Rescuing
Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected
Dictatorship
|
Come
back Gilligan, all is forgiven. Penny Young, Diss, Norfolk,
to The Guardian, February 24, 2005
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
Power
cut, please
Labour's
pollsters have Tony Blair running scared, because they have
informed him that if turnout at the next election is below
50%, the result will be a hung parliament. This would be
good news for those of us who, viewing the damage inflicted
by recent governments, would like nothing better than a
Parliament powerless to do anything. Letter from Ron
Phillips, London W14 - Daily Mail 17/2/05
|
Tony
Blair's pledge cards made no mention of pensioners. Perhaps
they're the jokers.
Letter
to the Daily Mail from Brian Green, Daventry, Northants
- February 22, 2005
The
Guardian's Polly Toynbee says 'a profoundly nasty streak'
among voters worried about poverty, crime and immigration
might cause them to vote against the Government. Isn't
it time we replaced the present electorate with one more
to Polly's liking? Ephraim Hardcastle, Daily Mail,
February 24, 2005
|
So
where on Earth does all the money GO?
Commentary
by James Bartholomew - Daily Mail, March 8, 2005
The
idea of sick children being refused admission to hospital is contemptible.
How can Great Ormond Street be short of £1.7million at a
time when the government has devoted so much more money to the
NHS. The budget has soared fro £33bn in 1996/97 to £64.5bn
in 2004/05. Great Ormond Street is a flagship hospital with immense
goodwill. In addition to £177million it receives from NHS
each year, it gets another £20million to £25million
in charitable donations.
Costly
care Letter (Name and Address supplied)
- Daily Mail, March 10, 2005
Can
no one in Government put two and two together?
With
reference to the reported cash crisis at London's Great
Ormond Street Children's Hospital, does no one in government
think it might just be related to this fact: approximately
half the beds in Great Ormond Street are occupied by people
from other countries.
I
am an agency nurse and worked on almost every ward. Some
of the most expensive clients, those on haemo-dialysis,
for example, come from the four corners of the world and
cost several hundred thousand pounds even before they
receive their trans-plants -and then the costs continue.
|
The
explanation goes to the core of why the NHS has been such a disappointment
as a system. It is not only Great Ormond Street that is short
of cash. There are plenty of other hospitals in the same boat.
There are two main reasons.
The
first is very simple: under the traditional NHS system, every
operation and scan or blood test costs a hospital money. This
means that the basic question a hospital must ask itself before
it undertakes an operation is: 'Can we afford it?'
This
is in contrast with other systems around the world where the hospital
is paid by the patient, by the patient's insurance company or
by government's insurance scheme, when it provides treatment.
However, in the NHS, operations are a drain on a hospital's resources.
In most other countries, operations increase hospital income.
It has an incentive to be as productive as possible.
It
should therefore come as no surprise that in other systems of
health care, the throughput of operations and procedures is more
efficient. That is a fundamental reason why Britain has long been
the odd one out, with waiting times for treatments that would
be considered a disgrace elsewhere.
The
second explanation is that the NHS, like other state monopolies,
prodigiously wastes money. Dr
Maurice Slevin, a consultant oncologist,made a careful study of
the ratio of administrators, managers, and support staff to nurses
in the NHS. He found that, even on the most conservative basis,
there were eight administrators for every ten
nurses.
Of
course hospitals need management and support staff. He went on
to establish the comparable figure for a private hospital:
just 1.8 administrators for every ten nurses.
The
enormous waste in the NHS is partly because well-meaning people,
including government ministers, give out targets and tell other
people how to do their jobs. For example, in one leading London
hospital, a team of 30 spends its time showing the Government
that it is meeting targets. How much better it would be if the
hospital was employing 30 more nurses instead.
To
give it its due, Government is trying to deal with the first of
the two core problems. Although it ditched the 'internal market'
created by the conservatives when it came to power in 1997, it
is now trying to introduce something similar. It is called 'payment
by results'.
The
idea is that hospitals should receive specified sums of money
for particular procedures. In principle, this should give hospitals
a positive incentive to do operations. However, the new plans
have been delayed. Prices are specified by the Government so there
is no competition based on price. Instead, some hospitals can
find themselves making a profit on certain operations and others
making a loss. Much depends on correctly estimating a price that
will balance supply and demand- something governments are not
good at.
However,
Government has also put a spanner in its own works by continuing
severely to limit the freedom of hospitals to manage their own
affairs - notwithstanding the development of Foundation Hospitals.
It has imposed the contract for consultants and pay scales for
other staff. How can hospitals become more productive and well-managed
if they are still continually told what to do and if many of their
costs are determined by central government (not to mention EU
rules)?
If
a commercial company announced its hospitals were short of cash,
despite a £31bn increase in budget, directors would be sacked.
But in state monopolies, no one gets sacked.
That
is another reason why, without a wholesale change in the system,
there will always be a shortage of money in the NHS, however big
the budget. And we will also have to accept that sick people -
including sick children - will continue to be turned away from
hospital.
|
Perhaps
Ann Widdecombe was right about Michael Howard, but it
should have been KNIGHT with a K, and he could have saved
us from the monsters Blair and Campbell - Letter to
the Dail Mayil from Les Fletcher, Rhos-on-Sea, Colwyn
Bay, Wales - February 18, 2005
After
a clear vote against them, we still got eight non-elected
Regional Assemblies. When we vote against the EU Constitution,
we'll get them anyway. Letter from P.Cove, Aylesbury,
BUCKS.- Daily Mail, January 31, 2005
THE
TIMES slavish support for the Government worries some
members of the paper's staff, not to mention any perspicacious
readers who are left. Political editor Philip Webster
was questioned about this when he addressed colleagues
as part of an in-house 'masterclass' exercise. Small wonder.
One of his Blair-worshipping subordinates wrote a news
story yesterday poo-pooing the row over Labours anti-semitic
poster mocking Michael Howard, saying it was merely £5million
worth of 'free publicity' for the party. Ephraim Hardcastle
- Daily Mail, Febrauary 2, 2005
Hold
the front page
Further
to BBC bias (Mail), very often on BBC Breakfast and Breakfast
With Frost, coverage of the morning papers is censored.
If the front page of the Daily Mail is critical of Tony
Blair and his Soviet-style Government, it is not shown,
although the front pages of all the other newspapers are
shown. A supposedly independent broadcasting body is acting
as censor for this Government - an absolute disgrace.
Letter from Peter Fish, Chippenham, Wilts. .- Daily Mail,
February 17, 2005
|
The
REAL NASTY PARTY- How
Labour is the true home of spite, bigotry and contempt for the
public
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.
