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
|
Killer
wins vote for prisoners
European
judges overturn 1,000 years of history as they back the axeman
who took the Government to court
By
Steve Doughty - Social Affairs Correspondent, Daily Mail, October
7, 2005
Criminals
in jail are to be given the right to vote after a controversial
order yesterday by European human rights judges. In a ruling overturning
1000 years of historic English practice, the Strasbourg court
ordered that convicted prisoners should no longer be stripped
of the franchise.
It
also demolished a pledge given by Tony Blair less than seven months
ago that the vote would not be given to prisoners under the Labour
government. The judgment followed a four year legal battle by
54-year-old axe killer John Hirst, who claimed the vote while
serving 25 years in jail for the man-slaughter of his landlady.
Yesterday
Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer conceded that he would now be forced
to examine which prisoners should be allowed the vote. The European
ruling, backed by a 12-5 majority among the Strasbourg judges
- including a Croation, an Albanian, another from the tiny republic
of San Marino and a lawyer from Bosnia - prompted furious reaction.
Dominic
Grieve, the Tory Shadow Attorney General, said: "Giving prisoners
the vote would be ludicrous. Courts have ruled that convicted
prisoners, many of them dangerous, cannot be allowed to take part
in normal society for the duration of their sentence. Why therefore
should they have a say in how that society is run?"
UKIP
MEP Nigel Farage said the judgement was a 'wholly improper and
unwarranted interference in British democracy which places temptation
in the Government's way, and which could lead to accusations that
prisoners' votes are being bought."
Lord
Falconer's officials said review of British law would consider
using the gravity of their offence to decide which prisoners would
receive the vote. That compromise with Strasbourg would mean criminals
in jail who are serving shorter sentences, for example burglars,
would be able to take part in elections. Meanwhile, the most serious
criminals, including murderers rapists,armed robbers, would continue
to be banned.
The
review reverses Government's line, laid down when Mr Blair insisted
in March that convicted prisoners would not get the vote.
Lord Falconer told BBC Radio 4's World at One programme: "The
result of this is not that every convicted prisoner is in the
future going to get the right to vote. We need to see whether
there are any categories that should be given the right to vote.
It could well be that having considered it, it is a proportional
conclusion that all people who are convicted and sent to prison
cannot vote."
Hirst,
who was released last year, has become a campaigner for prisoners'
rights and has brought a series of claims before British courts
with the help of £80,000 in legal aid from the taxpayer.
All his cases have been rejected by British judges. But his push
for the vote was backed by prison reformers which include former
Tory Home Secretary Lord Hurd, retired Chief Inspector of Prisons
Sir David Ramsbotham, and Liberal Democratic leaders.
Yesterday
the Court of Human Rights rejected the last British Government
appeal against Hirst. The majority of its judges said British
law conflicts with a 1952 protocol to European human rights rules.
This says that elections must 'ensure the free expression of the
opinion of the people'. The jurists said Westminster had never
properly weighed the interests of prisoners and had not debated
their voting rights 'in the light of modern day penal policy and
of current human rights standards.'
The
judges overruled British objections that giving the vote to prisoners
was 'offensive to many people'. Hirst was awarded £16,500
in legal expenses, though the Strasbourg court said his expenses
claims, which included £300 an hour for his solicitor and
£8,000 for two days work by a barrister, were 'excessive
and unreasonable'.
Some
48,000 prisoners are currently barred from voting. Inmates who
can vote include those on remand awaiting trial, and those convicted
of a limited range of offences including non-payment of fines
and contempt of court.
European
judges will overrule Blair by giving killers the vote
By
Steve Doughty - Social Affairs Correspondent, Daily Mail, March
12, 2005
Prisoners,
including convicted killers, are expected to be handed the right
to vote in British elections, despite Tony Blair's pledge to prevent
it. European Human Rights judges will make a final pronouncement
on prison inmates and the vote just after the General Election.
Lawyers
say they are poised to uphold a ruling by European judges 12 months
ago that the historic ban on inmates voting must be swept away.
The order to grant the vote to 75,000 prisoners has become increasingly
contentious in the run-up to the election.
Last
week, Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy said his party would
hand the franchise to all prisoners, including Soham murderer
Ian Huntley. Labour leaders queued up to condemn the idea. Election
campaign supremo Alan Milburn declared that 'right-thinking people
will be disgusted'.
Mr
Blair himself told the Commons: "The current position in
law is that convicted prisoners are not able to vote and that
will remain the position under this Government."
In
fact, the ban on votes for inmates hangs by a thread - but the
Government has appealed against last year's ruling and a verdict
on this will not be delivered until after the expected May 5 election
date. The legal principle against prisoner's voting was established
before the Norman conquest. Parliament has repeatedly decided
to keep the vote from prisoners - most recently five years ago
= and British judges have affirmed the law.
However,
last year the judges in Strasbourg ruled that axe killer and former
lifer John Hirst was denied his rights when stripped of the vote.
They said Article Three of the European human rights charter insists
that 'the free expression on=f the opinion of the people' must
be allowed in elections. Under human rights rules, legislation
should be passed by Parliament to make the Strasbourg ruling part
of British law.
The
implications of the judgment are far ranging. The decision opens
the prospect of prisoners wielding major influence in marginal
constituencies, and the election of candidates offering concessions
to criminals in return for votes. It clears the way for further
rights for prisoners such as conjugal visits.
The
government's appeal against the Strasbourg ruling will be heard
by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human rights on
April 27. But a final decision by the judges is not likely to
be announced until the end of May or early in June.
Hirst's
lawyer, Elkin Abrahamson, said: "The Government decided to
appeal and the timing is interesting, isn't it?" The Judges
were unanimous when they gave their ruling last year and, although
there will be a different set of judges hearing the appeal, there
is no reason I know of to expect a different decision."
Hirst,
54, was released from prison last year after serving nearly 25
years of a life sentence for the manslaughter of his landlady
Bronia Burton. He has become a prisoners' rights activist in the
courts, financed by nearly £80,000 of legal aid from the
taxpayer.
|
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.
