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
|
"Let
them eat tax credits: Mr Brown's policy is to let the old get
poorer", writes Simon Jenkins in THE
TIMES - October 13, 2004
What
pensions crisis? Where
is the 'time bomb'? How come a £57billion black hole?
If
there were a crisis, someone would be doing something. Instead
Adair Turner, the pension czar, seemed under no pressure yesterday
to do anything but murmur the obvious. Like a man killing time
in a pub, he remarked that if we do not save now we shall have
less to spend later. There are no flies on Mr Turner. He is from
McKinsey's. I am surprised he did not add that two plus two equals
four and that'll be a hundred grand, guv'nr.
Everyone
except the media seems relaxed abut pensions. Mr Turner is so
relaxed that he says a policy can wait until after the next election.
It waited, after all, until after the last two. Mr Turner is said
to be afraid of displeasing Gordon Brown, wise for an ambitious
chap. For his part, Tony Blair cannot stand any policy not fashioned
from hot air. He has let his ministers argue over pensions for
seven years. Why hurry now?
There
are two things to remember about pensions. First, they are stupefyingly
dull. Secondly, when push comes to shove, they bring out the worst
in everyone. Nobody cares about old Joe once he has taken the
clock and gone. Corporate executives are allowed to collapse their
employees' final-salary schemes while building 'top-hat' pensions
for themselves at their employees' expense. It beggars belief.
Even
Mr Brown robs Peter to pay Paul. He imposed a £5billion
tax on private pensions to help to pay for public sector ones.
While private pensions have collapsed over the past three years,
Civil Service pay-outs have been soaring. To crown it all, Mr
Brown capped tax relief on private schemes at £1.4million
in value. At the same time Mr Blair was revealed as having a tax-funded
scheme worth £3million. In this business it is every man
for himself.
The
story of Mr Brown's £5billion raid on private savings has
oft been told, most vividly in Tow Bower's savage biography out
this week. He was warned that past surpluses built up by private
pensions were in swift decline. He was warned that the NASDAQ
and dot.com boom was a bubble and that collapsing share prices
might devastate hundreds of thousands of pensions. He was warned
that his pet tax credits were anti-savings and his stake-holder
pensions worthless. Yet he tried to extract not £5billlion
but £8billion a year from the pension funds. According to
Mr Bower, the Chancellor thought that "the middle classes
would not feel any immediate pain".
Mr
Brown has seen off one protesting pensions minister after another.
Frank Field, Harriet Harman and Andrew Smith. His stakeholder
pensions have indeed been a fiasco and the pension credits a huge
disincentive to saving. As confidence in share-based pensions
collapsed at 2001, savers tipped their money into property. Share
values had raced ahead of house prices for 20 years since 1980.
Mr Brown reversed this at a stroke.
As
shares plunged, house prices soared. The Bank of England raised
interest rates and now threatens a mini-recession. Companies have
moved cash out of investment to support their in-house pensions,
pushing shares down further. Mr Bower relates that, in a series
of extraordinary meetings, Mr Blair tried to get Mr Brown to acknowledge
the failure of the pensions strategy and do something. The latter
grumpily refused. Mr Blair backed off.
Had
pensions been weapons of mass destruction or global warming, Mr
Blair might have gone on the warpath against his Chancellor. But
pensions are boring and domestic. Cabinet ministers know they
are themselves comfortably provided for. They can have no conception
of the insecurity that Mr Brown's decisions inflicted on ordinary
people. Some retiring on private sector pensions are now receiving
a third less than expected. Mr Blair kicks the ball to Mr Turner
and the long grass. Nothing could be more casual.
I
agree that this is no crisis, but it is most odd. The
Government's policy appears to be simply to let the old get poorer.
People are living longer and they should be glad of that. New
Labour, new wine and roses. Since there will be 80% more pensioners
by 2050, they will have to be paid somehow. With barely half the
population in work and being taxed, the burden of meeting even
present state pensions will rise fast. But Messrs Blair and Brown
take the view that life is tough anyway and there is no point
in making it less so. As Marie Antoinette might have said: "Let
them eat tax credits".
Mr
Turner has served a purpose in setting all this out in black and
white. There was a fool's paradise during the baby-boom years.
Revenue poured into company and institutional pension funds. As
these funds are released to existing beneficiaries, the 'grey
pound' has become the new North Sea oil. Ageing 'boomers' will
enjoy it, but their children should look on in envy. Those two
sprightly dears on the stern of a Saga cruise liner will be succeeded
by a generation back on the piers at Blackpool.
Mr
Turner hints at various measures that might help. Since it is
politically incorrect to suggest 'poorer pensioners', he has had
to suggest the crashingly obvious. perhaps the present cohort
of workers might stay longer at the grindstone - say to 70 - so
as to earn more and have less time to spend it. Perhaps they could
save more than they are doing now. Perhaps their children could
work harder to pay the taxes and contributions needed to support
them. All these would help. But the reality is that most people
not working for the Government will just have to live on less
than they anticipated. A decent pension is, after all, as flexible
a concept as an affordable house. That is Britain's contract with
economics.
The
one thing that will make matters worse is more government intervention.
The yearning of each Chancellor to be regarded as 'the Man from
the Pru' knows no end. We have had stakeholder. We have had means-tests
and the pension credit. We have had Peps and Isas, reducing the
BBC's admirable Money-go-Round to a total spin each week. All
we know for sure is that Mr Brown hates savings and likes the
means-test.
The
Tories, Liberal Democrats and Frank Field are surely right. There
should be a basic state pension, available to all, no questions
asked. The rest should be left to individuals, on their own or
in collusion with their employers. There should be no age threshold
on retirement. Company Directors should not be allowed to steal
pensions from their staff. There should be an end to the growing
unfairness of public-sector workers enjoying earnings-related,
index-linked, unfunded pensions-for-life.
With
public employment, variously defined, approaching a fifth of the
total workforce, the burden of these privileged pensioners will
become crippling to other taxpayers. It is small wonder that Mr
Brown has found eager takers for his 500,000 extra government
jobs. The result can be seen most vividly in the staff budgets
of police authorities. some are now distributing almost as much
in pensions as they are in pay. A secure job should be good enough.
Retirement for all pensioners should be to a level playing field
of risk. State employees, including Mr Blair himself, should be
treated no worse or better than everyone else.
Then
we can have a real debate. The nanny-statists can argue that joining
a private pension scheme should be compulsory for everyone, as
if often the case abroad. Libertarians can argue for voluntarism.
The one thing we can all do is demand that
Mr Brown stop taxing savings. It is encouraging house-price inflation
and consumption. It is unfair on private sector workers. It encourages
everyone to assume that the State will somehow look after them
to the grave.
If
Mr Blair's neo-Thatcherite culture of self-reliance is to have
any application it must surely be in the matter of saving. If
any human virtue should be rewarded with tax relief it is the
postponement of income gratification. Mr Brown disagrees. But
then perhaps he is socialist more than a Scotsman after all.
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.
`
