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
|
Defend
democracy
Letter
from J. Dwyer, Langley, Berks. - Daily Mail, May 3, 2005
Any
large institution becomes entirely self-serving over time,
and none more so than governments. Given too long in office,
an administration will view elections as a bar to permanent
power.
Alarm
bells ring when an administration takes control of the
judiciary, appoints police chiefs, abolishes local government,
ignores postal fraud, bypasses Parliament, wages arbitrary
war and has no time for the practical needs of its citizens.
Many
democracies have died of neglect. It is not a matter of
voting for whom we like but rather to boot out the enemies
of democracy.
|
Danger
of 'elected dictatorship' by Britain's top judge
By
Steve Doughty - Social Affairs Correspondent - Daily Mail, October
14, 2004
England's
top judge warned yesterday against the dangers of 'malevolent
elected dictatorship' in Britain. Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf
said repeated radical constitutional changes could harm the rule
of law, which could in turn threaten democracy.
Conscience
and the abuse of power
Comment
- Daily Mail, December 15, 2004
With
the Chamber in chaos, MPs enraged at Government arrogance
and bad faith, a hopelessly floundering Minister, a Labour
rebellion, up to 100 abstentions and tempers barely under
control, the measure opening the way to euthanasia by
the back door scrapes shamefully through the Commons.
Even
by its own lamentable standards, this is a new low in
the elected dictatorship that is New Labour.
Though
the Mental Capacity Bill raises profound issues of life
and death, there is hardly a sign that its sponsors have
given it serious thought. David Lammy, the Minister steering
it through, was embarrassingly ill-briefed and confused.
Now we are saddled with another legislative bungle which
may have dreadful, unintended consequences.
How
could we land in such a mess? The answer lies in this
Prime Minister's control-freakery, his regime's rampant
political correctness and his utter contempt for Parliament.
While
much of the Bill is sensible, it also gives legal backing
to 'living wills' (which needn't be written down) enabling
patients to opt for death if they become incapacitated.
Doctors could be forced to deny them food and water until
they die, amounting to 'euthenasia by omission'.
Tories
and LibDems understand that all this goes to the heart
of religious, moral and personal principle, which is why
they regard the issue as a matter of conscience and allowed
a free vote. But not Tony Blair.
Disgracefully
against all parliamentary conventions, he insisted on
a three-line whip and the disciplining of anyone who dared
to rebel (though he himself didn't bother to vote last
night). It gets worse.
When
his political thuggery seemed likely to back-fire, he
offered an apparent concession to critics. But MPs only
learned of it minutes before the debate ended, when in
farcical 'Parliamentary games' they were handed copies
of a letter from Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer to a Catholic
Archbishop setting out the terms of a possible deal.
So
it comes to this. Ministers refuse to compromise in Parliament,
but stitch up a private understanding with a Churchman,
which they then use to get the Bill through unamended.
It stinks. And those MPs who swallowed the party line
should be ashamed of themselves.
The
only hope is that the Lords will give this wretched measure
a mauling. The irony is that an unelected Upper chamber
is our last bulwark against the abuse of power by an overmighty
executive.
Gold
medallist Comment
- Daily Mail, December 15, 2004
Track-suited,
bright-eyed, brimming with promises, Tony Blair announces
a £500million drive to give school children at least
four hours of sport a week, which he hopes will encourage
fitness, reduce anti-social behaviour and help find future
Olympic champions.
Wonderful
news on the face ot it. But isn't it uncannily like his
announcement four years ago of £750million for school
sport? And his promises three years ago to give pupils
a couple of hours sport a week? And his pledge two years
ago of millions to improve sports teaching?
INDEED
IT IS. This is a re-re-re-announcement, a re-hashed, re-heated
stew of old promses, with no other purpose than to provide
Mr Blair with a photo opportunity and helpful headlines
in our more gullible papers.
|
In
a speech on the Government's latest constitutional reforms, he
revealed a 'concordat' had been agreed with ministers enabling
him to endorse the sweeping changes to the legal system. But he
peppered his remarks with stark descriptions of the danger of
tinkering with the constitution.
He
said there had been 15 'significant' constitutional reforms since
Labour came to power in 1997, each affecting the rule of law.
'This in itself makes them important because democratic government
is dependent upon observance of the rule of law. Without observance
of the rule of law, a democracy can become a dictatorship- admittedly
an elected dictatorship, but nonetheless a dictatorship which
has all the dangers associated with uncontrolled power. It may
be a benevolent dictatorship, it may even be an effective form
of government. But the danger is that what starts off being benevolent
can, and usually does, deteriorate into being malevolent.'
His
warning, in a speech at Exeter University, follows more than a
year of hostility between judges and ministers over the constitutional
reforms signalled in Tony Blair's June 2003 reshuffle. These proposed
the abolition of the ancient office of Lord Chancellor, the creation
of a new commission to select judges and the establishment of
a Supreme Court in place of the House of Lords to hear most important
cases.
Earlier
this year Lord Woolf criticised Mr Blair's 'lack of appreciation'
of the effects of his reforms as 'extraordinary'. But yesterday
he confirmed that the judiciary had struck a deal over the reforms
and called on politicians to ensure they go through Parliament
before the General Election. Peers and MPs will vote on them before
Christmas.
The
'concordat' he said, will stop Government ministers from appointing
favourites as judges or picking selected judges for particular
cases. It would preserve independence of judges, allow the Government
a proper say, and permit scrutiny by Parliament. It was a 'huge
advance' and should now be put into law as a 'constitutional necessity',
he said.
Lord
Woolf said he believed the title of Lord Chancellor would now
be saved. 'It does seem that the office may well survive, though
the holder will cease to be head of the judiciary and will be
bound by the concordat,' he said. He criticised the way the reforms
were announced in the reshuffle.
'The
flexibility of our constitutional arrangements is undeniably desirable,
but they should not be so malleable that they can be changed by
Prime Ministerial announcement in the course of a Government reshuffle,'
he said.
Judges
may be offered the right to return to work as lawyers and even
advertise themselves as 'ex-judges' in an effort to increase the
number of women and ethnic minorities on the bench.
Proposals
published yesterday by Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, would radically
alter the present set up where appointments are for life. Lord
Falconer also opened the way for formal career breaks for judges
and more flexible court sittings. The time a lawyer has been qualified
before being eligible for a judicial post, currently seven to
ten years, could alsobe reduced.
Only
15.8% of judges are women and 3.4% arefrom ethnic minorities.
Lord Falconer said:"The quality of our judicial system is
second to none but it is not representative of the society it
serves."
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.
