Letter writers who deploy clever linguistic tactics in order to denigrate fellow readers whose views they dislike deserve to be called out. Sue Hawking (letters, July 24) calls me ‘opinionated’ and accuses me of giving a ‘lecture’. Yes, I have opinions (for which I make no apology – and Sue clearly has them, too); and if what I wrote is a ‘lecture’, then so is every other letter that appears on this page – including that of Sue Hawking. So this is how, in the world of denigration and casual smear, having opinions gets morphed into being ‘opinionated’, and how setting out a rational case morphs into delivering a ‘lecture’.

Thankfully, Sue does at least attempt to respond to the case I made in my letter of July 17 on electoral reform, albeit not very convincingly. I don’t dispute that most MPs are decent (if often naive) folk; rather, it’s the party-political system that’s the problem, together with MPs captured by corporate interests, and being unwittingly immersed in an establishment system that positions them in ways they’re often not aware of.

But in what conceivable democratic universe can it be termed a ‘mandate’ to secure nearly two-thirds of the seats in Parliament when only just over one in five of the registered voters supported your party? Or when the Liberal Democrats attract 12.2 per cent of the popular vote (3,519,143 votes) and ‘win’ 72 seats, while Reform attracts 14.3 per cent of the vote (4,117,610 votes), and gains just five seats?

I am very concerned about the total undermining of our system of governance’s legitimacy by such absurd outcomes – and I hope all true democrats feel the same. An ethically bankrupt polity does not encourage the allegiance and loyalty of those who are subject to it; no wonder public trust in the political system is at an all-time low – dangerously so, indeed.

Sue also seems happy as long as voters can ‘manipulate’ the system. I don’t want to be positioned into expedient, bad-faith manipulative behaviour by an ante-deluvian electoral system, thanks very much! Far better to agree a system in which the majority of voters can have faith and respect.

Finally, what on earth is wrong with coalition government? Virtually the whole of the rest of Europe embraces a proportional voting system, so why the British exceptionalism? As we all know, it’s a cynical, self-interested Con–Lab stitch-up.

I positively welcome political representatives with different ideological views having to negotiate towards consensus, and to find ways to co-operate, rather than the infantile Punch & Judy Show of partisan yah-boo politics that we’ve had to endure since time immemorial.

Richard House

Stroud