Prorogation of has a long history as a legitimate mechanism

Henry Ergas correctly supports the prorogation of the British parliament by Boris Johnson (“Judges may disagree, but history backs Boris Johnson”, 27/9). Prorogation has a long history of use in Britain as a mechanism to allow the fusion of executive and legislative power, under conditions of significant parliamentary disruptions. It is not, as Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn says, an anti-democratic process, but is indeed an “efficient secret” (Walter Bagehot, 1867).

Scott Kelly, historian at York University, opines that Britain may be heading in the political direction of the US as a consequence.

Robert Bright, Yorkeys Knob, Qld

As Henry Ergas points out, history shows that prorogation had a stabilising influence on a chaotic parliament as industrialisation radically changed Britain’s social and economic fabric.

When the Brexit referendum result was rejected by parliament with Labour and the minor parties blocking the democratic process of calling an election, the parliament descended into the chaos of pre-industrial times. Then the Supreme Court got in on the act and ruled that the convention of prorogation which had once proved so successful, was no longer lawful.

The Supreme Court and the elite Remain establishment has returned Britain to a dark age.

John Bell, Heidelberg Heights, Vic

Cannabis concerns

Your editorial (“Cannabis risks must be faced”, 27/9) was right to call the ACT law on cannabis use a misstep. The laws will lead to an increase in use as the deterrent is removed.

Not only do these laws not address health concerns, they do not address concerns about the effects of drug use on driving. More than 40 years ago, Hardin Jones, a professor at the University of California, wrote Sensual Drugs with a chapter devoted to the health and social effects of cannabis use. He concluded that the harmful effects of using cannabis should be made known through education and that laws should be enacted that reduced its use.

It is extraordinary that the opposite of his recommendation has occurred in the ACT. As the editorial says, these laws should not set a precedent for other states. Governments have a duty of care to their citizens which the ACT government has failed to meet.

Caroline Brooks, Indooroopilly, Qld

Blow whistle on taggers

Nothing better exemplifies the decline of AFL than the emergence of the tagger. Tagging was invented so that blokes who can’t play could get a game by interfering off the ball with blokes who can. So it’s disappointing that The Australian saw fit to run a story about Matt de Boer (25/9). Nice guy that it seems he is, he’s a tagger.

As a West Coast Eagles supporter, I congratulate Fremantle’s Nat Fyfe on winning his second Brownlow and for his gracious speech. I was impressed by his acknowledgment of Darcy Tucker and Reece Conca who were assigned to tag Fyfe’s taggers out of the game, freeing him to get on with what he does best. This was a touch of coaching genius by Ross Lyon.

Richmond coach Damien Hardwick should take a leaf out of Lyon’s book today and assign a couple of hard nuts to take care of de Boer, who GWS will almost certainly assign to tag Dustin Martin. Run interference on the interferers.

No-skills taggers monster stars such as Martin, Gary Ablett, Andrew Gaff and others off the ball week in, week out. They get away with it even through there are three field umpires. When Gaff finally had a gutful and retaliated, the AFL threw the book at him. The public pays to see the skills of the Martins, the Abletts, and the Gaffs, not the harassing tactics employed against them off the ball. We are being short-changed every time the umpires let them get away with it.

Gary Carter, Leeming, WA