AMIDST all the uncertainties of the recent election, at least one thing is now manifestly clear, we can be in no doubt about Anna Nicholas' political allegiances (Majorca Daily Bulletin, Saturday 8 May).

No shrinking violet she; not for her the measured objectivity of journalistic analysis; no pretence at balanced argument or comment formed by a broader world picture than that of the bigoted (adj. unreasonably prejudiced and intolerant. OED) rag-bag of reactionary press views. Her headline is freely borrowed from Murdoch's Sun newspaper and the tone of the whole is more Daily Mail than Daily Telegraph.

Ms Nicholas evidently sees the British electorate as insane for not electing her favourite with a massive majority and the constituents of Morley and Outwood ‘were all clearly mad'. Her personal bêtes noirs are castigated as a ‘waste of space', ‘odious', useless and corrupt', ‘creepy' and the double Oscar-winning Glenda Jackson, who has served as an MP for 18 years is dismissed as one of ‘two old ducks fighting for seats'.

One pities the poor people of Bradford withering under her baleful warning to be ‘careful what you wish for'! However, she rejoices in the ‘fantastic' success of one Zac Goldsmith and, to paraphrase Mrs Merton, one wonders what it was that first attracted Ms Nicholas to the public schoolboy millionaire, tax-evader, who presumes to preach to us on ecology?

Her prescient powers, of course, saw that ‘a hung parliament was in the offing', but astonishingly she also has exclusive insider knowledge that Cameron has ‘generously offered a substantial voice to the Lib dems in coalition.'! Ms Nicholas recognises a ‘Draconian and unsafe electoral system', yet flings her bouquets at the only party obdurately opposed to such electoral reform. Her mathematics are also a little awry when 39% of the vote can be interpreted as ‘having proven that he (Cameron) is the electorate's number one choice for Prime Minister.' Do the math, Anna, as the Americans would say, clearly 61% of the electorate do not want him as PM.
Cameron as knight in shining armour ‘offering hope and solutions to the dire problems inherited from years of ruinous Labour rule' seems yet another part of her personal fairy-land.

Those years of Labour rule gave us the minimum wage, the lowest crime rates in a decade, the end of NHS queues, civil partnerships rights, Sure-Start early schooling and, until the global recession, 11 years of financial stability and growth.

Any new government is going to have to make harsh choices between increasing taxation and cutting expenditure. ‘The electorate has spoken', said Lord Ashcroft, ‘but no one is sure what they said.' What they didn't say, however, was any ringing endorsement for Cameron and the Tories and mostly it would seem that the electorate is concerned that the austerities to come should be most equitably distributed.

This is not a time for platitudes and promise of privilege, nor the ill-considered and divisive partisanship of Ms Nicholas' column.
Nick Clegg will only ‘screw up' if he unwisely goes in to any alliance with the Tories and not seek to find a consensus across those voters who looked for genuine change in 2010 and who would welcome a cross-party initiative on tackling the budgetry crisis.

Yours sincerely

Brian Roberts, Palma