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
|
Two-thirds
who get incapacity pay could work, says minister
By
James Chapman, Political Correspondent, Daily Mail - December
16, 2004
Two-thirds
of those claiming incapacity benefit are fit enough to go back
to work, the Government has admitted. Minister for Work Jane Kennedy
said a third of the country's 2.7million claimants could work
immediately. Another third could potentially return in the longer
term, she added, saying only the final third are sick enough to
be off work and on benefits for good.
The
extraordinary remarks in a speech to the Social Market Foundation
think-tank, were seized upon by the Tories. They said Mrs Kennedy
had 'let the cat out of the bag' on Labour's failure to tackle
the spiralling 'sick note' culture.
Tony
Blair made cutting the welfare burden central to his election
strategy, telling the Labour Party conference in 1996: "Judge
me upon it - the buck stops with me."
Political
benefit - Comment Daily Mail - December
16, 2004
With
apparently admirable candour Welfare Minister Jane Kennedy
says most of the 2.7million people claiming incapacity
benefit are perfectly capable of working. Fully a third
could get a job immediately, with another third returning
in the longer term.
Yet
isn't she stating the obvious. In an age of unprecedented
prosperity New Labour has allowed a bloated welfare budget
to swell by £42bn while the number of 'incapacity'
claimants has risen by an equally staggering 45%.
The
reason? The system positively invites those who lose their
jobs to claim incapacity benefits - at nearly £90/week
-instead of the £55/week jobseekers' allowance.
There could hardly be a more effective way to encourage
long-term dependency.
But
there is one huge advantage in all this for a Government
that once promised to 'think the unthinkable' on welfare.
The more who claim incapacity benefit, the fewer appear
in the jobless figures - allowing Ministers to boast of
creating full employment.
Isn't
that why they have turned a blind eye to this scandal
for so long? Any why even now they are so reluctant to
grasp the nettle of welfare reform?
|
The
number of incapacity and sickness benefits has trebled since the
late 1970's and costs the taxpayer £7.7billion a year. Ministers
yesterday trumpeted their success in cutting the jobless total
down to 833,200 - the lowest for three decades. But the figure
disguises nearly eight million people of working age who are out
of work and not looking for a job - including those on incapacity
benefit and a 'lost generation' of a million young who are neither
working nor studying.
In
a remarkably frank speech in London on Tuesday, Mrs Kennedy told
the Foundation: "We can't say that genuine full employment
has been achieved when nearly one in every 13 of us is out of
work and claiming an incapacity benefit."
She
said most claimants had been on the benefit for a 'very long time',
with the latest figures suggesting more than two million have
been claiming for more than two years and nearly 1.5 million for
more than five years. Two-thirds of claimants had 'common health
problems' which many others managed to carry on working with -
mental health problems, musco-skeletal conditions such as back
pain, or cardio-respiratory conditions, she added.
"Long-term
incapacity is not inevitable with these conditions and there is
a high prevalence among the working population. With the right
help and support, the large majority should be able to get back
to work - and getting back to work would improve their health."
Mrs
Kennedy insisted the level of fraud is 'extremely low'. Instead,
doctors, employers, the Government and claimants themselves had
to share the blame for the number of people on benefit. The Department
for Work and Pensions had, she admitted, done 'almost nothing'
until recently to encourage people to return to work.
Claimants,
meanwhile, were often too ready to accept that work was not an
option until 'full recovery' had occurred. Mrs Kennedy admitted
that just 3% of those on incapacity benefit were actively trying
to gain employment. "In my view this is a group of people
who could most sensibly be thought of as having genuine conditions
that, whilst generally serious, are in most cases potentially
perfectly manageable or controllable," she added.
She
pledged to cut the number claiming incapacity benefit by extending
a pilot scheme which includes a 'back to work credit' of up to
£40/week for those who take on low-paid jobs. It also involves
more regular interviews with claimants and local GPs being urged
to find alternatives to writing out sick-notes.
Administrators
of the Pathways to Work scheme say they are persuading up to six
times as many people to take up further help, such as rehabilitation
or the new credit.
Tory
Work and Pensions spokesman David Willetts said: "Jane Kennedy
has let the cat out of the bag. After seven-and-a-half years,
the government has finally admitted what we have been arguing
all along - that there are people on incapacity benefit who could
be working. Tackling this problem is what welfare reform is all
about - but Labour have failed."
Incapacity
benefit is paid to people off work sick once their statutory sick
pay - provided by their employer for 28 weeks - runs out. On average,
claimants get £55.90/week for 28 weeks, then £66.15.
After a year, they move on to long-term incapacity benefit, worth
£74.15/week.
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.
