- Did you attend the Mental Health debate in Parliament?
- If not, why did you not attend the debate?
Friday, 6 September 2013
Deluge of e-mails to Jackie Doyle-Price
Below are the full texts of the three e-mails I have sent my MP, Jackie Doyle-Price, this morning (with some additional notes).
Dear Ms Doyle-Price,
I am writing to you to follow up on my request that you attend the Mental Health debate in Parliament several months ago.
A few days prior to the debate, I sent you a request in which I included quite a detailed set of reasons for why your attendance at the debate mattered to me and a little about how my mental health issue affects my day-to-day life to give you an understanding of my concerns and interest regarding the debate. When I finally received a reply from you all I was given was a copy of the Hansard coverage of the debate which, although very thoughtfully provided, did not actually give answers to the questions of whether you were going to go or why you did not attend if you were unable.
As my representative in Parliament, I feel that I should have at least been furnished with the answers to those questions as you are in Parliament to represent the views of your constituents, however many decide to contact you, on issues that affect them. Many of your constituents are in receipt of some kind of service for mental health conditions and attendance at the Mental Health debate in Parliament would have given you some idea of the problems people with mental health issues are faced with.
As you failed to give your answers at the time of my original request, could you please furnish me with the answers now?
I realise that this is a matter of past events, somewhat distant, but I would appreciate a reply.
OK, this letter was a relatively serious one but don't get alarmed we're about to have some fun!
Dear Ms Doyle-Price,
In one of your previous replies to an e-mail I sent you on an issue of concern to myself, you told me that I seemed to have misunderstood your role as an MP and that you were, and excuse me for paraphrasing, not in Parliament to represent the views of your constituents but to run the country from a wider perspective as a whole.
Now, I may be naive with regards to this subject so I was respectfully wondering if you, as a professional politician and highly regarded MP, could explain your role to me so that I may understand because I was always under the impression that it was the Cabinet that took the wider, holistic, nation-wide view and that the rest of the MPs were there to represent their constituents.
As far as I am aware, you do not have a position in the Cabinet and are therefore what I believe is called a ‘back bencher’. I was also under the impression that the extent of a ‘back bench’ MP’s influence was to talk in debates and then vote the way their leader and party wishes them to. Looking at your voting record on They Work For You, a website that keeps a record of such things, I believe that my view of a ‘back bench’ MP’s duties is the correct one. I am, however, merely an interested observer and would appreciate your professional help in understanding the role of an MP properly.
OK, 'respectfully' is taking the piss as I don't respect her in the slightest. I use the term 'professional politician' but what I really mean is 'professional taxpayer-funded leech' and 'highly regarded' refers to her own opinion of herself.
You could almost believe I was sucking up with this one but I was trying to point out that she's nothing but a Tory drone who has no real power and no mind of her own. Of course, I did it in a way that I don't think she could take offense at (although with politicians you never can tell).
Dear Ms Doyle-Price,
With regards to your reply of 30 August concerning your refusal to attend the MPCA assessment learning exercise, I was wondering why you spoke at length about the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) but did not actually mention the MPCA to which my letter referred.
I was also wondering if you worked very closely with Mr Metcalfe, MP for South Basildon and East Thurrock, as your replies were almost completely identical which in some way implies that it is a letter written by Conservative Central Office and tweaked by individual MPs. I understand that most of the letters you get from me are generic, pre-generated ones but I am not a very good letter writer and I believe that, as long as the concern is registered with yourself, the standard letter will suffice. I do believe though, that any reply should be a personal one that reflects one’s own opinions and reasons and not just state the ‘Party line’ because people do not need to write to you to get the Government’s views on any matter.
I also believe that the letter you sent ended rather abruptly and begged for a short concluding paragraph, in my humble opinion.
I did, however, like the way that you included a kiss at the bottom next to your signature which made me feel all nice and warm inside.
PS – I humbly apologise for the excessive correspondence. I do realise that this is the third e-mail you have received from me today but I believe in covering the issues in separate letters as a matter of courtesy and because my mental health condition will not let me work in any other way.
First paragraph - serious point. Second paragraph - more 'you're nothing but a Tory drone' but in a non-offensive way and me playing the poor ignorant pleb she obviously sees me as. Third paragraph - well that's what happens when you cut a paste a Tory Central Office reply and have no idea how to write a letter. Paragraph four - this made me giggle because I had my tongue so far into my cheek at this line I really thought I was about to cut a hole right through it.
As for the postscript, I don't really apologise. I prefer to deal with separate issues separately.
As always, if I get a reply to any or all of the e-mails, I will post a scanned copy of it on here (if it's sent by post) or cut-and-paste (without editing) if she e-mails.