THANKS to Iain Macwhirter for an interesting and insightful article regarding yet another possible outcome of this most fascinating of UK General Elections ("A LibLab coalition with SNP support would be closest to a dream coalition".
The Herald, April 16. The political hoe-down that may well take place on May 8h could indeed see many different combinations of partners take to the floor.
However, let's hope that in the event of a "hung parliament", the smaller parties take the opportunity to cement the future of multi-party politics in the UK by insisting on the introduction of a fairer electoral system based on proportional representation (PR) and ending the anachronism that is first-past-the-post. By proportional representation I do not mean a re-run of the "miserable little compromise" that was the alternative vote (AV) referendum of 2011, but serious, meaningful PR. as offered by introducing the single transferable vote (STV) for UK General Elections. What better way to end, once and for all, the two-party domination that has stagnated UK politics for generations? If every General Election result was to end in multi-party coalitions or less formal alliances, then our politicians would have to quickly grow up and accept the fact that their individual party dogmas are no longer set in stone and that they will have to govern in a way that reflects, at long last, the wishes of an electorate that cannot be categorised into one of two main camps.
Whilst the smaller parties are flexing their new found muscle, may I also request that they insist on the scrapping of the unelected and hence, totally undemocratic House of Lords, to be replaced by a wholly elected forum, again using STV. The only voice of resistance to be heard will be those of more than 800 Peers who would be loudly protesting that they are an important part of the legislative process. If that is correct, then they are welcome to stand for the newly, aforementioned elected body. I somehow think that might be just too much effort for nearly, if not all, of them.
If the forthcoming General Election does end in a "hung Parliament", with a loud and influential progressive group of small parties demanding real change in return for their support of one of the bigger players, it could indeed result in a better, fairer and more representative political settlement for us all.
Alan Carroll,
24 The Quadrant, Clarkston, Glasgow.
MANY Scots will be in quandary as to how to vote in the forthcoming election. While first-past-the-post worked well in the past when it was a choice between Conservative and Labour, the emergence of the SNP, to say nothing of the others, alters things dramatically.
First-past-the-post is no longer fit for purpose. Some form of proportional representation is clearly required. If individuals follow their conscience, a large section of the population is liable to be disenfranchised.
Richard Morris,
Letham Drive, Newlands, Glasgow.
IAN F Mackay (Letters April 16) misinterprets my letter when he states that I suggested that the referendum did not polarise voters. It is a statement of the obvious that polarisation is inevitable when the electorate are given only Yes or No. My point was that because opinions were genuine and strongly held they were respected and no amount of attempted agitation could create the hoped-for emnity.
Tactical voting is, however, a completely different animal. The underlying emotion of it is betrayal of one's principles for a negative result. This does indeed result in much more than polarisation, as those who have practised tactical voting have voluntarily lost the respect in which genuine beliefs are held. Sadly this reflects the political plight of Westminster where a politician's career and his party are held in much higher regard than the will of the people.
If Mr Mackay has just learned that oil prices are volatile he may also like to know that investment advisors are already urging investors to invest in oil companies as price rises are imminent. I trust he also learned that the UK is £1.5 trillion in debt and inspite of austerity policies this figure is increasing. This is the austerity which has penalised the disabled, encouraged low wages, permitted zero hours contracts and he justifies tactical voting to protect it. Surely he must realise that when it is broken it is time to try a different strategy.
David Stubley,
22 Templeton Crescent, Prestwick.
I KEEP coming across the word "emphatic" in relation to the 55/45 No vote in the referendum (Letters, April 14). Language evolves so perhaps it no longer means what it used to. My thesaurus even offers "one hundred per cent".
If I had passed an important exam with a score of 55 per cent I would have "scraped it". If England won a Calcutta Cup match 11-9 it would have been a close thing.
Peter Woolverton,
Pyethall, Carlops.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.Â
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.Â
That is invaluable.Â
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article