Tony Cruddace is right (Letters, September 18) to condemn Tory shenanigans during the 2019 election campaign.

There’s all sorts of skulduggery going on and we do indeed shrug our shoulders but I would question whether Proportional Representation in itself would lead to cleaner politics.

In vote-share terms, the 2019 election would have given 75 seats to the Liberal Democrats, a party whose manifesto included a pledge to use the ‘undemocratic’ parliamentary system it has long campaigned against to stop the implementation of the 2016 referendum result.

It would also - despite the standing down of candidates - have given 13 seats to the Brexit Party which is seen by many to be divisive and extreme.

A Proportional Representation parliament would certainly be more widely representative of the electorate as a whole but wouldn’t necessarily produce moderation and compromise.

People might vote differently in the new scenario and, just as Scottish devolution was meant to put an end to Scottish nationalism and the Scottish voting system was designed to prevent an SNP majority, the outcome of change might not be the intended one.

The House of Commons would need to retain an element of first-past-the-post voting, in any case, to ensure local representation.

But perhaps the House of Lords could be replaced by a body based entirely on Proportional Representation.

This would more accurately reflect public opinion and go some way to closing the gap between parliament and people.

Maybe such an arrangement would lead to a reduction in the sort of the behaviour that Mr Cruddace describes.

Whether that would have been enough to save Labour in 2019 - given Brexit and Jeremy - is another matter.

ROBERT BONE

Hebden Avenue

Carlisle