Following my MP’s response regarding Tuesday’s vote, I received another email this morning.
Further to my previous email about South Gloucestershire’s placement in Tier 3 restrictions, as I mentioned the Prime Minister has announced a one-off £1,000 grant for wet-led pubs in Tier 2 and 3 areas. The payment will be paid on top on the existing £3,000 monthly cash grants for businesses and other financial relief. Further guidance will be published soon on the distribution of the grant and the definition of wet-led pubs.
Sigh… That’s really going to help businesses that are haemorrhaging income. A tiny drop in the water isn’t going to make any difference to that. None of which has anything to do with what I said. I merely made a simple point – if he voted with the government to impose draconian measures that will destroy jobs and livelihoods, I will return the favour at the next election.
Nothing here changes that. I will either spoil my paper or if the opportunity presents itself, vote for a minority party.
I do hope this can be of some further reassurance to you at this time.
Sigh…
What would happen if there were more spoiled ballots than votes for the leading candidate? I presume that the guy with the most votes would still get in. If not then what happens if the majority of the constituencies return ‘non of the above’ as a verdict? I know that it isn’t going to happen, is there even a precedent? I’m just curious to know whether there are any procedures in place to deal with it.
I once asked a Labour MP a similar question: What happens if only a small minority of the electorate casts a vote? Just as meetings have to be quorate for votes cast to be determinate, does a percentage of the electorate have to vote? I believe the answer was no. I wonder what would happen if a constituency returned 0 votes but I’ll bet if there were 10 votes cast, all for one candidate, he’d describe it as a decisive victory.
Sadly, it’s all academic.
If only three people in the entire country voted, the party that got the two votes would declare that it had 66% of the vote and a clear mandate. The other party would say that they had lost by only one vote and demand a recount as it was “too close to call”.
Neither of them would get the message.
A pox on all their houses (and in particular, the Houses of parliament).
At least your spineless coward responded to you.
My chickenshit coward didn’t even have the decency to even acknowledge my communication.
He won’t get my vote, ever.
Politics is the art of replying to a question without answering it.
Isn’t it a good thing that we have a magic money tree? I mean, we would be screwed otherwise.
This was a very pleasent surprise
WARBURTON, David
To:
Richard Joyce
Wed, 2 Dec at 15:43
Dear Richard,
Many thanks for taking the time and trouble to get in touch on such an important question. I’m conscious that last night’s vote was one of the most consequential in recent decades: for public health, the resilience of our economy and for the preservation of notions of individual responsibility and liberty. I did vote against the proposed tier system last night and thought it may be helpful to share my reasoning as to why I could not offer my support for this system in its current form.
I very much welcome the constructive approach the Prime Minister has taken in consulting widely within the parliamentary party. We’ve seen additional support offered to those hospitality businesses – such as pubs – which stand to be most severely affected by the continuation of the restrictions we’ve seen. We’ve seen further ground given in other areas, but I remain unconvinced that this tier system struck the right balance between the competing imperatives we’ve faced since March. The need to balance protecting our loved ones from harm and keeping the virus contained and the equally vital need to preserve individual liberty and the means by which people can provide for themselves and pursue their own ambitions.
I have seven key reservations which I outline below – and led me to vote against the tier system. For the sake of clarity I’ve outlined them below in bullet-point form:
1, First, the regulations fail in their essentials. For government regulations to work (which can only be achieved through public consent), they must be clear, and underpinned by cohesive internal logic. But the rules that have been proposed are contradictory and, in many cases, seem almost arbitrary. From last orders at 10pm but 11pm closing (do we all order four rounds at 10pm, or do venues have to pay staff for an hour with no takings?), to the vaguely defined ‘substantial meal’. From allowing soft drinks all day but alcohol only with food, to an astonishingly labyrinthine and impossibly convoluted ‘bubble’ system, with no obvious sense of cause and effect. From work meetings being allowed in public or private places (only for self-employed), to no one allowed to meet from separate households either outdoors or indoors, unless they’re on a train or travelling.
2, I have been asking (both publicly on social media and in private conversations with Ministers) for the data – a cost benefit analysis – which informed the decisions around the Tier system. Apparently the Cabinet Office had been putting this together all weekend for us, which sadly suggests that the data was not the basis for the proposed rules. The crucial question we have to ask ourselves is what is the cost to lives, to livelihoods, to businesses, to mental health, suicides, to all non-Covid related heath and – of course – the future of the economy of the restrictions, against the likely lives saved from those same restrictions.
The ONS have calculated that there will be / will have been 200,000 excess non-Covid deaths caused by the restrictions. This is nearly four times the number of presumed Covid deaths. Bristol University put the figure at 560,000. While I don’t suggest these figures are anything other than an estimate (given the circumstances and fast-moving picture), they should nonetheless give us pause to question the wisdom of continuing a course of action that has produced them.
3, The regional basis for the tiering is problematic. The apparent incidence of Covid-19 is inflated in areas (like our own) that are affected by nearby towns or cities. And many, having had lockdown for a month, find themselves moving into stricter restrictions than were imposed before lockdown. This would seem to imply that lockdown was ineffective. Which itself would imply that the stricter Tier system will also be ineffective. Figures show that the previous Tiered system was having an effect on infections, whereas lockdown did not have a proportionately greater effect. So why will 99% of country continue under effective lockdown?
There is also a clear implication that the Tiers will continue until Easter. This will be devastating to lives and businesses in our area – while costing all of us, and future generations, almost £1 billion a day. It’s imperative that businesses are allowed to open – including those in the hospitality and tourism sector which contribute so much to the economy of the West Country. The restrictions have gone a long way towards the destruction of hospitality and tourism (and much else) in the West Country.
4, The NHS pressure argument is dubious. We have seven unused Nightingale hospitals in England (more in the other countries of the union). The excess deaths are barely above the annual average, and there is capacity even in regular hospitals. But even if the NHS does suffer pressure ,this is not unprecedented – and has been the case every winter for year upon year under successive governments of both main parties. But this has never before been regarded as a reason to make it illegal for people to be allowed to take risks with their health.
5, The data showing massive increases in infections/deaths has been shown to be dubious at almost every turn. For the under 60s, there is a 1 in 300,000 chance of death. For the over 60s, there is a 99% survival rate. For the over 80s, it’s still 90%.
6, There is an alternative to hand – based on individual responsibility that we exercise in our own lives anyway. We should allow the vulnerable to isolate and protect themselves, as with any other virus – no-one suffering from ‘flu goes to visit and then embrace elderly relatives.
7, I have very real anxieties about the precedent that’s being set here: of the state arrogating itself the power to impose such stringent measures on its population when the data upon which this is based is chancy and uncertain. Liberty is like innocence, easy to remove and extremely difficult to regain. And a future government with less benign intentions could easily use this precedent to interfere further – and for malign motives.
So, given the economic, social, health, livelihood, business, mental health costs, the unemployment, insolvencies – each of which is a personal tragedy – I could not, in good conscience, vote to compromise lives and destroy livelihoods. I recognise the pressures under which the Government is operating, and applaud many of the mitigation measures that have been implemented thus far. But I felt impelled to vote against a system which poses such an economic and social threat to our part of Somerset.
I do hope this explains my reasoning for my vote last night and my sincere thanks again for getting in touch.
All good wishes,
David
David Warburton MP
Member of Parliament for Somerton and Frome
01373 580500 | House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA
http://www.davidwarburton.org.uk
From: Richard Joyce
Sent: 29 November 2020 17:43
To: WARBURTON, David
Subject: Destroying our country
Dear Mr Warburton,
Many times throughout history, policymakers have doubled down on their own mistakes, refusing to believe that they were wrong or hoping that somehow doing the wrong thing twice or thrice would somehow make things right. Then it all came crashing down at once and the rulers lost their minds, and sometimes their necks or heads.
Next Tuesday you get the chance to prevent yet more lunacy being inflicted on the country – I hope that you take the opportunity to support your constituents rather than this fact free, totalitarian government – I won’t hold my breath but I doubt that I will ever vote for you again unless you do your job.
Yours Sincerely
R.H. Joyce
Can he be PM please!
Well, that’s a pleasant surprise.
I’ve often thought that if turnout for any election is below 50% then the majority of the electorate do not care to be represented and therefore no MP, councillor, police commissioner, regional member or MEP should be returned.
Said constituency should go unrepresented for 5 years or whatever the term is. It’s what the majority would want after all. And the cost of the representative should go back into local public funds.
That’s quite a good idea. Although I’m very much in favour of putting “None of the above” on every single ballot paper.
Hey, at least you actually got a response. I got nothing.
Which was what I expected, of course.
To give him his due, he always does. Also up until now, he’s been sound.
Longrider
Wondered if you had an opinion on this – apparently BLM cannot be criticised – they are the modern day equivalent of the Inquisition https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.skysports.com/amp/football/news/11735/12152113/millwall-fans-boo-as-players-take-a-knee-in-support-of-fight-against-racial-injustice
I do have an opinion and we need to see more of this. The FA can virtue signal as much as it wants, but the ordinary fans do not want this nonsense and have every right to make their point. Good on them. BLM is a vile organisation and people need to be robust in saying so.
Typical neanderthal behaviour from Millwall fans. Don’t they understand they must accept their political indoctrination without complaint?
Don’t spoil your paper. I know it is counted but there are enough sheep there to vote in whatever is the popular colour rosette in your area.
Vote for someone with policies that the other parties don’t want. If enough of us do that then they will change their ways.
I realise of course that voting for a party like the BNP will lead to trouble but I’m a very much rock the boat kind of guy. A few BNP memebrs in parlament will focus the minds.