Rescuing Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected Dictatorship

You will notice that, since New Labour came to power, not a single leading Cabinet member or party 'heavy hitter' has appeared on the programme (BBC's Question Time). 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

 

WWW silentmajorityspeaks.com

TOTALITARIAN BRITAIN

SIMON HEFFER, in this provocative denunciation, argues in the Daily Mail - September 17, 2004 - that the United Kingdom is no longer a democracy

Enoch Powell once said that 'the great function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils'. To which MPs devoting themselves this week to something so unnecessary as the abolition of hunting vermin with hounds, when other more 'evil' problems cry out for prevention, exemplifies just how unstatesmanlike they have become.

Much has been made, by Labour MPs, of how banning hunting reflects the democratic will. It does nothing of the sort. On the contrary, it represents a significant step by this Government towards a political climate which no statesman should countenance, that of totalitarianism. Ever since 1997, this administration has frequently, and apparently without embarrassment, engaged in the rhetoric of totalitarianism. It has never, until now, actually reached the point of passing a law that institutionalises the totalitarian ethos.

It it uses the Parliament Acts to force the hunting ban on to the statute book it will, however, do just that.

DOGMA

Over the past seven and a half years, ministers have lectured us on issues on which they are singularly unqualified to hold any sort of opinion. They like to tell us, for example, how we should bring up our children (such as subjecting them to compulsory nursery education), what we should eat or drink, and what we should think (in accordance with the tenets of political correctness) about homosexuals, asylum seekers, or (until the Prime Minister was humiliatingly forced to promise a referendum on the issue) our relationship with the EU.

Now, though, it is breaking new ground. In passing a law that provides against no 'preventable evil', but simply tells a large minority that they will be criminalised if they persist in behaving in a way that has never been illegal and which does no harm to any other human being, they are embracing a moral absolutism not seen in this country since the Puritans. Indeed, it does not seem to worry Tony Blair that the last European head of government to abolish hunting was Adolf Hitler.

Mr Blair's attitude to law-making is shaped by two main impulses. The first, however 'modernised' New Labour pretends it is, is the Old Labour dogma that the State has a right to interfere in almost anything, and to control the lives of people in as many respects as possible.

The second is that policies will be adopted, and laws passed, not according to the public good, but to how it affects Labour's survival in power and Mr Blair's own survival in Downing Street. He has had the most appalling time with his own MPs in the pat 18 months. They hate him for lying to them about the war in Iraq and also because he has sought to adopt what they consider to be 'Right-wing' reforms of the public services, such as foundation hospitals and tuition fees.

To force through the abolition of hunting wins him Brownie points with his internal enemies, and more time to finish off his most deadly enemy, Gordon Brown. That he is more concerned with the Kremlinology of his own party than he is with ruling in an honest, decent and tolerant way also evokes memories of the old dictators, and how things used to be done in the Soviet Union.

Mr Blair knows his abuse of the British Constitution is wrong; he is too clever not to be aware of it. That is why he and his colleagues go to extraordinary lengths to avoid having to admit their malfeasances, and why one of the main policies of his regime has been to prevent the public holding them to account wherever possible. This avoidance starts, of course, in Parliament. With a Commons majority of 170, Mr Blair has never had to take Parliament seriously.

So that they do not get into the habit of asking awkward questions, large numbers of his backbenchers are told that, for days on end, there is simply no need for them to attend. Indeed, despite the abolition of hunting apparently being such a key government policy, Mr Blair himself (taking a leaf out of Pontius Pilate's book) was absent for Wednesday' night's vote while the Commons green benches were, disgracefully, largely empty during the debate.

SCRUTINY

Meanwhile, matters of national or legislative importance are announced not in Parliament, where some MPs might still be able to ask questions about them, but are leaked to obedient journalists, who provide no such scrutiny. Ministers have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the Commons to give what are usually evasive statements on such matters, and are lucky to have a Speaker who does not stand on ceremony so often as he might.

Because the House of Lords had a tendency to complain when the government tried to pass stupid laws, Mr Blair had 600 hereditary peers thrown out and has partially replaced them with dozens of his own cronies. Although this has greatly diluted the wisdom of the Upper House and wiped out the supposed Tory majority there, he still cannot get his own way.

Therefore he uses the Parliament Acts (normally used for legislation of great moral or constitutional significance) to pass whatever laws he wants irrespective of the Lords. He has refused to have inquiries on such egregious government scandals such as the handling of the foot-and-mouth outbreak, or the handling of the Iraq issue. When any sort of inquiry is forced upon him, they are conducted by hand-picked establishment men.

DISASTROUS

Outside Parliament, he and his ministers avoid having to meet the public, or explain themselves. Senior ministers simply refuse to participate in programmes such as BBC1's Question Time, where they might get a rough reception from irate voters. Many will not appear on the Today programme, and Mr Blair himself will consent to do so only when there is no contentious issue at stake, and when he cannot be interviewed by John Humphrys, of whom he is scared.

New Labour seeks to rig the electoral system, which is why it wanted all-postal ballots until they proved disastrous. It was why it wanted devolution for its Scottish and Welsh heartlands, and why it scrapped English regional assembly votes in all regions except for the one where it thinks it might win. It is also why, in contravention of natural justice, they encourage Scottish MPs to vote in the Commons on issues that affect on England. Like all totalitarians, they cheat as a matter of policy.

There is widespread disillusion with our politicians, not least because they behave in so arrogant and undemocratic a fashion. Ironically, that understandable disgust increasingly translates itself into abstentionism. Turnout at elections is low and falling.

The tragedy is that this new totalitarianism fails to galvanise all voters to protest about the rape of their political institutions and the destruction of their liberties, although I predict this will soon change. Today, it is a law to stop people hunting with hounds. Tomorrow, it could be a law against anything else that excites the prejudices of the metropolitan Left and allows them to enforce their often ignorant views upon Middle England.

There is no point lamenting what used to be our democracy and what used to be our belief in benign statesmanship. All are being destroyed before our gaze. They are being destroyed because we are allowing their destruction. This week's shaming of democracy should prove that we are prepared to tolerate this no longer.

 For the health of our democracy, we, the people of the United Kingdom, must find a way to force Mr Blair to resign

Mr Blair has lied and deceived us over Iraq. He must resign at once. Do you agree? Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly Don't know Don't care Please click one of the links above to cast your vote Current results

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.