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
|
The
urban savages
Judge
hits out at Labour's 24-hour drinking plan as he sentences the
yobs who brought terror to a town -
By Harcharan Chandhoke - Daily Mail, January 11, 2005
A
Judge criticised plans for round-the-clock drinking yesterday,
warning it would encourage the rise of 'urban savages'. Judge
Charles Harris, QC, accused the Government of allowing drunken
thugs to make town centres no-go areas.
He
issued his warning while sentencing three men who attacked fellow
revellers in a drink and drug-fuelled fury on a night out. One
of their victims was in a coma for three weeks after he was beaten
unconscious in the street.
"This
illustrates a great deal of what is wrong with a substantial proportion
of young people today," Judge Harris said. He said too many
people drank to excess and took drugs. "This reduces you
to a state of brutal mindless aggression and you focus on people
who you attack, or fight, or rob," he added.
"People,
or people like you, are making the towns of England revolting
and dangerous places at night. It is being assisted by legislation
to make alcohol available at all times of day and night, which
is OK for reasonable human beings, but you are of the attitude
of trying to drink as much as you can for as long as you can.
You and others like you must be punished and deterred from this
sort of behaviour."
The
judge's comments echo that of police chiefs in a growing revolt
against the Government's plans for round-the-clock drinking. This
will be allowed in Britain's town centres when the Licensing Act
relaxes the laws controlling drinking hours next month. It will
abolish fixed opening hours and give councils the power to licence
some venues to stay open indefinitely. Ministers claim relaxing
the laws will usher in more civilised 'Continental-style' drinking.
But
police chiefs have dismissed such optimism as naive and warned
of late-night violence in towns and cities. Last month outgoing
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens warned it would
result in a huge drain on police manpower. He said large numbers
of officers would be forced on duty in the small hours to tackle
drunken louts, diverting vital resources from crime-fighting during
the day.
The
Association of Chief Police Officers also opposed liberalisation.
Its licensing spokesman Steve Green, also Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire,
said: "If we want a Continental cafe culture, build cafes.
If we want 24 hours of hell, let's keep on the way we're going."
Judge
Harris's intervention came as he jailed three thugs who went on
the rampage in Kettering, Northamptonshire, after watching France
beat England in the European championships last summer. One of
their victims, John Williams, was left unconscious for three weeks
with a severe brain injury and still suffers breathing difficulties
and memory loss. He will have to take medication indefinitely
to stop blackouts and epilepsy.
Another
victim, Shaun Dainty, was punched and kicked unconscious and left
with a fractured collar bone and ribs. Ringleader Nathan Milne,
25, from Kettering, was jailed for five and a half years at Northampton
Crown Court. He admitted two robberies and causing grievous bodily
harm to Mr Dainty.
Nathan
Hadfield, 20, from Burton Latimer, admitted affray, attacking
Mr Dainty and assaulting Mr Williams. He was sent to a young offenders
institution for 33 months.
Trainee
carpenter Jamie Bradshaw, 20, also from Burton Latimer, admitted
affray and was ordered to carry out 50 hours of community service.
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.
