From: David Gray, Liversedge.
The letter from John Fisher (The Yorkshire Post, March 12) again raises the issue of proportional representation. Obviously it fails to recognise that we have proportional representation now. The candidate chosen to represent each constituency is elected by receiving the highest proportion of votes in that constituency.
Hopefully such candidates will be supporting the policies and views of that greater number who voted for them, be recognised as being able to understand and attend to new issues as they arise, and have some previous contact with the locality they are to serve.
The previously promoted system of proportional representation nationally becomes even less valid the more that devolution is considered and wholly or partially implemented. As an extreme we need to consider the effect, under national PR, of a low turnout in Yorkshire and the great enthusiasm in Scotland and Wales presenting high volumes of votes. Such effect may, under PR, select an even higher number of Welsh and Scottish National candidates at the expense of local candidates, of whatever preferred party. Thus democracy would be less representative than now (even if we feel it is now partially distant).
The outcome of this important election must be based on facts and logic, who has set out the evidence of why a route is proposed, and quantified the way to achieve it, within their best ability and the knowledge available at this time.
From: Adrian F Sunman, South Collingham, Newark, Nottinghamshire.
SIR Bernard Ingham, whose eminently sensible column I always enjoy, will know that prior to an election, those parties intent on retaining – or gaining power – always make promises to key constituencies (The Yorkshire Post, March 11). Invariably that means couples, families and pensioners.
Mr Cameron is showing great political savvy by promising to secure the benefits enjoyed by the latter as they are the likeliest group to vote and the one with the most conservative (both small and large c) instincts.
However, in a career spanning nearly 35 years to date, I have yet to hear any of the main parties promise anything to single, working age people, whose living costs are as high as anyone else – if not in some cases higher.
No doubt that is because their services are required to subsidise the allowances, tax credits and freebies enjoyed by everyone else.