Letter: London's choice
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: The election of a mayor for London is of interest to more than just Londoners. Such a momentous, and expensive, decision should not be rushed. In requiring the referendum to be delayed until eight weeks after publication of the legislation proposing it, the House of Lords have not indulged in an "anti-democratic vote" nor have they denied Londoners the chance to make a choice (report, 14 January). On the contrary, they have upheld the democratic process by insisting that voters be allowed time for informed discussion.
Why is the Government so anxious to rush to this vote in May when it has so many more urgent priorities: health, education, welfare? If the Lords vote is truly attributable to a "handful of unelected, hereditary peers", as John Prescott says, then they seem to be more mindful of the democratic process than elected ministers.
DEBORAH TOMPKINSON
Maidenhead, Berkshire
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments