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
|
March
1, 2005 (670 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 1,490 US - 86 UK - 6,164 Iraqi - 15,782 civilians - 25 media
Transcripts
show No 10's hand in war legal advice . . Richard
Norton-Taylor and Michael White - The Guardian 24/2/2005
Transcripts
of evidence given in private by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith,
to an official inquiry suggest that crucial advice on the legality
of the war, presented to parliament in his name, was written for
him by two of Tony Blair's closest allies.
`Then
and now What Lord Goldsmith told the Butler
Inquiry on May 5, 2004
Lord
Butler: I think you didn't give further
formal advice on Iraq (after Mar 7)
Lord
Goldsmith: I conveyed (my) view ... in
a meeting on March 13 with Baroness Morgan and Lord Falconer.
Lord
Butler: Was that formally minuted?
Lord
Goldsmith: I can't say. I do not know what
minutes No 10 may have of it. They shortly, of course,
set out my view in a PQ (parliamentary question)
What
Lord Goldsmith said yesterday This parliamentary
statement was genuinely my own view and i was not leaned
on to give that view. It is nonsense to suggest that No
10 wrote the statement.
Accusations
that demand an answer . . Comment, Daily
Mail, February 25, 2005
The
accusation seems scarcely credible. Even against a Government
that manipulated and misled Britain into war. Dodgy dossiers
were bad enough; could it really have been so reck-less
that it peddled dodgy legal advice too?
Legality,
after all, was central to the case for military action.
Ministers repeatedly insisted invasion would be lawful.
Anxious MPs were given the 'opinion' of Attorney General
Lord Goldsmith to that effect, which is why so many were
persuaded to vote for war. The armed forces too were given
the reassurance they demanded.
But
now a very different picture is emerging. A devastating
new book by law professor Phillipe Sands - ironically,
QC in Cherie Blair's Matrix chambers - claims Lord Goldsmith
warned the invasion could be illegal, but was bullied
into changing his advice by a Prime Minister hell bent
on rushing into Iraq.
Just
as seriously, there are suggestions that the 'opinion'
given to MPs by Lord Goldsmith wasn't written by him at
all, but cobbled up in Downing Street by Mr Blair's cronies.
Indeed, it is claimed the Attorney General NEVER wrote
an unequivocal submission that the war was lawful.
There
could hardly be more serious charges. If there is a word
of real substance in any of this, it would mean that a
senior law officer - who is supposed to offer fearless,
impartial advice - was apparently derelict in his duty,
on an issue that has led to the death of 86 British troops.
It
would mean new Labour lied to our forces on the eve of
war - and raise further questions about the Prime Minister's
already deeply compromised integrity. Lord Goldsmith,
it must be said, insists the allegations are 'nonsense'
and vehemently denies that he was leaned on.
But
this Government has form. The dodgy dossier copied off
the Internet .. another dossier exaggerating the intelligence
on weapons of mass destruction .. the hounding of Dr David
Kelly to his death .. Alastair Campbell's hysterical vendetta
against the BBC for telling the truth .. New Labour doesn't
deserve to be trusted on anything it says about Iraq.
So
where do we go from here? When such hugely damaging accusations
have been made, they can't be allowed to fester. If this
nation can't trust its chief legal officers, are we much
better than dictatorships we go to war against?
The
families of the dead, the troops still in Iraq and the
public deserve answers. And that means publishing all
the legal advice given to Ministers before the war. There
is a precedent
Only
this week, the Government - seeking to duck any blame
for the shambles over the Royal wedding - set out the
advice it gave the Palace. Isn't this issue far more important/
John
Major said yesterday that 'as a former Prime Minister,
I would find it almost beyond belief that the Prime Minister
actually went to war without clear-cut advice'. Indeed.
That is our view too. This row has presented Mr Blair
with the perfect opportunity to set the record straight.
Why doesn't he take it? (END)
|
The
document, seen by the Guardian, reveals the attorney general's
private exchanges with lord Butler during the course of his inquiry
into the use of intelligence in the run-up to war against Iraq.
In them, the attorney general suggests his parliamentary statement,
giving legal backing to Britain's participation in the invasion,
was 'set out' by Charles Falconer, then Home Office minister,
and Baroness Morgan, the PM's director of political-government
relations.
In
apparent contradiciton to his |Butler evidence, the attorney general
yesterday sought to deny that 10 Downing Street had any influence
over his decisive statement. "It is nonsense to suggest that
No 10 wrote the statement," he said.
He
added: "It was my genuine and independent view that action
was lawful under existing security council resolutions. The parliamentary
statement was genuinely my own view and I was not leaned on to
give that view."
Lord
Goldsmith told Lord Butler he had discussed his new - changed
- view about legality of military action with Lord Falconer and
Baroness Morgan at a meeting in Downing street on March 13, 2003.
Lord Goldsmith also told the Butler inquiry that he did not know
whether a minute was taken of the meeting. It seems clear that
no note was taken - an omission reflected in the final report
of the Butler committee, which expressed concern about what it
called the "informality and circumscribed character of the
government's procedures."
Significantly,
in the light of his comment yesterday, Lord Goldsmith told the
Butler inquiry that "they shortly, of course, set out my
view" in the Parliamentary statement on March 17. The statement
was released as a written answer in the Lords under his name and
presented by ministers as his legal "opinion" to the
Commons. Senior Labour and conservative MPs have made it clear
that the statement helped to sway their vote in favour of military
action.
Downing
Street yesterday brushed aside renewed calls for full disclosure
of the attorney general's advice on the letgality of the 2003
war on Iraq and insisted that Lord Goldsmith's judgment, view
and words on the issue were all his own - not No 10's.
But
Lord Goldsmith's conduct finds few defenders because he went along
with what was required. "He's the only person I know in this
business who behaved thoroughly dishonourably," said one
senior Westminster source.
The
former foreign secretary Robin Cook said last night that having
resigned the day before the war started, he had never heard Lord
Goldsmith make the legal cae in cabinet. "I now think he
never formally wrote a second opinion," he told the Guardian.
Earlier,
Mr Cook told Channel 4 News: "What alarms me about this revelation
is that we now know it was two political figures in No 10 who
drafted the answer from the attorney general, which is the only
answer of the legal case we have seen in public. That does seem
to me entirely improper."
Peter
Hennessy, professor of contemporary history at Queen Mary College,
London, described the way ministers behaved in the days leading
up to the war as 'truly breathtaking'. It casts a shadow over
'the entire system of government.' he said.
International
lawyers also raised doubts about the close relationship between
Lord Goldsmith and No 10. "The nature of his position makes
in inevitable that his two roles - politician and legal adviser
- will sometimes pull in opposite directions," said Jeffrey
Jowell, professor of public law at University College, London.
Lord
Goldsmith was known, early in 2003, to have had doubts about the
legality of military action against Iraq without a new UN security
resolution. On March 7, 2004, he drew up written advice for Mr
Blair warning that an attack on Iraq without a second resolution
would be found to be illegal in an international court.
This
appears to be the last official written legal advice on the war
by the attorney general - advice which the government has repeatedly
refused to publish. By March 13, Lord Goldsmith abandoned his
view that a second UN resolution was needed and came round to
the view that an invasion without it would, after all, be lawful.
Legal
experts point to political pressure on attorney general
|
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.
