Run-off for UK PM is a ‘democratic advance’

Madam, – It is interesting Labour campaign chief Andrew Gwynne is concerned that a handful of Conservative members should be choosing our next prime minister (Hunt ‘can cause upset’ in battle with Johnson, Courier, June 21).

In fact the way this decision is being made is something of a democratic advance.

It certainly compares favourably with the way Labour chose Gordon Brown by nomination in 2007 and James Callaghan in 1976 by a vote of Labour MPs.

It is an advance too on the way Conservative prime ministers from Chamberlain to Churchill to Eden, MacMillan and DouglasHome were chosen in the middle decades of the last century.

In those days the “customary processes of consultation” – the retiring prime minister making a recommendation to the monarch – was the way the most powerful political figure in the country was determined.

Giving 160,000 party members a choice between Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt is by no means a perfect way of doing it.

It is still more participatory than anything that has gone before.

What is disturbing is the dreadful ageism of many commentators over this event. Many Conservative Party members are well over 55, but they often have a wealth of experience of public life, business and administration.

The criticism that they are mostly well-heeled is an oversimplification, but even if it wasn’t they are still entitled to an opinion.

Members of the Liberal, Labour, SNP, Green and Brexit parties draw members from different social groups and ages.

That is what democracy is about, and those who feel the way to choose Theresa May’s successor is wrong should look closely at history and keep a sense of perspective.

Bob Taylor.

24 Shiel Court, Glenrothes.