Letters: Aren’t voters to blame for poor politicians?

It would appear that it takes a crisis like Brexit to show us that most of them are simply not up to the job and are too keen to preserve their party and not consider the country’s best interests.

This incompetence was less obvious in more routine policy development in individual government departments; but Brexit cuts across these and the results are painfully obvious.

I vote in every election, referendum, et cetera, and I do feel some responsibility. However, not having the vote is clearly not a sensible option; maybe we all need to take more care when making our choice and asking more questions prior to the vote.

But our likely incoming Prime Minister shows great reluctance to receive or answer them.

- Willie Towers, Aberdeenshire

WATCHING the BBC television debate last week,on the future leader of the Conservative Party, I was amazed at the poor performances by all the candidates. They did not seem to realise that national leaders across the world would be watching and taking note, not just those in the EU.

None of them came across as prime ministerial, though unfortunately one of them will be our next Prime Minister and probably, historically, our shortest-serving one.

In fact, I was left wondering how any of them had ever become Cabinet Ministers.

From the UK’s point of view the important question is, who will be our Prime Minster after the next general election? It is likely to be either Nigel Farage or Jeremy Corbyn, meaning we either have a government which takes us out of the EU or a Marxist one which will keep us in the EU, at least initially.

- Ken Shuttleworth, St Albans

BORIS Johnson and Donald Trump have something else in common now.

The Donald has his troubles with Iran; Boris may soon have his with the EU.

In their desire to take all the credit for any future treaty (not just a “deal”) with the other party, both men appear content to tear up the hard work carried out by their predecessors and their advisers.

In Johnson’s case (assuming that his shortcomings don’t sink him in the coming weeks), it might be simpler to make cosmetic changes to the EU withdrawal agreement, rather than promise a “free trade” deal (all the benefits, none of the burdens), when the EU has no interest in providing such a pain-free exit clause.

Never mind scrutiny by the media; one awaits with interest Mr. Johnson’s presentation of his plans to the people of Northern Ireland.

- Graeme Orr, Neilston

THERESA May has always emphasised that she takes decisions based on the “national interest.”

She called an unnecessary general election in “the national interest”; her negotiations with the EU were carried out in the “national interest”, while other parties that voiced criticisms were dismissed as “playing games”.

This blinkered sense of entitlement, where the national interest is identified with the self-interest of the Conservative Party, is in full display in the excruciatingly extended contest to elect a leader (and coincidentally) a new Prime Minister.

Certainly, the party was in an awkward situation, having to use a selection process only ever envisaged to be employed when in opposition; but holding a peacocks’ parade of ten aspirants - the majority of whom were more interested in raising their profile with a view to inclusion in the next leader’s cabinet, than having a realistic chance of being the successful candidate - showed scant regard for the national interest.

Surely, wiser heads within the party could have quietly advised those applicants to restrain their personal political ambitions to allow for a quicker end to the country’s agony in having to live with a government, paralysed and effectively leaderless.

Even better, could each individual not have examined his own conscience and come to the same conclusion?

The televising of the contest, another episode in the long-drawn out and avoidable drama, is a further illustration of the self- absorption of the Conservative Party.

However, it does appear that the sense viewers derived from the broadcast was that, the candidates’ virtues being revealed, it was their flaws that were exposed; so, after all, in a rather circuitous but appropriately ironic way, the national interest has been served.

- Ian Hutcheson, Glasgow

I GUESS that most of us would not want the accident-prone and priapic Boris Johnson, cheerful and entertaining tho’ he may be, anywhere near our daughters, nieces, sisters, aunts, or God forbid, mothers, but, if honest, some of us might admit to sneaking wonderment at his ability to survive various recorded indiscretions and still appear to have his cake and eat it; and perhaps we should remember our own esteemed Rabbie, who also had a way with words and affairs of the heart?

- R Russell Smith, Kilbirnie

YOUR leading article on Saturday (‘Johnson must come out of seclusion’) made some good points on the subject of Boris Johnson’s sense of entitlement but I think it could have made much more of his serious character flaws.

The more I read this weekend of his laziness, his outbursts of temper, and his habit of playing the field, the more convinced I am that he is highly unsuitable for the post of Prime Minister.

To add to all of that, he habitually made up stories when covering the EU for his then employer and he later helped a criminal friend to find a journalist and beat him up.

He might be full of charm in public but in private it seems to be another story. The more we know of his private life the better. He is embarrassed that his argument with his partner was published but in my opinion it shows us, the voters, what sort of person he is.

Jeremy Hunt is not the person I expected to win when the leadership process started a few weeks ago but he is a more acceptable candidate to the country than Mr Johnson.

I voted to leave the EU three years ago. I am fed up with what has happened since. Or what has not happened, to be more accurate.

We need to move on and get Brexit done. More than enough time has already been wasted.

- Ian Smith, Glasgow