PLEASE keep your letters to 250 words maximum giving your name, address and daytime telephone number - even on emails. Email: Write: Swindon Advertiser, Unit 1 and 2 Richmond House, Edison Park, Swindon, SN3 3RB. Phone: 01793 501806.

Anonymity is granted only at the discretion of the editor, who also reserves the right to edit letters.

Law needs to change

I CANNOT believe the dishonesty that has been going on in Parliament over the last three years. Is it any wonder why the electorate has disengaged with politicians?

Theresa May stated – how many times was it, I believe it was over 100 – that we will leave on March 29 but when it came to it she reneged on that promise.

Then we had all those MPs who, if you remember, stood on manifestos claiming they would honour the referendum result. However it soon became apparent that they wouldn’t keep to that promise either.

Then we had all the defections. Labour/Conservative MPs who have now joined the Liberal Democrats. Now that’s an impressive name - ‘Democrats’. However, not in the case of the liberals. To them it means ignoring the majority who voted to leave in the referendum, overturning the biggest democratic vote this country ever had.

This is the thing you hear about in communist countries, isn’t it?

I think they should consider renaming themselves. How about the ‘Liberal Undemocratic’ party. That’s got a good ring to it.

All these defections have raised an important issue. When we the electorate elect a candidate of a particular political party and they decide to turn their backs on their party, supporters and the electors, we the electors should have the right to petition Parliament for a by-election.

There are many Labour and Conservative voters who now find themselves with MPs representing a party they did not vote for and these MPs have no mandate to represent that constituency under their new colours.

I have already made representation to my local MP with regard to changing the law. This will allow us the right to petition Parliament if our MP deserts to another political party.

Then to top it all I had a Labour leaflet through my door demanding a general election NOW! Is this the same Labour Party that has for years been demanding a general election every Prime Minister’s Question Time and when given a chance to have one, they voted against it twice?

You couldn’t make it up.

Allan Woodham, Nythe, Swindon

Political solutions

I AM grateful to Adam Poole for yet another opportunity to respond to one of his missives on Brexit (SA, September 26).

In his latest letter, Adam ‘demands’ that Article 50 be revoked. That is an interesting suggestion not least as Article 50 was triggered by a vote of MPs in Parliament and not ‘imposed’ on an unsuspecting public by the prime minister of the day.

One assumes that the 612 MPs who debated and voted on Article 50 were absolutely au fait with the consequences of the vote – indeed one must surely accept this to be the case especially as 498 MPs from across the political spectrum voted in support of the bill. It has been clearly stated in the past that leave voters did not know what they were voting for, surely the same cannot be said of Members of Parliament.

Adam censures the PM and refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in respect of prorogation.

I think everyone is fully aware that the PM was using a tactic to bring into effect a plan – very unwise but actually little different to the machinations of the Remainers who have used the courts as opposed to Parliament to advance their cause.

One should also add that they have been fortunate in having a Speaker who is more that anxious to assist them.

Parliament and government have a relationship in which each is strong enough to look after itself, as Parliament for its part has amply demonstrated throughout the Brexit process.

Differences between them have always been settled using convention and precedent.

That is how things in Parliament usually work, and I believe the majority of readers will agree that political solutions are preferable to legal solutions because they concentrate on finding the answer which attracts the widest support.

The government did not, as the Supreme Court appears to suggest, seek to withdraw from this relationship. It announced the prorogation to MPs in advance and gave the Commons opportunities to respond, for example, with a vote of no confidence.

That the opposition was unwilling to submit itself to the electorate speaks volumes about them as opposed to a prime minister who has offered them the very general election they claim to want.

Des Morgan, Caraway Drive, Swindon

Letters to the Editor: What do you think?

Do you have an opinion on our reader letters? Get in touch.

Add your contribution now By uploading a contribution, for use online and in print, you accept our contributor terms. You will either own or have permission to use anything you provide.