Dear Chloe Smith

I received a letter today from the youthful and enthusiastic MP for Norwich North, Chloe Smith. As my local Member of Parliament, Chloe clearly feels a responsibility to inform me from time to time what she's been up to on my behalf, and she wrote me such a charming letter that I had to reproduce it here for your benefit, along with the response that I would make to her. For your ease of reading, I have placed Chloe's text in red text and my own response/comments in normal text.

Letter begins:

Dear Resident, it's an honour to be your Member of Parliament.

Thank you Chloe, it's an honour to receive your letter and I look forward to many hours of dedicated service from you.

I'm working hard for you here at home and away at Westminster.

That's good to know. It's so hard for a constituent to gain some idea of an MP's effectiveness. I note from official statistics at www.theyworkforyou.com that you haven't spoken in a single commons debate this year or received an answer to an official written question. However, you are one of a handful of MPs to have attended every one of the twenty-six meetings of the Welfare Reform Bill Committee, which shows a certain level of commitment, and possibly a degree of masochism.

Times are hard at present.

It's good that you've noticed this. You may wish to suggest to Mr Cameron that he come up with some way to assist the poorest and most vulnerable in our society, as they're the ones really feeling the pinch just now.

Everyone knows that the country is in a shocking financial state.

It's good that you've noticed this as well. While you're communicating the previous comment to Mr Cameron, you may wish to ask Mr Osborne to do something to resolve the issue. And when I say something, I mean something a bit more creative than simply cutting the budget of every government department and local authority that looks at him in a funny way.


We have seen the biggest reckless overspend in our peacetime history.

Your Blairite predecessors used a trillion pounds of public money to sustain the immoral activities of a number of key financial institutions whose continued survival is nonetheless inextricably linked to the future economic prosperity of the nation. It's not ideal, but we can't say for sure that we wouldn't be in a worse mess if this hadn't happened. Plus there's always the chance that in the long run, we may see some return on our investment. Oh, and prominent workers from these same financial institutions are responsible for more than 50% of the donations that support the activities of your political party.

Actually, when you read it back, it does look like a right mess, doesn't it?

This is why we have to look so carefully at everything the nation spends.

That is indeed one way to resolve the deficit crisis. The other is to increase direct and indirect taxation. Arguably, your party has looked at this by raising VAT, but the benefit of this has been cancelled out by the reduction in corporation tax which has been offered as a financial stimulus to increase growth potential for business. It's a sound idea and I applaud it, but there are other opportunities for increasing taxation on those with massively high incomes, and closing tax loopholes to ensure that both business and individuals who generate income in the UK pay their fair share of taxes here too. I remind you that we are all in this together, so if you could look into that, it would be much appreciated.

It's like a credit card: when you run up massive credit card bills, the longer you leave it, the worse it gets.

Except in this case, it's the banks that owe large sums of money to us, rather than the other way round. There are of course a myriad of ways to make savings, such as cutting down on luxury expenses. For me, this makes your decision to vote in favour of replacing the Trident nuclear deterrent system a strange one.

If we don't take steps now to live within our means we'll end up paying higher taxes or making deeper spending cuts to pay off the debt.

I realise this kind of blanket missive isn't intended to go into great detail about the functional deficit but the use of the credit card analogy neatly explains the concept without actually providing a lot of useful information. Our debt is approximately 80% of our GDP, a substantial sum and apparent justification for much of the government's activities. However, that still ranks well below the average level of debt as a percentage of GDP in Europe, with riot-stricken Greece in debt to the tune of a scorching 150% of its GDP. In national terms, the interest on our debt is annoying but certainly not unmanageable, and it is wrong that social care and education, two cornerstones of civilised society, should face cuts on the scale that they have. Modern Conservatives are all in favour of redistributing powers via a localist agenda - this should include the power to set council tax rises where residents feel that this would be a suitable alternative to cuts in vital services.

I will work hard for more jobs for Norwich.

We appreciate your efforts. It's a shame that those same banks we discussed earlier don't appear to wish to lend money to new business ventures. Given that the Chancellor's whole policy for increasing investment in the UK comes from a simplistic 'reduce-corporation-tax-and-wait' perspective, perhaps you could suggest an alternative approach?

I will continue to stand up for public services whenever I reasonably can.

So does this mean you'll be voting against the government's plans for pension reform?

I will stay on the case of local councils to stick up for council tax payers.

Though I'm sure you will also view the needs of those councils sympathetically and petition national government to divert the necessary money to local authorities in Norwich to ensure that those local people who need services can receive them in a timely manner.

I like to be my own woman.

No-one here will ask you to be anybody else's. If you ever actually read this reply and it seems glib in places, perhaps you will consider this at least to be a serious response - don't be afraid to stand up for your constituents, even if it means going against your government. There are serious issues to consider here and it's vital that Norwich residents can bank on you doing what is right for them, rather than what is convenient for your party.

We sincerely wish you all the best - after all, your success is ours too.

My Message to the 1%...

I'm struggling a bit this week, used as I am to my daily diet of Facebook, blogs and tweets from UKUncut about whichever Vodafone branch they have occupied today. My beautiful desktop computer, which is without doubt my closest friend bar none, failed me on Monday this week when the hard drive pitched out and I am now surviving by borrowing laptops for an hour here and there and licking batteries whenever I get bored - which is often.

On my rare forays onto the internet, there is a Facebook group I have seen this week which has made me sad. It is titled as follows: "Doesn't make sense does it?? Homeless go without eating. Elderly go without needed medicines. Mentally ill go without treatment. Troops go without proper equipment. Veterans go without the benefits they were promised. Yet we donate billions to other countries before helping our own first. 1% will re-post and 99% wont. Have... the guts to re-post this. I KNOW I'm in the 1%"

Now, there are a whole host of reasons why this upsets me. I'm going to go through them quickly, because I could rant about this for days, but here goes. Firstly, homeless people may go without eating, but primarily they go without a home. This is a simple inequality and true frustration should be aimed at people who have obtained obscene wealth and multiple homes through self-interest and duplicitous behaviour. Alternatively, you could pick on foreign aid organisations, who are only wasting money on such worthless projects as supplying clean water to fellow human beings. Choose the targets of your anger carefully.

Secondly, elderly people generally don't go without much needed medicines - in fact, quite the opposite. Many are abandoned in uncaring residential homes and medicated as an alternative to being socially stimulated. They are also given antibiotics by the bucketload that they simply don't need - this is why we have superbugs such as MRSA popping up in our hospitals. If you really care about the elderly, do something positive and write to your MP and David Cameron and demand that they increase spending in real terms on the NHS and social care. Believe me, this is a cause that really needs your support. Now, I'll be truly amazed if the '1% who post this message' actually strive to do something constructive.

The mentally-ill do sometimes go without treatment, it's true, but the argument for the increase in real-terms NHS-funding covers this as well, so I'm satisfied that we're all reading from the same hymnsheet. Let's move onto soldiers.

I struggle to see why the UK needs a standing army. We have no resources worth seizing and no enemies who would regard invasion as worth the effort. We continue to kid ourselves that the UK has a role to play in policing the world's fragile democracies, with the irony being that the money we waste on sending young men to be pointlessly killed would be far better spent on social projects to help those in need, increasing our diplomatic standing with the countries in question. Every pound we spend on trying to secure a supply of oil for the next decade could surely be better spent on developing alternative energy sources that could free us from our dependence on the whims of other countries.

This does not change the fact that our soldiers should expect high-quality equipment. However, the UK is no longer a major military player on the world stage, and with the stakes so high, intelligent youngsters considering joining the army should wonder if the country really has their best interests at heart.

This leads me onto the final point I would like to make - the group does not offer any mathematical basis for removing foreign aid. Billions of pounds were indeed spent on foreign aid last year - six billion, in fact. Consider the fact that the UK spends over £700 billion every year - and somehow found £800 billion more to bail out the banking system.

In the context of the world at large, will the six billion we spent on foreign aid last year make any difference? This does not even consider the ridiculous sums the UK makes from third world countries, providing loans and receiving debt interest through the World Bank and IMF, and without considering the social consequences thereof. Haiti is still suffering from the after-effects of the devastating earthquake there last year. Australia, Brazil and Sri Lanka have suffered hundreds of deaths due to flooding in the past few weeks alone. Are we truly saying that we are happy to spend £800 billion on compensating for the auspices of the world's wealthiest and least-deserving, but that we begrudge the £6 billion we give to the entire rest of the human race? Because if we are, we should truly be ashamed.

Tie Your Ribbon To The Right Tree

Three days of the four-day weekend have gone, and I have to admit that I've had a wonderful time so far. Norwich City might have been cheated by some truly awful refereeing decisions on Friday, but my poker game has been going well, the French Market has supplied me with some top-notch food and I've spent my time in excellent company.

I want to take this chance to shout out for BBC2 as well. While other channels continue to commission pointless reality TV and Z-list celebrity shows, BBC2 leads the way for quality broadcasting. This evening alone sees Simon Reeve studying religious tension along the Tropic of Cancer and Professor Brian Cox in his quite excellent show about how the laws of nature apply throughout the solar system. Turn off the phone and get on iPlayer now.

I promised that my blog earlier this week would not be about the general election...but it turns out that I'm more eager to talk about it than I thought at the time. I have no secret line to Government, but the hustings have been cleared and it seems likely to me that on 6 May 2010, one-third (or thereabouts) of the population of the UK will make a choice of government that will hopefully see an end to the economic recession.

At this point I believe I should point out that the suggestion that only one-third of the population will bother to vote is entirely my own estimate. Nonetheless I would imagine that even the most optimistic observer would struggle to believe that the turn out will be in excess of 50%. This is a sobering thought, as it suggests that half the country either cannot decide or don't care who will lead them for the next four years. It would be easy for me to sceptically suggest that contained within the set of '40 million people who do not vote in general elections' there will be a significant subset who also fall into the '20 million people who do vote in Pop Idol' category, but this is perhaps missing the point.

The low turnout is critical for the UK, as numbers have dwindled in successive elections and the reducing turnout weakens our democracy. This is beneficial for extremist parties such as the British National Party, who rely on a small but dedicated hardcore of supporters who are frustrated with the perceived failings of the main political parties. If for no other reason, we all have the responsibility of voting to deny extremists the chance of benefiting from such opportunism.

Low turnouts also suggest a high degree of apathy within the electorate. Of course, with the ongoing MP expenses scandals, it is hard to be critical of those who don't vote because they feel that politicians are all crooked and self-serving. Despite the stories, I really feel that this is little more than apologism for laziness. I simply do not believe that all British politicians are in it for the perks of the post. This is not to say that there aren't individuals who are, of course, but I would imagine that most MPs are dedicated and hard-working individuals who really want the best for this country and for their constituents.

Compared to the average British voter, I would consider myself to be an intelligent and knowledgeable person with a high degree of political awareness. Among my friends, there are many keen political observers and I am fortunate that their opinions and knowledge ultimately challenge and enhance my own. However, even after watching the news and studying the literature, I openly admit that I have struggled to find what the main parties these days actually stand for. The political billboards are all about image and media capital - primarily, the content tends towards mocking the opposition parties rather than championing the success of one's own. One notable friend, coincidentally a candidate in the last local election, describes it as 'the usual bunch of public schoolboys teasing each other in the playground'.

I'm thankful then, that there are sites like http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/survey. Rather than decide where your vote should go based on personalities, you can read summaries of half a dozen manifestos, broken down by subject, without knowing which one belongs to which party. You then select which policies you like for each subject, and the site then tells you which party you have supported with your choices. I would actively encourage anyone who will be voting in the forthcoming election to give the site a try, and you may just be surprised - a lifetime Labour voter, my preferences matched a measly 1 in 9 of their policies this time round.

The results overwhelmingly pointed towards one party at the expense of the others, and on polling day I will therefore be flying the flag for the Green Party with pride. It makes me wonder just how the different the outcome might be if all voters were asked to complete the survey at the link above rather than just being given a voting slip.