Back to 1976?
Sir: Your leading article perfectly reflects the public’s attitude to the manifestos of the major parties (‘Challenging democracy’, 29 June). No one has a plan that can remotely be seen as likely to work. Each party promises goodies they have no idea how to pay for; the only question is who will bankrupt us first. As ever, it is easy to distribute largesse, but no one has a clue how to remove it. We are heading towards a rerun of 1976 when the Labour government had to go cap in hand to the IMF. Those old enough can remember inflation of 25 per cent and a Bank base rate of 17 per cent. If you think rates now are excessive, just wait.
George Kelly
Buckingham
Small parties
Sir: Everyone seems to agree that our first-past-the-post voting system is ‘unfair’ (‘Downfall’, 29 June), but what is the answer? All systems of proportional representation are designed by politicians to gerrymander elections in their favour, and this usually backfires. Tony Blair’s devolution ‘reforms’ spring to mind. The German system was designed to make sure the electorate did not get what it wanted in case it wanted the same as last time.
In a parliamentary democracy like ours, the purpose of an election is to deliver a government capable of implementing a coherent programme of policies that reflect the values and interests of the electorate and for which it is held accountable. Coalition governments formed by divvying up the goodies in backroom deals do not do this. The value of small parties lies in their power to say things larger parties would prefer were not said and, by eating into their share of the vote, forcing them to align more with public opinion.
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in