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, February 17, 2005
|
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
SIR
- Why on earth are people still insisting on voting for
the Labour Party this May 2005. It has lied and cheated
the public again and again during the Iraq war, immigration,
violent crime and hospital waiting list figures. It has
introduced stealth taxes and even been caught rigging
the postal voting system. To the Editor, Daily Telegraph,
from Philip Priestley, High Wycombe, Bucks. April 19,
2005
|
Education
and this terrible betrayal ...
By
Stephen Glover, Daily Mail, April 26, 2005
Have
you heard the word 'education' being mentioned by any of the main
political parties during the election campaign? I don't believe
I have. Tony Blair may have repeated his meaningless mantra 'Education,
education, education', but otherwise we have heard little or nothing
on the subject.
I
ask because two new reports cast doubt on New Labour's claims
that its policies have led to an increase in social mobility,
as well as a narrowing of the income gap between the rich and
the very poor. The opposite appears to be true.
According
to a report by the well-respected London School of Economics (LSE),
Britain has the worst record for social mobility among eight nations
that were studied. Not only that the chances of escaping the lowest
social income group actually worsened between those who were born
in 1958 and those born in 1970.
Among
the 1958 sample, 31% of young people born into the poorest families
remained in the same low-income bracket by the time they were
33. In the 1970 sample, 38% of people stayed in the same low-income
group, and a slightly smaller percentage joined the highest earners
in the country.
The
explanations, according to Sir Peter Lampl, chairman of the Sutton
Trust education charity which sponsored the research, lies in
the declining standards of education available to the less well-off.
In the past, grammar schools offered such people an opportunity
for self-improvement. The comprehensive system,' he says, 'was
brought in to try to improve social mobility, but the opposite
has happened.'
Even
those from poorer backgrounds applying for places at the remaining
164 grammar schools are at a disadvantage, according to a second
report conducted by academics at Cardiff University. They say
that opportunities for poorer children are being taken away by
new government rules of parental choice. Some parents dare not
put them down for grammar schools as first choice for fear of
losing out to the best comprehensives if their children fail to
make the grade, and some grammar schools are under-subscribed
as a result. Richer parents can afford to take the risk in the
knowledge that if their offspring fail to get into a grammar school
they can go instead to an independent one.
None
of this should surprise us very much/. Despite his many initiatives,
Gordon Brown has failed to raise the incomes of the poorest families
in relation to the richer ones. The independent Institute for
Fiscal Studies says that income inequality between the richest
and the poorest has slightly increased under new Labour. No amount
of interventionist policies are likely to succeed so long as the
educational opportunities for those from poorer backgrounds remain
so much more limited than those for children from richer ones.
This
country's independent schools have improved dramatically over
the past 30 years. The few remaining grammar schools offer good
education, as do a proportion of favoured comprehensive schools.
But many gifted pupils from poorer backgrounds are not being given
the opportunities they would have received 40 years ago. Some
60% of Oxbridge students were then state-educated. That figure
has fallen to about a half.
So
in 40 years we have gone backwards as opportunities for less fortunate
clever children have actually declined. According to the LSE,
extra places made available by expansion of universities in the
Eighties and Nineties have largely been filled by students from
better-off backgrounds. Not all of this can be blamed on New Labour,
but in eight years things have grown worse. Yet, instead of raising
standards in the state sector, the Government has unfairly being
putting pressure on universities to accept less well-qualified
students from state-schools at the expense of better-educated
pupils from independent ones.
New
Labour, many of whose stalwarts benefited from a grammar school
education, is pulling up the ladder behind it. The effect is evident
throughout the commercial and political world. Look, for example,
at the modern Tory party. Leader, Michael Howard, is grammar-school
educated. So is its leader-who-never was, Ken Clarke. Buts its
so-called bright new hopes, David Cameron and George Osborne,
both went to private schools. Are younger versions of Mr Howard
and Mr Clarke going to be available to rise to the top of today's
Tory party? It seems unlikely.
Tony
Blair and Gordon Brown will doubtless be delighted to have deprived
the Tories of new talent, but they should hang their heads in
shame as they see the principle applied to other walks of life.
It is all find and dandy for the rich; in more ways than one they
have never had it so good. But it's shocking that clever children
from poorer backgrounds should have fewer opportunities than they
would have had 40 or 50 years ago. New Labour should be appalled
at the LSE's finding that modern Britain has a worse record for
social mobility than Canada, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Finland
or Norway.
This
is not a recipe for a happy or successful society. The Government
boasts of record spending on education, as though pouring money
into a defective system will cure its ills. It won', so long as
pupils in what Alastair Campbell memorably called 'bog-standard
comprehensives' continue to receive a substandard education. The
violence and abuse endemic in many such schools is highlighted
by a Channel Five programme, Classroom Chaos, to be shown tomorrow.
After
a 30-year absence from teaching, Sylvia Thomas returned to supply
teaching in 15 ordinary secondary schools which had not been considered
failing by recent inspection reports. She was amazed by the fighting,
ill discipline and swearing she witnessed. No wonder that David
Bell, the chief inspector of schools, reported earlier this year
that 9% of secondary schools suffer from 'persistent and unsatisfactory'
behaviour.
Pretty
well all our social problems can be traced back to the deficiencies
of our education system: yobbishness, disrespect, rising violence,
national stupidity. In such an environment, intelligent and enterprising
students have few chances. The Tories merely match Labour's spending
pledges, and are too timed to open a debate about educational
standards. God forbid that they should advocate the expansion
of grammar schools as a way of offering more chances to the less
well-off.
Eight
years of New Labour, and we have an increasingly polarised society
in which there is less social mobility. In four years' time matters
will be worse still if Tony Blair gets back next week, Through
its new rules on parental choice, the government will continue
slowly to suffocate the Grammar Schools. It's fine for the rich,
fortunate enough to be able to send their children to private
schools, but don't expect New Labour to help you if you are poor.
|
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
SIR
- Why on earth are people still insisting on voting for
the Labour Party this May 2005. It has lied and cheated
the public again and again during the Iraq war, immigration,
violent crime and hospital waiting list figures. It has
introduced stealth taxes and even been caught rigging
the postal voting system. To the Editor, Daily Telegraph,
from Philip Priestley, High Wycombe, Bucks. April 19,
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.
