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
|
|
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
|
Will
Blair be counted out?
Labour is increasingly seen as ruthless and
squalid. But don't blame Campbell, blame his boss
By
William Rees-Mogg - The Times, February 7, 2005
Has
the Labour Party now become 'the nasty party'? If so, it is Tony
Blair's fault. He has been Prime Minister for nearly eight years,
his image has coloured the whole image of his party. If Labour
is not trusted, it is because Mr Blair is not trusted.
He
has, I think, badly misread the coming general election. He won
landslide victories in 1997 and 2001 by his own charm - in those
years still a potent weapon - by exploiting the unpopularity of
Conservatives and by relying on the disciplined propaganda machine
that was built by Alastair Campbell.
He
is trying to repeat his successful formula a third time. He has
appointed Alastair Campbell as head of election communications,
and has authorised an American-style 'attack' campaign against
Michael Howard personally. Yet the conditions have changed. For
too many of us Tony Blair's charm has worn off. His infectious,
youthful grin only reminds too many people of their cumulative
feelings of distrust.
The
Conservative Party and its supporters are no longer the Conservative
Party of 1992, or of the Thatcher or Major years. They are not
particularly popular, but they are not particularly hated. It
is the Labour Party that has been in power for nearly eight years.
It is the labour Party that has to bear the odium of office.
In
1997 Alastair Campbell was only a communications apparatchik,
a little-known, but highly competent professional. The Hutton
inquiry simultaneously made him famous and hated. He was seen
as an obsessive bully - ask Greg Dyke - and as a manipulator of
the case for war. To appoint him as head of election communications
is as clear a signal as running up the skull and crossbones on
a pirate ship. Labour has decided on a dirty campaign.
Obviously,
there is a price to pay in reputation, not so much for Alastair
Campbell as for Tony Blair. He has, after all, traded on his image
as a 'pretty decent sort of a guy'. If one wishes to maintain
a 'nice guy' image one cannot set a scowling cutthroat to attack
one's enemies.
Mr
Blair is not a particularly nice guy; he is a professional politician,
perhaps less truthful than most, who has decided to get his closest
ally to do his dirty work for him. He wants the dirty work to
be done.
The
strategy itself is flawed; the guns are pointing in the wrong
direction. At present most polls point to a very comfortable Labour
victory, something like 38% for Labour, 33% for the Conservatives
and 21% for the Liberal Democrats. That gives Labour a 5% lead,
large enough for a majority of about 100 seats.
It
is the campaign that Labour has to fear. In 1997 Labour started
the campaign with a lead in the polls of 24% over the Conservatives;
it won with a lead of only 12.5%. In 2001 Labour started the campaign
with a lead of 16%; it won with a lead of only 9%. Nobody commented
much on these figures, because at each election the Labour majority
in seats was so large.
Nevertheless,
both campaigns showed big swings away from Labour. The falls in
Labour lead averaged 9%. Such falls made little difference in
terms of seats, because Labour had started from a polling lead
well into double figures. Now, however, the Labour lead in the
polls is only 5%. If you deduct 9 from a Labour lead of 5, you
get a Conservative lead of 4%.
In
both of the past two general elections the fall in the Labour
lead can be accounted for by two factors: unexpectedly low turnout
and gains by Lib Dems. In 1997 turnout fell by 6% on the previous
election; in 2001 it fell by a further 12%. Recent research by
Communicate Research suggests that each 10% fall in turnout might
now be equivalent to a 2% fall in the Labour lead.
The
other factor is the rise in Lib Dem support during the campaign.
This happened both in 1997 and 2001, by 6% in the first election
and 5% in the second. The publicity in the campaign usually increases
the Lib Dem vote; in 2005 this effect is likely to be enhanced
by resentment over the Iraq war.
If
one adjusts current opinion polls to anticipate similar movements
of opinion during the next election campaign, one gets very worrying
figures for Labour. The outcome would be Conservatives 33% Labour
29%, Liberal Democrats 27%.
In
the past election a quarter of voters said that they had made
up their minds in the last week of the campaign. These figures
are, therefore, entirely possible. They would produce a swing
of 6.5% to the Conservatives and of more than 10% to the Lib Dems.
That would probably produce a Labour overall majority of around
zero or possibly below.
This
means that the election campaign, from Labour's point of view,
has two central issues, turnout and the Lib Dems. The Conservatives
will almost certainly win about a third of the electorate; that
was their result in both 1997 and 2001 and it is what the polls
are saying now.
If
turnout is no higher than in 2001, and if the Lib Dems get their
usual campaign gain, Labour's overall majority will be largely
or wholly dissolved. If I can work this out, so can Labour; that
may explain the panic in their campaign.
Yet,
if this is right, Alastair Campbell's campaign will be a disaster.
It will not raise the turnout; on the contrary it may turn voters
away from a party they see as ruthless and squalid If offers no
reason to support Labour rather than the Lib Dems., Its message
is that Labour and the Conservatives are both nasty parties; that
is surly a Lib Dem message. Alastair Campbell was an architect
of two great Labour victories; perhaps he will now be the architect
of a much more unexpected defeat.
But
do not blame Campbell, blame Blair.
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.
