Today’s first letter comes from our reader Geoffrey Brooking, addressing the Budget:


What we have learnt from this year’s budget is that all the scaremongering over Brexit has been proven wrong:

George Osborne predicted 800,000 job losses. Yet more jobs are being created than ever before.

Public finances were predicted to be out of control. Yet the books are set to be balanced quicker than anyone imagined.

Vote Leave were constantly accused of lying on the side of their battle bus.

The fact that a massive increase in NHS spending of £20.5 billion has just been announced, along with very welcome investment in mental health services proves that these accusations were fake too.

All I can say is: please can we have a W.T.O Brexit too.

By doing that we would save another £39 billion and turn what is projected to be a budget deficit into a budget surplus and thus allow Britain to thrive outside of the dreaded EU.

Respectfully, Geoffrey Brooking

Our reader Richard Gibbins sent in his fulminant letter on ‘democracy’:


The constant press and media coverage of the clamour by Remoaners for a People’s Vote, aka another Referendum, is an affront to democracy and very tedious.

The size of the recent march in London is irrelevant as over two million marched in opposition to the proposed illegal war in Iraq. Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell ignored the march but at least they didn’t have to reverse the result of a referendum, as there hadn’t been one.

Why haven’t the organisers of the last march concentrated on the outrageous plans for HS2? In addition to the burgeoning cost of over £100 billion, there is the wanton destruction of homes, businesses, people’s lives, woodlands and the environment.

There is no end to the misuse of taxpayers’ money, with the latest development of the defiling of burial grounds and the employment of 1000 archaeologists to compare the health and lifestyles of over 40,000 skeletons of bodies buried in London and Birmingham hundreds of years ago.

I suggest those who are so concerned about our future, should call for a People’s Vote, aka referendum, to scrap HS2 and spend the money on health and social welfare, education, policing, defence, upgrading of our existing transport policy and concentrating on trading with the world.

The puerile arguments for a further referendum include a quote from a member of the “impartial” Electoral Commission, that the result is now invalid as many elderly people who voted Leave are now dead and two million young people are now eligible to vote.

This can be levelled against all election results. To reaffirm how ludicrous it is to even make such a statement, should all sporting teams that have players unavailable because of injury, demand to have a replay if they lose?

As cricket legend , Geoff Boycott said during the fifth cricket test against India, does the captain losing the toss suggest best of three or best of five?

Just get on with it.          

Respectfully, Richard Gibbins

The next letter is from Philip Allan who points out a problem which other readers and members will surely find their Councils are also creating for the good of their constituents … all based on EU “Law”. Please let us know if this is also happening where you live:


I am a UKIP member living in the city of Bath. The local Council are going to enforce a Clean Air Zone within the city. Owners of cars older than 2006 will be expected to pay £9.00 per day if they use their cars within the zone; commercial vehicles more. The Council are going to spend 12 million pound installing vehicle registration identification cameras.

In my opinion, this policy will discriminate against poorer members of the community who cannot afford new vehicles and will make it difficult for them to travel from A to B. especially to inner zone supermarkets and the like. It will also impact upon the local economy as cost incurred by traders will be passed on to consumers.

The whole thing is, as one would expect,driven by the Government attempting to implement EU regulations. I am certain that other knock on effects can be revealed when studying this policy.

Would UKIP oppose such a policy implementation? This is only the beginning, soon every city and town will have to do the same thing. I believe this innovation is as much to do with control and limiting people’s freedoms and not just a matter of reducing air pollution. It is another example of EU tyranny foisted upon us by our REMAYNER Government.

The Council members state that the Government have threatened to fine the city if they do not reduce the pollution levels to EU dictates!

Please let me know what you think.

Respectfully, Philip Allen

Finally, a letter from our contributor Roger Arthur:


Last Sunday’s Telegraph asked why MPs should not have second jobs.

Of course many Councillors do have other occupations, but they are bound to declare conflicts of interest and to not attempt to vote on issues in which they have a conflict of interest.

That seems not to be the case for MPs, some of whom may be landlords, land owners, or directors (or have been promised directorships) of large companies. But according to the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (OPCS) it is for MPs to decide whether or not they have a material conflict of interest.

That is what the OPCS advised me when I asked if some MPs might have a vested interest in remaining in the EU, in which the free movement of capital facilitates tax avoidance on a large scale.

I could also have cited CAP subsidies for large land owners, which may be lost after Brexit, or possibly even the loss of EU pensions for some, if they are seen to be too critical the EU.

So yes it would be good to have politicians in the public service, from the real world and who can afford to defy the whip if they need to. But why should they not be required to comply with rules similar to those applying to local councillors?

Respectfully, Roger Arthur


Print Friendly, PDF & Email