Dear Richard,

I heard you speak in the Anglican Church in Bovey Tracey last night. I attended hoping that the depravity of the onslaught on a broken country was going to be raised, along with that other triumph of the Judaeo-Christian coalition, Palestine. The vicar told me that my submitted question on how each candidate would see resolution 242 being enforced was the only one about Palestine in the forty-two questions submitted. Of course, parochial England cannot contemplate a slow crucifixion of a people which a Christian Lord James Balfour instigated 78 years ago. Better to stick to hunting and rural post offices which latter are being killed off by the neo-liberal policies which your party shares with the two other conservative parties.

I am sorry that you did not find time to answer my written questions on Palestine, Iraq and UK support for more wars planned by the neo-conservatives whose power resides in the US,UK and Israel. I understand that you are very busy. The only response - and it was a full and apparently honest one - was from Mr Colman, the UKIP candidate. But you have been courteous in your responses to my questions and opinions on these two most central issues. We have both had to wait several months for those vapid, and often devious letters from ministers. I have reflected on what difference my efforts have made to the /nakba - /the catastrophe that is Palestine - as channeled via yourself into the parliamentary process. The answer is zilch.

So how do I vote? The most crucial matter for me and for millions is the Iraq war, and especially its legality and morality. Your party was not anti-war when it came to it. You fell into line behind the troops, and also of course, behind the cruise missiles, cluster bombs and uranium sheathed shells /bombs. You did not fall with the 100,000 Iraqis or comforted the 300,000 who have lost limbs (like the Abbas lad), eyes, skin or minds. The green leather benches and the bonhomie of the Commons tea room have been your comfort instead. I have said to you before that 'support for the troops' is no defence when a war is not defensive. You would not have been 'behind' the paras as they cocked their weapons to gun down unarmed Republicans in Londonderry. You will have no defence when there are trials for the Guernica that is Fallujah. The Nuremberg Rules and the Hague Convention of 1907 will not allow any mitigation for 'supporting the troops'.

And what of the leaders. I have insufficient words for Blair. I know as a doctor that he is a psychopath and supreme egotist. His lethality is obvious. Mr Howard's colleagues, Duncan-Smith, Ancram and Jenkin had crossed the Atlantic several times in 2002 to get their marching orders from their Republican pals, so any protest from a Tory about the war is bound to be hollow. Howard , a lawyer, has said that he 'would have gone to war for regime change'. So a leader of HM's opposition would have been/is ready to break international law. Preventive detention would be applied in a just world. And then I listened carefully to your leader when he was interviewed by John Humphrys on Monday. Just at the end JH asked if HMG was arraigned before the ICC for its part in the war on Iraq, would he support that? He answered, I believe, 'No, I am at one with Tony Blair on that. The answer is the ballot box.' I called him spineless when he sacked Jenny Tonge from his front bench, and I call him the same now.

We have three main parties of neo-liberal political 'belief'. The Lib-Dems could have cut out a principled and possibly inspiring path but you have not. Millions of us see the choice between Tweedledum, Tweedledee and Tweedle. This time, Tweedle is not getting my vote. Meanwhile Pilger, Galloway and all those folk working for justice in Palestine and Iraq, speak with me and for me. Parliament really is a stinking bubble.

Yours sincerely David Halpin FRCS