Not important that politicians are rich

He started by expressing an objection to an MP assisting David Cameron’s leadership campaign but gives no reasons.

At least the move was successful and subsequently the outcome of the general election was almost so. Many see that as grounds for commendation.

Cameron is criticised for not wanting to reject donations to his party; would any party-leader, on the right or the left, do so?

Mr Jackson claims that three-quarters of Cabinet members are millionaires.

I do not know or care whether that is so as I am not envious, but at least it indicates that there is no political barrier to Mr Jackson himself achieving wealth and status were he worthy of it (and I say that as someone without public school education, inherited wealth or the skills for high political achievement).

He should rejoice in the freedoms we all can enjoy but if independence from Westminster control, limited as it is nowadays, is of over-arching importance, he is free to take up residence in Wales or Scotland.

The rationalisation of constituency boundaries was mooted well before the Coalition came to power and, if effected, will correct many existing misalignments.

I personally hope that Bexhill and Battle remains as a constituency with only minor change but I acknowledge that if it is decided otherwise it will be for undeniably legitimate reasons and not for regional political advantage.

Accusations of ‘stitching up’ are not worthy of a response.

Mr Jackson acknowledges that the nation accepts free market capitalism which, despite shortcomings that need correction, has, over decades, proved to be a far better economic and political system than the left is able to provide.

I am sorry having to say that he seems to belong to, or at least sympathise with, the group of the population who are driven by envy and think that, paraphrasing, everybody else’s grass is greener than their own.

Clive Mackie

Netherfield