The key phrase in Rachel Cooke’s interview with Anna Soubry (“Who’d be a Brexit rebel?”, New Review, last week) was “picture [her] crossing the floor of the House of Commons”. Therein lies the basic reason why UK politics is in such an unholy mess: the idea that if you’re not with us you’re against us, the whole adversarial principle that keeps the parliamentary process stuck at the level of a public school debate.
When Margaret Thatcher struck down the GLC and thus emptied County Hall, a golden opportunity for reform was lost. The council chamber, with its rows of benches in a horseshoe, could have been adapted to produce a debating chamber like those of more grownup nations, each seat equipped with a screen and voting terminal, enabling individual MPs to do what, by Soubry’s account, they are too scared to do: vote according to their beliefs and those of their constituents.
It might even, in the long term, have undermined the whole idea of government v opposition and enabled ad hoc alliances to be formed when a realistic alternative to government policy can be developed – such as now.
Our judicial system is similarly blighted: as Keir Starmer once observed, the idea that the truth can emerge from a process in which two barristers present opposing arguments and expect 12 civilians to make the decision doesn’t make a lot of sense when you think about it. But neither institution is likely to change while the lawyers remain in charge.
Jim Trimmer
Kingston
I am writing to condemn the death threats made against my constituency opponent Anna Soubry. Broxtowe’s MP has the right to express her views without fielding such disgusting responses.
I also share deep concern over the impasse regarding the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. But I disagree with her identification of the politicians “history will condemn” in relation to this issue. The person responsible for this debacle is David Cameron, in whose cabinet Ms Soubry served and with whom she agreed the timetable for the 2016 referendum that has left the country deeply divided and facing an uncertain future.
Regardless of your Brexit view, Cameron’s chaotic cabinet’s failings were compounded by their decision to then allow him to lead the Remain efforts and overshadow more established and credible campaigners.
Greg Marshall
Labour prospective parliamentary candidate for Broxtowe
Anna Soubry describes feeling emotionally wobbly after being labelled a “mutineer” and receiving death threats for revealing that she is opposed to the EU withdrawal bill. The government, apparently, has not expressed condemnation of this behaviour. There is also silence from the many MPs who know that leaving the EU will be disastrous for the UK and who seem to be voting against their consciences.
Theresa May is said to be in thrall to hard Brexiters. My guess is that she is in fear of losing votes and thus her role as prime minister. But consider whose votes she would be losing: those who use social media to silence opposition by threatening rape and murder, and those who remain silent about such abuse.
I believe that large numbers of the population now see that restoring fairness and equality in this country is the business of the government and will not be achieved by leaving the EU. Your editorial of 12 November said “Enough of this shambles”; let’s have the courage to halt the process and manage the fallout.
Pat Brandwood
Broadstone
Dorset
