I will do this but judging by the lack if response I've had from Ruth Edwards (Conservantive in Rushcliffe) on covid driven mandates, I will expect the same response.... ie nothing.
I too have been writing to my Elected MP Mary Robinson. She knocked on my door on Sunday while in the area, we had a very long discussion on the doorstep about the items i have written to her about. One of her comments was 'I will put forward my view in parliament over a majority of my constituents because a lot of people have the wrong opinion' Unbelievable!! i had great satisfaction of telling her I won't be voting for her!!
I'm one of the self fulfilling prophets..or at least someone who is skeptical of letter writing/protesting/petitioning.
My view is that mass mobilisation is what happens when powerful people decide to back causes, and not the other way round. When movements manage to mobilise that against the wishes of the powerful they tend to feel the full force of law (and media). See Canadian truckers.
This isn't to say do nothing, but I struggle to put ANY faith in parliamentarians that lead us hear.
Having said I don't trust politicians (or media), I'm obliged to say who do I trust.
So, I trust the story telling of someone like yourself. I trust the brains of savvy data/quants/energy/ advertising/PR folk who are amongst your supporters and I trust the networks of those same supporters who may just be able to pursuade someone of influence (say from the world of manufacturing) to champion our cause.
This is not an easy problem and I am not well qualified to answer but I think it's important to at least share skepticism of parliamentary focussed efforts.
Letter writing *is* mass mobilisation. Admittedly, it is the most basic level of it. But it nonetheless signals that there are a mass of people ready to commit to some level of engagement.
Ok. Yes, noone has had their bank account frozen for mass participation" letter writing. I stand corrected. I suppose, I was pushing the point that "mass participation" isn't the route to success (but rather the marker of establishment causes). I appreciate this is wildly at odds with Together that you have done much work for.
I happen to think your creative abilities (and your ability to undermine establishment political formulas)are a far more more effective route.
"Is Boris Johnson mad? Like really mad".
There's a reason these line stick in my head Ben and they'll be in my head far longer than any march..
None of this is to take away from the great work you do..but rather a desire to see it succeed.
If I've misunderstood you... I didn't intend to be either/or about it. And you raise a a good point about the trucker's protest. As disappointed as I was that the lockdowns didn't raise more by way of radical opposition in the UK (and what did occur was in itself disappointing occasionally, but that's another story), I think it is notable that the UK government's impositions, whether covid or climate are, or at least have been, far better tested for buy-in than Canadian and Dutch policies. I don't think that will last, however, because they are nutso. But the point I have made to impatient comrades throughout is that climate policies are likely to continue their momentum until that policy agenda extends past some point. In other words: 'no pain, no campaign'. We see the consequences of policy being too blunt across Europe. Net Zero is beginning to bite hard on people, and it's consequently harder for the PR blob to gaslight people into buying "cheaper than gas" and "warmest May ever". The broader debate is completely different to a decade ago. The cancellations, the frozen bank accounts, and the looming 'misinformation' censorship legislation are signs of desperation. As Arendt said, 'real authority means not using it'.
There are many forms of democratic engagement. I suggest we try to champion them all.
I wrote my current MP for his party's view on Net Zero and getting rid of it.
I got an automated email back about parliament being dissolved (will anyone notice?!) and therefore emails might not be read. I couldn't find a constituency based email.
Back in 2000 here in the US we had a presidential election where there was no meaningful choice, Al Gore v George Bush. It all came down to Dade, County, Florida, and a recount was underway that prompted the US Supreme Court to intervene and give the election to Bush. I thought it mattered but it did not, as bush and Gore were two sides of the same counterfeit bill.
In the wake of Dade County the US Congress passed and president Bush signed HAVA, the help America Vote Act, which financed the placement of electronic voting machines in every precinct in the country. The machines were not reliable then, easily hacked, and have not improved to this day. Exit polling showed that the 1984 election was stolen by Bush, so logically they quit doing exit polls. I quit voting after the 1980 election, at least at high levels, and have watched as our national elections are both untrustworthy, and often, like 2022, just thrown out the window as preferred candidates are given the nod. They do not count votes anymore. They don't have to.
We've always had to deal with corruption in elections, but never before has it been as easy as now to steal an outcome.
So don't preach to me about petitions and campaigns and all that stuff. Democracy is an illusion. It only sometimes comes into play when we force it to do so, and I don't see that happening.
"Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses." (Plato, The Republic)
I am 74 and have been actively searching for truth since my young adulthood. I was once politically active, even ran for state legislature (and lost), but the incessant drumbeat of ignorance wore me down. The majority of our world are easily convinced by the most transparent of lies, as with vaccines are safe and votes are counted .... I choose carry on my search but also to float above it all. Life has other rewards outside of political contests.
Ben, I fear this is too long to keep a candidates attention, so needs a minimal bulleted version. I would also ask them what *actual* evidence they have for their 'net zero' support claims (pointing out that assertions, consensus, belief, models, correlation, are *not* evidence, but pure hearsay).
I have written to my MP (Anthony Browne) on numerous occasions pointing out, robustly, but never discourteously, the fallacies of both net zero and covid policies, but just get template responses in response stating govt policy, culminating in the letter saying "I shall no longer be replying to you".
I understand. I'll have a 'bash' a little later. But it does beg the question, how 'bright' (or not) are our candidates. If they are going to be elected and vote in Parliament on these things, then they should have a good understanding (not belief) of the topic.
I think they are, as a species, mostly quite dim. But that's why letters are important. The more they get, the more they will be forced to account for their actions.
Ben, I've edited yours to this, and offer it as an option for whoever wants to use it:
I am writing to you to express my concern about the direction of energy policy, particularly since the Climate Change Act 2008, and would like to know where you stand on:
• Protecting the UK against energy supply geopolitical risks.
• Energy (net zero) policy driving up energy prices, especially for households and SMEs.
• Legally binding emissions target.
• The presumption that ‘green’ policies will drive growth and jobs, as they have so far deindustrialised the UK.
• The lack of new nuclear, considering it’s CO2 (not carbon!) free and highly reliable, and the safest electrical supply technology we have.
• The prohibition of native shale gas and oil.
• The punitively taxing of oil and gas, when our very lives depend in them, and the prohibition on new North Sea exploration.
• The prioritisation of wind and solar, with their inherent intermittency, that cannot possibly supply an industrial economy.
• The claim that wind and solar are ‘cheaper than gas’, when higher, heavily subsidised MWh prices than the wholesale price of gas, needs to be offered, AND still need gas backup, further increasing their cost.
• The mandate of EV and abolition of ICE vehicles in the short term, when EVs and the necessary infrastructure, including charger electrical supply, are not ready.
• The mandate of heat pumps despite generally being vastly inferior and more expensive products.
• The mandate of smart meters as a cover (excuse?) for on-demand pricing.
• The dependence on the Chinese for many of the materials and cheap labour necessary to make these ‘green’ goods, e.g. solar panels, EVs and EV batteries, etc.
• The many of the cited ‘green’ technologies being viable for adoption in the short term when they are still technically and economically juvenile.
• The advocacy of climate policy ‘targets’ in general, including being met in the very short timescales being proposed.
• The ideological climate policies such as net zero being pushed without any public buy-in.
Will you commit to using your voice in Parliament to:
• argue against all these reckless and draconian policies?
• make the case for a rational energy policy: based on nuclear, domestic shale gas, offshore oil and gas, and also coal to support domestic heavy industry?
• reducing taxes on all energy resources, and eliminating subsidies for wind, solar, and other unreliable generators?
Despite claims from green advocates, their policies have manifestly failed, and have harmed the UK economy, industry and household finances.
I hope you can provide definitive, evidence supported and clear answers to these questions in due course, ahead of the upcoming General Election.
But you haven't 'debunked' anything. You have totally failed to even read, much less marshal a 'scientific consensus' with any meaningful grasp of it. Your words are completely hollow.
I will do this but judging by the lack if response I've had from Ruth Edwards (Conservantive in Rushcliffe) on covid driven mandates, I will expect the same response.... ie nothing.
I too have been writing to my Elected MP Mary Robinson. She knocked on my door on Sunday while in the area, we had a very long discussion on the doorstep about the items i have written to her about. One of her comments was 'I will put forward my view in parliament over a majority of my constituents because a lot of people have the wrong opinion' Unbelievable!! i had great satisfaction of telling her I won't be voting for her!!
I'm one of the self fulfilling prophets..or at least someone who is skeptical of letter writing/protesting/petitioning.
My view is that mass mobilisation is what happens when powerful people decide to back causes, and not the other way round. When movements manage to mobilise that against the wishes of the powerful they tend to feel the full force of law (and media). See Canadian truckers.
This isn't to say do nothing, but I struggle to put ANY faith in parliamentarians that lead us hear.
Having said I don't trust politicians (or media), I'm obliged to say who do I trust.
So, I trust the story telling of someone like yourself. I trust the brains of savvy data/quants/energy/ advertising/PR folk who are amongst your supporters and I trust the networks of those same supporters who may just be able to pursuade someone of influence (say from the world of manufacturing) to champion our cause.
This is not an easy problem and I am not well qualified to answer but I think it's important to at least share skepticism of parliamentary focussed efforts.
Keep up the good work.
Letter writing *is* mass mobilisation. Admittedly, it is the most basic level of it. But it nonetheless signals that there are a mass of people ready to commit to some level of engagement.
Ok. Yes, noone has had their bank account frozen for mass participation" letter writing. I stand corrected. I suppose, I was pushing the point that "mass participation" isn't the route to success (but rather the marker of establishment causes). I appreciate this is wildly at odds with Together that you have done much work for.
I happen to think your creative abilities (and your ability to undermine establishment political formulas)are a far more more effective route.
"Is Boris Johnson mad? Like really mad".
There's a reason these line stick in my head Ben and they'll be in my head far longer than any march..
None of this is to take away from the great work you do..but rather a desire to see it succeed.
Cheers.
If I've misunderstood you... I didn't intend to be either/or about it. And you raise a a good point about the trucker's protest. As disappointed as I was that the lockdowns didn't raise more by way of radical opposition in the UK (and what did occur was in itself disappointing occasionally, but that's another story), I think it is notable that the UK government's impositions, whether covid or climate are, or at least have been, far better tested for buy-in than Canadian and Dutch policies. I don't think that will last, however, because they are nutso. But the point I have made to impatient comrades throughout is that climate policies are likely to continue their momentum until that policy agenda extends past some point. In other words: 'no pain, no campaign'. We see the consequences of policy being too blunt across Europe. Net Zero is beginning to bite hard on people, and it's consequently harder for the PR blob to gaslight people into buying "cheaper than gas" and "warmest May ever". The broader debate is completely different to a decade ago. The cancellations, the frozen bank accounts, and the looming 'misinformation' censorship legislation are signs of desperation. As Arendt said, 'real authority means not using it'.
There are many forms of democratic engagement. I suggest we try to champion them all.
Thanks for the letter - I am sending it to my friends and son in the UK!
I wrote my current MP for his party's view on Net Zero and getting rid of it.
I got an automated email back about parliament being dissolved (will anyone notice?!) and therefore emails might not be read. I couldn't find a constituency based email.
Back in 2000 here in the US we had a presidential election where there was no meaningful choice, Al Gore v George Bush. It all came down to Dade, County, Florida, and a recount was underway that prompted the US Supreme Court to intervene and give the election to Bush. I thought it mattered but it did not, as bush and Gore were two sides of the same counterfeit bill.
In the wake of Dade County the US Congress passed and president Bush signed HAVA, the help America Vote Act, which financed the placement of electronic voting machines in every precinct in the country. The machines were not reliable then, easily hacked, and have not improved to this day. Exit polling showed that the 1984 election was stolen by Bush, so logically they quit doing exit polls. I quit voting after the 1980 election, at least at high levels, and have watched as our national elections are both untrustworthy, and often, like 2022, just thrown out the window as preferred candidates are given the nod. They do not count votes anymore. They don't have to.
We've always had to deal with corruption in elections, but never before has it been as easy as now to steal an outcome.
So don't preach to me about petitions and campaigns and all that stuff. Democracy is an illusion. It only sometimes comes into play when we force it to do so, and I don't see that happening.
"It only sometimes comes into play when we force it to do so..."
Then why not engage on that basis, rather than the counsel of despair: "...and I don't see that happening"?
What do you believe is gained by it?
"Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses." (Plato, The Republic)
I am 74 and have been actively searching for truth since my young adulthood. I was once politically active, even ran for state legislature (and lost), but the incessant drumbeat of ignorance wore me down. The majority of our world are easily convinced by the most transparent of lies, as with vaccines are safe and votes are counted .... I choose carry on my search but also to float above it all. Life has other rewards outside of political contests.
Ben, I fear this is too long to keep a candidates attention, so needs a minimal bulleted version. I would also ask them what *actual* evidence they have for their 'net zero' support claims (pointing out that assertions, consensus, belief, models, correlation, are *not* evidence, but pure hearsay).
I have written to my MP (Anthony Browne) on numerous occasions pointing out, robustly, but never discourteously, the fallacies of both net zero and covid policies, but just get template responses in response stating govt policy, culminating in the letter saying "I shall no longer be replying to you".
Sim...
If you believe the letter is not adequate, then it is up to you to draft one that is! That's the point of the template and the post!
I understand. I'll have a 'bash' a little later. But it does beg the question, how 'bright' (or not) are our candidates. If they are going to be elected and vote in Parliament on these things, then they should have a good understanding (not belief) of the topic.
I think they are, as a species, mostly quite dim. But that's why letters are important. The more they get, the more they will be forced to account for their actions.
Ben, I've edited yours to this, and offer it as an option for whoever wants to use it:
I am writing to you to express my concern about the direction of energy policy, particularly since the Climate Change Act 2008, and would like to know where you stand on:
• Protecting the UK against energy supply geopolitical risks.
• Energy (net zero) policy driving up energy prices, especially for households and SMEs.
• Legally binding emissions target.
• The presumption that ‘green’ policies will drive growth and jobs, as they have so far deindustrialised the UK.
• The lack of new nuclear, considering it’s CO2 (not carbon!) free and highly reliable, and the safest electrical supply technology we have.
• The prohibition of native shale gas and oil.
• The punitively taxing of oil and gas, when our very lives depend in them, and the prohibition on new North Sea exploration.
• The prioritisation of wind and solar, with their inherent intermittency, that cannot possibly supply an industrial economy.
• The claim that wind and solar are ‘cheaper than gas’, when higher, heavily subsidised MWh prices than the wholesale price of gas, needs to be offered, AND still need gas backup, further increasing their cost.
• The mandate of EV and abolition of ICE vehicles in the short term, when EVs and the necessary infrastructure, including charger electrical supply, are not ready.
• The mandate of heat pumps despite generally being vastly inferior and more expensive products.
• The mandate of smart meters as a cover (excuse?) for on-demand pricing.
• The dependence on the Chinese for many of the materials and cheap labour necessary to make these ‘green’ goods, e.g. solar panels, EVs and EV batteries, etc.
• The many of the cited ‘green’ technologies being viable for adoption in the short term when they are still technically and economically juvenile.
• The advocacy of climate policy ‘targets’ in general, including being met in the very short timescales being proposed.
• The ideological climate policies such as net zero being pushed without any public buy-in.
Will you commit to using your voice in Parliament to:
• argue against all these reckless and draconian policies?
• make the case for a rational energy policy: based on nuclear, domestic shale gas, offshore oil and gas, and also coal to support domestic heavy industry?
• reducing taxes on all energy resources, and eliminating subsidies for wind, solar, and other unreliable generators?
Despite claims from green advocates, their policies have manifestly failed, and have harmed the UK economy, industry and household finances.
I hope you can provide definitive, evidence supported and clear answers to these questions in due course, ahead of the upcoming General Election.
Yours sincerely
Your Name
Stop spamming please.
If you want to have a conversation, learn to read what you are reacting to.
Wonderful stuff and thank you.
But your pro-forma reply is bullshit, start to finish.
If you want to write a reply, it is good to learn to read and understand the arguments being made.
There were close to 650 MPs like you.
But you haven't 'debunked' anything. You have totally failed to even read, much less marshal a 'scientific consensus' with any meaningful grasp of it. Your words are completely hollow.
You're just mad. You're arguing against a voice in your head. Completely irrational.