The beginning

This blog starts with the 2015 election result.  For me it was a big disappointment.  I expect that, like others of my political persuasion, I went through the many stages of grief that one does on the way to acceptance and as part of that process I decided that I needed to act to counteract my fears of our current overlords.  (Yes, perhaps I've not yet fully accepted but let's not debate that.)

I have a local MP.  I didn't vote for her but I was pleased to see on Twitter she said that she was happy for her constituents to get in touch with her about any issue.  I decided that I should do just that.  She's my MP, my representative.  She needs to know what she's representing.

I have a long list of Conservative policies that I disagree with:
austerity
the bedroom tax
means testing child benefit
legal aid changes
TTIP support
reducing funding to arts councils, sure start centres or pretty much anything
overseeing the longest period of wage repression ever recorded
attacking teachers and civil servants continuously
tuition fee increases
replacing the European Convention of Human Rights with a British Bill of Rights
There are more, I just can't think of them right now.

I decided though that the first thing for me to do would be to establish how my MP, Anne Milton, balances representing her constituents against following the party line.  I felt this would give me insight into the best way to influence her and to mobilise people in the constituency who wish their alternative views to be represented.

My letter goes as follows:

Dear Anne,

Congratulations on your recent re-election.  Although I did not vote for you I was really heartened to hear that you were happy for any of your constituents to get in touch about any issue.  I have a lot of issues with a number of the Conservative party’s policies.  Before going into them I would really like to know your position on the balance between representing your constituents and following your party line? 

I realise that this is an unlikely scenario but say 100% of your constituents informed you that they strongly disagreed with a proposed policy would you vote for or against it?  If the answer is against, then my next question is how high does the percentage need to be to ensure you’ll vote against the party line?  Is 51% sufficient?  If you answer is that you will always vote for your party line can you tell me why you feel this is democratic?

Finally, how do you judge the views of your constituents?  What sort of engagement do you do?  Do you use any metrics to measure opinion?  If so what are they and how can I influence them?

Yours sincerely...

The response came very quickly (within 6 hours):

Dear Natasha, 

Anne says “It’s not quite as simple as that but happy to talk about this”. You’re very welcome to raise any specific points that you are concerned about via email or letter and Anne can raise this with the appropriate Minister or if you want to discuss this with Anne, it may be worth coming to one of her surgeries in Guildford. 

Very best wishes,
Antonia

Although somewhat dismay by the lack of actual answer, I was not disheartened and replied again:

Dear Antonia,

Thank you very much for such a rapid reply. I'm impressed. 

I'd like to talk further; I understand that there's unlikely to be a one size fits all approach. Please can you talk me through the rough process please? It doesn't matter to me if the explanation is complicated- I regularly handle complex information and I'm sure I'll cope.

Yours sincerely

Only to be met with:

Dear Natasha, 

Thank you for your further email. Anne would prefer to talk about this face to face or on the phone. Please let me know if you would be interested in arranging this. 

Very best wishes,
Antonia

This somewhat stymied me.  Why can't I have a written response?  I'm in two minds as to the best response.  My preference for written communication comes in part from being dyslexic- I don't always process information very quickly, having something written gives me time to think about my answer and the next stage of the dialogue in a clear and structured way.  Our preferences are equally valid surely and I'm not sure I'm quite ready to battle wits with a career politician, who presumably has some expertise in smooth talking. answering (or not) questions... In short it's intimidating.  On the other hand, why not, what's the worst that can happen?  I probably won't get as much out of the dialogue as I hoped.  Big deal.  I can write a letter about something else until I get better at the exchange.  Watch this space.