War-on-Freedom.com

In case it isn't obvious, we no longer live in a democracy.

However, we get one chance every 5 years to make the government listen.

If, like most of the country, we think Blair should go, we must vote tactically. If we believe in democracy, ironically we must still vote tactically. More importantly, we must persuade as many people as possible to vote tactically.

Labour's claim that tactical voting will let the Tories back in is yet another lie. As electoral analysis shows, for the Tories to have any power whatsoever, they would have to poll 10.3% higher than Labour, requiring a further swing of ~16% ie. nothing to worry about.

What we are looking for is a Tory vote 1-9% higher than Labour. This will force Labour to form a coalition with the LibDems in return for electoral reform.

Here are two websites that make it easy for you to vote tactically:

The first simply tells you the most likely non-Labour candidate to win in your constituency. The second gives you much more detail, reflecting current polls but is definitively anti-war.

Under our current electoral system, your vote only counts if your candidate wins. Therefore, it is pointless voting unless you vote for a candidate who can win.

New Labour lied yet again when they promised a referendum on proportional representation in 1997. They did set up a commission which recommended the AV+ electoral system similar to that used in Scotland, Wales and Australia.

Posted by Dave at 11:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Given the Tories' failure to select a figurehead who actually comes across OK on TV, their election campaign has been as brilliant as Labour's has been a disaster.

The Tories have been highlighting very emotive issues to grab headlines and take the initiative from Labour. Although cases like Margaret Dixon could have happened under any government, it promoted a public debate on a major failing of this government: despite the billions pumped into the NHS, it is just as bad as it was under the Tories.

Labour today announced that the Tories' long-time spending plans do not match theirs, trying to spin this into '£35 billion worth of cuts to health & education'.

This shows exactly how stupid Blair thinks the public are.

Furthermore, the Tories merely have to reframe it as '£35 billion savings on public sector waste' and the media debate will back up their claim.

Posted by Dave at 08:34 PM | Permalink

Sent to my MP, Valerie Davey, courtesy of http://www.faxyourmp.com/

Thank you for your letter of 3rd March.

I agree that in the next 50 years, a WMD-type scenario in Britain is
likely and we should be prepared for it. Indeed it is better to be
prepared for it now, rather than rushing in overzealous legislation
when it's too late. Preparation also includes extra emergency services
on standby which, as I understand it, we simply don't have.

Compared to ID cards, control orders is a fairly simple issue,
understandable through weighing up 4 issues:

1. Immediate Level of Terrorist Threat - many experts doubt Sir John
Stevens' sensationalist News of the World assertion that up to 200
Al-Qaeda terrorists are waiting to strike Britain. If that was the
case, I believe that we'd have more than 11 detainees in Belmarsh (none
of whom are apparently dangerous enough to hold under house arrest
anyway). We'd also have more convictions than the accomplice of the
incompetent 'shoe bomber'. We'd have more evidence of close-calls.
And since it will be near-impossible to prove Sir John wrong, his
reputation isn't on the line.

Mr Blair already has a track record of pressuring third parties into
helping him to deliberately exaggerate dubious evidence to justify his
preconceived notions.

2. Due Process - the Bill breaks 900 years of Habeas Corpus and the
notion of innocence until proven guilty. Since police can detain
anyone for 36 hours anyway, it's inconceivable that a private court
hearing could not be arranged within that time. If evidence against
the suspect must be withheld from the suspect, such measures must be
deemed proportional by an objective (and hence accountable) judge.
Since evidence may well include that obtained under torture, I believe
that all evidence should be brought before a judge before any control
order is imposed.

3. Accountability - without any personal responsibility (ie potential
loss to the judge/Home Secretary), there is nothing to stop abuse of
these laws. In light of claims of needs for secrecy, it is easy to
imagine control orders being imposed irresponsibly.

4. Abusability - the capacity for the laws to be used in ways not
justified by the Threat. The government proposals are still extremely
abusable. In addition to the dangers I mentioned in my last letter,
section 1(2) of the bill states:

"A control order may impose ANY OBLIGATION on the individual against
whom it is made that the Secretary of State considers necessary..."

Just imagine what Mugabe would do with such power.

Asked whether Home Secretary Charles Clarke would use the new
anti-terror laws against G8 protesters, our Prime Minister said: "I
couldn't rule it out". As somebody who'd MUCH rather be getting on
with my life than pouring over the fine print of the latest draconian
Bill, I am seriously concerned by this comment.

Nor does needing a judge's signature do much to stop potential abusers.
But at least it's a move in the right direction.

I congratulate you for voting for Amendment 4. I also hope that you
voted for every single amendment returned by the House of Lords. The
balance of probability amendment is especially important. It is better
than 'reasonable suspicion' as it is unlikely that any judge could
argue that the Home Secretary is unreasonably suspicious.

In regards to the Emergency Powers already granted to ministers by the
Civil Contingencies Act 2004: section 2, I want to make sure you
understand that even a government Party Whip could orally declare an
Emergency and "make provision of any kind that could be made by Act of
Parliament or by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative."

Did you know that Britain is now a few spoken words away from a legal
dictatorship?

Posted by Dave at 04:01 PM | Permalink

Kenneth Clarke said the proceedings were "a complete outrage" and the Government was treating the Commons with "intolerable contempt".

“It is something which undermines the liberties of each and every one of us and this House should have no part of it” – Tory former Cabinet minister Douglas Hogg.

Dominic Grieve said the committee stage of the bill had been "completely corrupted." On control orders - “Unpleasant, repellent and disgusting.”

Mark Oaten said the home secretary's letter made a "nonsense" of the Commons proceedings.

The Prime Minister’s wife, Cherie Blair is said to be "vehemently opposed" to her husband’s plans to place terror suspects under house arrest at the behest of the Home Secretary.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick said ministers "have produced this illiberal Bill and told us that, unless it is passed by March 14, the heavens will fall. I do not believe it."

Lord Kingsland: “We do not like what the Government has done from first to last"

The Earl of Onslow said: "This is not a bill to reorganise Scunthorpe borough council! We are being asked to overturn 800 years of British history!" and “I personally hope (the Government) does not get this Bill at all. It is a rotten, stinking Bill.”

Lord Peyton of Yeovil said: “I am an extremely reluctant passenger in the vehicle which my noble friend is driving.”

Cabinet Minister Lord Peyton of Yeovil protested that the Lords was being treated by the Government “as its washpot” and "We have been reminded over and over again that we are inferior to! And subordinate to! The other place! Now we have been put into the driving seat. I believe it is an impertinence!"

96-year-old former MP Lord Renton said that in all his 60 years in Parliament he had never witnessed the way in which the Government was conducting a Bill of such national importance.

The Bishop of Worcester, the Rt Rev Peter Selby, condemned the legislation as representing a "victory for terrorists", declaring that it threatened the "spirit" of British life.

The Liberal Democrat Lord Goodhart said: "It is entirely wrong that the Home Secretary, or indeed the courts, should have power to restrict liberty in ways that are not specifically authorised by Parliament. The Government needs to sit down with the opposition parties and work out what it can legitimately do in the 10 days before the anti-terrorism Act runs out of time. What it cannot do is force this Bill on us. That would be an affront to the constitution."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns, the Conservative home affairs spokesman, said: "It was a shocking way to treat the elected chamber by a Home Secretary who has legislated in such haste that we face the very real danger of getting the proposals in this Bill wrong."

"Security is no justification for the breach of the fundamental principles which underpin our democratic system. No deprivation of liberty by ministerial say so, no midnight secret knock on the door, no gulags whether in Siberia or in Guantanamo." - Lord Thomas, Liberal Democrat, former High Court judge.

"When you are dealing with the orders that are to be made to keep a person in his own house, when you are basically destroying his liberty albeit for a short time, then the burden of proof should be the ordinary criminal standard - beyond reasonable doubt." - Lord Ackner, former law lord.

"Throughout modern history, our sea defences against unfair executive power have been serially attacked by the threat of erosion. The executive, like the sea, will always come back. Provisions that commit such wide incursions into liberty as these do need to be examined by other minds as well [as the police and security services]." - Lord Mayhew, Conservative, former attorney general.

"The Home Office practice now is to bring forward new legislation which is absolutely abhorrent and totally disgraceful in its abuse of civil liberties and then, when there is uproar, replace it with something only slightly less abhorrent and tell us a major concession has been made. The concession being made should provide this House with no comfort." - Baroness Kennedy, Labour, human rights barrister.

Cabinet Minister Lord Forsyth said: “I really would like to protest in the strongest possible terms.

“It is ironic that we should be here to save the Government’s bacon, pursuing procedures which are unheard of and which are making it impossible for this place to do its job properly.”

Any others, please let me know.

PS. I suspect the ID Card Bill would have even worse criticism if anyone understood it.

Posted by Dave at 03:21 AM | Permalink