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
|
Pensions:
We'll make you save - Bombshell as Labour tries
to solve the crisis that IT created ........
By Darren Behar and Alex Brummer, Daily Mail - December 14, 2004
Firms
and employees were given a stark choice yesterday - save more
for pensions or be forced to do so. A Government-commissioned
report on the pension crisis said the voluntary system was in
the 'last-chance saloon'. Unless the situation improves, the Employer
Task Force warned, there could be drastic action, which could
include compelling firms to pay into a company scheme or raising
taxes to boost the state system.
|
A
decent system ruined by Labour Comment
-Daily Mail, Dec14, 2004
Appalling
though it is, that one of Britain's most remarkable success
stories should turn to tailure in just 7 years, one thing
is not surprising: this Government's propensity to blame
everybody but itself.
When
New Labour came to power, our private pensions system was
in such robust health that Frank Field, the party's most
impressive thinker on these issues, described it as 'the
outstanding welfare success of the past 100 years."
No
longer. Increasing longevity and turmoil in the share markets
have hit pensions funds hard. Those blows have been made
worse by stealth taxes, which have taken a cumulative £100bn
from retirement funds and hurt pensions companies that can
no longer invest in shares (thus completing this vicious
circle).
Millions
who once looked forward to a comfortable old age now dread
an impoverished future. And so far the only notable response
from the Government has been to tell us to work until we
drop or save more.
Now
comes another exhortation, this time from a task-force under
former Sainsbury boss Sir Peter Davis, who warns that firms
will be made to set more money aside for staff retirement
unless they do more to tackle the crisis voluntarily
His
view is endorsed by Pensions Minister Alan Johnson, who
says employers 'can and should do more' So private enterprise
is blamed for not clearing up Government's mess
How
ripe that such advice to struggling firms comes from a City
fat-cat who walked away with a £1.9 million pension
after being forced out of Sainsbury under a cloud and from
politicians who voted them-selves taxpayer-subsidized pension
schemes most of their constituents couldn't begin to afford.
Yet
there is a pensions time-bomb. And we need a voluntary solution,
since compulsion would saddle companies with a £22billion
bill when they are already struggling to meet their committments.
But
why should people save, when this Government discourages
thrift and rewards fecklessness? Clearly our state pension
system is insane, when people have no incentive to save
for old age.
Decent
pensions require a major change in our savings culture.
And a Government prepared to start rewarding people making
provision for themselves, instead of sloughing responsibility
off onto Britain's hard-pressed companies.
|
Employees,
who had a 'worrying' lack of awareness of the need to save, would
face similar measures unless they started to take more responsibility
for their pensions. The task force said there should be an aim
of combined contributions of between 10% and 15%, with employers
paying two thirds of that.
But
critics warned that forcing firms to save for their staff would
amount to a new tax on jobs costing £22billion. They
also blamed Gordon Brown's £5billion/year tax 'raid' on
private sector pensions as a key factor in the closure of many
retirement plans linked to final salary.
The
Task Force, headed by failed Sainsbury boss Sir Peter Davis, said
the Government should provide a cash incentive to smaller firms,
which face particular problems. Experts believe Labour set up
a series of studies designed to show there is no alternative to
compulsion if the private pension system is to be rescued. A final
decision will be postponed until after the next election as it
is certain to be seen as a new tax on employment as well as potentially
increasing National Insurance contribution's.
It
is estimated that 10 million workers are not saving enough for
their retirement. Sir Peter, who himself has a £1.9million
pension pot worth £111,000/year after being ousted from
Sanisbury's this year, called the crisis a 'potential time-bomb'
and pointed to what he called a 'killer statistic'.
When
firms contributed to an occupational pension, three-quarters of
their workers joined in, but in companies where no contribution
was made just one in five staff paid into a scheme. Sir Peter
said: "That is at the heart of what we are talking about.
If an employer makes a decent contribution it is much more likely
that employees will save as well."
But
employers warned against forcing firms to pay more. CBI deputy
director-general John Cridland said: "Compulsion is no panacea
for the UK's pension problems. As the CBI has made clear, it would
be seen by many as a new tax on jobs. Individuals could also resent
being forced to invest in a volatile stock market and the loss
of choice to make other kinds of investment to pay for retirement.
It could threaten the viability of some smaller firms."
But
some bosses - particularly in smaller firms - believe Ministers
should force companies to set money aside. They argue that firms
which do not do so have a competitive advantage over more responsible
employers. Unions were disappointed that the possibility of compulsion
has been put on hold.
Derek
Simpson, general secretary of Amicus, said: "The voluntary
approach has failed. If we're to stave off the growing crisis,
employers and workers will have to be compelled to save throughout
their working lives." TUC general secretary Brendan Barber
said: "We cannot rely on the voluntary efforts of employers
any longer. Compulsion must be part of any long-term solution.
It's time to stop good employers who make a proper contribution
to pensions being undercut by those who refuse to pay up."
The task force said there had been 'a dramatic shift' in employers'
attitudes to pensions over the past 10 to 15 years while falling
share values, the tax regime and longer life expectancy had sent
the cost of pensions soaring. It said companies have been on 'the
edge of the precipice' and 'most of them agree on one thing -
they don't want to go there again.'
Between
half and two-thirds of the generous schemes linked to final salary
have been closed to new members. They have mostly been replaced
by 'defined contribution' schemes, which are often less generous
and more risky because they are linked to the stock market. The
combined employer and employee contribution is also half that
of the final salary pension, something the task force warned could
be a 'time bomb' for future employment relations.
There
is also a growing crisis among small and medium -sized companies
least likely to contribute to a pension and who would be hardest
hit if compulsion were introduced. Firms with more than five staff
and no other scheme, are required to set up a 'stakeholder' system
- a flagship Labour idea designed to persuade more people to save
for old age.
But
the take-up has been very low. Three-quarters of the schemes have
no members, largely because only 17% of employers make contributions.
The Government has already hinted that it would support ending
the voluntary system if an inquiry by 'pension czar' Adair Turner
finds there has been no increase in private saving. He published
an interim report in October and a final verdict is due late next
year.
Work
and Pensions Secretary Alan Johnson said last night: "The
task force has endorsed Government's view that employers have
a critical role to play in helping employees save for retirement.
It contains an important message for employers - that they can,
and should, do more."
The
task force also cast doubt on plans to enrol staff automatically
into company schemes unless they opt out. It said the move could
be effective, but there were worries about 'mis-selling' if staff
later found out they could have done better elsewhere.
The
report also raised concerns that bosses often enjoy better pensions
than staff - a situation which, it said, does not help the savings
culture.
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.
