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
|
Environment
Secretary Margaret Beckett has claimed £50,000 in
'second homes' allowances over the past three years for
a £200,000 house she owns outright in her Derby
constituency. She occupies a grace-and-favour Government
flat in London while renting out her property there for
£20,000/year. Mrs Beckett and her husband Leo -
whom whe employss as driver and general factotum - like
to holiday in their caravan. Given that it's their platform
for fact-finding trips to Europe, I'd be surprised if
it does not qualify for a special allowance. -
Peter McKay - Daily Mail, October 25, 2004
Yesterday,
the focus shifted on to expenses claims by peers, published
alongside MPs' claims for the first time last week to
comply with the Freedom of Information Act. Scores of
members of the House of Lords are claiming allowances
for overnight accomodation in London, even though they
have homes in the capital. A £128/night allowance
can be claimed by peers who spend the night away from
the 'mainresidence' in order to attend a sitting in the
House. Former Tory Home Secretary, Lord Baker claimed
£13,932 last year for nights at his Kensington Home
because he has designated his main home as being in Sussex.
- James Cameron - Mail Political Correspondent, October
25, 2004.
|
Let's
jail our crooked politicians
By
Peter McKay - Daily Mail, October 25, 2004
Tony
Blair's Government is forever designing new initiatives to deter
welfare fraud. They encourage us to inform on cheats. Those caught
applying for welfare payments to which they're not entitled face
prosecution and - in some cases - prison sentences.
Quite
right, too. But have you noticed an odd omission when it comes
to prosecuting those who falsely claim public money? Prime Ministers,
Cabinet Ministers, junior ministers, ordinary MPs and peers routinely
claim expenses which are excessive - or fraudulent, in the accepted
meaning of that word - but nothing can be done about it.
If
you and I make a claim for Government money which seems excessive,
it's investigated. If they find we've set out to cheat them, we're
prosecuted. Last year, our 659 MPs racked up expenses totalling
£78million, averaging £120,000 each. The 20 costliest
MPs - 16 Labour, two SNP, one Liberal Democrat and one Conservative
- claimed housing and travel expenses ranging from £142,977
to £168,889.
The
average MP claimed expenses of £118,437 (on top of their
£57,485 salary and generous pension scheme) to pay for staff,
office expenses, second homes, travel and computers. Their expenses
have soared by more than a third since 2002.
Scandalously,
these extraordinary claims won't be investigated. Why not? Because
no politician can be prosecuted for fiddling their expenses. when
Tory MP Michael Trend was accused of doing so by the Mail on Sunday,
he repaid £90,000 and decided to stand down at the next
election.
Chancellor
Gordon Brown has devised ever more ingenious ways of siphoning
money from the expenses of companies and private individuals but
none which apply to his fellow politicians. We're told we should
congratulate ourselves on having the cleanest public life in the
world. "Look how little corruption there is here compared
with other countries in Europe," they say.
The
reason for this perception is that political corruption as such
isn't illegal here. The worst that can happen to a minister caught
using the powers of his office improperly is that he or she may
have to resign. In other counties, it's prison.
Peter
Mandelson twice had to resign his Cabinet job after allegations
to the effect that he had misused his ministerial position. On
neither occasion was it a matter to be investigated by the police.
Moreover, it didn't stop him his friend, the Prime Minister, getting
him a cosy highly-paid public job in Brussels. The only politician
I can remember in recent times who went to prison for fraud was
Labour MP John Stonehouse, jailed for seven years in 1970. But
that was for company fraud, not fiddling his MP's expenses.
After
being accused of accepting money in exchange for Parliamentary
favours from Harrods boss Mohammed Al Fayed, Tory MP Neil Hamilton
lost his ministerial job and ultimately, his seat, but not his
liberty. Our 'servants' can more or less do as they please in
Westminster. If their behaviour becomes too embarrassing they
might be censured by a committee of colleagues, banned from the
House for a period or 'de-selected' by their parties.
Big
fish like Deputy PM John Prescott (accused of failing to disclose
he had a union-owned flat) and Health Secretary John Reid (paying
the expenses of his son and three aides from his allowance) have
escaped censure by the Labour-dominated so-called Standards and
Privileges committee.
So,
MPs cannot be questioned by police about how much they claim in
allowances, or what favours they perform for private interests.
They are 'honourable' members, their motives are all above suspicion.
Isn't it time they joined the real world and faced the same scrutiny
as those for whom the frame laws?
Perhaps
one of them could now frame a new Private Member's Bill which
brings MPs and peers into line with the rest of us when it comes
to making false claims in order to collect public money. Do you
suppose it would enjoy wide support among their colleagues?
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.
