There's an old saying in Parliament: never write something to a constituent you wouldn't want to see on the front page of your local newspaper. The Sun reports this morning that after receiving an abusive letter from a constituent, Labour MP David Clelland sent back a reply telling his constituent to "stick your vote where it best pleases you". The constituent says he is "very offended".
Most MPs would have sent a reply back full of the usual platitudes and ignoring the abuse in the original letter. Good for David Clelland for standing up for himself.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
50 comments:
It annoys me that politicians are expected to take all sorts of abuse and yet if they ever reply in kind they are painted as terrible, even when the other party is a journo. David C gave his constituent what he deserved. Maybe next time the constituent will treat other human beings with a little more respect.
Good for David Clelland for standing up for himself?
I have not read the sun's report of this story Ian. It is also covered in the Times and I see nothing to disagree with what his constituent wrote. It seems to sum up all that is wrong with New Labour these days.
Following your recent support of wee Wendy are you now the blogger of New Labour defence?
Iain
Did you actually read the (reported) correspondence? Seems to me that Clelland did not address the main points raised by his constituent and then went on to insult him.
Sort of typical NuLab arrogance, really. Very similar to one G Brown at PMQs.
If Clelland and his colleagues take that stance who can be surprised if they do not get re-elected? We shall see come Polling Day. And please, let that be soon.
Aren't politicians, particularly New Labour ones, supposed to be better than all of us? Shouldn't they be setting an example at all times? If they want to respond in a way that the rest of us would then perhaps they should be paid the same as the rest of us too.
Good for David Clelland for standing up for himself
Scum like this should remember that their job relies on voters and they, like actors, should take what is thrown at them.
If the likes of YOU don't like it, you should get out of the public eye and stop pretending you represent these horrible people who have the audacity to voice their concerns and keep you in a bloody job.
Just another example, from you and this politician, that politicians are self serving scum.
One wonders what the media response to David C's comment would have been if his constituent had been black?
No calls for David C to follow McGrath then?
I have read the Times article. Seems that the only abuse was the "stick your vote where it best pleases you" from the rude MP.
Oh no! Couldn't possibly have mere voters disagreeing with their masters! Choc! Horreur! How offensive!
Iain: IMHO you have demonstrated (again) that your loyalty to the 'Westminster Village' is stronger than to your own party.
I have read the Times report and I believe that Mr. Clelland's arrogant dismissal of his constituent is more abusive than the constituent's original letter.
In another comment response ('Examples of Hyper Inflation No 94') I see you making a completely over the top response ("... thatr (sic) has to rate as one of the most illinformed (sic) posts on this site. Ever.") to a perfectly reasonable analysis of your original post.
Earlier this week I noted your petulant responses to commenters opposing your position on another subject.
Iain - your judgement is clouded - you appear to have been sucked into the current political class that treats the rest of us, and our opinions, with thinly veiled contempt. Your veil is slipping, and I do not like what is being revealed.
David Clelland did what we, who work in MP's offices long to do, when confronted with an abusive, demanding constituent who thinks that it is their right to insult and abuse MPs and members of staff. Being a public servant does NOT mean that you should have to take abuse from ANYONE. I would bet dollars to donuts that the constituent was a serial offender -who regularly writes book length tomes on his opinions on everything from climate change to the Big Brother AND expects the MP to address each and every one of his points. And then writes back to argue the toss. Their language is never temperate, their tone hectoring and demanding. All of which takes time away from helping constituents in true need such as the ones who have been refused cancer drugs, whose autistic son cannot get into a special school, whose Child Tax Credits have not arrived - in other words, deserving cases.
If you write to your senator or congressman in the US you get an acknowledgement - if you're lucky.
Scum like this should remember that their job relies on voters and they, like actors, should take what is thrown at them.
B***s. A shop assistant's job relies on the patronage of customers, but everyone accepts that they shouldn't have to put up with abuse from an an individual customer. But if a shop assistant is consistently rude to customers and loses the shop profit they will be sacked. Mr Clelland is even more accountable; the shop manager will have the final say on the assistant's job, whatever the customers think, but he has to face his electorate at least every five years.
But the real point is that the constituent thinks he has the right not to be 'offended'. No-one should have that right.
David Clelland is New Labour, so of course to him and his lot the truth is seen as "abusive".
@10.15 - I am probably on such a list at my MPs office, because I dare to write to question her views on important pieces of legislation. But no! We couldn't possibly have MPs answering questions on politics could we?!
The job of an MP is to scrutinise government and legislation and to represent the views of his/her constituents. Too many MPs think that their job is to lean on the public services in order for their constituents to jump the queue. It is not.
This story goes to the heart of the arrogance of the political class as a whole. We do not ask for social workers, we ask for people to hold the government to account.
***Iain - your judgement is clouded - you appear to have been sucked into the current political class that treats the rest of us, and our opinions, with thinly veiled contempt. Your veil is slipping, and I do not like what is being revealed.***
Totally agree. I follow Iain's blog because it's a pleasant change to find a right-of-centre blogger who vaguely resembles a decent human being (the average post on a Guido or Telegraph blog being along the lines of "Harman is an ugly bitch and she can fuck off").
Having said that, Iain's blog is remarkable for how poorly thought through a lot of the stuff he writes is and how rarely Iain actually bothers to back up his opinions with his own ideas.
Iain sees a report that an MP replied rudely to a rude letter from a constituent and rushes to hail his fearless honesty without checking to see if the constituent's letter actually had been that rude.
Then we get the cloying sentimentality and "you scratch my back" of his kneejerk defence of any of his pals who get into trouble (e.g. James McGrath and David Davis) based primarily not on their actions but on the claim that they are nice people. You don't have to be Peter Tatchell to question the assertion that DD is the best friend to gay men everywhere (you only need a copy of Hansard).
Finally, Iain's greatest crime is to have an extra "i" in his name, making it bloody awkward to type.
A desperate post.
In what way is the constituent's letter abusive? Makes me wonder what world these people live in that the MP reacted in that way to such a letter. When I was working for Tory MPs in the early-mid 90s every other letter was worse than that. No doubt the self-importance of many people who write to MPs is grating but if MPs can't stand that, we really have to ask why they're doing the job.
Blue Eyes,
Constituents do expect MPs to be social workers and then complain that they are not legistlating. Of course constituents have the right to make their views known and we are always happy to address these. However, the serial offenders who write regularly and expect an in-depth answers in a day are taking time away from the people who need their MP and making legislation to boot! And then you wonder why the MP's staff bill is so high.
Some of the people who regularly bitch about MPs need a reality check. I would so love to have them shadow an MP and staff to see just how much is done. Yes we are all aware there are rotten apples which should be exorcised but do get real about what's really done around here.
Iain, nothing wrong with the constituents letter, he was questioning whether his MP voted solely on party lines rather than on what is good for his constituents. You seem to have morphed into the same attitude of politicians these days, supporting them in very dubious actions. First it was OK for Wendy to braek the law , now its OK for this MP to criticise a constituent for daring to question his voting record.
This guy should be dumped at the next election , an arrogant useless twat.
You have went down in my opinion recently , must be too much hobnobbing with politicians that is corrupting your reasoning on what is acceptable.
i suggest that the problem may be less the self importance of constituents and more that of the mp (or mep).
Case in point. Just had a call from a constituent who wants the MP to write to the Chief Constable because her ex stole her dog and the local police won't travel 100 miles to London to apprehend him. No use telling her that the police
just may have other priorities and that they don't even come out if you have been burgled because she has 'yuman rites', you know. We now have to write to the Chief Constable which is an utter waste of time and then send his non-answer back to her. Oh and she is going to try and get Legal Aid to fight her ex on the dog-napping charge too.
Whether the letter is abusive or not is irrelevant. (Perosnally I think not, but don't know the background).
But anyone dealing with the public- even the so annoying in your face type - knows politeness at all times is painful but worth doing.
And an MP above all should know if he's rude, he WILL be quoted.
So the MP involved is - provoked or otherwise...- just being plain daft.
As for saying "It should not happen to an MP"... well get used to it. It will happen .. like it or not.
Just swear quietly and keep your temper. That's what I did when dealing with difficult customers..
@11.08 perhaps then MPs should be a bit franker with the people who want help from a social worker? Perhaps a reply along the lines of "this is not the work of an MP"?
I'm sure that MPs have very long days and do lots of work, but it isn't necessarily the work that MPs should be doing.
Unfortunately, there isn't a great deal an individual voter can do if he/she thinks that their MP is not working on the right things, hence people tend to get angry and write letters.
I think he was an idiot. He should have just sent one of these preprinted postcards.
@11.45 why not politely suggest that SHE writes to the Chief Constable?
MP'S are supposed to serve their constituents they hold themselves above the parapet, if thye can't manage a civil answer then they don't deserve to be MP's my local MP is Zanulab and it is all I can do to keep civil tongue in my head when he opens his gob
@11.45 why not politely suggest that SHE writes to the Chief Constable?
Probably because the sort of person that thinks that:
- the police should - or can, or have the time to - drive 100 miles into another borough to pick up a dog
and
- the chief constable should personally be involved,
also thinks that her job is just to complain until someone else fixes her problem. She would regard your suggestion as extremely 'offensive' and - I bet you a pound to a cracked p***pot - would start using phrases like "well, that's very nice...ME write...who does he think he...who pays your...you should be doing your job" ad nauseam.
I don't work in the public sector, but we've all met 'em.
We can't really make a judgement on this until we have seen the letter from the constituent which the MP found so offensive.
This is evidence that this MP doesn't expect to be an MP much longer, and is starting to get demob happy.
Hardly surprising with Labour hitting 25% and down in polls. He might as well tell the word to eff off. It won't make any difference now.
Think the fact that the MP get £150K minimum expenses so that he has some staff may take some of the stress of replying to constituents , unless like many he pays it to his family. No excuse for this toerag or any other MP for that matter, I think with them pocketing around£250K a head , a few letters nasty or not is a small price to pay.
The old advice to write the angry letter...but only think about sending it 24 hours later would help here.
In answer to your questions Blue Eyes, people nowadays have a huge sense of entitlement, fostered by the Lib Dems who have turned MPs into local councillors, social workers etc.
Quite honestly I think it is right that MPs help in cases such as special education, tax credits, cancer drugs - these constituents have been in many cases, messed around by the system, the Government etc and really do need our help - much more so than stroking the ego of someone with so much time on their hands that they can write 6 page letters on their 'views'.
As to the lady with the dog, there is a lot more I wish I could have said to her but telling HER to write to Chief Constable is verboten these days and not one MP is brave enough to make a stand - would you be?
P.S. Blue Eyes - it is all pretty subjective as to what constituents want - some want them in the Chamber all day, others want them solving their problems and others want them engaging in conversation with them.
You simply cannot please all of the people all of the time!
If the reporting in the Times is accurate, then I think Clelland is being pretty arrogant. Annoyingly, I can't find a copy of Scott's original letter. The bits quoted in the Times seem relative inoffensive, but it's hard to tell how selective they've been.
Here's Clelland's response:
http://videos.icnetwork.co.uk/nejournal/lettter.pdf
It seems that Scott was writing to Clelland about firm points of principle that most people round here would probably support.
As such, I'd agree with everyone who says that you haven't looked at this quite closely enough. Any chance of getting hold of the text of the original letter?
Anonymous 1:01
Can you please get this through your head? Staff salaries are NOT expenses nor is a budget to run an office so that we can answer letters to constituents.
Nobody, no matter how much they get paid should have to put up with abuse and I can tell you some of the public get pretty abusive. Getting abused is NOT part of the job description for MPs or staff.
Yes I would!
Do the police respond to plumbing emergencies? Do the AA turn up to to fix a broken mobile phone? A polite "not for us to interfere" type letter would do the job nicely.
anonymous 10:15 AM
You're so right. I think I love you.
I agree with Iain's comments and with Anon who wrote "We can't really make a judgement on this until we have seen the letter from the constituent which the MP found so offensive". I understand that the letters were extremely offensive - the language too offensive for a newspaper like The Times to publish. As a result it may look like David Clelland over-reacted when he did nothing of the sort.
@ Anon 10:15
"David Clelland did what we, who work in MP's offices long to do".
OK, Sunshine. Who's your employer, then? Don't like the job? Talk to the boss, not the goddam customers.
"If you write to your senator or congressman in the US you get an acknowledgement - if you're lucky."
So what? Is this America?
Anon 11:45
"We now have to write to the Chief Constable"
No 'have to' about it. Your boss could quite easily have replied politely refusing. Equally you could have refused to do your boss's bidding. Your choice.
If this is as tough as it gets believe me guys, there's a whole bunch of people ready, able, and willing to take over from you in the corridors of power. You don't like dealing with nutters? Get out of the crazy house that is Parliament and find a monastery or nunnery somewhere. Nutters are everywhere - and I include myself.
Hi All,
I am the constituent in questiona dn you can find my letter here :
http://forums.hexus.net/question-time/141742-so-i-write-letter-my-mp.html
I really don't think there was anything abusive or offensive about it to be perfectly honest.
Also, want to make clear that I have been misquoted a bit, I am not offended by his letter in the slightest only angry that he refused to address any of the points I put to him at all. The fact that he was stupid enough to write to me in that manner was his own stupidity. I am pleased I have been able to use it to raise awareness in Gateshead of what this MP is like and what he stands for.
Blue Eyes - all I can say is that your young age must give you a very black and white view of the world. I'm afraid it just doesn't work like that - you would NEVER tell a constituent to write the letter themselves - not in this universe. Can you imagine the headlines?
anon 3:31 - thank you!
Gary said...
"I am the constituent in question and you can find my letter here :
... I really don't think there was anything abusive or offensive about it to be perfectly honest."
If I were your MP I would find your letter extremely insulting. I am surprised that he was so restrained in his reply.
@5.52
Actually, my previous MP did just that. She wrote to me saying - effectively - I have more important things to be doing than answering your points.
Thanks for your patronising reply though. I hope your boss gets unseated at the next election. I expect he/she will with that attitude amongst his/her staff.
Rupert, I did nothing but attack his voting record and his policy. He had the opprtuinity to defend it, insteead the hyporite sends me an offensive letter and has the cheek to call mine 'abusive'.
If he can't take people challenging your policy and the way you vote then why the hell is an MP?
Although I don't know the fine details of this particular circumstance, I agree that one does sometimes need to state one's position very clearly, if one is an elected member, as I was for eight years.
Occasionally I found it necessary to disagree with my electors (well, on or two of them!) and once or twice be very firm with them. It was the only way I could represent the interests of my electorate as a whole.
Provided that is what drives an elected representative, that is fair enough. If it is a personal agenda or similar, that is not a satisfactory or acceptable excuse; and that should be the primary criterion on which such a person's behaviour is judged.
Gary, How would we know you are the person in question if you hide behind an anonynous ID ? Why do you hide your full profile ?
Isn't the customer always right?
Norfolk, I can't imagine this is such a big story somebody would impersonate me, can you?
Besides, if you read the link I posed it should be pretty clear I am who I say I am.
Anonymous July 02, 2008 10:15 AM said...
"Being a public servant
...
If you write to your senator or congressman in the US you get an acknowledgement - if you're lucky."
In the US senators and congressmen are public servants. If enough constituents write about something those 'servants' will take notice.
In the UK the political process has been hijacked by the arrogant political parties who think the public are there only to be ordered around.
Anon 10:15am
What on earth are you on about? I know for a fact that American senators and congressman do NOT do casework the way UK MPs do.
Gary re your letter - With all due respect it is the tone of your letter that is hectoring and dare I say it - abusive. While I absolutely support many of the things you say and your right to say them, the tone is is accusatory, you accuse the MP of a lack of integrity and being a Party
wimp. I also suspect it was not the first time you wrote to him.
You can have a difference of opinion without being insulting and a refresher course in Politics 101 may also be in order. Voters in this country elect a Party and as such know pretty much in advance what the particular Party stands for - no surprises here. Why would you expect him to vote any other way? You must know that most votes are whipped although there are occasionally free votes for conscience issues.
You accuse your MP of not representing his constituents' views. How do you know? Maybe the majority of his constituents (misguidedly I'll warrant) want ID cards. While an MP should listen to his constituents' views he ultimately must make the decision on which way to vote. There will always be opposing views among his constituents so he will always wind up pissing off somebody.In this case, you.
Also more generally, can everybody who thinks MPs and staff should have to put up with abuse think on this one - MPs represent 50-80,000 people more or less. Do you honestly expect MPs to engage in detailed correspondence with everyone? Of course he has staff who answer on his behalf but we have only a finite amount of time and any MP worth his salt with make sure that what's written actually reflects his views before signing.
No matter what Blue Eyes (who can kiss my bony white Irish ass - so much for being polite!)says the expectations of MPs and their job as such is:
First and foremost legislation - and this includes meetings, briefings, committees etc. MPs usually have pet issues which they also devote time to.
Constituency Casework - which yes, has taken on social work aspects - it is what it is Blue eyes, so get over it.
Constituency Campaigns - post office and hospital closures, issues of local concern etc
and of course correspondence on issues. Maybe now you can understand why there is just not the time to get involved in detailed dialogue with one constituent on a regular basis.
Phew!
DC was elected as a public representative, my understanding of this is that he should resresent the views of his constituents not just his party.
If he feels unable to this then he should step down as MP for his ward.
As to 50% of the people voting for labour he forgets that despite labour being in power most of the population vote largely on the performance of hte party leader.
Can anyone safely say that Gordon Brown would seure the same number of votes as Tony Blair.
Gary's letter was neither offensive or long, it just pointed out the truth as he saw it. The fact that a labour mp was questioned is what offended mr Clelland.
Post a Comment