17 July 2024

Letter of the week: A proportional response

Write to letters@newstatesman.co.uk to have your thoughts voiced in the New Statesman magazine.

Photo by Daily Herald Archive/National Science Media Museum/SSPL via Getty Images

In their guarded defence of the Westminster electoral system (Inside Westminster and Bursting the Bubble, 12 July), Andrew Marr and Rachel Cunliffe remind us of Isaiah Berlin’s argument regarding the litmus test of democracy, or the capacity of ordinary citizens to “kick the rascals out” and effect change in government. Berlin also argued that, in the interests of national catharsis, it was vital that particular “rascals” be punished and banished: a restatement, perhaps, of the ostraka principle used in ancient Athens.

In this respect it is worth remembering that Britain’s proportional representation systems have mostly allowed party grandees a top ranking on “closed” party lists, effectively guaranteeing their re-election. Under the PR system used for our pre-Brexit European Parliament elections – and recently introduced for the Welsh Senedd – high-profile Tory casualties such as Liz Truss and Jacob Rees-Mogg would have probably cheated the hangman.

Recalling the Book of Common Prayer (as one often does when reading the New Statesman), it would be hard to say that first-past-the-post “hath exalted the humble and meek”. Yet, on 4 July, it certainly “put down the mighty from their seats” with some aplomb. Voters living under PR might well look back in envy.
Richard Kelly, Manchester

Labour won. Isn’t that enough?

I find the conversation about Labour not being the party people voted in because of vote share, turnout and first-past-the-post boring and somewhat alarming. Rachel Cunliffe (Bursting the Bubble, 12 July) is right: there was not as much consternation about such things in the past, but the word “rigged” speaks to a wider degradation of democracy across the world.

As the results came rolling in on election night, I saw many people tweet their love for British democracy. The graciousness in the speeches of the defeated Tory party and their acceptance of the result contrasted with Donald Trump’s defeat four years ago. It took less than 24 hours for people to start undermining the result here. Do we not see where this leads us? These are not honest conversations about our system. This is a troubling direction to take for a country that has endured 14 years of instability and toxicity. Must we have more of it?
Abubakar Shabbir, Bolton

Oh sweet and lovely wall

Unlike Edward Docx (Critic at Large, 12 July), I am not anxious for Keir Starmer to “break through the barrier of his own reserve” to appear more congenial to the public. After years of chaos and noisy performance (as Starmer himself put it), a prime minister leading a government embodying the values of integrity, accuracy, dedication and service is a novelty and a blessed relief. I don’t need that person to feel under pressure to become a “smiling public man” (“Among School Children”, WB Yeats) just so I can flatter myself that I know him better. Being unassuming and self-effacing in public did not prevent a previous Labour prime minister, Clement Attlee, from achieving significant economic and social reform. Starmer has said he will be judged by actions, not words. Fine by me.
Claire O’Beirne, Chesham, Bucks

No doubt Edward Docx’s gorgeous writing on Keir Starmer is full of true observations. But is it true that a prime minister must be inherently theatrical? Have we not had enough of empty, damaging political drama, and voted for Keir Starmer instead?

Boris Johnson is not a politician, but a journalist – and apparently a lying one at that. Nigel Farage is no real politician but an agitator. While Margaret Thatcher ranted about having no truck with the IRA, John Major had a quiet word in their ear, wagged his finger at Ian Paisley and prepared the way for the Good Friday Agreement.

Isn’t the point of Starmer to burst the bubble of over-dramatisation and allow the technocrats and bureaucrats to bring some competence to bear on our media-driven public life? He may be more akin to the millions of grey, boring engineers, scientists, medics, accountants and “ordinary working people” who actually create, develop and maintain the resources which make this country work. Boffins rule.
Tony Gibbings, Ipswich, Suffolk

A fabulous article by Edward Docx. Nostalgia, psychoanalysis and English literature brought to bear on an assessment of our new helmsman. I am hopeful for the future. This is what the election has meant for me, but the balm of Starmer’s “Actions not words” won’t be enough. Starmer has a huge challenge ahead. I implore him to be honest with us. Trust is essential. We can handle it; we need to be a part of it. When hatred spreads from our fear and ignorance it must be cured by honest facts delivered calmly but incisively. He must spend as much time on his words to us as on his actions.
Patricia Askew, Kingston upon Thames

Poking the bear

The NS Essay (12 July) questioned Nigel Farage’s assertion that the Ukraine war was a response to Nato expansion. Actually, it is his one true statement – the West did promise not to expand Nato (“not one inch eastward”) after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Gorbachev was a trifle gullible in accepting President HW Bush’s promise. But that’s no excuse for Putin’s murderous war in Ukraine.
Alexandra Hough, Eastbourne

Wheels within wheels

Thanks to Jess Phillips’s children for their fascinating question “Are there more doors or wheels in the world?” (Diary, 12 July). By wheels, do you mean anything round that does something by rotating (eg in a clock or gearbox) or are you only considering wheels on an axle that move something along? And doors? Bits of wood (or whatever) in holes in walls big enough for people to walk through? Or cupboard doors? Catflaps?

But, mainly, I want to say how splendid it is to have Phillips back in the House of Commons. And the answer is obviously wheels – or is it doors?
Timothy Beecroft, St Albans, Herts

Paging Dr Whitaker

Can we get Phil Whitaker into Wes Streeting’s office (Health Matters, 4 July)? To separate health and social care is to create an artificial divide, and prevention really is better than cure.
Marie Donnelly, Sunderland