Letter: The lives our MPs have to lead
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: Your leading article draws attention to the pressures put on our politicians by the way the House of Commons works, a contributory factor to John Smith's death. You discuss the rites of Question Time, where our leaders habitually trade insults. Suddenly, the death of one of them stops the process in its tracks. The contrast makes the insult ritual look absurd and belies the assumption that it is all to impress us. Rather, it is sui generis to the House, deeply rooted in traditions that need some change.
In seeking effective change, there is a deeper constitutional point to make than reform of the House's day to day procedures. My proposition is that a greater focus on proportional representation (PR) would be appropriate. If, instead of two significant parties, there were four (Labour, Lib-Dem, Tory Wet and Tory Dry), destructive adversarial pressure would reduce. On any given issue, any one of the parties would be faced with three others with views differing in varying proportions from its own.
As issues for debate changed, the kaleidoscope of political tension in the House would change. It would be a less polarised place and likely to be more efficient as a workshop for sifting ideas and for arriving at something recognisable as a national will. Through such change the House might achieve more gravitas, a touch of that nobility which is rightly the mood of the moment.
Yours faithfully,
MICHAEL GRAHAM
Tonbridge, Kent
21 May
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments