Britain lacks any moral authority to chair Cop26 – look at the Budget for proof

Letters to the editor: our readers share their views. Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

‘Why would any country take a word the UK says on the environment seriously?’ (PA)

If the British government is to make a success of chairing the upcoming Cop26 meeting it must have moral authority. Its recent actions on the environment smack of talking the talk but failing to deliver.

The latest Budget offers a great example, halving passenger tax for internal flights, freezing fuel duty and investing heavily in roads – hardly combatting climate change.

Then there is the development of new coal mines in the north of England.

On this record, why would any country take a word the UK says on the environment seriously?

Paul Donavan

London

How do you rate a monarch?

Salma Shah, in her piece on the Queen yesterday, states that the Queen “has done a good job over her nearly 70 years on the throne”. With a bricklayer, an architect or a heart surgeon it is relatively easy to determine whether they were any good or not, but how does one assess a monarch?

She has launched ships, opened parliament, bridges and buildings, signed off all the laws put in front of her; given speeches, hosted dinners and world figures including Richard Nixon, Donald Trump, the Dalai Lama and Mother Teresa. Lots of people (but less than one in eight of us) watch her speech at Christmas.

Since the 1950s, the UK has seen a reduction of deference, an increase in the divorce rate, rising prevalence of mental health problems in the young, fewer trains and an increase in obesity and economic inequality. On the other hand, we have benefited from the introduction of central heating, double glazing, more reliable cars and foreign holidays, cleaner air, mobile phones and computers, increased rights for LGBTQ+ people, rising life expectancy, and better health care. The list goes on.

I doubt she would claim credit for any of the above, but that does beg the question, how would the UK be different if we had a bad monarch – or no monarch at all?

Nick Donnelly

Winterborne Clenston, Dorset

Pint of Boris, please

A picture of Boris Johnson pouring a pint with a large frothy head – that about sums up the man. Froth, bluster and comedy capers with yet another photo opportunity lacking any real impact. A bit like the Budget, which lacked any real meaning for the average working family who are going to be worse off. Does he really think the public will be taken in by this?

And what’s round the corner? Once the Cop26 delegates and their entourages have been and gone, Covid plan B will inevitably be rolled out.

Let’s just keep Britain open just a little bit longer while we pretend to be serious about the economy and climate change. At the end of the day, it’s only people’s lives at stake.

Gordon Ronald

Hertfordshire

Bad memory lane

By expanding the state and raising the tax burden, this Tory Budget evoked uncomfortable memories of the era of rationing. The chancellor pledged that every government department would receive an above inflation spending increase – an extra £150bn in public-service spending. To pay for such largess, the tax burden will rise by the end of this parliament to well over one-third of our GDP.

This is the kind of high-tax, high-spending economy with low productivity and average public services which would make Gordon Brown blanch. The belief that we can tax our way to wealth has not been borne out in my span of four score years. In fact I have more sympathy with Nigel Lawson’s dictum: “Income or property belongs to the people who earn it and the case has to be made for taxing it away.”

This Budget, along with previously announced policies of raising corporate taxation, national insurance contributions and freezing income tax personal allowances, will deter enterprise. Britain is plunging down the tax competitiveness rankings and is now 22nd out of an index of 36 nations. As social benefits such as the health service get steadily worse, I doubt if “taxing and intervening” is really the way to go.

Dr John Cameron

St Andrews

Shameful and shameless

Refusing to wear masks as a result of their “fraternal” relationships and roaring with approval at the prospect of the red ensign flying on merchant ships – the level of sincerity and seriousness by the party of government is shameful and shameless.

Not to worry, we’re all optimists now. We are living in the post-Covid age where 40,000 additional infections a day and a further 1,500 deaths a week are only noticeable if you’re a moaning “doomster and gloomster”. Cheer up, it’s survival of the fittest from now on: the poor stay poor while the rich get richer all the time.

Graham Powell

Cirencester

Missing the point

So plan B would hit the economic recovery and bringing in Covid passports would badly affect business.

Well I have news for government ministers – the need for more drastic action at a later date will cause more damage than earlier proportionate action will, and I believe that Covid passports don’t adversely affect business. A look across the channel to France will confirm that.

Covid passports for larger venues will only drive people into the pubs instead of clubs? Well in that case, include pubs and restaurants, it’s not that difficult.

Finally they say transmission rates aren’t high in hospitality venues so Covid passports aren’t needed, but this completely misses the main point of them and that’s by introducing these requirements it pushes people into getting vaccinated.

The truth is, the cabinet is scared of upsetting their looney backbenchers and supporters, to the detriment of the wider population.

Steve Lawrence

Enfield