Rescuing Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected Dictatorship

 

WWW silentmajorityspeaks.com

"If a Government of a great democracy such as ours fails to tell the truth, it must expect loyal public servants to break ranks and reveal what's really going on"

by Air Marshal Sir John Walker, Chief of Defence Intelligence and a deputy chairman of the Defence Intelligence Committee from 1991 to 1994, when he retired. (Daily Mail - July 27, 2004)

Those of us who have worked in the intelligence services usually maintain a discreet silence whenever our specialist subject is under public discussion. We are, quite rightly, bound by the Official Secrets Act, as well as by our personal sense of duty and discretion. But every so often an issue arises that should be debated publicly. The case of John Morrison is, I believe, such an issue.

Mr Morrison, who was a senior colleague of mine on the Defence Intelligence staff (and was later its well-regarded deputy chief) has been effectively sacked from his present job as a consultant with Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee. His crime was that he had dared to reveal in a recent interview of BBC's Panorama, the depth of scepticism in intelligence circles about Prime Minister Tony Blair's claim in the September 2002 dossier that Iraq posed a 'serious and current threat' to this country.

Provocatively perhaps, he talked of the 'collective raspberry going up around Whitehall' when the dossier was published, and accused the Government of 'scraping the bottom of the barrel' in an attempt to justify the war. While his choice of words was questionable, the thought behind them was quite probably right. And, within a week of the broadcast, Mr Morrison was out of a job.

Announcing that his contract would end in October, the Cabinet Office spinners dismissively said that he was 'currently employed as a contractor ... a part-time investigator'. It made him seem like a man whose job it is to fix the lights. It was yet another hatchet job on a respected figure; a highly experienced man, whom I had known well and counted as a trusted colleague - a man whose professionalism, honour and integrity I had come to admire. Just as I admire the work and character of Dr Brian Jones, another distinguished Iraq expert, now retired, who had worked closely with me at Defence Intelligence and who had also spoken out on Panorama.

I admired their willingness to raise vital questions about the reasons given for Britain going to war in Iraq. Questions which I, and many others, thought should have been raised long since. To have seen their reputations tarnished by the Whitehall spin machine in such a way is disgraceful. And let us not forget Dr David Kelly - a brilliant scientist and defence analyst who knew Iraq well.

He was subjected to a vicious hounding when he broke ranks and briefed Andrew Gilligan, the reporter for BBC Radio 4's Today programme last year, about his concerns over the way in which Downing Street was, in his view, misusing intelligence. That merciless treatment of a good man ended only with his suicide last year.

We are blessed in this country with a splendid civil service, and with the best military men and women in the world. they are loyal to the Queen, their country and to all of us, as citizens. Yet they have run up against a Government which deals in spin and misinformation, and which is - to put it mildly - economical with the truth.

The concern among the intelligence services at this Government's unprecedented attempt to politicise intelligence - to manipulate what should have been utterly objective work to its own political advantage - cannot be overestimated. Why else would people of the utmost integrity such as John Morrison and Dr Brian Jones now be prepared to break ranks and risk huge penalties? Why are they endangering their reputations, jobs and pensions, as well as laying themselves open to trials or courts-martial?

It can only be because they know that the case for war against Iraq - as part of a wider war against terrorism - was reinforced by claims that weapons of mass destruction could be deployed with 45 minutes, apparently against this country, its interests or its bases in Cyprus. The intelligence analysts knew this assertion to be wrong, or at best, seriously misleading, but they were expected to remain silent. They were being placed in an invidious and untenable position. Ultimately, they felt they had no choice but to speak out.

The most serious thing any Government can do to a nation is to take it to war and we went to war on a false prospectus. We should remember that it was the Government - not those usually anonymous defence and intelligence specialists - who had decided to put the secret and objective judgments of the Joint Intelligence Committee into the public domain, to influence the mood in Parliament and the country, and garner support for invasion and regime change.

Now we know just how misleading, and how shamelessly spun, that Government campaign was - and its terrible consequences. Sixty-one precious British soldiers have, so far, died in this adventure - 62 if you count, as I do, poor Dr Kelly - not to mention more than 10,000 Iraqi civilians who lost their lives.

Then there is John Morrison who has lost his job, and who, like Dr Brian Jones, must face seeing his reputation denigrated. As for the BBC, it has been decapitated. Contrast that situation with what has happened in America. There, the head of the CIA has resigned, taking with him at least one senior officer.

Here, however, John Scarlett, the chairman of the JIC, who claimed 'ownership' of the now infamous '45 minute claim' dossier, and who was criticised in the Butler Report, has actually been promoted by the Prime Minister to head MI6.

Let's put it frankly. Those who had justified criticisms of the way intelligence was being spun, or who allowed alarm bells to be rung, are dead or have lost their jobs and seen their reputations questioned. Those who played the system have been rewarded. The harsh truth is that the books simply do not balance, and there is good reason to ask why.

The bottom line must be this: if the Government of a great and ancient democracy such as ours sells its citizens a false bill of goods, how can it expect loyal and honourable public servants not to break ranks, to speak out and reveal what is goint on?

I, for one, applaud the courage of those who do.

********************

Before you vote please read Michael Howard's challenge to Tony Blair in the House of Commons on the day the Butler report was published, and the latest news on John Scarlett. A devastating report by hugely respected BBC Panorama journalist, John Ware, raises new questions about No. 10 and the 'truth', which are even more disturbing. Also read Rifkind on Blair and a letter from one of the normally silent majority in the United Kingdom.

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."

Blair's defiance of the will of the majority of we, the people of the UK, over the invasion of Iraq 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:

Here's one to get Tony Blair to resign:

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.

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.

 

If you have suggestions for additional subjects, or material to include in the pages linked to the subjects listed, please contact the webmaster.