Politicians make dangerous short-term decisions that destroy British industry

Where are the politicians with the necessary nerves of steel who should immediately step forward and save our last great industry?

British industries and public services, from the railways to steel, have been sold off for short term gain. (AFP/Getty Images)

In my lifetime I have seen a nation that once governed an Empire, ruled the waves and manufactured everything from knives and forks to great ocean going liners, reduced to little more than a satellite of the bureaucrats of Brussels.

Over the years, various governments have sold the family jewels for short term expediency and allowed great names in British manufacturing to be purchased by foreign companies, usually for the benefit of the board and shareholders.

Today, we no longer own the railways, the ports, the utility companies and many great names from our past such as Cunard. Now the steel industry is in trouble and the Government has a meeting to say all avenues are open, except nationalisation.

When the banks were in trouble, the Government did not hesitate; it acted immediately and saved the situation. Where are the politicians with the necessary nerves of steel who should immediately step forward and save our last great industry? Have they considered for just one moment the seriousness of this country depending for its steel from overseas?

When the railways were in trouble, they hired Dr Beeching, who decimated our once wonderful railway network. Other countries, experiencing the same problems, decided just to mothball some railway lines because they may be needed in years to come.

Our politicians are incapable of thinking years ahead. They consider only the next election and their job. In years to come, historians looking at the record of this country will be amazed at how much we have lost. After some simple research, blame will be placed fairly and squarely on the shoulders of politicians who could see no further than the noses on their faces.

Colin Bower
Nottingham

Obama's nuclear legacy is disappointing

Hosting a nuclear security forum of world leaders offers President Obama a rare opportunity to follow through on his earlier pledge to reduce the stockpile of nuclear weapons. Thus far, his efforts have been disappointing. According to the Federation of American Scientists, Obama’s record has been abysmal compared to earlier presidents.

Surprisingly, President George Bush achieved a 50 per cent nuclear stockpile reduction during his tenure, a percentage higher than all other presidents since 1945. Comparatively, Obama has achieved a disappointing 10 per cent reduction of 507 warheads.

In his 2009 foreign policy address in Prague, Obama pledged to seek a world without nuclear weapons. In 2011 he achieved a groundbreaking treaty with Russia which mandated significant nuclear weapons stockpile reductions and inspection verification protocols. Since taking office Obama has persuaded the international community to reduce their stockpiles. But, following the 2011 treaty, the momentum has been lost.

His administration has slashed the National Nuclear Security Administration non-proliferation budget by $339m. To appease a Congress hostile to the treaty, he pledged a significant increase in weapons modernization to the tune of $1tn over 30 years.

This is a tragic mistake. Obama could do far more to fulfill his Prague promise before his term expires.

Jagjit Singh
Los Altos, California

EU membership is at odds with British values

The warning from the Bishop of London about the danger of the government promoting its ill-defined "British values", whether in the context of schools or elsewhere, is to be welcomed. We need a well-informed spiritual input to other aspects of the government's wider agenda.

We are regularly reminded by David Cameron and others that the spiritual foundation of this country is a Judeo-Christian one. Why then is the government looking to further embed this nation into a direction that Europe, with its non-democratic, humanist and pluralist philosophies, is leading, rather than supporting the Brexit campaign?

J Longstaff
Buxted

Corbyn's Britain would be equal to Trump's America

The achievements of the Blair and Brown Governments were fully supported by all members of the present Shadow Cabinet. Some of them opposed other aspects of those Governments’ programmes. That opposition has been vindicated by events.

Jeremy Corbyn has brought world class economists into the British political debate for the first time in 35 years. He has ended the hegemony of neoconservative foreign policy. He has forced the media to include the left-wing critique of the European Union. He has broken the silence around the renewal of Trident, which was not discussed in England at the 2015 General Election. He has exposed this Prime Minister’s ties to Saudi Arabia, the centre of global terrorism.

Under any of last year’s other Leadership candidates, Labour would not have opposed the cuts that have caused Iain Duncan Smith to resign. Tom Watson’s Deputy Leadership makes Corbyn’s a balanced ticket. Corbyn’s Britain would be a significant counterweight to the America of Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton or, although he is the best of the bunch, Bernie Sanders.

With the SNP expected to win most of the constituency seats at Holyrood, all opponents of any one or more of George Osborne’s failed austerity programme, of neoconservative wars, of Trident, and of the Saudi regime, ought to give Labour their list votes. The Labour lead in Wales is welcome, and a riposte to Lynton Crosby’s propaganda. At the English local elections, now that the Liberal Democrats have collapsed, Labour is the only way to vote against cuts to jobs, services and amenities.

David Lindsay
Lanchester, Co Durham

Campaigning for May's Holyrood elections, Nicola Sturgeon tells us she believes Scotland will be independent within her lifetime. Let us all wish her longevity.

Martin Redfern
Edinburgh

Refugee crisis requires rational thought

Oxfam, while commending the UK's outstanding financial contribution to supporting Syrian refugees in Lebanon and Jordan, has condemned our resistance to settling substantial numbers of such refugees here. There is at least some recognition in this that these are both approaches to the same problem. Isn't it reasonable then that money for the two strategies should come out of the same pot?

This raises the question of how to share out that finite resource. What would be the ethical basis for our directing higher per capita spending to refugees in the UK than those in Lebanon or Jordan, or maintaining them in less austere conditions?

The emotional basis is one of narcissism; that the significance of suffering depends upon how visible it is to us, because we are the centre of moral universe. But this can cut little ice with those who lose out under such an arrangement.

There is a social argument that provision for refugees here must be comparable with local living standards. Yet we are told that supporting migrants at the lower end of the economic spectrum has been the root cause of intense and violent disaffection in France and Belgian. If this is to be avoided by rapidly integrating them across that spectrum of affluence then the diversion of funds from the great majority kept on survival rations at a distance becomes so damaging as to be morally indefensible.

If, instead, we take an ethical position of even handedness in allocating resources then we may find we have removed the incentive to come here.

John Riseley
Harrogate

National Living Wage has unintended consequences

Yet another Tory con: the introduction of the Living Wage. A little has been commented on the burden on employers. Lots has been written on the so called benefits for the working class. But the millions who will benefit from their rise in pay may also be hit by a higher National Insurance levy and an increase in tax deductions. Who loses? The people who employ the workers. Who wins? The Treasury mandarins.

Terry Duncan
Bridlington

The jokes we'll never write...

While it was bad enough to read that the comic genius Ronnie Corbett has died, even worse was the news that he was to be knighted in the Queen's Birthday Honours List. All those jokes that the headline writers can't now make about 'the shortest (k)night of the year'. Makes you want to cry.

Colin Burke
Manchester