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
|
How
Downing Street sexed down its dossier on alcohol
By
Stephen Doughty, Social Affairs Correspondent, Daily Mail, January
13, 2005
Downing
Street covered up the truth about the dangers of 24-hour drinking,
say senior medical figures. Experts who prepared a report for
the Government stressed that increasing the availability of alcohol
could have dangerous results, and cited examples from around the
world.
But
this evidence was cut out of a 'sexed-down' dossier published
last year. The report, Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy, was produced
with the help of 17 experts. First drafts contain a key passage
which said: "Restrictions on availability reduce consumption
and general levels of harm. Relaxing availability increases general
harm whether through more outlets (Finland), denser outlets (California)
or longer hours (Western Australia)."
Minister
censured the civil servant behind free-for-all - Daily
Mail - January 21, 2005
The
civil servant in charge of the 24-hour drinking crusade
was censured by a Labour Minister for calling opponents
of the plans as 'nanny-staters', it emerged last night.
The
revelation raised new doubts about the role of Andrew
Cunningham, the Whitehall official who has masterminded
the laws.
Former
Culture Minister Kim Howells gave Mr Cunningham a dressing-down
about his speech to the British Institute of Innkeeping
in October 2002. In a letter to Tory MP Mark Field, who
complained about Mr Cunningham's outburst, Mr Howells
said: "I have asked Mr Cunningham to be more careful
in future and aware that what he says at public meetings
can be misinterpreted.'
Mr
Field said last night: "It's not healthy to see civil
servants making such partisan statements."
Less
than a week ago,Mr Cunningham was forced to apologise
and admit his comments were 'not appropriate.'
|
This
advice, however, conflicted with pledges made to Labour before
the 2001 election, when the party sent text messages to mobile
phones calling for the votes of young people who 'couldn't give
a XXXX for last orders'. So when the final version of the report
appeared, no reference to the effects of extending drinking hours
was left in.
Instead
the report carried a soothing foreword by Tony Blair which declared
that the report showed 'the best way to minimise the harms is
through partnership between government, local authorities, police,
industry and the public themselves.'
Some
medical experts who contributed to the report were so alarmed
that they contributed to an independent report ultimately published
virtually simultaneously with the Downing Street dossier by the
Academy of Medical Sciences. This declared unequivocally that
extending licensing hours will mean a damaging increase in alcohol
consumption.
Among
those figures who produced the Academy report were Professor Griffith
Edwards of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Professor Ian Gilmore
of the Royal College of Physicians, and Sir Michael Marmot, Professor
of Public Health at University College London.
One
man involved in both reports said yesterday: "We saw what
was happening to the Government report so we just went across
the road as a group to write the other one. We were afraid that
the truth was just not going to be made public. The Academy report
was written in blunt layman's language and it was, in terms of
the reputation of the people who produced it, gold-plated. We
did it because the Downing Street report was neutered. It was
got at."
Another
contributor, Professor Colin Drummond of St George's Medical School,
last night said the claim that 24-hour drinking will cut bingeing
'runs against all the evidence from other countries.' He told
Radio Four's PM programme: "What we will see when this new
legislation comes into effect is a rapid increase in the number
of people who are binge drinking and also the long-term health
consequences of people drinking more alcohol overall."
The
Downing Street report published in the name of Mr Blair's Strategy
Unit, remains the last Government word on the justification for
bringing in 24-hour drinking. The Tories last year supported the
Licensing Act as it went through Parliament. But yesterday they
withdrew their backing and said the package of change should be
put on hold until it is clear that police can deal with the disorder
longer drinking hours will cause.
Shadow
Home Secretary David Davis said the fact that police chiefs oppose
the new law had been hidden from Parliament. He told Radio Four's
The World at One: "The facts have changed. I asked the Government
several times in the course of the last several months why they
didn't tell us about the concerns of the Metropolitan Police about
this."
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.
