If Oliver Cromwell could come back and observe the debating chamber of the House of Commons at Prime Minister's Question Time, he would shake his head in wonder at what he was seeing and hearing.

The scene would remind him of an argument in the street between two fishwives, rather than an exchange between senior statesmen, who should be maintaining and promoting respect for this high office and the people who put them there.

He would be wanting to know who they had been speaking for and what was achieved by this public performance.

The answer would not have pleased him, because this is a perfect example of party politics - 'slagging off' each other to please the party and its supporters is the name of the game. Nothing can be achieved by such negative political time wasting.

Mr Cromwell might ask why we have, or need to have, party politics in the first place?

Party politics are divisive to the electorate and take no account of the quality and ability of the candidate. Voting for the party first means that we take pot luck with the candidate.

No Party in Politics would mean that every candidate would stand as an independent and would, if elected, be free to speak and act in the interest of the people on every occasion, rather than toe the party line.

The main benefit to the people would be that a government could be formed from the whole house, more than 600 MPs.

The elected Prime Minister would be able to choose the very best, from the best, to form a government.

Local politics are blighted by the same problem, with the electorate voting on party lines.

People who have been involved in local politics for years are now claiming that the use of the whip at meetings is increasing and impinging on the free speech and authority of councillors.

By this time, Oliver Cromwell would be sorry that he came back to look at Westminster in action.

This great man knew a thing or two. Sorry we made a mess of it.

MAURICE SHEA Hadland Road Abingdon