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
|
I
know only too well the depths of misery alcohol can lead to. That's
why I'm appalled at the prospect of 24-hour drinking
By
Rosie Boycott - Daily Mail, Jamuary 13, 2005
Let's
start with some statistics, because even on their own the figures
speak eloquently of exactly what we in Britain are now facing.
47%
of all victims of violence describe their assailant as being drunk
at the time of the attack.
70%
of all admissions to hospital casualty departments at the weekend
have suffered injuries as a result of drinking.
Of
the 60,000 prisoners sentenced in the UK last year, 40,000 are
'hazardous users' of alcohol.
Each
year 17 million working days are lost because of excessive drinking.
I
could go on. And what's more, these figures are rising inexorably,
every year, every month, and they're rising fastest in the newest,
youngest market - teenagers.
It
is a truly horrifying state of affairs. But what these statistics,
shocking as they are, can never put into words is the human misery
involved. I'm a recovered alcoholic and I know just what depths
of misery alcohol can take you to.
I've
stood shivering with cold and anxiety outside supermarkets at
eight o'clock in the morning waiting for them to open so I could
buy more booze. I've phoned taxi drivers in the middle of the
night to order supplies from dodgy all-night outlets.
Destroyed
I've
seen the looks of horror and pity on the faces of the drivers
and the shop owners as they handed me the bottles. And I'm not
the only one. While most of us do not drink to such excess, at
least 10% of the population have their lives destroyed by alcohol
addiction.
Luckily
for me, with help and support, I learned how to deal with my drink
problem. But I am utterly appalled by the government's proposal
that we relax the licensing laws to allow 24 hour drinking. I
know exactly what it would have done to my life if it had come
into effect when I was still drinking. Apart from the fact that
it would have saved the midnight cab fares, I would probably have
drunk round the clock, without the possibility of sobering up
in the hours when booze wasn't freely available.
Of
course, not every British drinker will behave like an addict.
But what we do know is that over the past few years, binge drinking
has spiralled into an epidemic that has turned some city streets
into a no-go area after dark, blighted by violence and abuse.
Even if 'weekend bingers' do not consider themselves to be alcoholics,
their behaviour when they do drink can be every bit as pernicious
and damaging.
They
need help and education to alter their approach to drinking, every
bit as much as the alcoholic queueing up outside the off-license
at dawn. Why, then, does the Government not take it more seriously?
Why on earth is is instead proposing to remove the last remaining
barriers to all-day drinking?
Ministers
say it will stop the rush of violence that takes over city streets
at closing time. Yes, it might stop it happening bang on 11 o'clock,
but the view from respected police officers such as Sir John Stevens,,
head of the Met, is that the violence will just spread itself
out through the early hours of the morning, tying up more police
officers, more doctors and nurses, for longer and longer.
The
Government also says that its proposal will mean that Britain
will adopt the more restrained drinking habits of continental
Europe, where liberal licensing laws have gone hand in hand with
a 'cafe society'.
This,
too, strikes me as nonsense. Drawing comparisons between different
countries, with different social traditions, is utterly false
logic. Yes, the French and the Italians drink differently from
the British. That's not because they have liberal licensing laws.
It's because wine is a part of their family culture. It is a part
of their mealtime rituals from a very young age.
But
there is absolutely no research to back up the idea that we'll
all start to behave like our European neighbours if we too, all
allowed to drink all night. Cultures drink, and get drunk, in
very different ways. In Russia, for example, the average male
lifespan has actually dropped by 10 years since the fall of communism
due, medical experts say, to the huge rise in non-stop drinking
that liberalisation brought with it. I fear the same might happen
in Britain if we, too, follow suit.
But
don't just take my word for it. Professor Ian Gilmore, the alcohol
spokesman for the Royal College of Physicians, predicts that liberalisation
in Britain will man a rise in problem drinking, and the violence
and public disorder it brings with it.
Oblivion
In
one sense, however, the Government is right. We do need to do
something to try to reverse the binge-drinking trend. But changing
licensing hours is not the solution. So what should it be doing
instead? One answer is to clamp down on drinks advertising.
Direct
marketing promotions in pubs and clubs are particularly sinister:
the offers to 'drink as much as you can for £20' or to sell
'double measures for the price of singles' all encourage the attitude
that it is both socially acceptable, and cheap, to drink yourself
into oblivion.
Worse
still is the fact that many of these promotions are directly aimed
at young women, with promises of low-calorie drinks that 'don't
taste of alcohol' or 'girls get free drinks in happy hour'. Is
it any wonder that binge drinking is now a particular problem
with groups of young women?
Trying
to make publicans and bar owners responsible for curbing such
excessive drinking is one way forward. But there is little evidence
that they are doing so voluntarily. Vertical bars, where the seats
are removed to enable the maximum number to pack into a venue,
are increasingly popular.
Bar
owners aren't personally interested in anything other than making
money. Last August, a spot survey found that 52% were allowing
under-age drinkers into their premises. That doesn't mean that
those who pack such venues every Friday and Saturday night will
all end up with an alcohol problem. But some of them do need to
change their habits - both for their own health and for the good
of society.
Condemning
Why,
then, is the Government not taking more steps to help them? Call
me cynical, but it strikes me that alcohol is simply too important
to the exchequer. The drinks industry turns over £30billion
a year, of which the Government creams off £7billion.
But
the Government doesn't seem to have realised that the annual costs
of alcohol on society now far exceed that figure. One thing's
for certain. Unless we tighten the screws on the drinks industry,
this spiral of misery will continue. Unless the drinks industry
itself, along with the Government, starts to look at ways of communicating
a serious message about alcohol, we'll go on hearng stories about
the 15-year-olds who need liver transplants, about increased violence
in our inner cities and we'll be condemning a proportion of our
youngsters to a desperate life of drink addiction.
I
know, first hand, what misery that entails and I wouldn't wish
it on my worst enemy. But it is the firm belief of a growing band
of doctors, police chiefs and, indeed, many politicians that the
change in licensing laws will only exacerbate the problems we
are facing. It seems appalling in our relatively enlightened age
that we are allowing this to happen.
It
is time that our supposedly 'caring and listening Government'
woke up to the facts.
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.
