Well, that's alright then

 Dear Richard ,

Thank you for taking the time to contact me and for sharing your views on the former Prime Minister and future decision-making with me.

I am always grateful to hear my constituents’ views on important matters such as those that you have raised in your email.

Please rest assured that I have taken your points on board and that I shall raise them with ministerial and parliamentary colleagues alike for their consideration.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.

Best wishes,
  

Angela Richardson MP

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

 The next email:

Dear Ms Richardson,

Now that the question of the next incumbent of No 10 Downing Street has been settled may I raise the issue of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill which has its 2nd reading on Tuesday? In the words of Teresa May, retention of EU law after Brexit would "provide maximum certainty........It will be for democratically elected representatives in the UK to decide on any changes to that law, after full scrutiny and proper debate". The Bill provides that this scrutiny shall be carried out by the end of 2023, just 433 days away. Given that there are some 2400 pieces of REUL I find it difficult that believe that this artificial deadline provides sufficient time to fully and properly assess each piece of legislation. After all, there are some extremely important laws to be considered such as:

Setting minimum standards to ensure that aircraft are safe to fly;
Banning the use of cancer causing chemicals in cosmetics;
Protection for part-time workers so that they are not less well treated than their full-time colleagues;
Compensation for travellers in cases of delays and lost luggage;
Protection for staff pensions when a company goes into liquidation;
A ban on the trafficking of illegal weapons;
Minimum requirements for maternity pay.

It may well be that it is agreed that all of the above will be retained, or replaced with suitable alternatives, but the self-imposed sunset clause, which really has nothing to do with Brexit - that has already happened, risks all manner of unexpected consequences. Furthermore, this Damoclean sword hanging over legislation that UK governments of all colours have thought perfectly sensible in the past, can hardly be considered as "providing maximum certainty". Indeed, the vacuum that one encounters when looking for any specifics concerning which regulations might be radically altered or scrapped, can hardly be regarded as providing "maximum certainty". The events of the last couple of weeks have clearly show that lack of certainty can have major consequences.

This Bill should be scrapped.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Bawden

Fracking Debate Debacle

 Just when you might have thought it could not become any more shambolic along comes yet another farrago - although one should perhaps acknowledge it was an obvious trap for the Opposition to set. Fracking should be dead in the water (and, indeed, on land, ho, ho) by now but for the weaselly wording surrounding the Government's moratorium. Well, that's come back to haunt them.

The Prime Minister!!!

 Another little email to my MP:

Dear Ms Richardson,

Thank you for pointing out so clearly that the current incumbent of No 10 Downing Street should not continue as the Prime Minister of this country. At the start of the Conservative Party leadership process in July I wrote to you setting out what I believe to be five essential criteria upon which to judge anyone aspiring to the role (seven criteria if one separates the three existential risks of climate change, biodiversity destruction and pollution). Ms Truss has spectacularly failed to live up to those criteria.

As a replacement is being contemplated perhaps it is time to view those eligibility criteria from a different angle - i.e. the ethics of governmental decisions in the context of their effect upon future generations. It is a well known fact that there are more humans living today than the sum total of all those who have lived in the past. Barring catastrophe there will be many more humans in the future than are alive today. Do those future generations matter as much as today's? I suggest that they do. Is it ethically any different that an action I take today harms someone today or a member of a future generation? I suggest that there's no difference. That leads one to the conclusion that decisions taken today should be done in light of avoiding harm to any of our descendants. So, we should not be devouring physical resources at an unsustainable rate; we should not be littering the world with untreatable waste; we should not be deliberately driving other species to extinction; we should not be acidifying our waters. Rather our decisions need to be taken with respect and care for the interests not only of the current generation but also for those of future generations. I suggest that this includes seeking means of eradicating poverty and hunger without trashing our environment; of eliminating racism and discrimination; of securing biosecurity to avoid a future pandemic; of reducing the threat of war - the list goes on. A Prime Minister whose leadership is governed by these principles will be a Prime Minister to cherish.

Yours sincerely