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
|
Symptons
of a deeper distrust - Comment - Daily
Mail, 27/12/2004
The
MMR vaccine may be safe but, despite years of bullying,
the Government has failed to convince many parents. Ministers
have only themselves to blame that vaccinations rates
are now so low that there are fears of a measles epidemic.
For every response to questions about MMR has been evasive
or intimidatory.
Is
it any surprise that the public, already deeply sceptical
about New Labour, is no longer prepared to take at face
value anything they are told about this issue.
The
Government makes it all but impossible for parents to
opt for single jabs when they demand a choice. The scientist,
Andrew Wakefield was ruthlessly hounded out of his job
when he raised doubts about MMR, while the Blairs still
refuse to say whether their son Leo has been given the
vaccine.
And
the families suing the MMR manufacturers found their legal
aid withdrawn earlier this year. Now at least common sense
is being applied to this issue with many likely to see
financial support restored. That would mean their case
that the MMR vaccine triggered a range of conditions including
epilepsy, arthritis, Crohn's disease and inflammation
of the brain, would be decided by an independent court,
rather than failing because the families had less money
than the drug firms.
That
is important. For on a matter that has seen such huge
implications, parents will only accept decisions that
have been independently judged.
And
doesn't that say so much about the way years of New Labour
distorting the truth and demonising its critics has undermined
trust in the integrity of ministers and public servants?
|
Families
given new legal aid to sue over MMR
By
Robin Yapp, Science Reporter, Daily Mail - December 27,2004
Parents
who believe their children were damaged by the MMR vaccine can
press on with compensation claims against its makers after a dramatic
U-turn on the funding of their cases. The legal aid was withdrawn
earlier this year on the grounds that parents had no reasonable
prospect of success.
But
now the legal services Commission has backtracked and reinstated
funding for a handful of families, meaning they cancontinue the
fight. As many as 100 more are hoping to win back legal aid too.
The
children involved are suffering from a range of conditions which
their parents claim were triggered by the measles, mumps and rubella
injection. They include epilepsy, arthritis, deafness and inflammation
of the brain. Parents of 1,300 children were initially awarded
£15million legal aid over a 10-year period to sue the MMR
makers, Merck, Aventis Pasteur and Glaxo-SmithKline.
However,
the commission refused to provide a further £10million,
effectively ending the legal battle. The decision was upheld in
the High Court in February, but 37 families appealed, and 11 have
now had their funding reinstated.
Jackie
Fletcher, founder of the vaccine support group, Jabs, said: "We
have been told by our solicitors that between 80 and 100 families
may get legal aid back so it is now an anxious wait for lots of
parents. None of the families could go ahead without it because
you are up against the biggest pharmaceutical companies in the
world and they've got endless resources. Families are not looking
for compensation for its own sake but for funding for a care package
to take care of these children when the parents are no longer
strong enough."
Parents
who believe the jab was to blame for the onset of autism in their
children are not included - although some are seeking a judicial
review of the decision to refuse them legal aid and have vowed
to pursue the matter to the European court of Human Rights if
necessary. The development will come as a blow to the Government
at a time when it was hoping that the controversy over the vaccine
may finally be dying down.
Earlier
this year, The LANCET medical journal, which first published research
by Dr Andrew Wakefield suggesting a link between MMR and autism,
claimed the study was flawed. It said Dr Wakefield had failed
to reveal a potential conflict of interest by not declaring that
he was being paid £55,000 in legal aid to carry out research
for parents who believed MMR had harmed their children.
And
in September the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
found no evidence that the innoculation causes autism. However,
vaccination rates show many parents are still not convinced that
MMR is safe - a situation which could be compounded by the prospect
of legal cases linking it to a range of other conditions.
Take-up
of the jab in England fell to just 80% of children reaching the
age of two in the 12 months to April - an all-time low which experts
warn could lead to a measles epidemic.
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.
