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
|
The
blighting of a pleasant land
Daily
Mail - Comment, November 9, 2004
Environmental
disaster threatens the pleasant pastures of England. In
the name of centralised 'planning', woodlands will be
bulldozed, hedgerows grubbed up, concrete poured over
the landscape and houses built as far as the eye can see.
And
it matters not a jot what you think. Prescott has decided
from on high that some of the most densely populated areas
of the country 'need' more than a million new homes. And
New Labour has dismantled local democracy to ensure public
opinion is ignored.
Time
was when shire counties, directly responsible to local
people, had power to take strategic planning decisions.
No longer. Today that power is in the hands of remote,
unelected, unaccountable regional 'assemblies' set up
in 1999 to rubber-stamp the diktats of Whitehall.
Yet
voters don't want such bureaucratic regional bodies at
any price, not even if they can choose who sits on them.
Last week, they overwhelmingly rejected an elected assembly
in the North East - the only place the Government dared
hold a referendum.
Yet
nothing has really changed. New Labour's stooge regional
quangos are still calling the shots on housing and planning
and still costing you £30million a year. Last week,
the Eastern Area 'assembly' approved plans for 478,000
houses over the next 17 years. Yesterday officials in
the South East 'assembly' gave the nod to another 720,000.
So
what is the excuse for a policy which shire leaders condemn
as 'incoherent and lacking any environmental audit'?
Mr
Prescott claims there is a shortage of affordable homes.
But three-quarters of a million properties stand empty
in Britain, 190,000 of them in London and the South East.
And while there is certainly a case for cheaper homes
in many towns and cities, particularly for key workers,
shouldn't they be built on brownfield sites with the decision
taken by elected councillors who understand local needs.
But
no. Mr Prescott knows best. He ignores the risks of more
building in areas liable to flooding or water shortages.
He isn't properly funding the new schools and hospitals
that will be needed. He brushes aside the pressures on
the infrastructure of an already crowded region. He couldn't
care less for public opinion.
His
is the arrogance of a Government that thinks it can get
away with anything. And the tragedy is that his legacy
will be am irreversible urban sprawl in what is now the
green of rural England.
|
Prescott's
new homes target soars to 720,000
By
James Chapman, Political Correspondent, Mail - Nov 9, 2004
John
Prescott is considering building a further 130,000 homes across
vast swathes of the South-East, taking the total to nearly three
quarters of a million. Environmental campaigners reacted with
horror yesterday when it emerged that the target had increased
from the 590,000 previously suggested by the Deputy Prime Minister's
regional assembly quango.
They
warned that development on such a scale would seriously damage
quality of life as miles and miles of irreplaceable countryside
were concreted over. County council leaders were also lining up
to denounce the ever expanding scale of development.
The
proposals for homes to be built by 2026 have been drawn up by
officials at the unelected South East Regional Assembly. It was
set by Mr Prescott and handed crucial powers over planning. But
like all the eight regional assemblies around the country, it
is made up of handpicked councilors, union bosses and business
men and is not democratically accountable. Last night its planning
committee discussed building up to 36,000 homes a year in the
region, up from previous recommendations of 29,500. Over 20 years,
that could mean 720,000 extra homes in the South-East if the higher
target is adopted. That would be in addition to 478,000 homes
which the East of England Regional Assembly wants to build in
its area between now and 2021.
Mr
Prescott has already identified four housing hotspots in the region
- Milton Keynes, The Thames Gateway, the M11 Stansted-Cambridge
corridor and Ashford in Kent - where low cost homes are needed
for nurses, police and other key workers. Areas suggested for
absorbing more include central Oxfordshire, South Hampshire, and
the Thames Valley.
The
proposal will go before the full South East Assembly later this
month. But last night, Tories claimed the assembly was a 'stooge'
of Mr Prescott. "This is a blitz on Britain's countryside,"
said Conservative housing spokesman John Hayes. "New housing
is not needed in the numbers Mr Prescott is suggesting. Where
we do need houses they should be on brown-field sites where possible,
and on a scale which is environmentally sustainable."
Kate
Gordon of the Campaign to Protect Rural England said 40% more
homes would be needed in some parts of the region to hit the target.
"Fore-casting growth on the South East could actually undermine
the prosperity of the region," she warned. "The very
quality of life that makes it attractive could be seriously damaged."
The
CPRE believes Ministers should concentrate their efforts on filling
almost 190,000 empty properties in London and the South-East.
The
Tories demanded that he abolish the eight unelected regional chambers
set up to pave the way for full blown assemblies.
Speaking in the Commons, Mr Prescott accepted that the bodies
were 'quangos' but said voters would have to put up with them
now they had rejected elected bodies.
Webmaster's
comment: What damnable arrogance of that man. The people of England
do not have to 'put up with them'. There is only one answer
to dictatorship of the Prescott variety. Vote that man out of
office! And, hopefully, his buddy Tony will follow him sooner
rather than later. Please read on and vote NOW.
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.
