Letter to James Lewis

James Lewis is the Labour candidate for Elmet and Rothwell, thus making him, in his words, my “real local choice” in the forthcoming General Election – local, because he grew up in the area, went to school here, and served as a City Councillor for some time. I know all this because he was kind enough to send me a leaflet, printed in far-off Essex, to tell me all about it. It seemed rude not to reply, so:

Dear James,

Thank you for your recent election communication, in which you requested my vote in the forthcoming general election. I’m pleased to note that you would listen and work hard to represent me, and as such I have one or two queries on issues you weren’t able to cover in the brief leaflet:

Digital Economy Bill – This was a poorly drafted bill, debated by MPs who clearly didn’t understand the issues involved and forced through parliament without proper consideration or scrutiny. This would be bad enough in any circumstances, but in the case of controversial measures such as those in clauses 1-18 this is nothing short of disgraceful. The measures, which now have Royal Assent, have the potential to cause untold damage to innocent individuals and businesses, and to stifle the ‘digital economy’ in various ways – all, clearly, done at the behest large media corporations who have failed to understand or adapt to the modern world, and almost certainly will not benefit from the legislation in any case. How would you have voted in relation to this bill, what will you be doing to undo the damage caused, and what will you be doing to ensure this abuse of parliamentary process and mandate to govern is not repeated?

Home Education – Thanks to an awful lot of luck, a great deal of campaigning, and the Conservative party, the government were forced to drop Schedule 1 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill. These provisions were badly drafted, based on a totally flawed report, and in any case totally unnecessary, yet the government ignored all opposition and persisted in trying to rush through these provisions, again with total disregard for proper consultation, scrutiny or parliamentary procedure. Furthermore, they have vowed to reintroduce the same measures in the next session, in the event they are returned to office. In that (admittedly very unlikely) event, what will you be doing to prevent this from happening?

ID Cards – I have never had any difficulty identifying myself when the need has arisen, so I have no need for an ID card. I object to both the idea that I should be legally required to carry one, and that billions of pounds of taxpayer’s money should be spent on facilitating this, despite the fact that it would achieve nothing at all beyond the further expansion of the authoritarian nature of the state. I understand that the Conservatives would put a stop to this project. What is your position on this, and does it differ from your party’s? (And in general, where your position might differ from your party’s, would you be inclined to vote according to your beliefs, or your whip? In other words, are you asking me to vote for you, or the Labour party?)

Drug Policy – I can’t help but notice that the failed policy of prohibition has continued to be followed by the government. Prohibition, now known as ‘the war on drugs’, is clearly a counter-productive policy which provides a lucrative source of income for organised crime, criminalises recreational drug users (who form the majority) and leaves problem drug users (the minority) in danger due to poor quality and contaminated supplies. This would be bad enough in itself, even if vast sums of taxpayer’s money and huge amounts of valuable police time were not expended on this foolish and phoney ‘war’. Such is the level of dogma behind all this that when a respected scientist and government advisor attempts to introduce even a small amount of common sense into the debate, he is promptly sacked by the Home Office. I would welcome your comments on this topic.

Abuse of Parliamentary Process – As I have touched upon in some of the earlier points, I am greatly concerned by the fairly recent, but seemingly growing, abuse of parliamentary process. The number of new laws introduced over the three previous terms of Labour government is truly shocking, and in the hurry to fit in as many as possible we have seen badly drafted legislation and lack of scrutiny, as well as members voting without being present at debates, and even speaking in clear opposition to measures then voting in favour of the bills. In addition, there is an increasing tendency to write ‘skeleton legislation’ along with Statutory Instruments, where the true measures are later filled in and amended as the relevant Minister of the day sees fit, thus circumventing parliament entirely. While I personally believe that the state has little function other than to keep the peace, where laws that restrict the liberty of individuals or place requirements on them are truly necessary, I expect the whole process to be conducted with the thought, care and precision it deserves. I would be interested to learn whether you share my view that things have gone very badly wrong in this department over recent years, and if so what you hope to see change and how you intend to contribute to that change if elected.

Obviously this is just a small and random selection of the issues that concern me, but I’m confident it is a good enough sample for me to gauge your appropriateness for the task of representing me in parliament, and I look forward to your response.

Yours etc.

It turned out to be a bit wordy but I reckon that many words would have fitted on the leaflet, if most of the space wasn’t taken up by publicity photos and VERY LARGE WRITING, but I daresay substance is not what people really want in a leaflet. I don’t expect James Lewis to have time to read my letter during his campaign, let alone reply to it, but writing it kept me amused for a while.