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 17/2/05
|
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
|
'Security'
- always the excuse of tyrants - Andrew Alexander
- Daily Mail, March 4, 2005
Make
no mistake, this Government is launching an almost breathtaking
series of assaults on our traditional liberties. It is not just
the obvious matter of the counter-terrorism proposals, though
we might as well start there. See if you can identify the authors
of the following remarks:
"If
our security is not protected, what is the point of our liberty?"
- statement by Commons Leader Peter Hain
"Considerations
of national security have to come before civil liberties."
- uttered by Prime Minister Tony Blair
"You
the individual are nothing, if the state does not protect you."
- declared by Adolf Hitler
Security
before liberty has been the excuse of every tyrant throughout
history.
We
are now being assured that a judge will review applications for
confinement from the Home Secretary and look at the information
provide by the security services. One's thoughts wander irresistibly
to a situation where a Lord Hutton-type judge reviews evidence
from intelligence experts who also gave us the bogus WMD threat.
Nor
is the case made any better by exaggeration. Blair has talked
of 'hundreds of potential terrorists being involved. Sources in
the security sources talk of only a fraction of these constituting
real risk.
Much
is made of the Gloucester bomber and the danger of him blowing
up an airliner. But this does not help the Government's case.
He was tracked down, investigated and found guilty by the due
process of law. It has nothing to do with the emergency measures.
But
the attack on liberty does not stop there. Also being rammed through
Parliament is a measure making it a serious offence to use words
likely to stir up religious hatred. It amounts to a wicked attempt
to censor free speech. We already have, as we have had for centuries,
laws which make it an offence to incite violence or disorder,
though never used, strangely enough, against Muslims demanding
Salman Rushdie's death.
The
implications of the new measure are immense. The Koran includes
messages of violence against non-believers and in particular apostates.
Thus, most obviously, anyone who quotes and condemns these passages
would be liable to prosecution. It is a bitter irony to say that
attacking passages which call for violence can be, would be, treated
as a criminal offence.
Indeed,
an impeccable case could be made out for prosecuting anyone who
published the Koran. Of course, the Government would not prosecute
a Muslim for such an offence. After all, the new measure is a
nasty,pre-election attempt to suck up to Muslim voters alienated
by the invasion of Iraq.
But
a Christian who published and condemned the offending passages
would fall neatly within the #government's censorship plans. In
my own case, the Bill would provide for my prosecution for writing
an attack on Christianity (which I regard as responsible for vast
damage throughout the ages) or on one of its aggressive sects.
The new law may be even be used by Scientologists against their
many critics.
Among
other who would be in peril would be those who condemned the Hindu
adherence to the cast system. In a perfect example of absurdity,
the authorities could be called on to prosecute Salman Rushdie
for The Satanic Verses.
Ministers
try to convince us that the law would be used with caution and
care. However, the assumption that laws will be enforced with
sense is a dangerous assumption at the best of times. If there
was a move to prosecute me, for example, I would say: 'Go on.
I dare you.' That is all very well for me, writing for a powerful
newspaper. But the more subtle and dangerous menace of self-censorship
lurks here - not just for journalists but also for academics,
preachers, politicians (whether elected or just hopeful), broadcasters
and even comedians and satirists.
Before
scorning a religion or some aspect of it, they will ask themselves,:
are we allowed to say this? The penalty for falling foul of the
proposed law is severe - up to seven years imprisonment. Perhaps,
they will say, we had better not write, better not commit our
view or our researches to paper or even discuss them.
Potential
offenders, even if confident they would not be found guilty, would
face a protracted ordeal. If a complaint were made, however, unlikely
to lead to prosecution, the police would be obliged to investigate
- visiting the alleged offenders, taking statements, removing
papers and computer discs.
Then
the police would pass on their findings to the Director of Public
Prosecutions for further study. A long period of anxiety and fear
would be involved.
This
is a wicked, wicked Bill.
|
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
|
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.
