Let Theresa May go on formally with her minority government, weak as it is (May: ‘I got us into this mess, I’m going to get us out of it’, 13 June). Domestic legislation should be initiated by any party and then voted on in the Commons, which will represent a return to our tradition of parliamentary democracy. For Brexit: set up a bipartisan committee to sketch out some “soft” Brexit ideas, probably accepting the customs union and free movement. Put the negotiations in the hands of a small number of competent members, ie including Keir Starmer, but excluding Boris Johnson. Then see what happens.
This should satisfy everyone, both in Britain and in Europe, except for the Brexit maniacs on the Tory right. It’s also a very British (parliamentary) way. It would allow proper democratic decisions to be taken on the separate elements of all the parties’ manifestos. And it would elevate the recent electoral fiasco into a glorious opportunity to restore consensual democracy to a nation that one-party government, austerity and Brexit have so bitterly divided. Out of weakness would come strength. What is there to dislike?
Bernard Porter
Hull
• I endorse Paul Maddrell’s advocacy of the additional member system to give parliament more proportional representation (Letters, 12 June), but further would suggest we take a good look at the Hansard Society report on electoral reform of 1976. This proposed groups of constituencies which would elect 75% of MPs under first past the post, as at present, with the remaining 25% going, crucially, to the “best runners-up” in the constituency group. This means that every MP would be properly scrutinised by the electors in the constituency campaigns, while avoiding party lists, which tend to favour candidates more popular with party hierarchies than with the public. Moreover, many candidates who only miss out on election by a whisker would still get in as additional members. The system is not fully proportional, but goes a long way towards it, and it has the added benefits that everyone can vote for the party they really want, knowing that their vote will mean something – which will mean parties can claim genuine mandates rather than spurious mandates derived from tactical voting – and that the voting card would remain unchanged – a single X for both candidate and party. How could even the Conservative party object?
Hugh Legge
Northampton
• Michael Fallon says a more collective approach will be taken by the new government. Isn’t that what cabinet government is supposed to be? Why did Mrs May’s previous cabinet not ensure this? Surely the electorate is entitled to assume that the office holders, on their not inconsiderable salaries, are sufficiently assertive to prevent bullying by spin doctors.
Mike Carter
Luton
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
