In his condemnation of the Lib Dems for propping up “the most extremist rightwing government in my lifetime”, Phillip Wood (Letters) completely ignores the result of the last general election. Given the number of seats won, a Labour/Lib Dem coalition was impossible, and the only alternative to the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition was a minority Conservative government.
As this would have been an unstable situation, and in the light of the dire economic situation, David Cameron would almost certainly have called another election within a year or so (as Harold Wilson did in 1966 and 1974) and appealed to the electorate for a proper mandate to deal with the economic crisis. Given Wilson’s experience, particularly in 1966, this would most likely have resulted in a rightwing majority Tory government, enabling them to do whatever they wished, a much worse situation than now.
Junior partners in coalitions cannot call the tune, but at least the Lib Dems have managed to exert a restraining influence on the wilder fantasies of the Tories, delivering, for example, a rise in the income tax personal allowance, which before the election Cameron said was unaffordable. If you wish for the moon in politics you’ll have a very long wait. Politics is the “art of the possible” and the Lib Dems should be given credit for their achievements in government, not vilified for policies outside their control.
Ian Dickins
Wimborne, Dorset
Out of political proportion
Andrew Rawnsley rightly predicts that our voting system will prove unfit for purpose next May (“The parties prepare for a hung, drawn and quartered parliament”, Comment). Electoral Calculus predicts that the Ukip, Lib Dem and Nationalist parties will get a 17.17%, 8.19% and 4.14% share of the GB vote yet, perversely, win 0, 19 & 45 seats respectively. First past the post would appear to be not so much a non-proportional system as an inversely proportional one.
Peter Mendenhall
Nottingham
Man up, Barbara Ellen
Oh Barbara Ellen, do you not realise that it is because men have become so much more sensitive to the afflictions of others that we are articulate about our own conditions (“I’m so very sick. (Of you being ill!)”, Comment)? Moreover, your self-acknowledged callousness is surely due to fearfulness that if your man is ill there will be no more food on the table for you and your bairns. So get off your arse, you pitiful creature! Ah! You’re trapped in history. Poor dear. We, in our turn, feel guilty for being less than our expected strong, fit, Marlboro Country cousins, and have to justify ourselves.
Historically, we know that you and yours have had to retire early to bed with a headache. We understand, Babs.
Charles Hodgson
Newport, Shropshire
Electing to marry
Interesting exchange on whether 16-year-olds should be given the vote (The Debate, New Review). Bearing in mind that in Scotland the legal age for marriage is 16, are those opposed to extending the franchise seriously arguing that it’s OK to marry an MP but not to vote for one?
David Clark
Edinburgh
We’re no champagne Charlies
Daniel Boffey’s article (“Champagne wars in the Lords as peers say no to a cheaper vintage”) relied on inaccurate evidence from Sir Malcolm Jack to the House of Commons governance committee. Let me be categorical: no proposal to merge the catering services of the two Houses has been put to the House of Lords by the House of Commons. The joint champagne procurement I believe Sir Malcolm was referring to was over a decade ago. We have since established a joint House of Commons and Lords procurement service that is seeking even better value for money for the taxpayer.
Mr Boffey goes on to describe the 17,000 bottles of champagne bought by the House of Lords since 2010 without explaining that every one has been or will be sold at a profit, as is all alcohol sold in the House of Lords: 87% of the champagne sold in the Lords is sold in the gift shop to visitors or at revenue-generating banqueting events. Such activities have helped us reduce the cost of the catering service by 27% since 2007/08. This is a very different picture from the inaccurate one of members of the House of Lords getting five bottles each a year painted by Mr Boffey.
Lord Sewel
Chairman of Committees
House of Lords
Lohan behold, it’s Lindsay
Lindsay Lohan wants to make London her home (News). I am curious as to her immigration status. Presumably she doesn’t have right of entry as an EU citizen. I have nothing against her personally, but how is it she can come and go as she pleases? If she decides to apply for citizenship, will her past be investigated for illegal or undesirable behaviour? Could she be ejected because of her past record of drug taking and alcoholism? As an immigrant, she will have to be very careful where she settles so that she doesn’t upset Nigel Farage by overburdening the M4 corridor.
Robert Ashley
London SE9
