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
|
MP's
TRAIN RIDE SHAME
Letter
to the Daily Mail from W. D. Maltby, Ashby de la Zouch,
Leics. - December 8, 2004
In
1930, Labour backbencher T. I. Mardy-Jones gave two railway
tickets to his wife to enable her and his daughter to
travel from his constituency of Pontypridd to London,
to enjoy the sights - a rare treat. An MP's salary was
then £300 a year and the first-class single fare
was £1.12s.9d - about 20% of his weekly salary.
However,
the ticket inspectors questioned the proffered tickets,
were unsatisfied with the explanation given by Mrs Mardy-Jones
and called the police.
The
day before he was due in court, Mr Mardy-Jones resigned
his seat. The magistrates took a serious view, calling
it 'disgraceful' to find an MP involved in such a case.
He was fined £2 for each offence, and £31.10s
court costs, or the alternative of 42 days in jail.
Mr
Blunkett says he didn 't know his action was wrong, and
Mr Blair says he has 'done nothing wrong'. If it was wrong
for a back-bencher, how much more serious for a cabinet
minister?
*******************
Letter
to the The Times from Torben Petersen, Richmond, Surrey.
- December 10, 2004
In
2000, David Blunkett decreed that schoolchildren be taught
the sanctity of marriage. "The committment that is
made by people through marriage is a way of emphasising
stability to children" (Libby Purves, Comment, November
30, 2004).
Now
he says: "It would be dangrous territory if I wasn't
practising what I preach which is to always accept responsibility,
always accept the consequences of your actions."
(BBC report, December 6).
In
other words, don't do as I do - do as I say.
|
Mr
Blunkett resigned on December 15, 2004
Who cares
about morality?
Mr Blair
says moral issues should not determine whether a politician is
fit for office. How very convenient - and utterly wrong
by
Simon Heffer - Daily Mail, December 1, 2004
Mrs
Thatcher became notorious for allegedly saying that there was
no such thing as 'society'. Now Tony Blair, seeking to cope with
ministers who lead irregular private lives, has coined his own
variant. There is, apparently, no such thing as 'morality'.
Mr
Blair, in order (he implies) not to be stern about the messy private
life of his Home Secretary, David Blunkett, says his colleagues
need not worry what they get up to provided they do their jobs
properly.
This
is typical of Mr Blair's way of dealing with such difficulties.
First, he is trying to close down debate on Mr Blunkett's conduct
by ruling out any criticism based on personal morality. This ignores
the fact that very few people have tried to make an issue of Mr
Blunkett's decision to have an affair with a married woman, and
possibly to father her children: the issue is whether Mr Blunkett
misused his position as Home Secretary to obtain favours for his
former mistress.
But
the second, and all to typical, facet of Mr Blair's conduct is
that, for the umpteenth time since 1997, he appears to have rewritten
the moral rules.
Kimberly's
colleagues hit out
By
Gordon Rayner - Daily Mail - December 3, 2004
The
colleagues of David Blunkett's former lover delivered
a savage attack on the Home Secretary yesterday, lampooning
him in a cartoon alongside a withering editorial.
The
Spectator accuses him of leaking details of his affair
with their publisher, Kimberly Quinn, to the News of the
World in revenge when she decided to end their relationship
and remain with her husband.
It
says the Cabinet Minister 'reacted like a teenage girl
who finds the object of her desire wrapped around someone
else at the school bus shelter'.
It
continues: 'He is an adult, and one of the most powerful
politicians in the land, and yet he went bleating to the
tabloid newspapers with the sole object of shocking and
humiliating his lover's husband and destroying her marriage.'
The
magazine says he 'blatantly blabbed to the tabloids, using
them as 'weapons of revenge in his deluded amatory campaign'.
It continued: 'It is a contemptible way to behave. Such
conduct seriously undermines the position of a Cabinet
minister who is responsible for the law on privacy issues.
'He
has violated his own privacy, and violated the public's
right to be protected from the details of his private
life. Above all this man - who swears that the state will
not abuse ID cards - has violated the privacy of his former
lover, her husband and her children.'
|
Imperil
Indeed,
this seems to be the ultimate rewriting, for what he is now implying
is that there no conduct - short of downright criminality - that
should imperil a minister's public position. But before debating
that, we might consider the progress of the Blair moral doctrine
since its instigator became Prime Minister back in the much more
straitlaced and buttoned-up 1990's.
There
was a time, only about five or six years ago, when sexual impropriety
led to rapid exit from office. Who can forget former Welsh Secretary
Ron Davies's encounter with a man on Clapham Common one night,
which led to his expulsion from the Cabinet the next?
Since
then, though, sexual conduct has not been cause for resignation.
We have had openly homosexual ministers, ministers fathering children
out of wedlock, and even the occasional heterosexual affair. They
have long mattered not a jot, it seems.
However,
financial sleaze has been less easy to excuse. Mr Blair has always
been loyal to his friends, and never more loyal than to Peter
Mandelson. It took some time to convince him, but eventually the
Prime Minister came to see that taking out a £373,000 loan
on a house that was already mortgaged - without telling the existing
mortgagee - was not a good idea. Indeed, some people have been
successfully prosecuted for such fraudulent behaviour.
However,
within a year Mandelson was back - only to be forced to resign
again, apparently for not being entirely straightforward about
a passport he had sought to expedite for a rich Indian businessman.
So it seemed that being 'economical with the actualite' remained
a cause for censure.
Yet,
inevitably, Mr Mandelson returned again to high office, as European
Commissioner, and now seems safe for ever under the new Blair
doctrine - whatever he might do.
Lying
to the House of Commons used to be the ultimate offence for a
minister. As many political correspondents and journalists are
aware, it now happens routinely, and is widely tolerated except
in the most blatant cases.
Although
it appeared that Stephen Byers, when Minister of Transport, had
clearly misled the House over the future of Railtrack, he survived
for some time until his credibility was so wrecked that even Mr
Blair had to accept he had become a liability.
Many
would argue that the case in favour of the war in Iraq was an
example of serial dishonesty by ministers, none of which had offered
to resign. This would also seem to give the lie to the claim that
while immoral behaviour outside the office might now be all right,
within it, it is unacceptable. Again, it seems that a case can
be made to keep most ministers in office unless the police happen
actually to be frog-marching them down the drive. In the closed
world of Westminster, such things no longer shock.
What
politicians forget, however, is that among the tens of millions
of people they govern, there are many who remain troubled by certain
aspects of moral behaviour in public figures.
Challenging Blunkett
By
Mr L Rawlings, Sheffield Letter to the Daily Mail - December
8, 2004
David
Blunkett's possible involvement in a visa application
brings to mind an Eritrean asylum seeker in Sheffield
whom my wife and I have been attempting to help for years.
The
individual is known to David Blunkett, Richard Caborn
and Rev Dr John Vincent who have all offered assistance
over a number of years, so far without any result.
On
June 6, 2002, my wife and I and a friend were sitting
in a square in Venice drinking coffee. Suddenly a familiar
figure, a lady on his arm came walking through the square
- David Blunkett.
I
had to be restrained from leaping up and confronting him
over our asylum seeker friend. With hindsight now, I wish
I had challenged him. It would be interesting to know
how his trip with the 'young lady' was funded.
People
in Sheffield would like to know the fate of the Sheffield
immigration worker, Steve Moxon, who wrote about 'fast-tracking'
anomalies in Europe, and whose book was impounded in what
appears to be a ruthless example of censorship by a Home
Secretary.
When
can we expect to receive a copy of this banned book?
|
Absurd
Mr
Blair is probably right to say that the marital irregularities
of ministers should no longer cause them to leave office - even
though it is only eight or nine years ago that Labour MPs and
shadow ministers were making hay at the expense of Tory MPs who
had trouble keeping their trousers on. However, to say that no
immoral behaviour should affect the judgment of how a minister
does his job is simply absurd.
Of
course, it does not always suit Mr Blair to be so casual about
morality. There is his alter ego - the slightly pious former public
schoolboy, muscular Christian and church-going family man, so
cuttingly parodied by Private Eye as the Vicar of St Albion's.
When it helps him, he can opportunistically turn on the holier-than-thou
aspect of his character, which is very much what he did in advocating
the war on Iraq. Indeed, in his rhetoric about British interventionism
abroad in general,, he is quite clear in his own mind - or so
it seems - about the dividing line between right and wrong.
At
home, when talking about the need for tolerance and understanding
of minorities, he can appear censorious of those who depart from
the Christian or humanitarian path. And yet, there is the paradox
not just of his dispensing with morality now in the case of his
colleagues, but also in trying to foist a policy of dubious morality
upon the public in advocating round-the-clock drinking and a proliferation
of super-casinos.
The
truth is that it helps Mr Blair to pretend that there is no such
thing as morality.
Despised
It
means that however sordid the Blunkett affair might become, Mr
Blair can maintain there is no need to sack him. And it also means
that all those elephant traps into which Tory ministers were routinely
falling are magically cleared out of the way of their New Labour
successors.
All
of this, though, avoids the fact that even today, people look
to those who rule over them to set some sort of example of integrity
and propriety, and to have credibility. Thankfully, that credibility
will be gauged by the public according to their own sense of morality,
not by Mr Blair according his sense of expediency.
That
is why it is disingenuous of Mr Blair to expound his new doctrine.
It will, inevitably, further undermine public confidence in a
political class that is already widely despised for being second-rate
and self-serving. Mr Blair could simply have said it was unreasonable
to judge Mr Blunkett on the basis of his unhappy affair with Kimberly
Quinn. Instead, with typical opportunism, he chose to use a sweeping
statement which put all ministers beyond considerations of mere
personal morality.
Not
only was this idiotic, but it demolished the very notion of politicians
as leaders in society who, by virtue of their public office, can
set an example in moral standards.
Little
wonder that the reputations of politicians - along with standards
of morality in society as a whole - are at such a low ebb.
Mr Blunkett resigned on December
15, 2004
Please
click one of the links above to cast your vote
|
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.
