So I write a letter to my MP...

[Norky]

Good for you, amazing after 23 years as an MP he can have that attitude with a constituent, man is clearly a chopper

Regardless of the contents of your email, it is your right to let your MP know your views

Can you get him to come round for a cup of tea and a chat? That's what they do round here every few months or so

[G4Z]

I doubt after this he is going to want to chat with me.



I might ask him in my next letter.

I was thinking I might start it like this - "hahaha haha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! - welcome to the communication age"

[kalniel]

Surely you should be expecting a phone call from a certain rt hon Mr Brown?

[TheAnimus]

as if he appologises for the labour party!

[G4Z]

Originally Posted by kalniel

Surely you should be expecting a phone call from a certain rt hon Mr Brown?

Well, it occurred to one of my work colleagues that its most likely Mr Brown has read my letter!

If he has then that is is a good thing, I think.

[Stringent]

Originally Posted by G4Z

Well, it occurred to one of my work colleagues that its most likely Mr Brown has read my letter!

True, seeing as it made the news, and in a reputable paper.

Need new thread title. Hexus Poster Scores over MP!

[Lee @ SCAN]

Originally Posted by Norky

Can you get him to come round for a cup of tea and a chat? That's what they do round here every few months or so

These sessions are as much use as a dose of genital herpes on your wedding night

All they give the MP's is a stage to spout their diatribe to people that want to spend their free time listening to them. I went to one once as it was over the road and I had nothing to do and ended walking out as they did not really answer the questions people fired at them, they just hid behind spin and tried to reel out figures and statistics, which we all know are made up.

[G4Z]

One thing slightly getting to me is labelling my letter abusive, I don't think abusive is a very apt word. Offensive is a pretty subjective thing so he can say that if he wants. However abusive implys harsh abusive language and I think to call my letter abusive is an outright lie. I might see if I can push this a bit further and call him out on that somehow.

[Saracen]

Well, so much for our government "listening" to us. My view is that that letter from Mr Clelland is refreshingly honest in that it openly states the contempt with which him and many of his Parliamentary, and most certainly Party, colleagues clearly hold those they represent.

It also clearly exposes the flaw in what this country laughingly pretends is a democracy.

What he's saying is that it's HIS beliefs that matter, and that he can vote how he pleases because he has a mandate by vitrue of being elected. He does NOT. He has a mandate to represent his constituents, not to represent his beliefs.

He may be right in that his beliefs tie in with his constituents, but the rub lies in his statement that he can do so because more than 50% voted for Labour. That does NOT, Mr Clelland, mean that your constituents support everything your party stands for, and it also means, given the voting demographics in your constituency, that the real election you won was not the one where you were elected to Parliament, but the one where you were selected as MP by your party. Because given that demographic, after that it was a done deal.

Democracy in this country is an illusion. We are presented with a Party system whereby even the LibDems as the third party can't break through the status quo. The system is self-correcting in favour of the incumbents, and it takes huge disillusion to unseat them, as happenend eventually with the Tories and looks very like will happen soon with the current bunch.

I don't see me voting LibDem under any circumstances, but I do believe they ought to be more highly represented in Parliament than they are, because they certainly achieve a far greater portion of the vote from the electorate than their percentage of seats would suggest. For that matter, Labour had a far greater proportion of seats, and therefore of power, than they did of the national vote. Representaive? Hah!

We, the people, get a chance to express a view once every five years, and effectively to pick between two alternative governments. Those alternatives set out policies on a whole range of subjects, and we get what boils down to a binary choice. Even then, we risk people voting not for the policies of the winners, but against the losers, perhaps because of a single issue (like Europe), perhaps because of a perception of ineptitude or "sleaze", perhaps because they're bored and want a change or perhaps just because people don't like what's being done in their name and the other lot are the only real choice we're ever given .... regardless of their actual policies.

It seems to me that Labour got in in '97 largely on the back of a vote against the Tories and what they were doing. And it looks equally like the Tories are going to get in next time (and that seems highly likely now) but it still won't be because of what they stand for, but because it's the only practical way to get rid of the smug and arrogant bunch we currently have.

So, our great "democracy" actually consists of lurching from one bunch of self-important muppets to another, electing the one in our desperation to get rid of the other. Then back again.

If we had a real deomocracy, it would enable people to express their views on actual issues. It is, after all, perfectly feasible to agree with a party's stance on a majority of issues, while objecting deeply and vehemently to it's stance on others. You might, for instance, support Labour policies on education and health, while objecting very strongly to their ever-deeper erosioin of OUR civil liberties, be it 42 days or a national ID card and database.

What Mr Clelland clearly fails to appreciate is that just because we're presented with a conjuring trick at the election (pick a card, any card, you've got two to choose from) that does NOT mean that his constituents support either his personal beliefs of his party's stand on every issue. They may simply believe he's the least bad alternative.

Yet he stands on his high horse about his mandate.

The job of an elected representative is to do what he or she believes to be in the best interests of constituents - bearing in mind the preferences they indicated when they voted at the election.

Right? So their only expression of preference is to choose from one of two or at most three realistic prospects for a candidate, who then follows HIS beliefs. How about actually asking the voters what they want? But no. It's for a candidate to do what he "believes" is in their best interests .... whether they want it or not. How patronising can he get? And when one takes the time to object, they get treated with this degree of contempt? That really is a "listening" party you have there, isn't it, Mr Brown?

"Listening" is supposed to mean that our "representives" listen to us (for a change), not that we listen to them as they tell us what's good for us.

It must have escaped your notice but the reason I am in Parliament is precisely because the majority of voters - more than 50% - voted for the Labour Party at the last election.

Firstly, thanks for the patronising defintion of "majority". I'm sure he needed to define that for his consitutent.

More than 50% of Clelland's elecorate (61% I believe) voted for him, but that does NOT imply automatic endorsement of everything either he or his Party stand for.

And THAT is the great electoral fraud. We're presented with that conjuring trick of an election where we are given a choice of, at most, two real cards and then they claim that it's a mandate to do anything they like when we pick one. That isn't democracy - it's a sham.

[digit]

I'm with Badass on this issue bar the name calling part. Far from writing a polite letter expressing your opinion on issues you had with his conduct and current government policies, you make serveral personal attacks against him, come across as rude and extremly forceful. I'm not at all amazed by the response you got back however unjustified you feel it may be.

Its good by all means that you want to raise issues you have about his conduct and how he represents you and others but I can't help but feel you could have been a lot more polite about the whole thing. As a good saying goes: "treat others how you expect to be treated yourself". Had you thought about being a lot more polite in your opening letter to him chances are he might have listened a bit more to what you have said and you would have got a far better reply and response.

[badass]

Originally Posted by G4Z

How on earth does that make me a hypocrite?

I disagree with you about driving 4x4, and I think you are a moron for driving one. I think he is a moron for destroying our civil liberties. If he comes on here to debate with me I would engage him the exact same way I did with you, fact is the communication was not over a forum on the internet and his response to somebody he works for was not proper.

Firstly, its nice to see you've not changed and still lack the self control to engage anyone you disagree with in a polite manner.
Secondly, the hypocracy of getting annoyed an a less than polite response to a less than polite letter when your replies are downright offensive to people you disagree with is somewhat amusing and reflects very badly on you.
Third, you didn't just think I was a moron. You called me one.
Finally, I have never owned a 4x4 and cannot recall ever driving one that wasn't off road at the time.
Your behaviour is similar to that of a sociopath in many ways. Funnily enough, sociopaths often make good salespeople.

P.S. Mr self richeous - I like the way you promised to take my argument apart and still haven't nearly 2 years later.

[joshwa]

Did you know you've been featured on Times Online?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4251867.ece

edit - oops just realised you already knew

How did they find out?

[G4Z]

Please point me to these personal 'attacks'. I attacked his actions and his policy not him personally.

I don't feel his reply was unjustified, just foolish and belligerent, he didn't even attemt to address the issues I raised (well not much anyway).

Saracen, great post mate.

[G4Z]

Originally Posted by badass

Firstly, its nice to see you've not changed and still lack the self control to engage anyone you disagree with in a polite manner.
Secondly, the hypocracy of getting annoyed an a less than polite response to a less than polite letter when your replies are downright offensive to people you disagree with is somewhat amusing and reflects very badly on you.
Third, you didn't just think I was a moron. You called me one.
Finally, I have never owned a 4x4 and cannot recall ever driving one that wasn't off road at the time.
Your behaviour is similar to that of a sociopath in many ways. Funnily enough, sociopaths often make good salespeople.

LOL

Look, don't be crazy I am not upset about his letter in the slightest. I find his conduct inappropriate yes, but I don't feel 'offended' (I have been a bit misquoted there). I am upset about the fact he didn't address any of the issues raised, the fact he wrote it like that is his own stupidity and has allowed me the opportunity to get the issues and his attitude examined by people in my area and for that I am happy.

[G4Z]

Originally Posted by joshwa

Did you know you've been featured on Times Online?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4251867.ece

edit - oops just realised you already knew

How did they find out?

I spoke to just one bloke, he made it all happen.

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by digit

I'm with Badass on this issue bar the name calling part. Far from writing a polite letter expressing your opinion on issues you had with his conduct and current government policies, you make serveral personal attacks against him, come across as rude and extremly forceful. I'm not at all amazed by the response you got back however unjustified you feel it may be.

Its good by all means that you want to raise issues you have about his conduct and how he represents you and others but I can't help but feel you could have been a lot more polite about the whole thing. As a good saying goes: "treat others how you expect to be treated yourself". Had you thought about being a lot more polite in your opening letter to him chances are he might have listened a bit more to what you have said and you would have got a far better reply and response.

I'm of the opposite viewpoint - I am surprised at the response. I'm surprised because I didn't think a politician would be that stupid. Unless, of course, it's arrogance rather than stupidy.

Firstly, on receipt of a letter that genuinely was a personal attack, surely a better response would be to reply that if the sender cares to submit his points absent the abuse, they'll be given due consideration.

Secondly, I can't see any real personal abuse - merely the obvious ire of a constituent who believes his representative isn't doing his job of representing his constiutuent, but (according to the assertions) is merely a party hack toeing the party line.

Thirdly, if that's the worst "abuse" an MP has to deal with, I'd be astonished. Surely they should know better. After all, it amounts, at best, to descending to the same level even if you accept it is abusive. Should an MP behave no better than that playground mentality? Should they not rise above it? Clearly not, in Mr Clelland's opinion, if his letter is evidence.

Fourthly, and it's perhaps the biggy ...... surely an MP should realise that to react in that manner merely provides the media ..... at least up to and including the national papers ..... a Godsend opportunity to show them in a very bad light. And by and large, the media don't need to be given the means, giftwrapped and on a silver platter, and in the MP's own words. At least make the journo's work for the material. Don't gift-wrap it. It's astonishingly naive to provide the ammunition .... unless it's not naivity but arrogance?

There are so many ways that a letter perceived as "abusive" could have been dealt with, not least by a form letter from a secretary just saying it's being considered. In other words, a polite and dismissive brush-off. Instead, he hands his constituent a tool that turns a letter from an irate consitutent into a feature for the national press. Numpty!

And that, if nothing else, is why I think it is both "surprising" and stupid. Politicians have enough trouble dealing with the media that's out to ortray them in a bad light as it is, without painting "kick me here" on their butt then turning round and bending over!

As I said in my post above, it's astonishing to me that an MP should let his arrogance show through so badly as to even consider writing such an intemperate letter. They're supposed to be above that, and it's a sign of New Labour's arrogance in power, and a large part of why I think that power is coming to and end at the next election, that he should commit that reaction to paper. And if that's what he actually wrote down, it makes me wonder what he thought as he wrote it, because I wouldn't mind betting it was more .... erm .... 'emphatic'.