Monday's Letters: Hung Parliament might end the politics of confrontation

From: Philip Smith, New Walk, Beverley, East Yorkshire.

ALL the main party leaders keep talking about fairness. Unfairness has always been inherent in our system of government and that's why so many people are fed up with politics and politicians.

However, thanks to the surge in support for the Liberal Democrats, the total unfairness of the electoral system has been exposed. We are now told that Labour could get the least number of votes of the three main parties and yet still end up with the most number of seats. No wonder so many people think their vote is wasted and are totally disillusioned by politics. Only proportional representation will go any way to solve this.

Also, the way that minority parties are sidelined by the shape of the Commons' chamber is totally unfair. Labour faces Tory and no-one else gets a fair look-in.

When Nick Clegg was put on an equal footing, as in the TV debates, he showed that there is a viable alternative to the two traditional parties of government. If you don't like what's going on you have

more than one realistic alternative now. And let's remember that the last Tory government under John Major was sleazy, vacuous and weak and this Labour government is no better.

I am all for a hung Parliament because it's time that politics was run in the interests of the electorate rather than career politicians – who take us for granted. It's time the Punch and Judy politics of confrontation and conflict was replaced by the politics of co-operation and consensus. That way policies will be much better thought out.

Only the Liberal Democrats will bring about fair changes to our electoral system. The others have had the chance to do so on many occasions – and failed. Hopefully history is in the making for all our benefit.

From: Philip Smith, New Walk, Beverley, East Yorkshire.

From: G Hudson, Withens Hill Croft, Halifax, West Yorkshire.

THE so-called politicians of the three main (dead duck) parties are at it again, lots of hot air to fool the English to again adopt policies which in my lifetime have failed three times.

It needs radical but simple ideas to build a fairer England but this will not happen because of the vested interests of the politicians and their cronies.

These are my suggestions which would lead to a fairer society: devolve the United Kingdom completely, not mess about as now and with no double passport holders; withdraw from the European Union; equal number of English men and women elected to an English parliament based in Grantham, Lincolnshire, without the undemocratic single gender shortlists; total simplification of the laws in England; take back all English assets sold off to foreign governments, individuals and companies and lastly, make the US pay for the "special relationship" or scrap it altogether because Americans are not to be trusted (full of wind and no substance).

In conclusion, it's never going to happen because the thick English get conned by the so-called experts who couldn't even work out the simple sum that if you've got a tenner you can't spend 11.

From: Nicholas Brown, Cundall, York, North Yorkshire.

I HAVE been listening intently to Nick Clegg and other Liberals speak, over the last few days, in a totally holier than thou way about the faults of both the other major parties.

I have had experience of the Liberal Party in local government over the last 35 years and the great British public should be made aware that nothing has changed about them over all this time.

Despite the "cuddly" image portrayed by Nick Clegg and others, they are a broadly leftist party and in many ways are far more socialist than New Labour, although they would prefer you not to know that. I suggest people look at their tax and pension policies in some detail as they will badly affect middle income earners. They distort the truth in their election literature in a quite scandalous way so much so that if ever their was a "nasty" party it is them.

While I suppose all parties highlight the best bits about their candidates, the Liberals have the reputation of playing dirty in every way and far more than any other party.

From: JW Buckley, Aketon, Pontefract.

AS a nation, we stand at the dawn of a new era with the election called, but at the same time, teeter on the very edge of regression – so started the letter from Andy Jackson (Yorkshire Post, April 9).

He is right. Are we to have a new era of MPs realising that their old ways are not "sustainable"? Or are we to regress as they continue their old ways? Andy Jackson continues: "I obviously refer to the Hunting Act, which at this very moment is threatened by repeal".

Right again. Realising that the Hunting Act has to go, as it is a bad law, passed for the wrong reasons, is part of the rehabilitation process MPs need to go through.

From: JM Bimie, Park Drive, Rochdale Road, Halifax.

CAN any of your readers help me find a good ironmonger who can repair my abused letterbox?

The poor thing has been diagnosed with secondary election fatigue syndrome.

The Labour Party and Unite the Union are determined to advise me on how to vote in the forthcoming May non event.

Each time I have filled in a form provided to me by the Labour MP for Halifax asking her to contact me but so far my requests have failed.

She says that she can provide a poster if I would like one or I can get involved in the campaign if I felt so inclined. What I would like to talk to her about is the expenses she claimed during the last four years she says she has represented me.

From: Arthur Quarmby, Holme, Holmfirth.

THE Conservatives' election campaign would be doing a whole lot better if Bernard Ingham was its leader.

Unrealistic stances over social mobility

From: Gordon Sanderson, Oxspring, Sheffield.

THERE is much nonsense talked about "social mobility." Former Home Secretary David Blunkett and columnist Bill Carmichael on opposite sides of the political divide, both on the same page (Yorkshire Post, April 16), were both using their own favoured interpretation of statistics to back their biased political persuasion.

It is obvious to me why social mobility is less now than 50 or so years ago. The Second World War broke down a lot of artificial class dominance and shook things up generally.

Since then, education and job opportunities have increased greatly for all people in this country. In this situation, a natural social scale develops as more people have opportunity to fulfil their potential and find their own level, and society becomes more polarised by ability than artificial class and privilege. The demonstrated law of nature dictates that offspring are generally similar to parents. The movement of people from lower socio-economic groups will, therefore, inevitably and naturally decline in any economic system which tends to reward greater ability with greater pay and house purchasing power.

But people have difficulty accepting this simple logic for reasons of political correctness, a sensitivity to assumed insult, and a blinkered idealistic thinking which refuses to recognise natural differences in people. They would rather blame governments or education. But facts are facts and truth is never an insult.

I have worked in a poor area school for 35 years and I know what these kids are like and they do not change. The majority are not bright, middle class types and all attempts to make them into something they are not have failed and always will. Social differences are a fact of life, it is the economic system which exaggerates this into an evil divide. And the root of this evil is the love of money.

Trouble in the air

From: Rona Harrison, Bramley Lodge, Marton.

I THINK the Editorial "Under a cloud, Ryanair adds to passengers' misery" (Yorkshire Post, April 23) is unkind to Michael O'Leary in suggesting that he is different to the attitude taken by many high-priced international airlines.

As stranded Swiss Air passengers, we were offered just two nights' accommodation and food and then told we were on our own. Just as galling was to see the travel "experts" paraded on BBC News 24 informing that the airlines had a duty to look after us.

Obviously they had not been to deserted airports where they would have found a couple of besieged young women behind an "information" desk who did not have authority to offer you a free cup of coffee let alone a free night's accommodation.

The only recourse was to get on with life and try to get back home best you could. That in our case took six days trekking across Europe.

Now do you think we will get compensation? To blame O'Leary, or any airline which was prevented from flying by the closure of British airspace, is surely taking the compensation culture to the extreme, as they were not the guilty party.

We must take insurance against climate change

From: George McManus, Norwood, Beverley.

MAY I add my comments to the debate running in your pages on the subject of climate change.

As chairman of the Minsters' Rail Campaign, I estimate that up to 200,000 tonnes of CO2 could be saved every year by re-opening the Beverley to York railway.

This is an important argument in support of re-opening the line. I have not come to this conclusion by accident. There are those who deny the validity of the risks posed by climate change. I believe they are fundamentally mistaken.

Before I became an engineer, I was trained as a scientist. I was taught to be sceptical at all times and to continuously try to disprove theories put forward by fellow scientists. If theories survive such a rigorous approach, they then become accepted.

Thousands of scientists have arrived at the conclusion that concerns about climate change are valid. Climate change deniers who dispute the validity of scientific work are not sceptics, they're cynics. To be a sceptic requires intellectual integrity, indeed science is itself organised scepticism.

We know that carbon dioxide is a molecule which heats up the atmosphere and that we are generating more every year. The theory that this should lead to rising temperatures is supported by observation. What is also true is that there is a range of opinion among scientists as to the likely impact this will have in years to come. It may be catastrophic or it may be less damaging but, whether the risk is 50 or five per cent, it makes sense to try and reduce emissions.

While we all hope we will never have a car accident, we do accept that there is a risk, so we take out insurance. We must take the same approach to climate change. There are those who disagree with the theory of evolution. There is even a "Flat Earth" society in London. I respect but disagree with their views. It is perfectly valid to take an opposing view on climate change, but deniers who say

we don't need insurance must come up with an argument based on intellectual analysis and not on cynical, political opportunism.

A vista to brighten city

From: Bob Watson, Springfield Road, Baildon, Shipley, West Yorkshire.

WORK has now started on the 24m city centre park in Bradford, despite many of us having great reservations as to whether such a project should have been at the top of the list of priorities for a city in such a shambolic state.

What this work has done is open up the vista towards the Alhambra Theatre and Odeon Cinema building, and made it perfectly clear why so many Bradfordians want to see the Odeon retained and refurbished.

What a wonderful sight it would be to be able to look across to that area from the

park, and see an Odeon refurbished in line with the Rescue Group's proposal, as can be so clearly seen in the artist's impression.

Why, one wonders, has Yorkshire Forward allowed the Odeon to deteriorate into such an unacceptable state, and why has Bradford Council permitted them to do so?

This can only be because they intend to totally ignore what the people of Bradford want to see on that site. No wonder they are both held in such contempt.

Questions will need to be asked shortly when election candidates come canvassing for our votes. Perhaps someone could listen and act on our concerns for a change?