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
|
|
A
tragedy based on a pack of lies
Comment - Daily Mail, January 13, 2005
Quietly,
almost furtively, the search for Saddam's weapons of mass
destruction has been abandoned. Though the decision was
taken last month, not a peep has been heard from Tony Blair
or President Bush. Don't they owe their voters - and the
wider world - an explanation?
This
was the 'threat' that led us into a disastrous war. Mr Blair
insisted again and again that the weapons not only existed,
but could be deployed with 45 minutes. It was the issue
that led to the hounding of Dr David Kelly to his lonely
death and to the vendetta by Labour's liar-in-chief Alastair
Campbell against the BBC for telling the truth.
Heads
have since rolled at the Corporation, but not a single politician
has resigned or even uttered a sincere apology. Meanwhile,
76 British troops have been killed, along with 1,354 Americans
and Iraqis in uncounted tens of thousands.
Iraq
itself has become a hell on earth. This months elections
- if held at all - will do nothing to end the nihilist violence.
And there is no obvious way out.
Yet
there are no WMDs. There never were. We now know that Mr
Blair exaggerated the threat by twisting the intelligence
to suit his own purposes. To paraphrase his own Chancellor
- can we ever again trust a word the prime Minister says?
|
WMD
- The search is called off (in secret)
By
Graeme Wilson, Political Correspondent, Daily Mail - January 13,
2004
The
fruitless search for Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction
was quietly abandoned last month, it emerged last night. Having
being launched with great fanfare after Saddam's fall, the Iraq
Survey Group was secretly disbanded in December without any formal
announcement from Tony Blair or George Bush.
How
Blair has changed his tune
Saddam
Hussein's regime is developing weapons of mass destruction
and we cannot leave him doing so unchecked.
April
10, 2002, House of Commons
The
WMD programme is not shut down. It is up and running.
Saddam has plans for the use of chemical and biological
weapons which could be activated within 45 minutes
Sept.
24, 2002, House of Commons
I
am absolutely convinced and confident about the case on
weapons of mass destruction - you and others will be eating
your words
April
30, 2003, Press Conference
I
have to accept, Saddam did not have stockpiles of chemical
or biological weapons ready to deploy.
July
14, 2004, House of Commons
The
evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical
weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them,
has turned out to be wrong. I acknowledge and accept it.
Sept.
28, 2004, Labour Conference
|
The
news delivered a final, fatal blow to the Prime Minister's reason
for taking Britain to war in Iraq - the alleged that posed by
Saddam's deadly arsenal. The humiliating end to the hunt for WMD
was revealed by the Washington Post newspaper yesterday. It reported
that Charles Duelfer, the CIA analyst who led the ISG, slipped
back to America before Christmas having failed to find any evidence
of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. His 1,200 inspectors
have also gone home.
It
was several hours before the White House finally confirmed yesterday
that the search had indeed been called off. A White House spokesman
said America had ended its active search for weapons in Iraq.
He said there were only 'a couple, a few people' left in Iraq
who will respond if there are any reports that weapons have been
uncovered. He added that Mr Duelfer's devastating interim report
in October - which concluded Iraq had no WMD before the war -
would effectively be republished as the ISG's final report next
month.
In
London, the Foreign Office also confirmed the hunt had ended.
A spokesman said: "The ISG mission has ended. Its work will
now be taken on by the interim government. Charles Duelfer has
cleared up one or few odds and ends and these will be published
as a set of addenda to the interim report.
The
announcement prompted accusations that Mr Bush had deliberately
put off winding up the ISG until November's Presidential election
was safely out of the way. The former head of the ISG David Kay
said last night: "It doesn't hurt that it's past the U.S.
Election of course. This was an uncomfortable conclusion in the
face of an election that was being run partly on the stewardship
of Iraq and the entry into war. Now that the election is over,
you can do it and this I would guess will pass largely unnoticed."
He
added that the soaring violence in Iraq had made it all but impossible
for inspectors to carry out their job in recent months. In Britain,
Labour MPs who opposed the Iraq war said the handling of the ISG's
disbandment proved Mr Blair and Mr Bush were trying to sweep the
issue under the carpet.
Halifax
MP Alice Mahon said: "This just underlines the embarrassment
in London and Washington over the absence of weapons. There would
never have been any need for the ISG to exist if UN weapons inspectors
had been allowed to carry out their job and prevent the loss of
over 100,000 lives in a pointless war."
The
Iraq Survey Group was launched following the fall of Saddam in
March 2003. With a staff of inspectors and military experts from
the US, Britain and Australia, both London and Washington were
confident it would soon uncover evidence of the dictator's weapons
programme.
However,
things soon went wrong. In October 2003, Mr Kay admitted that
they had 'not yet found stocks of weapons". Weeks later,
it emerged that he had decided to quit and in January last year
he said: "It turns out we were all wrong."
Last
October, his replacement Mr Duelfer published his 1,500 page report
admitting that Iraq had no biological or chemical weapons before
the invasion.
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.
