Nuclear disarmament, Iraq and others

The prospects for nuclear disarmament are extremely bleak

The prospects for nuclear disarmament are extremely bleak

Sir: It was good to see a call for the resurrection of multilateral nuclear disarmament in a national newspaper (Johann Hari, 6 May). But it is no criticism of the article to say that it's going to need an awful lot more than the occasional mention in a column to get any progress on this matter at the present time.

Older readers will remember that during the years of the Cold War all mainstream politicians, even right wing ones, claimed to believe in multilateral nuclear disarmament - especially when arguing with CND types - as soon as the international situation permitted it. I still remember a leading Conservative beginning his answer to a question on Question Time with "Us multilateralists..."

Were they always grossly insincere, or was it the historical accident that reformers coming to power in the Soviet Union coincided with narrow and rigid conservatives being in power in key western countries that caused it to never happen? We cannot be sure.

But for whatever reason, this country, in common with the other nuclear powers, now gives total priority to retaining its own nuclear weapons, no matter what, whatever happens, irrespective of all other considerations, and for ever. They won't do anything serious to prevent further spread of nuclear weapons for example, because if they did it would put pressure on them to give up their own.

The promises made to a generation have been betrayed. The likeliest scenario, as Hari mentions, is that sooner or later someone will use a nuclear weapon, and then - perhaps - the shock effect might induce some change of attitude. That, sadly, is the situation at the present time.

ROGER SCHAFIR

LONDON N21

Why we cannot 'move on' from Iraq

Sir: In his post-election speech to the party faithful, Tony Blair acknowledged the loss of Labour seats and referred to "fallen comrades". In light of the Iraq war being a major issue in the election this is a crass and insensitive metaphor. It would appear that Blair still fails to recognise the intense opposition to the war and the anger over the unnecessary deaths of our troops and Iraqi civilians.

He may want to move on. I did not vote Labour because of the Iraq war. I will never vote for the Labour party as long as Blair is its leader. Perhaps it is time for Blair to realise that a large number of people do not want to move on with him. We would prefer to leave him behind, consigned to a period of our history where we failed to make the correct judgements in both domestic and foreign policy, and move on with a new Prime Minister. The poignant phrase engraved on many war memorials springs to mind: "Lest we forget". I will not forget, especially, our war dead.

JOHN MCKINLEY

BIRMINGHAM

Sir: What on earth is Steve Richards on about (Opinion, 5 May)? He makes Tony Blair sound like some kid still coming to terms with work experience. He feels that Blair's "original and premature support for military action" was because he had to be "strong on defence"after Old Labour's weaknesses, but he could not rise above "such nervy calculations" because he served his political apprenticeship in the 1980s.

Oh, so that was it. Now, of course, we must quickly get the explanation e-mailed across to relatives of thousands of innocent Iraqis blown to bits by Blair's boyishness. They're bound to feel a whole lot better.

PETER CORDWELL

LONDON SE12

Sir: The Prime Minister states that people want to "move on" from Iraq. Not so. This is as self-deceived as his contention that he was right to go to war, that the intelligence was not exaggerated, and that the Attorney General never changed his mind about the legality of the war. So long as the daily slaughter continues, so long as the civilian houses and infrastructure destroyed by the Coalition forces remain unrepaired, so long as Iraq hovers on the brink of civil war, it would be immoral to "move on". Mr Blair must be held accountable.

SIR GEOFFREY CHANDLER

DORKING, SURREY

Sir: Rob Hinkley (letters, 6 May) bemoans the conspicuous silence as to alternative ways of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. As well he might: the plausible alternatives weren't widely aired in the mainstream debate, but they existed.

In 2000 the Muslim Peace Fellowship suggested a five-point plan involving support for Iraqi civil society, a general Middle Eastern arms embargo, and wider reforms. In the US, Sojourner magazine outlined at least two blueprints for largely nonviolent strategic campaigns. None of these strategies could have guaranteed perfection, but their outcomes could hardly have been worse than the catastrophe which actually transpired.

SIMON HEYWOOD

SHEFFIELD

The electoral system needs to change

Sir: I didn't vote on 5 May and so I will be labelled an apathetic voter. Which to an extent, I suppose I am. I am apathetic about the level of difference between the parties available to vote for, and about an election based primarily on each party telling us how unsuitable the other one is for Government.

I am apathetic about an electoral system that forces me to choose between which party I trust to run the country, and which MP I trust to represent my views in Parliament. If the local MP who best suits me is Lib Dem, but I want a Conservative Prime Minister, I have to compromise and decide whether to vote locally or nationally.

It troubles me that I only get a say in who runs the country if those in my small local area agree with me: I've lived my entire life inside safe seats, and watching the politicians concentrate all their efforts on the marginals shows me just how important they feel my vote is.

I'm apathetic about a system that is so sure of its own validity that it interprets the fall in voter turnout as being the fault of the voters and commissions a series of adverts based on the premise that voters don't understand that politics has an impact on their everyday lives. Rather, that is, than consider the possibility that voters know this, but can't see any reason to vote when no party represents their views.

And yet I am passionate about the fair and accountable government of this country. I support the right of dissent, and I support the ideal of one person, one vote. I wish that "None of the above" was included on every ballot paper to allow those who feel unrepresented the chance to make that clear. I would happily take part in a system that cared enough about my participation to change to encourage it.

PAUL DALE SMITH

MANCHESTER

Sir: There is an urgent need for a national debate on our system of democracy. Following last Thursday's election I am left feeling cheated and unrepresented by the British electoral system. Examining the results of the poll, the Labour party won 35 per cent of the vote but now have 55 per cent of the seats, the Conservative party won 32 per cent of the vote but now have only 30 per cent of the seats and the Liberal Democrat party won 22 per cent of the vote but now have only 9 per cent of the seats. Is it at all surprising that people do not feel motivated to vote in a general election when they know that the votes they cast do not translate into parliamentary representation?

I understand and accept the point that we have traditionally voted to choose a person to represent the population of a geographical constituency. However I can't help but feel that this is something of an anachronism in these days when most parliamentary debates are on national issues and most regional issues are addressed by regional assemblies or county councils. But even were this not the case, local representation at a national level is not incompatible with some form of proportional representation. Whichever alternative system one favours, it seems undeniable that the current British electoral system is not actually democratic and it must be changed before the next election.

JOE WILTSHIRE

LONDON WC1

Sir: In the recent election, large numbers of us had to vote tactically to deliver our preferred choice: a Labour Government with a reduced majority, without risking the alternative of a Conservative win. On this occasion, we have managed to do so effectively. But isn't it time we had a modern electoral system, so we could vote for what we wanted, rather than having to vote against what we don't want? The Jenkins proposals, for a proportional system that does not break the constituency link, need to be dusted off and actioned. You promised to listen, Mr Blair. We are waiting to see if you have heard.

VICKY SEDDON

SHEFFIELD

Sir: The least useless lot got elected, and somehow all the parties have had a disappointing election night. That seems to be exactly the result the electorate wanted, and we can congratulate ourselves on a positive display of apathy. Don't vote, it only encourages them.

SEAN WOODS

BRORA, SUTHERLAND

Sir: Your readers complain (letters, 6 May) that voting is pointless if they live in a safe seat. Not so. At all stages in the political cycle, our pundits and politicians will constantly reference opinion polls, using the latest election figures as an index mark. A vote in a safe seat still counts when politicians and pundits consider percentage swing to or from a particular party. Tony Blair may still be in power, but his policies are already changing as a result of the swing against him.

ROBERT SHARP

EDINBURGH

Surtitles are a boon for opera goers

Sir: In answer to David Lister ("Do we need surtitles in English opera?" 6 May); if you accept that surtitles in opera are a good thing, then they should be used for English too. There are always passages where words are difficult to comprehend. They include high-lying passages for sopranos, concerted ensembles and choruses, fortissimo orchestral accompaniment, not to mention where the listener is sitting.

Is there a place for opera in English? Certainly. I remember performances of Wagner's Ring in the 1970s where the confrontations between the characters were electric precisely because we were hearing the piece in English. But, whatever the language, surtitles fill the inaudibility gaps.

IAN PARSONS

LONDON W2

A 21st-century medical practice

Sir: I read with interest "The doctor will e-mail you now", (3 May). At my practice we have been using e-mail as a way of communicating between staff and patients for five years. I regularly receive e-mail health questions from patients, even when on holiday as far away as Australia! I encourage patients to e-mail me for test results; far more convenient than appointments.

Patients can access all sorts of health information from the practice website (www.marplecottage.co.uk), they can book appointments on line, request repeat prescriptions and access their illness-management plans.

I believe that, just as telephone consultations were initially frowned upon and have now become acceptable, that in the fullness of time e-mail, virtual conferencing and diagnosis will all become commonplace.

DR ANDREW JOHNSON, MRCGP

MARPLE CHESHIRE

Ministers' mystery reappearances

Sir: In 1941 I was a page boy at the Ritz Hotel. That roost was ruled by the head porter, one George Thakatakas, a fearsome man of international renown and badly mangled English. All new staff were told: "If George sacks you, say 'yes sir', leave by the staff door, walk round the Park, come back quietly and get on with something useful".

I ignored this advice. Sacked by George, I said nothing and headed for the main door, taking my uniform off. A bellow from behind stopped me and George roared "Boy! If I give you da sac and you takea da sac I give you da sac!" Chastened, I left by the staff door and circled Green Park twice. I recall this because I can't help wondering which park Blair's ex-ministers circle before reappearing.

PIP YOUNGMAN

TAUNTON

Wind power pays

Sir: W M Edgar (letter, 2 May) worries that 200 tons of carbon dioxide would be released in building a wind turbine and its concrete foundations. Conventional power stations produce about 2lbs of carbon dioxide per kWh, so a 600kW wind turbine at full power will pay off its carbon debt in only about 16 days.

DAVID RIDGE

LONDON N19

Two wheels good

Sir: A matter not raised in your article "Why Britain has fallen in love with the bicycle" (6 May) is its energy efficiency. In a time of rising global temperatures and depletion of fossil fuel, the bicycle is the most energy-efficient widely available means of transport. By using the bike for all short journeys the beneficial impact on the environment may almost outweigh the benefit to human physique. And one day The Independent may even replace its car supplement with a bike one instead.

MR S U SJOLIN

BURY ST EDMUNDS

Non-violent action

Sir: Although CND would very much like to claim the credit for the action which took place in April last year at Northwood, the Ministry of Defence headquarters in north-west London, described in your report "Brown refuses to back Blair's nuclear programme" (3 May), the action was in fact organised by members of Trident Ploughshares. This group is committed to disarming the UK Trident nuclear weapons system in a nonviolent, open, peaceful and fully accountable manner and is strongly supported by CND.

LINDA HUGL

CND TREASURER HORSHAM, WEST SUSSEX

Home of the wrap

Sir: So-called Mexican wraps ("Is it a wrap for the sandwich moguls?", 6 May) are in fact Tex-Mex and American South-west in origin. Mexican tortillas are mostly made of corn, not wheat, and are eaten warm. The chicken fillings we go for - caesar, fajita, cajun - wouldn't mean much to the average Mexican. Wraps were launched here around the time of Labour's 1997 victory. Curiously, sales took off in 2001 after Tony Blair cosied up to the toxic Texan.

JOSEPH PALLEY

RICHMOND SURREY