Ian Bell states as a fact that "there would be no Conservative ministers ...
had Nick Clegg resisted David Cameron's overtures" ("Clegg has nothing to gain by clinging to sinking Coalition", The Herald, May 9).
That is an absurd assertion. David Cameron is Prime Minister because those who voted in the General Election returned the Conservatives as the largest party in the House of Commons. Mr Cameron, although he did not have an overall majority, did have the right to try to form a Government.
If he had been unable to form a coalition, he had the right to form a minority administration, meet Parliament and, if he was unable to carry on the business of government, ask the Queen for another General Election.
The Labour Party has a dangerous habit of peddling the "stab in the back" myth that when they lose office it is someone else's fault.
One still finds Labour stalwarts who blame the SNP for putting the Callaghan Government out of its misery and bringing on the first General Election won by Margaret Thatcher. The myth now is that the Liberal Democrats are to blame for not allowing Gordon Brown to continue in government.
By what democratic argument can it be thought that the Liberal Democrats, who came third in the election, had the right to keep in office the party that had come second and was in utter disarray?
As a Liberal Democrat, I want the Coalition Government to find new ways of promoting economic growth and I am very doubtful about the case for further cuts in public expenditure, particularly in social expenditures.
I should like to see Liberal Democrat MPs focusing on these issues rather than the reform of the House of Lords.
The party went into government to help repair the enormous economic damage inflicted by Gordon Brown and success or failure in that endeavour will set the only test by which the Coalition parties will be judged at the next election.
Ian Bell's suggestion that the Liberal Democrats should salvage "self-respect" by jumping ship mid-term by concocting an argument with the Conservatives about something other than economic policy is silly and contemptible.
25 Braidholm Road,
I am not a politician, never have been and have no desire to be one.
However, I feel I must comment on Peter Jensen's point that a final choice should be given to the electorate, "none of the above" (Letters, May 8).
Surely this is too cynical. I would suggest that if this idea is adopted we should add one more choice.
That would be for the voter to add their name and address and indicate their own willingness to stand and serve society themselves.
I wonder how many would do so? Let's give the men and women who do work for society a modicum of the respect we give other professions.
Dr Kevin C Duff,
20 Redwell Place,
We moderate all comments on HeraldScotland on either a pre-moderated or post-moderated basis. If you're a relatively new user then your comments will be reviewed before publication and if we know you well then your comments will be subject to moderation only if other users or the moderators believe you've broken the rules, which are available here.
Moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours. Please be patient if your posts are not approved instantly.