Being a Malaysian residing in the UK, I enjoyed reading Farah Fahmy's piece Britons labour to elect a new government . There are, however important things to be clarified in her article.

First, the author wrote that: 'The Tories, being the inheritors of the Whig Party (the party of landowners and aristocrats in the old days), are largely a party of the right, with a strong belief in capitalism'.

This is a factual mistake. As the author noted, the Conservative Party's members are also known as 'the Tories'. This is because the party inherited the ideological mantle of the loosely- organised Tory Party which existed until the early 19th century. They were associated with the lesser gentry, and their views centred on a strong support for the monarchy and the Church of England.

The Whigs were the opponents of the Tories. They were associated with the monied classes and religious dissenters (those who did not belong to the Anglican Church). Their views were generally in support of Parliament (and parliamentary reform) as well for industrial and commercial expansion.

In 1868, a group of Whigs, free-trade Tories and left-wing radicals came together to form the Liberal Party. The inheritors of the Liberals (and by extension, to a certain extent, the Whigs) are the Liberal-Democrats, currently taking on a socially-liberal and economically-progressive platform.

Secondly, she wrote: 'Labour, traditionally made up of the working classes and the trade unions, has up till recently, stood to the left of the political spectrum with a strong socialist belief in how to organise society'.

True, Labour has a distinctly leftist pedigree. The first full-fledged Labour government of Clement Atlee is noted for advancing a full-fledged welfare state in post-war Britain. But that fails to appreciate that Labour in government (as it was in the 1960s) tends to actually operate more in the centre as governing parties do (albeit not as rightward as Blair's).

It was the schism between the right and left in the party (with the left gaining dominance) that crippled the Labour government of the 1970s and which paved way for Thatcher's Tories.

This distinct leftward surge was what pushed a group of centre-left Labour leaders including Roy Jenkins, Shirley Williams, David Owen and Roy Jenkins (the Gang of Four) to leave Labour and form the Social Democrats in 1981. They then formed an alliance with the Liberals, and later merged to form the Liberal-Democrats.

Thus, the author fails to appreciate the continuous battle between the left and right within Labour.

Thirdly, the author wrote that Gordon Brown is more socialist than Tony Blair.

I admit most of the Labour party is more socialist than Blair. But the writer fails to recognise that while Brown has socialist roots (as most Labour leaders do), he is in fact Blair's partner in the centre-left (or centre-right, depending on your perspective) stewardship of Britain.

This was the chancellor of the exchequer that immediately upon assuming control of government, granted the Bank of England the independence and responsibility to set the base-rate of interest, something certainly not socialist-like.

Brown is influenced by Ed Balls, his former aide, who believes in a 'neo-classical endogenous growth theory'. The theory attempts to reconcile free-trade with social democracy.

He has expressed his displeasure at some introductions of the market within the public services and is reportedly less keen on the Euro than his other Labour colleagues. More often than not, his appeal to 'old Labour values' are made due to his intense personal rivalry with Blair.

Otherwise, it was an excellent article. My letter is merely to point out a factual mistake and a few nuances that I think the author missed.