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
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
|
Bamboozled
by election claim and counter-claim? The Mail's City Editor says
there's only one certainty: there WILL be huge tax rises if Labour
wins
by
Alex Brummer, City Editor - Daily Mail, April 13, 2005
The
vicious debate which has erupted between Labour and the Tories
over the economy and the state of the public finances is enough
to give the electorate a migraine - at the very least.
Instead
of seeking to clarify the issues for voters, politicians appear
determined to bamboozle them. Labour is hurling ever more confusing
numbers backwards and forwards in its efforts to terrify the voters
over Tory tax and spending plans. In so doing, the Government
has turned what ought to be an intelligent discussion into a torrent
of abuse which leaves ordinary people confused, frightened and,
worst of all, alienated from a debate vital to the prosperity
of the whole nation.
Mudslinging
can't hide the truth
Comment
- Daily Mail, April 13, 2005
So
the much-trumpeted 'demolition' of Tory spending plans
ends in embarrassing failure. New Labour's wrecking-ball
swings idly in the breeze. Opposition policies are unscathed.
And the Government has knocked holes only in what is left
of its own reputation.
Has
a campaign of lies ever imploded quite so spectacularly?
For weeks, Labour strategists have been trying to make
the electorate's flesh creep, with dire warnings about
the £35billion 'cuts' supposedly planned by the
Tories.
A
Howard administration, we were told, would lay waste to
the public services, in a way equivalent to sacking 'every
nurse, every teacher, every doctor'.
Now
comes a screeching U-turn. Suddenly we are assured that
the real problem isn't Tory parsimony after all, but Tory
profligacy. Yes, it seems Michael Howard is actually intent
on a spending spree that will create a vast black hole
in our public finances.
Confused?
Just consider the rest of it. In spite of its abrupt and
bizarre change of tack, Labour still insists that 'cuts'
will be imposed, since Her Majesty's Opposition has apparently
devised a miraculous way of spending more and spending
less at the same time.
Oh,
really? But doesn't Chancellor Brown insist 'we're able
to increase public investment and at the same time have
in the Budget affordable tax cuts'?
If
he can square the circle, why cant Oliver Letwin? Instead
of being offered proper debate on tax and spending, voters
are fobbed off with scaremongering and voodoo economics,
from a Government that has nothing but contempt for their
intelligence.
Ministers
know perfectly well that Tory plans involve neither drastic
'cuts' nor a black hole at the Treasury. Messrs. Howard
and Letwin simply propose a more modest rate of spending
increase than Labour. So why this mudslinging? Isn't it
to divert attention from what lies in store for us all
if Tony Blair wins?
As
our City Editor Alex Brummer writes on this page: A
third Labour Government will be the prelude to perhaps
the biggest series of tax increases in modern financial
history.
And
that isn't just his view. It is shared by virtually every
serious economics organisation and analyst. The billions
poured into our unreformed public services - to precious
little effect - have created an £11billion shortfall
in our national finances. Hardpressed families are going
to suffer even more if New Labour wins. And so the party
of dodgy dossiers on Iraq resorts to dodgy economics to
duck straight questions.
Such
tactics are not remotely surprising when they come from
Tony Blair. The pity is that Gordon Brown, the Government's
only truly outstanding success, should take part in such
a charade. How sad that even he is not above the propagandist
spin that undermines trust in New Labour.
|
Indeed,
by resorting to a farrago of numbers designed to show the Tories
would cut public services and increase public spending, Labour
is at risk of destroying the credibility and respect Gordon Brown
has won for his stewardship of the economy.
Ferocious
But
whatever the truth about the claims and counter-claims I, as City
Editor of the Daily Mail, can make one firm prediction. If Labour
returns to power the British people will, over the next two years,
face the most ferocious rise in taxes in modern financial history.
The
Government's record speaks for itself. After each of its General
Election victories, it has struck us hard and stealthily with
higher taxes. The effect of these tax shocks has been to wipe
out the prosperity for Middle Britain which should have come with
improved earnings and low inflation.
Now
we are in line for the same medicine again. Year by year, the
state of the government finances has been deteriorating as the
Treasury ladles ever more cash into the hands of workers in the
public sector. In the past 12 months alone, the number of people
on the state payroll has ballooned by 146,000, only a small proportion
of whom are front-line workers.
The
bills will eventually have to be paid and the required tax increases
to cover the £11billion estimated shortfall in the Exchequer
could be the largest ever. Labour's subterfuge, which dates back
to before it cam to power in 1997, is never to call a tax by its
name but to find some other language. And its practice is never
to admit a tax rise is on the way and to deprecate the analysis
of all those who suggest otherwise.
But
Labour now has a history of misleading the nation over its revenue
plans. In the immediate aftermath of Tony Blair's first election
landslide, his Chancellor lost no time in raising new revenues.
Armed with work done on his behalf by the disgraced accounts Arthur
Anderson, the Chancellor delivered a devastating blow to Britain's
private pension industry by removing £5billion a year of
tax relief which had helped to make the nation's retirement system
one of the healthiest in the world.
Moreover,
despite Labour's claims to be the friend of business, it stunned
power and water utilities with a windfall tax on profits from
which they have never fully recovered.
Following
the last election, Gordon Brown again raided our pockets and those
of the business community. He imposed a permanent 1% surcharge
on the earnings of every one of us. At the same time, he also
required businesses to cough up a further 1% on their share of
national insurance.
Labour
likes to claim that National Insurance contributions (NICs) are
not a tax. It thinks of the system as it was in the years of the
post-war Attlee government, providing social security for every
citizen from cradle to grave. The reality is that the £6billion
raised each year from higher national security contributions is
a tax like any other. The money simply pours into the exchequer.
The link between contributions and services provided was broken
decades ago.
When
Brown delivered his 'giveaway' pre-election budget a month ago,
he was his usual prudent self. He made sure that every goody he
offered, including the £200 of council tax assistance, was
properly paid for. It was a far cry from the much more generous
£3.6billion of electoral bribes, for motorists, pensioners
and others, offered before the 2001 election.
There
was, however, method in the Chancellor's meanness. He recognised
that to do any more would have put him in immediate danger of
breaching the standards he has set himself for running the economy.
The core test for Brown is his 'golden rule'. This requires the
Treasury only to borrow for investment over the economic cycle.
The margin of error on the golden rule is shrinking year by year.
It
now stands at just £6billion. If it had shrunk any further,
Brown would have offered the Tories and suspicious financial markets
an open goal if he had upped his Budget giveaways.
Credibility
Essentially,
the Chancellor was putting off the difficult decisions which lie
ahead. His own Budget documents show current expenditure - on
items such as the salaries of pubic servants - heading inexorably
upwards. The only way that they could be paid for, without putting
financial stability at risk, is if tax revenues increase exponentially.
Even
though Brown has benefited from higher corporate taxes being paid
in 2004 and might benefit again in 2005, the credibility of his
projections is challenged by almost every expert body. The independent
Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS), which employs some of the best
economic minds in the country, is doubtful about Brown's numbers.
It says tat it is not credible to believe that t\x revenues will
grow by £2 billion between now and 2009-10, as forecast
in the Budget, without further tax measures.
Now
the Chancellor might, with a bit of luck, come through the present
economic cycle which ends in 2006, without breaching his Budget
rules. But even that is doubtful. And beyond that, the belief
in Brown's numbers evaporates. Every expert from the IFS to the
International Monetary Fund in Washington argues that over the
next economic cycle taxes will have to be raised - or public spending
cut - by £11 billion.
Notorious
To
put that figure in perspective it is almost twice as much as Tory
Chancellor Norman Lamont raised in his notorious tax-raising Budget
of 1994. In cash terms, it is also double the sum Brown raised
in 2003 through higher NICs and a freeze on personal tax allowances.
Had
2005 not been an election year, I would have expected Brown, in
keeping with his mantra of prudence and pay as you go, to have
begun the task of raising revenues this year. Politics made that
impossible, especially as the Conservatives are promising to slow
the rate of growth in public spending to create room for £4billion
of carefully targetted tax cuts.
Instead,
as was the case in two previous election campaigns, Labour is
playing word games over taxes. At some point over the next year
or so Gordon Brown will either have to turn off the spigots of
public spending - almost impossible given the searing criticism
it has made of Tory proposals - or once again reach for the tax
weapon.]The vehicle of choice is unknown, but Brown has a liking
for national insurance because he can directly link it in the
public mind to the NHS and pensions.
The
message is a simple one, despite efforts to disorientate and hoodwink
voters by distorting the Opposition's plans for the public finances.
A third Labour government will be the prelude to perhaps the biggest
series of tax increases in modern financial history. If we give
in to Labour's misrepresentations, we should be prepared for the
very worst.
|
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
|
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.
