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
|
The
Great Deceiver
Exactly
two years ago, Mr Blair took us to war on a lie. The more we learn
about it the more we realise that we can never again trust the
honesty or judgment of this dangerously plausible conman
SATURDAY
ESSAY by Correlli Barnett - Daily Mail, March 13, 2005
Next
week will mark the second anniversary of the most momentous House
of Commons debate of modern times, when Tony Blair won a vote
by 412 to 149 in support of his decision to aid and abet George
W. Bush in attacking Iraq.
Two
days later, the war began with a 'shock and awe' aerial onslaught.
Baghdad and other Iraqi cities were hit by 3,000 bombs and cruise
missiles in the first 48 hours. Within a month U.S. hi-tech forces
had won a complete victory in the field over Saddam Hussein's
Third World army, and had taken Baghdad.
As
Saddam's statues were toppled, it seemed as if events had now
vindicated the war policy which Tony Blair had successfully sold
to Parliament. It seemed, indeed, as if the slogan 'Mission Accomplished'
applied as much to Blair as to triumphant George W. Bush on board
an American aircraft carrier.
But
today, two years on, the mission remains very far from being accomplished.
The deceptively short war was followed by a prolonged and messy
aftermath. Bush and Blair's Iraq adventure has so far cost the
lives of more than 1,500 American servicemen, nearly 90 British
servicemen, and anything between 15,000 and 100,000 Iraqi men,
women and children.
Given
this grim record, we can understand why the recent Iraqi elections
have been hailed by Bush and Blair as a triumph for democracy
and a justification for the war. But those elections have still
to produce a government agreed by all the rival ethnic, clan,
and religious groups - let along produce a government that will
be stable and effective.
And
because the new Iraqi police and army are ill-trained, ill-equipped
and infiltrated by insurgents, American and British occupation
forces will have to stay until the end of next year at least.
REPEAT: 'at least'.
Meanwhile,
every week brings its fresh toll of bombings, assassinations,
kidnappings, American body-bags, and the sabotage of oil pipelines.
Who can be surprised, therefore, that Iraq does not figure as
a favourite topic with Tony Blair as he prepares to fire the starting
gun for the General Election? Iraq hardly gets a mention from
him. It is the topic that dares not speak its name.
For
the truth is that Blair wants us to regard his decision to join
in George Bush's war as being a dead and buried issue now . He
wants us to 'draw a line' and 'move on'. He wants us to focus
on the humdrum domestic topics - education, the NHS, immigration,
council tax - which he, a supreme photo-opportunist, neglected
while he was posturing before cameras as a world leader and the
privileged best buddy of George W. Bush.
But
the Iraq war, and Blair's part in leading Britain into it, are
not dead issues at all; they are very much live issues. They demonstrate
in the starkest fashion that neither Blair's truthfulness nor
his judgment can be trusted. And there can be no more important
a question in General Election campaigns than the truthfulness
and judgment of a Prime Minister who asks us to return him to
power.
The
fact that Tony Blair is a dangerously plausible conman, adept
at selling a false prospectus, is demonstrated beyond all doubt
by that eve-of-war debate in the Commons on March 18, 2003.
Take,
first, his sheer actorly performance. His body language conveying
desperate urgency, his voice hard-edged and strident, he punched
out a rapid-fire barrage of alarmist certainties about the threat
posed by Saddam's vast armoury of weapons of mass destruction.
On
that day of high drama and high emotion, the Commons jam-packed
with anxious MPs, this hell-fire preacher's style proved stunningly
successful, even winning over some of his own back-bench waverers
(though by no means all).
The
Conservative Opposition voted with him. Only Liberal Democrats
voted as a party against him, and therefore they alone spoke for
the large anti-war majority of the British nation as measured
by opinion polls. But if you replayed Blair's speech cold on
videotape today, you can see it for what it is: a carefully contrived
performance by a psyched-up actor who has mastered his lines and
rehearsed his gestures. Even Sir Laurence Olivier as Henry V was
no more emotive in the part of a national leader at a turning
point in history.
Here
was Tony Blair as Winston Churchill in 1940; Tony Blair as President
John Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis; and Tony Blair as
Margaret Thatcher going to war over the Falklands in 1982.
We
have seen similar dramatics in recent days during debates on his
Prevention of Terrorism Bill, a comparable attempt to panic Parliament
into acquiescence by a tale of imminent threat. And this time
Blair was peevish and nasty, too.
But
it is the actual content of that speech two years ago which cruelly
exposes his capacity for deception - and even falsehood. For a
start, he told the Commons that the reason why he and George Bush
must launch an attack on Iraq without authorisation by a second
UN Security Council resolution was that France had stated that
she would veto such a resolution in any circumstances. In fact,
France was simply opposing such a resolution at that specific
point in time. She, along with both Germany and Russia, wanted
to give UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix and his team longer
to carry out their work.
Had
they been granted this extra time, they would have found - like
the American search team after the occupation of Iraq - that Saddam
possessed no weapons of mass destruction at all. The truth is
that with more than 200,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen in the
gulf already poised to attack, Bush and Blair were shackled to
a military timetable which had been set n motion back in January
2003; and in Blair's case, a timetable set by his chum, the US
President.
This,
and not French obstruction, was why they could not give Hans Blix
the extra month or so he wanted. The rest of Blair's speech to
the Commons was just as slithery; combining flat assertions about
the alleged threat posed by Saddam with the flakiest of evidence.
Thus
Blair's performance made MPs' flesh creep by listing huge quantities
of WMD unaccounted for when the previous UN inspectors had left
Iraq in 1998: '10,000 litres of anthrax; far-reaching VX nerve
gas programme; up to 6,000 chemical munitions, at least 80 tons
of mustard gas, possible more than ten times that amount; unquantifiable
amounts of sarin, botulin toxin and a host of other biological
poisons; and an entire SCUD missile programme.
Terrifying
stuff!
Now
followed the punch-line. 'We are asked now seriously to accept
that in the last few years, contrary to all history, contrary
to all intelligence, he (Saddam) decided unilaterally to destroy
these weapons. I say such a claim is palpably absurd.'
In
fact, it was neither absurd nor (as Blair also alleged) 'false',
but, as the world now knows, true. As Hans Blix pointed out, Blair
had made the mistake - deliberate? - of assuming that weapons
unaccounted for must be weapons still in existence.
In
a further exercise in slitheriness, Blair hinted at a linkage
between Saddam's alleged WMD and global terrorism. 'The possibility
of terrrorist groups in possession of weapons of mass destruction,
even of a so-called "dirty" radiological bomb, is now,
in my judgment, a real and present danger to this country, to
Britain, and to our national security.'
He
told a backbench MP who asked him a question that he agreed with
a statement that President Bush had made to 'my fellow Americans'
that Iraq had aided, trained and harboured terrorists, including
operatives of Al Qaeda. Indeed, Blair asserted that links between
Saddam and Al Qaeda 'are hardening all the time'. In his closing
peroration, Blair proclaimed that the vote of the House of Commons
would decide 'whether we summon the strength to recognise the
global challenge of the 21st century and meet it .... '.
So
Blair was more than halfway to sharing Washington's delusion that
the toppling of Saddam would mark a decisive success in the so-called
'war on terror', instead of the huge diversion from that war it
has turned out to be.
Were
did Blair get the 'evidence' for all the scary assertions in his
speech? The answer, of course, is that he got it largely from
the notorious September 2002 'dodgy dossier', which had sexed
up the caveats and cautions in the Joint Intelligence Committee's
(JIC) report on Saddam's WMD into blood-chilling certainties.
In
fact, his eve-of-war oration remarkable echoed his own signed
introduction to that weaselly document. Therefore, the lethal
criticisms of the 'dodgy dossier' by Lord Butler's Committee in
their 'Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction'
last July equally apply to Tony Blair's eve-of-war speech.
According
to the Butler Report, 'the language in the dossier may have left
readers with the impression that there was fuller and firmer intelligence
behind the judgments than was the case.' The Committee added that
'the Prime Minister's description (in a statement to the Commons
on the day of publication) of the picture painted by the intelligence
services as "'extensive, detailed and authoritative"
may have reinforced this impression'.
Put
in plain English, instead of mandarin-speak, the Committee was
saying that Blair had personally lied to the nation in order to
make his case - as he was to do again, with fateful consequences,
during the eve-of-war debate in March 2003.
But,
in any event, the Butler Report made clear that the intelligence
actually available to the JIC about Iraq's WMD was itself 'sparse'
and 'seriously flawed', resting on sources that were too few and
unreliable.
So
why had Blair accepted this intelligence without cross-examining
the JIC in detail about its reliability, as Winston Churchill
and Margaret Thatcher would certainly have done? Was it because
if a lazy-minded negligence disgraceful in a Prime Minister, or
because this flawed intelligence (once 'sexed up' for publication)
would wee serve his political purpose - as it certainly did during
the eve-of-war debate?
And
what light does the Butler Report cast on Tony Blair's attempt
in that debate to link Saddam and Al Qaeda? It concludes that
the JIC made clear that, although there were contacts between
the Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda, there is no evidence of cooperation.
There
are two possible explanations as to why Blair made such a comprehensively
false case for war exactly two years ago.
The
first is that he genuinely believed what he was saying about the
danger posed by Saddam. This would convict him of poor judgment
- something very dangerous in a national leader.
The
second is that he deliberately deceived Parliament as to his true
motivation in going to war alongside George W. Bush, either sheer
vanity or a resolve to bring about 'regime change' in Iraq.
Either
explanation gives us a compelling reason for wanting Tony Blair
out of Downing Street before he can get us into another bloody
scrape.
Correlli
Barnett is a Fellow of Churchill College, Cambridge, and author
of THE GREAT WAR - (BBC World Books)
|
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.
