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
|
|
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.
|
Tories'
£200m scheme to hive off problem pupils
Kelly
backs down over plan to foist yobs on to best schools
By
Sarah Harris. Education Correspondent, Daily Mail, February 2,
2005
HOW
THEIR POLICIES COMPARE
|
LABOUR
|
|
CONSERVATIVE
|
| Successful
schools must admit their share but not yet |
EXPELLED
PUPILS
|
Headteachers
to decide
|
|
Sent
to temporary 'sin bins' or pupil referral units.
|
DISRUPTIVE
PUPILS
|
Excluded
and sent to 'turn-around' schools
|
|
Must
attend parenting classes or face fines
|
PARENTS
of DISRUPTIVE PUPILS
|
Parents
put under contract to ensure good behaviour
|
|
No
final say on expulsions
|
HEADTEACHERS
|
Have
final say on expulsions
|
|
Retained
but must have headteacher on panel
|
APPEALS
PANELS
|
To
be scrapped
|
|
Investigations into teachers to be speeded
up
|
MALICIOUS
ALLEGATIONS
|
Anonymity
for teachers unless charge brought
|
| £120million
spent since 1997 on cameras and other measures |
SECURITY
|
Building
budget can be used to fund extra measures
|
|
Powers
to search for weapons and do random drug tests
|
DRUGS
& WEAPONS
|
£3million
a year to help pay for drug testing equipment
|
Ruth
Kelly backtracked yesterday over plans to force successful schools
to admit violent and disruptive pupils. The Education Secretary's
predecessor, Charles Clarke, came under fire after telling heads
they must all accept their fair share of expelled youngsters by
September (2005).
Mr
Clarke - now Home Secretary - was accused of punishing excellent
schools by using them as a 'dumping ground', raising the prospect
of grammars being forced to take on disruptive children of lower
ability. But Kiss Kelly used her first major speech on discipline
to tell heads she is giving them some ''breathing space' as she
understands their concerns about taking on 'challenging and difficult'
youngsters.
The
Tories called Labour's 'U-turn' a 'breathtakingly cynical ploy'
ahead of a General Election expected in May. The plan for all
schools to take their share of other 'hard-to- place' pupils ,
such as children in care and asylum seekers, still applies for
this year.
But
Miss Kelly told heads in Blackpool that the admissions policies
'need not apply to excluded pupils' until schools are ready. She
said: "I am giving this additional breathing space on the
clear expectation that all secondary schools should be part of
such agreements by September 2007." Asked if her response
was a criticism of Mr Clarke's stance,, the Education Secretary
told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I think the proposal
is right that schools should have responsibility for these pupils
but I also think that schools are in different places and have
different facilities available."
Miss
Kelly wants all secondary schools to join together by September
2007 in 'foundation partnerships' to tackle the 'low-level' misbehaviour
of pupils who are in danger of being excluded. These groups of
schools will receive money devolved from local authorities to
expand or build learning support units - also called 'sin-bins'.
There
are currently more than 1,000 such units - most based in schools
- which allow pupils to continue their education without being
formally expelled before being reintegrated back into mainstream
lessons. Under the partnership scheme, disruptive pupils could
attend the 'sin-bins' of neighbouring schools if their head did
not have the facilities to accommodate them. However, there is
no new government cash to expand the scheme.
Tim
Collins, Tory education spokesman, said: "Ministers will
still force schools to take disruptive pupils - guaranteeing a
thug in every playground - but shamelessly hope to get some credit
by postponing this daft and dangerous idea until September 2007."
Miss
Kelly pledged a 'zero-tolerance ' approach to 'low-level disruption'
such as use of mobile phones and text messaging in schools, saying
she wants to 'redraw the line on what is acceptable', particularly
with 'day-to-day disruption'. She said: "Every teacher knows
what this is like and every teacher hates it- incessant chattering,
calling out in class and answering back, inattention, lateness,
leaving the premises without permission, flouting uniform or dress
codes and causing a nuisance to other children in the class. These
are not trivial things. They wear down teachers and they stop
other children learning."
Other
measures to tackle ill-discipline include repeatedly sending Ofsted
inspectors into schools with problems until they improve. LEAs
will be expected to draw up 'action plans' to help struggling
schools while parents will be told to back headteachers' discipline
policies.
Ministers
are also encouraging a drive by LEAs to use parenting orders against
families who refuse to cooperate. Under this system, courts can
find adults and require them to take lessons in parenting. Miss
Kelly said parents should not automatically assume 'when their
child is punished, that their child must be in the right and school
in the wrong'.
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.
