I would disagree and contend that confrontation is not only normal and natural between human beings, but an essential part of life.

What applies to normal everyday life is doubly so in politics.

The 'heat of debate' should be at the heart of politics.

But there is something contraditory about Mr Bell.

He cannot say that he is heading for a less confrontational form of politics and in the next breath say that Neil Hamilton is entitled to vigorously express his more than confrontational views (last week's Knutsford Guardian).

It is, I would argue, yet another example of yet more ambiguity from our MP.

I would suggest that Martin Bell is more than happy to be confrontational if he is the one in the driving seat.

I can remember him referring to Christine Hamilton as an 'attack bitch' on the programme, Mr Bell goes to Westminster.

Then I vaguely recollect that shortly after he began his term in office he stood up in Parliament and said: 'We had slain one dragon (the Tories) only for another one to appear in its place with a red rose in its mouth.'

And what about his opinion that the Knutsford Guardian incited revolution over its comments on May Day last year.

Nothing either kind, gentle or non-confrontational about those comments.

I voted for Martin Bell as an Independent candidate because I believed he had the necessary gumption to strongly represent this constituency in Parliament.

I did not expect him to decide to play it nicely, nicely. Perhaps when he finishes his 'one-term only' in Tatton he should go and join the Labour Party. Tony Blair also does not realise that confrontation is normal in politics. There is only one way of doing anything in the Labour Party and that's his way - by being a yes man.

AVID READER

Name and address supplied

Converted for the new archive on 13 March 2001. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.