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
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
|
|
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
Rise and Rise of the World Health Service
It's
not racism but pure common sense - Commentary
by Sir Andrew Green - Daily Mail, February 16, 2005.
The
debate on immigration is gathering in momentum. And so it should.
It is a major concern of the British people, yet for years it
has been neglected for fear of accusations of racism.
The
Home Secretary gave matters a boost when, addressing a meeting
of supporters in Newcastle at the weekend, he is reported to
have said: "We want more migration, more people coming
to study and to work. We want more people coming to look for
refuge."
This
is so contrary to the (unambiguous) views of the general
public that it is truly astonishing. Does the Government really
propose to ignore the strong and genuinely held views of the
vast majority of the population? Can ministers be as arrogant
as that? Or is it their real intention to say one thing and
do another?
Perhaps
they are trying to ride two horses at once. They may wish to
retain the votes of ethnic minority communities, of whom 80%-90%
have voted Labour in the past.
But
in Britain, there is another constituency to consider - the
white working class. It is these voters, not the inhabitants
of Islington, who bear the brunt of immigration on their communities.
It is their housing, schools and hospitals that come under strain.
Not for them a flight to the leafy suburbs. They simply cannot
afford it. Not only do they suffer these consequences, they
receive none of the supposed benefits of immigration.
Home
Secretary, Charles Clarke, tells us that London 'utterly depends'
on migration for its economy. Obviously, with 29% of Londoners
now immigrants, we could not do without them. Nor would we wish
to. Many of them and their descendants make a valuable contribution
to our society. But that is quite different from saying that
we need yet more immigration.
Eighty
percent of immigrants come to London and the South East - a
region that is already nearly twice as crowded as Holland. We
are choking with people and their cars. We don't need more people.
And we certainly do not need another five million, five times
the population of Birmingham, which, according to the government's
own projections, will result from immigration at present levels.
It
gets worse for the ordinary worker. Large-scale immigration
lowers unskilled wages and raises unemployment among the unskilled.
Don't just take my word for it. Take it from Professor Richard
Layard, Britain's top labour economist, who helped design Labour's
welfare-to-work programme. He wrote exactly that in the Financial
Times. He added: "If we are concerned about fairness, we
ought not to ignore these facts. Employers gain from unskilled
immigration. But the unskilled do not."
Working
people may not be schooled in economics but they are certainly
not short of common sense. They know that large-scale immigration
is against their interests and they are very tired of it.
Nor
do the Government's wider claims hold water. The Prime Minister
claimed in his speech to the CBI on April 27, 2004 that our
economic growth would be nearly half a per cent lower in the
next two years without net immigration. He forgot to mention
that immigration also increases our population by a quarter
of a percent so that the benefit of that economic growth will
be trivial - roughly 50p per head per week each year.
Is
it really worth the hassle of large-scale immigration just for
that? It is absurdly arrogant to describe those opposed to this
as making a 'saloon bar response', as Mr Clarke did on Sunday.
There
are many aspects to immigration issues that have received too
little attention in recent years. One is public health, on which
the Conservative Party has published proposals. They were met,
of course, by the usual howls of protest and insinuations of
racism. In fact, they are just common sense. Indeed, common
sense that has been applied by dozens of countries across the
world who are less enslaved by political correctness.
The
Government produced an 'action plan' last autumn to tackle the
problem. But it did not include testing for immigrants. This
issue was left to a Cabinet Office committee to make a comprehensive
Review of Imported Infections and Immigration The report was
produced last autumn - and quietly buried.
We
do not even test medical staff before they are recruited from
abroad. In 2002/3, over 40% of the 32,000 nurses joining the
register were from overseas, while in 2003 nearly three-quarters
of the 15,000 doctors who joined the register qualified outside
the UK.
Many
of these staff came from countries where incidence of HIV, TB,
and Hepatitis B is far higher than in Britain. This is no less
absurd.
Expect
the politically correct to ignore the facrs and to set off in
full cry. But they will not convince the public. we have every
right to take measures to protect puboic halth. Indeed, these
measures should have been taken long ago,
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.
