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
|
HARD
LABOUR
Letter
from David Kane, Deal, Kent to the Daily Mail - January
18, 2005
I'm
one of millions who must be frustrated as to whom to vote
for as the General Election looms. Tory Leader Michael
Howard admits that his ineffective party can't win the
election, so for whom does one vote?
The
Lib Dems might gain a few more seats but not enough to
govern, so it seems inevitable that the long-suffering,
law-abiding British taxpayer will have to suffer four
more years of Labour rule. The best we can hope for is
a greatly reduced majority.
I
urge the Tory leader to pull out all the stops, lose his
defeatist attitude, rally the party and promise to give
Britain back to the people - and to hell with out effective
masters in Brussels.
The
only things New Labour is good for are awarding itself
obscene pay rises, taxing us to the hilt, increasing bureaucracy
and encouraging parasites.
In
all branches of the law - police, CPS, and judges - the
victim is still regarded as the criminal or not considered
deserving of sympathy. So when voting day comes, I hope
there will be a party worthy of the electorate and not
just a case of 'better the devil you know'.
|
Tories
bite the bullet on tax
By
Alex Brummer - Daily Mail, January 18, 2005
The
Tories are starting to talk sense on the public finances. The
big question is whether anyone will listen. The size of government
cannot keep on growing exponentially without diverting resources
from the wealth-creating sector of the economy.
The
case becomes even stronger when one recognises that the cash is
not reaching front line-services. With his latest package, shadow
Chancellor Oliver Letwin has crossed a Rubicon. Until now the
Opposition has been scared of talking about tax cuts for fear
that Labour will run off with its ideas. In its latest plan based
around £35billion of 'efficiency gains' found in public
services by company doctor David James - the man brought in by
Labour to liquidate the Dome - it is actually offering £4billion
of tax cuts.
In
relation to Britain's national wealth of £1,000 billion,
this is a pittance. But it is significant in that it marks a change
of direction. Moreover, the Tories' long-term plans include a
1% cut in the rate of growth of public spending, which would help
generate some big tax reductions by the end of the decade.
If
the Conservatives can explain this clearly, it will offer voters
a clear choice between a government which will have to raise taxes
- if it is to keep within its fiscal rules - and an Opposition
set on a different course. Add this together with Letwin's plans
to put the credibility and transparency back into the public finances
and you begin to see some blue water.
That
is if you ignore the fiscal cost of demographic changes exposed
by the National Institute in a new paper. Labour has immediately
struck back by accusing Letwin of double-counting by adding back
the savings identified by its own budget overlord Sir Peter Gershon.
But that misreads the Conservative plan. It actually lists agencies,
from the new Supreme Court to regional assemblies, which would
cease to exist under Tory rule.
Other
reductions, such as cutbacks in immigration services may be difficult
to deliver. But no one can accuse a battered Opposition of failing
to make the hard choices. It is even more imperative that action
is taken on fiscal policy, which has been deteriorating year by
year, now that the economy is softening. House prices are weakening,
consumer spending is cooling and we are back in manufacturing
recession.
Perhaps
at last we can real political debate between the tax-cutters and
the bad-raisers, rather than boast about past successes.
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.
