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
|
On the
make and on the take
Politicians
enjoying lavish and dubious expenses from public funds and a media
cowed into silence. No, not the old USSR but Britain today
By
Stephen Glover, Daily Mail, October 26, 2004
Why
have the media not made more of the revelations about MP's expenses?
Why no howls of outrage? With a few honourable exceptions, newspapers
and broadcasters have treated the issue as one of little importance.
Ordinary people feel differently. According to a weekend opinion
poll, 82% of respondents believe that members of Parliament claim
too much in expenses. But we don't need polls to tell us that
in a resigned sort of way most electors are incredulous that MPs
can knock up such astronomical amounts.
Over
the past five years their expenses have doubled, thanks to New
Labour's generosity with our money. Have you noticed any improvement
in the administration of our country? Does anything work better?
Of course not. These extra expenses have only benefited the MPs
who claim them.
MPs
work shorter hours than they used to and enjoy holidays as long
as ever. Much of the legislation for which they used to be responsible
now emanates from Brussels. Yet despite declining responsibility,
easier hours and doubtful efficiency as legislators, they want
ever better terms and conditions.
ABSURD
No
one expects them to incur costs out of their own pockets, even
though that is what many did 50 years ago. It is perfectly legitimate
for members to claim for staff, for necessary travel and, in many
cases, for housing expenses. But some of them are charging absurd
amounts for travel and for second homes they do not need - or
should not ask us to pay for.
I
repeat my question: why are the media not more exercised? Remember
the brouhaha around the suggestion that Iain Duncan Smith's wife,
Betsy, had not done all the secretarial work she had been paid
for. Mrs Duncan-Smith was later cleared. Yet her alleged misdemeanour,
trivial in comparison with some of the MPs' scams we have heard
about, preoccupied the media for days.
Part
of the answer is that the most egregious examples of exorbitant
claims are to be found on Labour benches. Of the 20 most costly
members, 16 are Labour and only one is Tory. Even allowing for
there being nearly three times as many Labour MPs as there are
Conservative, this represents an extraordinary imbalance. Labour
members come top of nearly every expenses league.
The
MP with the highest claim is Labour Claire Curtis-Thomas (who
she?) managed to spend £168,889 in expenses. Another obscure
Labour MP Siobhain McDonagh spent £31,845 on postage which
suggests that she sent 113,732 first-class letters on Parliamentary
business in a single year. Her secretary must be suffering from
repetitive strain injury.
But
it is the extravagant use of public funds among some Cabinet members
that is most troubling - and which largely explains why there
has been no media assault. Tony Blair and his colleagues may no
longer be greatly loved, but there is a general assumption that
they are going to be around for as far ahead as we can see, and
that there is nothing to be gained from being at loggerheads with
them now.
How
different it was ten years ago, when every financial (or other)
irregularity among Tory MPs was mercilessly attacked by the Press
- and rightly so. I am not suggesting that any member of the Cabinet
has done anything that can be compared to receiving wads of money
in brown envelopes, as the Tory MP Neil Hamilton was alleged to
have done from Mohamed Fayed. But I am suggesting that Tony Blair,
Margaret Beckett and John Prescott - to name just three - each
has a serious case to answer.
Mr
Blair has claimed £43,000 over two years in respect of his
constituency home which cost him £30,000 20 years ago. Earlier
this year, he took out a mortgage on this property, Myrobella
House, probably to free up some cash to help him buy his new £3.6million
home in central London. The taxpayer is, in effect, subsidising
his mortgage on Myrobella House while Mr Blair purchases a London
property.
Can
this possibly be right? The Prime Minister's defence is that Myrobella
House is partly used as an office. I doubt that £43,000
over two years is the going rate for a small office in that part
of Co Durham. The price would be much less. The point is that
although Mr Blair is paid £178,000 a year, he feels it necessary
for the taxpayer to help him service a mortgage on a property
that had already been paid for.
Profligate
Margaret
Beckett's case may be even worse. The Environment Secretary has
a grace-and-favour flat in the Admiralty (Why?). She is thus able
to rent out her former Westminster home for an estimated £20,000
a year. She also has a house in Derby worth some £200,000,
on which the mortgage was paid off five years ago. Yet she has
claimed more than £50,000 in respect of this property over
the past 3 years.
What
is this money being spent on? She does not say. Possibly it is
painted and repainted, like the Forth Bridge. Its radiators may
be on night and day. Cleaners may8 buff up its windows. All the
same, £50,000 over three years is a lot of money. why should
we pay a penny of it? A spokesman for Mrs Beckett will only say
that the claims 'were within the rules'. If so, the rules were
drawn up by profligate madmen.
And
then there is 'Two Jags' Prescott. Like Mrs Beckett, he occupies
a grace-and-favour flat in the Admiralty, and he also has an official
country house, Dorneywood, complete with 214 acres. But it is
not good enough for him to have the taxpayer shelling out for
these two properties. He also claimed £20,057 last year
to help him keep his own home, Prescott Towers, ticking over happily.
Mansion
If
all this came from a history of the Soviet Union, we would not
be surprised. Of course, Comrade Prescott has to have a country
dacha. Naturally Comrade Beckett may need help with her own property.
As for Comrade Blair, a man of his eminence should have a large
mansion in central London. We should joyfully contribute to the
cost of keeping Myrobella House which, truth to tell, given its
geographical position in a deeply unfashionable part of the country,
he would rather not visit at all.
But
we don't live in the Soviet Union. We live in Britain, where,
so we once thought, politicians do not feather their nests at
public expense, where once people did not enter public life to
make money. Politicians like to talk a great deal about the gulf
between the governors and the governed. They like to say how they
and the public must re-connect.
How
is that possible when politicians' behaviour only serves to increase
disbelief? Perhaps we should not expect too much of those MPs
who fiddle their expenses by sharing cars as they return to their
constituencies, while each charging an exorbitant 57p a mile.
These people constitute our new political class, careerist, self-seeking
and non too honest.
But
we should expect much, much more of Tony Blair and other members
of the Cabinet. They should know better. they already enjoy immense
privileges. They rightly fear the public's cynicism and its distrust
of the political process. And yet, blessed with a most compliant
media, they engage in demeaning fiddles which in any other walk
of life would be regarded as theft.
Please
click one ot 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.
