Chuka Umunna is right in calling for tactically progressive voting alliances

Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

Chuka Umunna has previously criticised the UK’s current first past the post electoral system, which he claims is partly to blame for calculated manoeuvres of this kind (AFP/Getty)

Chuka Umunna is right to call for tactical progressive voting alliances. A prime example of where it could work is where I live in Northeast Somerset. I am an unashamed Remoaner and a member of the Liberal Democrats, but should a tactical alliance be set up I would be delighted to vote for the Labour Party in this constituency to unseat our MP, Jacob Rees-Mogg. If it was agreed to put up only a Labour candidate in Northeast Somerset and only a Lib Dem candidate in Bath, both parties would win as we would be assured of keeping our Lib Dem MP in Bath. This way democracy would win and the centre would have the representation it deserves.

Charles Tricks
Pensford

The royal family provides stability which is a must considering the Brexit shambles

So Ian Driver (Letters) would like to abolish the royal family. Given that the present government is struggling to divorce us from Europe how does he think they would cope with a divorce from the royals? And think of the expense! Presumably he would like to have an elected president as in the United States, Russia, Syria, Iran and Israel to name but a few.

The royal family provide stability and continuity and at the moment welcome relief from the shambles that is Brexit.

As Hilaire Belloc put it in one of his Cautionary Tales for Children: “Always keep a-hold of nurse for fear of finding something worse.”

Gillian Cook
Market Harborough

Britain has been deeply involved with the Galileo project since its beginning – lets keep it that way

It is a pity that the EU is threatening to block the UK from the Galileo satellite navigation system on the pretext that it cannot trust the UK with sensitive information after Brexit.

When a territorial entity splits up, the resulting breakaways face one of two alternatives with regards to pursuing their future bilateral relations. They can either follow the Singapore-Malaysia model, which espouses compromise, partnership and a common goal of security and economic cooperation or the India-Pakistan model, which is a recipe for permanent rivalry, mistrust and everlasting animosity.

Britain has been deeply involved in the Galileo project since its very beginning. If the EU were to now expel Britain from the project, such expulsion would be tantamount to opting for the worst of the two scenarios.

Randhir Singh Bains
Essex

Starting a new party of Remainers to thwart Brexit is hopeless

David Miliband, Yvette Cooper, Nick Clegg, Vince Cable and Jeremy Corbyn as the good basis for a new party to keep us in Europe (Letters)?

Sorry D Hazell, there’s more chance of pulling it off with Julian, Dick, Anne, George and Timmy the dog than with that infamous five!

Mark Boyle
Johnstone

Education experts should trust teachers who have their pupils’ welfare at the forefront of what they do

Teachers are being told not to ask students what they did over the weekend – not just because of privacy issues but because of poverty concerns. However, it could possibly be a well-intentioned idea that in hindsight seems silly.

Teachers try to connect with their students and Monday morning’s opening inquiry is not designed to set up students for embarrassment, but to manage the start of the week, when what they did over the weekend is probably all the students are going to be talking about anyway. There are many dangers in this including students telling the truth, which may be more than the teacher wants to know.

The notion of poverty shaming students should not be contemplated at all, as teachers want to do the best they can for their students and hopefully embarrassing pupils as a way to discipline them has gone out of fashion along with the cane.

Rather than dictating what teachers can talk to students about, education experts should trust the teachers who have their pupils’ welfare in their thoughts.

Dennis Fitzgerald
Melbourne, Australia

Labour Party rebels who oppose Corbyn should test the popularity of their policies

One consequence of proportional representation (PR) would likely be the (more logical) ordering of British politics so that parties would become more clearly representative of the class forces that constitute their reason for existence.

Chuka Umunna is right about PR and beyond the democratic arguments it is clear why he might favour it – PR would rather immediately provide a political lifeline for the post-Blairite “cuckoos in Labour’s nest” of which he is the most coherent representative.

However, he is wrong to suggest that “internal debate on any policy issue is too often not judged according to its merits, but the degree to which the advocate of the argument is an admirer of Jeremy Corbyn”.

Corbyn is admired, not only by new joiners to the party, but by the legions of rejoiners and the many who stayed loyal through the betrayals which occurred during the years of Neil Kinnock, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, precisely because of his persistent stand on policy.

It is telling that his parliamentary opponents consist principally of those who voted for war and privatisation, immigration controls and the featherbedding of big business and the banks whilst successive Labour governments failed to repeal, as promised, the Conservative Party’s anti-union laws.

Corbyn’s rebellions against the whip on these issues are why he is so popular.

There is a somewhat fluid constituency for people who support these policies but cannot bring themselves to join the Conservatives.

Labour MPs who, like Umunna, harvested a bonus of votes in the last election because of Corbyn’s popularity and the appeal of the Labour manifesto, which marked a sharp break with previous offerings, could, of course, test the popularity of their policies by resigning their seats and fighting a byelection.

Nick Wright
Faversham

Planning for death by cancer shouldn’t be seen as giving up

Your article titled Fighting attitude could have negative effect on terminal cancer patients’ end of life experience, which was published on Tuesday, highlighted the fact that telling cancer patients to fight their disease only puts them under undue pressure and stops them from talking about end of life plans.

So much of the narrative around cancer today focuses on the fight against the disease. The reality is many people will still die from the illness, while more people than ever will survive. Planning for death should not be seen as giving up. Often, it is more about taking back control and positively managing the condition.

At Marie Curie, we believe language around illness is very important – we try not to use words like war, battle or fight. The people we support have a terminal illness, whether it is terminal cancer or another condition and we focus on ensuring they have the right care, information and support they need.

It is incredibly important to start these conversations early on, so people can make their final wishes known to their families and to healthcare professionals. If this happens too late or not at all, not only can this affect the person’s end of life care, but their families can be left suffering feelings of guilt or regret.

Broaching what can be a difficult subject can have a positive impact on how someone sees their illness and can help their family cope better, so that they can focus on enjoying the time they have together.

Elaine Hill, deputy director of nursing at Marie Curie
Address supplied