Posts Tagged ‘democracy’

It is immoral that we are helpless to prevent the party in power from deceitfully & deliberately reversing a manifesto pledge e.g. #NHS

March 7, 2017

This was a letter to the Daily Mirror , published but with a hard edit

With what’s happening to our NHS, it’s unbelievable, for me, that we are helpless to prevent it.
There was no mention of this destruction in any pre-election speeches.
In fact we were assured that the NHS was “safe” in Tory hands.
In normal circumstances, one can understand the need for Governments to have the stability of a five year term of office but the Sovereignty of Parliament becomes a farce, when the wishes of the Population are ignored as an irrelevance, even in times of War.
There needs to be a means for the population to demand a General Election, or, at least, a referendum on issues, which directly affect the whole population

#|t’s unbelievable what’s happening to our NHS and it has left me feeling helpless. There was no mention of plans to shut hospitals in any pre-election speeches. In fact, we were assured that the NHS was safe
in Tory hands. There must be a means for people to demand a referendum on huge issues.


@DailyMirror publishes first puff piece in Blair’s campaign against populism

November 25, 2016

Tony Blair has begun his campaign to destroy #brexit,  with a puff piece in the Daily Mirror.

He begins by saying:

“When I say ‘let’s just keep our options open’, it’s condemned as treason”.

Straight in, with two lies in one sentence.

He uses his favourite impression  of “I’m just a nice, reasonable guy”

First lie is that he merely wants us to keep our options open, when he’s pushing  “The remain” option, as the one he’s wants to sell us.

M r. reasonable guy lays the ground for his second lie,  that this reasonable view has seen him condemned as treasonous.

No-one has condemned as treasonous for  wanting to keep our options open.

He’s been condemned as treasonous for the illegal Iraq war.

He’s also been condemned as anti-democratic in announcing that he’ll use his money and influence to try and overthrow the referendum vote.

This could be regarded as treason, depending on how he goes about it.

You have to look closely at everything he says.

That two-lie sentence wasn’t an off-the-cuff line.

It will have been carefully crafted, with the aid of his wordsmith, Alistair Campbell.

He’s announced that Labour has lurched to the Left and Tory’s to the Right, thus leaving the middle ground for him to step into and speak up for all those floating voters., who’ll buy what he’s selling.

It’s untrue that the Centre ground is vacant.

Corbyn and McDonnell may be old Left but they are heavily constrained by MP’s, who were raised to eminence under Blairite policies and who still occupy the centrist seat

(It wasn’t Socialists, who voted to bomb Syria).

For me , as a supporter of Corbyn, the mis-named centrist position isn’t a midway position, so much as a right of centre position and Tony Blair is a Tory in disguise.

Look at who he’s teamed up with.

Richard Branson isn’t a cavalier/hippy entertainments guy.

He’s the banker who’s buying up much of our NHS and is pushing to buy up more.

That’s why he’s linked up with Blair, who made his millions bringing “peace” to the Middle East and brokering deals for Haliburton and other US companies, eager to “help” in that region.

Listen to Blair but learn to recognise phrases that he repeats word for word, because they’re the one’s, which are selling the biggest lies

@UKLabour @LabourEoin @andyburnhammp extend the idea of one member, one vote

May 31, 2015

I like Miliband’s idea of one member, one vote.

It doesn’t matter if the Unions encourage, or enable member’s to enrol and vote, because it shuts up the Tory Press claims of Unions being the party paymaster’s.

There are many like Derek Hatton, who would return to the fold, as Socialists, whilst having to accept that they are one voice amongst many.

But why not extend it?

If Labour can elect a leader by individual votes then why not allow individual votes on all policies?
Congress can still propose and debate policies.

It can even vote on policy, but let that vote be merely a recommendation to the electorate.

Once the votes are in and counted, then let that be the policy to be pursued.

The party should then invite candidates for leadership, knowing that the leader is bound by those policies for the oncoming year.

This system would tie the hands of the leader, but that is not a genuine problem for candidates, who wish to serve………. only for those, who wish to be served.

It would also allow the party to respond to changes in circumstances, whereby the leader could, on an annual basis, argue for any necessary change, without pundits denouncing them as doing u-turns.

The yearly vote could be tied into the payment of subscription/donations, giving a reflection of how well congress recommendations are being received.

Such a strong demonstration of active Democracy could also draw in the Broadsheet readers, who haver between Tory and Labour, after being spurned by the Lib Dems.

It’d be so nice to get back to a Democracy, instead of elected and corruptible dictatorship.


#Devomanc, EU referendum, democracy

April 16, 2015

Sent to Daily Express (15/4/15)

I assume Stephen Pollard agrees with the Daily Express’s stand on an EU referendum.
I further assume that he abhors Miliband’s opposition to a democratic say on the matter.
In fact, the whole General Election is allegedly about Demcratic choices, so how can he laud the Tory Manifesto, which embodies another anti-democratic diktat, which is of great moment in this corner of The World.?
I refer to DevoManc
Osborne’s decision to impose an unelected Mayor on the people of this region, as threatened in The Manifesto, is highly resented by some and a cause of concern to most.
Admittedly this is a mainly Labour region, as witnessed by his co-conspirators being Labour backed councillor’s, but this authoritarian approach must mean that the leader’s of the Tory party are just as bad as Miliband and are happy to surrender any support that they might have had in the North-West.

Devo Manc) Information Meeting being held on Wednesday 25th February, at Little Fifteen, Wallgate, Wigan – 7.15pm k.o.

February 24, 2015


Devo Manc – Do Wiganers want to be a part of it? What will be the impact if it? Shouldn’t there be a referendum on it?

These will be just a few of the many questions that will be asked, and answered at a Greater Manchester Devolution (a.k.a. Devo Manc) Information Meeting being held on Wednesday 25th February, at Little Fifteen, Wallgate, Wigan – 7.15pm k.o.

Locals are invited to find out more about the deal, which some have described as the biggest change in local Government affecting Wigan, and the Greater Manchester area as a whole, since 1974.

What’s it all about? How it will effect us? How comes hardly anyone knows it’s happening? Why are none of us going to get any say in it? Why we should be concerned about that, and what can anyone do about any of it?

There will be contributors from a range of organisations including the Greater Manchester Referendum Campaign, who say the whole deal should be put on hold until there has been sufficient public debate, scrutiny and a referendum on the whole deal, which includes the imposition of a new elected Mayor for Greater Manchester, which has now been re-designated a new ‘city region’.

The pro-referendum campaigners petition states:

“Ordinary people must surely have the basic democratic right to be consulted, scrutinise, and have a say in ANY changes, welcome or otherwise, to the way they are governed, including on any regional ‘devolution’ proposal affecting them. This would include whether they actually want it or not, and if they do, such things as what region they might be part of, and what any “devolved” decision making powers and financial settlement might go with it.

“The ‘Greater Manchester Agreement’ does not provide for any of these things, but rather the very opposite, the entire ‘devolution package’ being conditional on the imposition on the people of Greater Manchester, without any reference to their views on the subject whatsoever, of a directly elected Mayor for Greater Manchester; a form of local Government, which other than in one of Greater Manchester’s 10 local authority areas, has been either directly rejected by voters, or by local Councils themselves for their own areas.

“There are also many other financial arrangements that will come into effect, the details of, and full implications of which, could have considerable impact on everyone’s lives, but which, without the proper public scrutiny the ‘Greater Manchester Agreement’ denies, every one of us will have to put up with for potentially many years to come, whatever the Greater Manchester public thinks about it.

“Such an apparent contempt for the views of Greater Manchester residents is simply unacceptable in our opinion.

“We believe that any transitional arrangements for the Agreement’s implementation, including the appointment of an interim Mayor (who could remain in place until 2017) should be immediately stopped, and only re-started, if at all, on the basis of a positive mandate from a referendum as called for and outlined above.”

The campaign’s petition can be found at


Tweedledum and Tweedledee aren’t bothered by protests anymore than a boa swallowing a bleating goat

July 10, 2014

These are a couple of letters that I emailed to the Daily Express this morning.

In way they are the same theme i.e. that the Main parties don’t give a care about what voters really want:

Apparently there is to be an emergency session of Parliament to create Law to overrule a decision by the ECHR.
It seems that Search engines (such as tax shy Google) and email providers (such as monopolists Microsoft) keep records of our searches and our contacts, which the ECHR has ruled they shouldn’t.
The ECHR also ruled that individuals can have files, on any of their misdeeds, expunged from Google search results.
Government is concerned that deletion of such records will hamper police investigations in their search for terrorist links and for reports of paedophile and other criminal activity.
This is disconcerting in two ways, apart from internet stories about GCHQ having full access to all this data, and more, via the NSA.
First, that Parliament is forever telling us that legislation, which we want, takes years to be worked out, discussed, considered, passed and implemented (if within that Parliamentary session). This Law will be in place, a done deal, sorted, within days.
Second, this is to overrule ECHR ruling, backed by EU Law, which is allegedly sacrosanct. We are forever being told that nothing can be done that is contrary to such rulings, that Parliamentary hands are tied, Government is committed, we can’t deport foreign criminals etc.
It’s becoming more and more apparent that Government doesn’t care if we know that they rule by a sham, so long as just one person turns up at the ballot box, they’ll persist in their contempt for public opinion, or public concern and only enact Law, which is convenent to them.
What is the point of the strike of public sector workers?
The only people being affected by this single day of disruption are the ones who support their cause.
Are they hoping that voters will rise up and overthrow the Government?
Do they believe that anyone will be talking about what is merely another demonstration, another public protest, by next week?

They can’t seriously believe that the Government will take any more notice of them, than they have done over the numerous protests against hospital closures, or the numerous polls stating that the majority of voters want an immediate referendum on EU membership.
This is a Parliamentary Democracy. I.e every 5 years, we get to vote for Tweedledum or Tweedledee and, as Alice found out, the only difference is in their names.
They fight over trivialities but on issues such as those mentioned, they are of one mind.
They’ll do whatever is in the interests of Tweedledum or Tweedledee.
They don’t believe in populism, nor do they really have to.
published version:
Public sector unions must realise folly of their action
WHAT is the point of the strike of public sector workers?
The only people being affected by this single day of disruption are the ones who support their cause.
Are they hoping that voters will rise up and overthrow the Government?
Do they think that by next week anyone will be talking about what is merely another demonstration, another public protest?
They can’t seriously believe that the Government will take any more notice of them than it has done over the numerous protests against hospital closures.

Why net neutrality is important #occupy

June 9, 2014

The internet links us like neural pathways in a brain,

Individuals tweeters etc. may, individually, talk nonsense but the pathways that persist tend to be truthways and the majority of users come to believe (know) the truth of matters.

Gov’t propaganda acts like drugs; it creates temporary confusion but at the end of the day, the truth holds sway.

Only Net neutrality can keep this new consciousness alive.

Ending net neutrality will be like an overdose of heroin.

Bye-Bye coalition and Good Riddance, when you finally go.

June 7, 2014

A leader in the Daily Express prompted this letter:

I, for one, am pleased that this coalition Government has caused Westminster antipathy towards any future coalitions.
No-one voted for this present coalition, which has disappointed , if not angered, the majority of the electorate.
Many, such as myself, were looking forward, towards a minority government, headed by the party with the most MP’s.
This would have been a victory for Democracy, whereby Labour, or Tory policies could only be implemented with the consent of the majority of our elected representative’s.
If Clegg hadn’t offered his MP’s as voting fodder for Cameron’s cabinet, the Lib Dems wouldn’t be looking like an ex-party.
I like to think that if, instead of selling his voters for a seat in Cabinet, he had been a Statesman and let his MP’s have a free vote on anything, which they had not committed to in their own manifesto, then Lib Dems might well have cut some of the ground from under UKIP and stole Labour and Tory voter support from those desperately wishing for a democratic government

Party politics isn’t about democratic choice. it’s about jostling for power

May 7, 2014
I sent this as a letter to the Daily Express. It wasn’t published, probably because it ramble’s and it didn’t appeal to a point that they wished to advance:
Despite Ed and Dave wanting to confine the forthcoming election debates to the economy and issues deriving fom that; there are other issues, which voters will base their choices on, regardless of this mock battle.
Obviously, both are having to take account of the public wish for a bit of democracy, by holding a referendum on EU membership. This has been almost entirely because Nigel Farage has exploited the glaring insanities of that membership.
The other issues, which they and Farage have chosen to sideline are related to the Global drive to privatise all State functions.
For voters, privatisation has been a fiasco but has been made more apparent by Dave Cameron’s acceleration of the carving up of the NHS.
The main parties have been squabbling over how much cash has been thrown at the NHS and how some aspects of the NHS have become not only unfit for purpose but harmful to the Public.
They believe that because the awarding of NHS contracts to private companies has been kept low-profile, no-one has noticed.
However, although it has not been widely covered in the mainline Media, that doesn’t not mean it has escaped Public notice via Social Media.
The emergence of the NHAparty etc. will become more difficult to ignore after local elections.
Labour has already become aware of the Public dissatisfaction with the privatised Railways and is considering re-nationalisation of them (Leo McKinstry’s knee-jerk moan about the ’70s won’t carry any weight with Today’s commuters).
It is noticeable that Ed has only commented about stopping further privatisation of the NHS, rather than any re-patriation of it.
He’s possibly worried about the EU’s signing of the TTIP and the EU’s commitment to further alignment with The USA’s medical system.
The privatisation of The Post Office was too obviously a rip-off of Public funds to escape notice. People are more aware that privatisation is not for their benefit.
By 2015, the privatisation of the Police and the use of Traffic Camera’s to raise revenue by the likes of G4S will have become more noticeable to the General Public.
The battle with the Fire Brigade to make it more saleable will have possibly passed, without being greatly noticed but the inability of Government to come up with any means of reining in the Energy Companies and their profiteering will definitely not pass unweighed in the electoral choices.
Strangely, UKIP hasn’t made as much of the EU inspired HS2 vanity as The Public would like but they have their own weak points and may want to focus on other EU failures.
Tories can attack Labour and UKIP on the NHS. Cameron’s EU defence is a paper Tiger that can be shredded by UKIP. Tories would do well not to attack Labour over Rail. Labour would do well to defend the Fire Brigade and actually be more pro-Union (UKIP can’t attack the Unions and Tories shouldn’t, whilst they are sacking so many voters). Tories will try to blame the energy situation on the LibDems (no-one will care about this failed party) and can be attacked by both UKIP and Labour (providing they can come up with a half plausible control measure).
This three party election is going to make the debates much trickier than Ed and Dave were looking forward to.

@DailyMirror @Kevin_Maguire @Fiona_Phillips Benn wouldn’t support @Ed_Miliband

March 16, 2014

There are many voices eulogising (rightly so) Tony Benn and denigrating UKIP’s anti-EU platform.

Many of these voices are those from the Left of politics, for whom UKIP is synomynous with racism.

These people see New Labour as their party, even when its leaders espouse right wing, anti-democratic views.

The British public has shown an interest in having a referendum on EU membership, some on the immigration issue but many on the basis expressed by Tony Benn and quoted in The Daily Mirror:

When I saw how The European Union was developing, it was very obvious what they had in mind was not democratic. In Britain you vote for a Government, so the Government has to listen to you and if you don’t like it, then you can change it.”

I’m a Socialist but I also believe in Democracy and so I’m being forced by New Labour and its apologists to vote UKIP, in 2015.

I may have to vote for them again in 2020, if we are still self-governing.