrey observed, short of writing 'Steal Me'
on the envelopes it is hard to see what more could be done to
promote vote-rigging.
'Frauds
of this magnitude require a considerable degree of organisation
and manpower, not to mention supervision and coordination', he
pointed out.
Indeed.
This outrage needed the muscle of New Labour's local machine.
And while the party's high command may not have known exactly
what was going on, it should have. It was warned often enough
of the dangers of corruption. But it has always refused to listen,
either to its own tame quango, the electoral commission, or to
other experts.
For
example, when a Liberal Democrat peer warned of corruption in
the North-West and raised the spectre of 'people walking down
the street with fists full of postal voting papers belonging to
other people', he was promptly accused of racism in local Labour
election material.
Worse
still, the Labour Party put Mr Mawrey himself under pressure,
obstructing him at every turn and trying to postpone his inquiry
until after the General Election. Indeed, the judge is the hero
of the hour, and his courage in refusing to back down under this
kind of pressure should be saluted. Significantly, the Government
is still trying to dismiss his report as 'scaremongering'.
So
what price the integrity of our democracy now, when new Labour
frantically bombards marginal seats and the inner cities with
postal vote application forms? Where is the room for trust when
such votes have mushroomed from 1.4million last time to a probable
6million on May 5? And when some areas such as Newcastle, Cardiff
and Stevenage are likely to have as many as 50% postal voters
with not a single serious safeguard in place?
New
Labour knows what it is doing. It has always known. It made postal
voting much easier in 2000 in a desperate attempt to increase
the turnout of its own traditional supporters while showing not
the slightest interest in electoral safeguards. This was crude
party politicking at its worst and under any other government,
there would certainly have been a civil service revolt at such
a naked abuse of power. But New Labour has remorselessly undermined
the once-proud impartiality of Whitehall mandarins. They are now
so cowed that they do as they are told And ministers continue
to get away with anything.
Right
up to yesterday, in fact, they were insisting that 'the systems
already in place to deal with the allegations of electoral fraud
are clearly working'. That was demonstrably false, a display of
such breathtaking complacency that it's difficult to believe the
party was not deliberately closing its eyes to what is going on.
Indeed, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion
that the stench of corruption reaches all the way from the Birmingham
Labour Party to Government itself. It has not only ignored the
warnings about postal voting, not only ignored the mounting evidence
of fraud, but is even trying to pretend it doesn't exist.
What
makes you want to weep is that this is happening in Britain of
all places - the country that first invented clean elections in
the great reforms of the Victorian era. We appear to be going
back in time to a pre-modern age, before Gladstone cleaned up
politics and developed a civil service of transparent integrity.
Alas,
no longer. The civil service has been politicised. The police,
too, have shown themselves incapable of responding appropriately
to evidence of racketeering, intimidation and corruption. When
the Lib Dems gave the West Midlands force a list of allegations
during last year's election campaign, said Mr Mawrey, they responded
with an 'Olympian detachment'. It was only because of the judge's
own detective work that this corruption was unearthed - and with
it the appalling erosion of electoral probity. The supposed guardians
of our democracy appear no longer to care that the system is being
suborned and display only cavalier contempt for standards of public
integrity.
People
in Britain looked on in amazement at the way President Bush's
bitterly contested first election was ultimately decided by a
court. But with postal ballot fraud now rife, there is a distinct
possibility that in certain highly contested seats, the result
of this general election may similarly depend on a judge's ruling.
The
Prime Minister lavished praise on the people of Iraq for queuing
in the broiling sun to cast their votes, while his government
has denounced the election in Zimbabwe as a fraud. What hypocrisy
that now seems. Britain's situation is too serious for the inadequate
'safeguards' announced yesterday. Voter apathy could now be so
exacerbated by voter disgust that people simply refuse to vote
in a Tammany Hall' election.
Ideally,
postal voting should be scrapped altogether if this coming election
is not to turn into a dangerous farce and public trust is not
to be further undermined. But of course - under this elected
dictatorship that just won't happen. New Labour has not only
tainted this election. It has demeaned democracy itself.
|
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.
