General election result: One nation? That’s not what it looks like from where I live
|
Version 0 of 1. The phrase “one nation” occurs in several places in last Sunday’s Observer, particularly in John Redwood’s article (“The PM has his party’s support. But on Europe and Scotland, it may be best to get Labour’s too”, Comment). I don’t get the feeling we are one nation any more. The majority of Scots appear to want to live in a European country with a publicly provided infrastructure and welfare state, whereas the south east of England hankers after the American model, with everything put out to tender and lots of choice. An Apollo astronaut once said how sobering it was to realise he sat on top of a billion dollars of hardware, all supplied by the lowest bidder. Where I live in Yorkshire, we seem caught in a bind, perhaps preferring the Scots’ view of society, yet shackled to the Thatcherite south east – not just Yorkshire, but a whole swath of northern England. If we are serious about constitutional reform, we should raise the question of moving the border. Another slant on this one-nation figment can be obtained by clicking on to Wikipedia and typing in “Bullingdon Club”. As we contemplate the Balkanisation of the UK and EU, we should remember Yugoslavia. David Holdsworth Settle The result of the general election does not reflect the wishes of the electors. The first-past-the-post system is unfit for purpose. Take my constituency, Bristol West. The winning party polled 22,900 votes – 35.66% of votes cast. The runner-up won a respectable 17,227 votes (26.83%), the third 12,103 (18.85%) and the fourth 9,752 (15.19%). At a stroke, the “losing” 39,082 votes were thrown away and played no part in the national result. They were rubbished in favour of the myth that the “winner” represents constituents’ views. This is no isolated case, either: 46 other “wins” were claimed with only 30-39% of the votes; and 297 “winners” failed to achieve half the votes in their constituencies (46% of constituencies). Despite the supposed virtues of the constituency-based MP, if the system cannot deliver MPs representing at least half their voters it is time it was ditched. There is no shortage of other viable systems that include the retention of constituency representatives. Michael Stanley Bristol There is much I can agree with in the comments of Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson about the need for Labour to attract the aspirational voters of England and I accept there were deficiencies in our campaign (“Blair tells Labour: return to centre ground to win again”, News). But their prescriptions are too simplistic, given our greatest defeat was in Scotland where the anti-austerity message appealed far beyond the nationalist camp. Perhaps they also ought to consider the effect – on voters and public trust in politicians – of their policies of taking us into the war in Iraq and courting the bankers. Experience on the doorstep indicates the public has a longer memory than we sometimes imagine. Joan Ruddock DBE Former MP for Lewisham Deptford London SE3 Will Hutton gives credit to Tony Blair for taking “the winning of and holding power as political objective number one” (“Neither right nor left is able to reach the whole nation”, Comment). And yet he damns the Lib Dems for betraying the party’s “purported values in coalition”. Should parties sacrifice power to stick to principles or should winning be the main objective, even if it means betraying principles? It can’t be both. Robert Saunders Balcombe, West Sussex |