There are 9 candidates in my constituency. I wrote to the 7 who provided email addresses for their candidate, but haven't heard back from any of them. I'm quite disappointed in the 3 independents, as I'd have thought they'd be scrabbling for every vote they can get, and all they have to do is say they're against lockdowns and coercion - the fact that they don't implies that they're not.
That really is disappointing. Independents absolutely should be responding and as you say, that they don't speaks volumes. It might be worth sending your message again, because there's a chance some of them are so swamped with emails, they missed yours. Sending again did prompt a reply for me out of Andrew Cooper (Green) - a terrible reply, yes, but at least I do now clearly know where he stands!
I did as you suggested, and this time one of the independents replied almost immediately:
"Dear Mike
Thank you for the reminder and I apologise for not replying earlier.
I am not an expert on this subject, nor have I studied it in a great detail, but at the time I had severe misgivings about the first lockdown, its restrictions on personal freedoms and the efficacy of it. That scepticism remains.
I do feel now that, in hindsight, a more multi-targeted approach should have been implemented, after all it was certain groups that were much the more vulnerable & the damage we did to people's mental health especially young people and the damage to businesses and economy was probably immense.
So to answer your first question directly, no I would not immediately and reflexively support another national lockdown in similar circumstances to 2020 covid-19.
As for the imposition of mandates - wearing masks, distance keeping etc - I am currently ambivalent about this and I would have to hear the evidence from medical and scientific experts.
I would add that ultimately the government has to protect the public in general and at the end of the day a decision does have to be made having regard to a broad perspective of medical and scientific advice. It is somewhat difficult for a lay person to resist or contradict such advice emanating from such lofty positions. I hope my comments answer your questions Mike"
It's very weak, but at least he had the decency to reply, and a reminder that most people, despite suffering serious cognitive dissonance, are still willing to give the mainstream narrative the benefit of the doubt. I replied at some length with (I hope) reasonably-expressed arguments (nothing about freemasons and depopulation anyway) that I hope will have made an impression. As I said, I'm inclined to vote for him just on the basis that he's the only one who took the trouble to reply.
Where I live in West Oxfordshire there are only four candidates to vote for, representing only the uni-party. I don’t want to vote for any of them. What would you do in this situation Miri?
There is a Reform candidate in North Oxfordshire but I’m afraid where I am there are Labour posters all over the place.
I’m hearing the term politically homeless these days and that’s exactly how I feel around where I live.
Thank you, Sinclairston, that's a very difficult situation. What I would do initially is write to all of them and find out where they stand on issues, because it's good to have a written record of that even if you don't vote for them (and if they don't reply, that tells you everything you need to know).
In your situation, the best option may be to spoil the paper with a message (as I did last year in local elections when I was faced with just uni-party candidates). This is preferable to abstaining entirely because the meaning can't be misinterpreted. If you don't turn up at all, the establishment chooses to interpret this as you being happy with how things are / happy with the lead candidate winning OR that you simply can't be bothered to go to the polling booth.
Writing something on the paper instead makes clear that this is not the message your abstention is meant to convey, and makes very clear why you are not voting. They do read every spoiled paper so it is a meaningful form of political protest and getting a message across.
Thankyou Miri, I will do all of that. 🙏That’s all been so helpful and I think the whole of the UK needs to hear your guidance on this matter. Other people telling us to boycott the system are not helping right now.
Thank you Miri for you work. It is of a high value as always.
I have seen today first time the ballot papers for postal voting. I wanted to see what all these papers really are. There are two papers: One is called a statement that a person has to sign and put in one white envelope, another is a ballot paper where the person has to put an X and put into brown envelope to be placed in the white envelope. I have now quiet sure the main paper Statement is "Bill of exchange (BOE)" according "BOE Act 1892". It means that by simply signing it and sending back the one who signed does accept to pay the debt on the Bill. It is not a contract, but it is the accepted bill that the acceptor agrees to pay. My further assumption is All these papers go back to authority and used to finance everything that Government does. The Taxes do not finance the Government's spending, but the Bills that we sign during Election do. When putting anything on the ballot paper we must think about it. I Trust the best what can be done with ballot paper is to write simple instruction in the box for a candidate you choose what do you want this candidate to do and sign By: Name. In this case there would be no liability (Article 26, BOE Act 1892). If there is no one to vote for - to write "do not accept" or "do not consent" followed with by:name afterwards would also be legitimate statement on a BOE. I trust that the best way forward to make the system work for people is to learn BOE Act 1892 and use election's ballot papers as BOE via postal voting endorsed towards people as beneficiaries.
Have I completely got it wrong? If anyone here has anything to say on this matter, please share you wisdom.
There are 9 candidates in my constituency. I wrote to the 7 who provided email addresses for their candidate, but haven't heard back from any of them. I'm quite disappointed in the 3 independents, as I'd have thought they'd be scrabbling for every vote they can get, and all they have to do is say they're against lockdowns and coercion - the fact that they don't implies that they're not.
That really is disappointing. Independents absolutely should be responding and as you say, that they don't speaks volumes. It might be worth sending your message again, because there's a chance some of them are so swamped with emails, they missed yours. Sending again did prompt a reply for me out of Andrew Cooper (Green) - a terrible reply, yes, but at least I do now clearly know where he stands!
I did as you suggested, and this time one of the independents replied almost immediately:
"Dear Mike
Thank you for the reminder and I apologise for not replying earlier.
I am not an expert on this subject, nor have I studied it in a great detail, but at the time I had severe misgivings about the first lockdown, its restrictions on personal freedoms and the efficacy of it. That scepticism remains.
I do feel now that, in hindsight, a more multi-targeted approach should have been implemented, after all it was certain groups that were much the more vulnerable & the damage we did to people's mental health especially young people and the damage to businesses and economy was probably immense.
So to answer your first question directly, no I would not immediately and reflexively support another national lockdown in similar circumstances to 2020 covid-19.
As for the imposition of mandates - wearing masks, distance keeping etc - I am currently ambivalent about this and I would have to hear the evidence from medical and scientific experts.
I would add that ultimately the government has to protect the public in general and at the end of the day a decision does have to be made having regard to a broad perspective of medical and scientific advice. It is somewhat difficult for a lay person to resist or contradict such advice emanating from such lofty positions. I hope my comments answer your questions Mike"
It's very weak, but at least he had the decency to reply, and a reminder that most people, despite suffering serious cognitive dissonance, are still willing to give the mainstream narrative the benefit of the doubt. I replied at some length with (I hope) reasonably-expressed arguments (nothing about freemasons and depopulation anyway) that I hope will have made an impression. As I said, I'm inclined to vote for him just on the basis that he's the only one who took the trouble to reply.
You've certainly packed a ton of wisdom in this post. The quotes from the Lancet and NEJM are really priceless!
Thanks.
Thank you, TMD - and yes, I make much use of those quotes to the "trust the science" brigade!
Thankyou Miri, I found your article very helpful.
Where I live in West Oxfordshire there are only four candidates to vote for, representing only the uni-party. I don’t want to vote for any of them. What would you do in this situation Miri?
There is a Reform candidate in North Oxfordshire but I’m afraid where I am there are Labour posters all over the place.
I’m hearing the term politically homeless these days and that’s exactly how I feel around where I live.
Thank you, Sinclairston, that's a very difficult situation. What I would do initially is write to all of them and find out where they stand on issues, because it's good to have a written record of that even if you don't vote for them (and if they don't reply, that tells you everything you need to know).
In your situation, the best option may be to spoil the paper with a message (as I did last year in local elections when I was faced with just uni-party candidates). This is preferable to abstaining entirely because the meaning can't be misinterpreted. If you don't turn up at all, the establishment chooses to interpret this as you being happy with how things are / happy with the lead candidate winning OR that you simply can't be bothered to go to the polling booth.
Writing something on the paper instead makes clear that this is not the message your abstention is meant to convey, and makes very clear why you are not voting. They do read every spoiled paper so it is a meaningful form of political protest and getting a message across.
Thankyou Miri, I will do all of that. 🙏That’s all been so helpful and I think the whole of the UK needs to hear your guidance on this matter. Other people telling us to boycott the system are not helping right now.
Fantastic article! I heard Richie Allen stating that he wouldn’t be voting yesterday. He should read this article.
Many thanks, Beca! I believe Richie is having the Heritage Party's David Kurten on his show today so perhaps David might talk him round...
Interesting, let’s see!
Thank you Miri for you work. It is of a high value as always.
I have seen today first time the ballot papers for postal voting. I wanted to see what all these papers really are. There are two papers: One is called a statement that a person has to sign and put in one white envelope, another is a ballot paper where the person has to put an X and put into brown envelope to be placed in the white envelope. I have now quiet sure the main paper Statement is "Bill of exchange (BOE)" according "BOE Act 1892". It means that by simply signing it and sending back the one who signed does accept to pay the debt on the Bill. It is not a contract, but it is the accepted bill that the acceptor agrees to pay. My further assumption is All these papers go back to authority and used to finance everything that Government does. The Taxes do not finance the Government's spending, but the Bills that we sign during Election do. When putting anything on the ballot paper we must think about it. I Trust the best what can be done with ballot paper is to write simple instruction in the box for a candidate you choose what do you want this candidate to do and sign By: Name. In this case there would be no liability (Article 26, BOE Act 1892). If there is no one to vote for - to write "do not accept" or "do not consent" followed with by:name afterwards would also be legitimate statement on a BOE. I trust that the best way forward to make the system work for people is to learn BOE Act 1892 and use election's ballot papers as BOE via postal voting endorsed towards people as beneficiaries.
Have I completely got it wrong? If anyone here has anything to say on this matter, please share you wisdom.