Friday's Letter: Punish the politicians who don't put Britain's needs first

Examples of subjects that have created anger include the MPs' expenses free-for-all, and enactment of policies by the Government for party political grounds, such as the unrestricted immigration policy which the recently released Cabinet minutes have shown to have been

undertaken on the socio-political grounds of importing millions of new Labour voters.

The common theme throughout has been politicians acting for personal and political gain rather than for the greater good of the country, and the lack of accountability that has followed. On many occasions, governments have shied away from vital subjects, such as the impending energy crisis, which they see as potential vote losers. This is why the current administration will always be considered mere career

politicians and will never be considered to be statesmen.

I would like to see a new law be passed making it an offence for any politician to put individual or political gain ahead of what is best

for the country overall. Fines could be levied against individual politicians or political parties proven to have been working in their own interests rather than doing the job for which they have been elected and, indeed, are paid for. Would the current Government have ever dared to even consider their policies on immigration, dumbing down of education and the profligate wasteful spending in the public sector, all of which appear to have been performed solely for the purpose of buying votes, when they could have resulted in major fines for them and the Labour Party? I don't think so.

The obvious problem with this new law would be that it would require the politicians to pass it through Parliament. Turkeys voting for Christmas – unlikely.

This is the opportunity for any of the parties to stand up for the country first and make it their policy to bring in this law as soon as they are elected. Sounds like a huge vote winner to me, but it may require a new breed of politician to emerge rather than the selfish ones we have now. I won't hold my breath.

From: Tom Halliday, Stonecrop Drive, Harrogate.

From: Colin McNamee, Ella Street, Hull.

THE scandalous behaviour of Speaker Michael Martin in obstructing for six years the media enquiries into MPs' expenses, followed by the behaviour of the MPs themselves in attempting to change the Freedom of Information Act, to prevent access to their expenses, typifies what politics has become in the United Kingdom. Seedy and amoral. It is inconceivable that all of those MPs who have been exonerated by the enquiry were totally unaware of what was going on and were therefore complicit by knowledge.

Allowing Speaker Martin to resign without impeachment and

then "promoting" him from one House of Scoundrels to the other upstairs contributes to the public distaste, disdain and distrust that the once respected Palace of Westminster enjoyed.

The Augean stables that the Houses of Parliament have become are in need of a thorough cleansing by the electorate, top to bottom.

From: Don Burslam, Elm Road, Dewsbury Moor, Dewsbury.

PM Robinson (Yorkshire Post, March 8) writes a very familiar letter about the weaknesses of our politicians and the "system". I am afraid that he and others like him show a fundamental misunderstanding of their role in the functioning of the democratic process. Evidently they see themselves as basically consumers who, apart from putting a cross on a ballot paper, play little or no active part in it.

To advocate voting for "none of the above", as they suggest, is not only negative but also damaging in the long run and liable to

exacerbate the very problems they so deplore. Encouraging apathy and cynicism leads to lower polls and further undermining of the

politicians' mandate. In the end, of course, this can lead to authoritarian government and autocracy.

I would like to ask Mr Robinson whether he votes regularly in council elections or has ever stood for election or done any work for a party? If not, his sole contribution seems to be standing on the sidelines barracking. Democracy is a dynamic system and depends on active participation to work.

In short, we get the government we deserve.

Rail route gives choice to the voters

From: JW Smith, Sutton on Sea.

SO now we have it. If you want a direct high speed link between Leeds, Sheffield and London, vote Labour; if you are satisfied to travel only on a spur between Leeds and Manchester, vote Conservative (Yorkshire Post, March 12).

Immediately after publication of the suggested West Coast route, I wrote to Lord Adonis suggesting this was unsatisfactory, explaining at the same time that whatever was ultimately decided would not benefit people like myself living in Lincolnshire. I stressed the importance of the region being included, suggesting that as there was virtually nothing between Manchester and Glasgow and in view of all the previous expenditure on this line, new trains could be provided but use the existing tracks between these cities travelling faster than at present but not at HS2 speeds.

This will still provide a direct high speed link to London. It appears this coincides with his proposal to build a Y-shaped line with the extensions to Manchester and Yorkshire being constructed in tandem.

Contrast this with the Tories' idea to go to Manchester then provide a spur to Leeds with all the consequent difficulties this would create for Yorkshire folk. The ultimate proposal also includes a link to Newcastle and the East Coast line.

The Conservatives never had any real interest in South and West Yorkshire and their preference once again for the West Coast route proves they have not changed. It is easy to promise an earlier completion to Leeds via Manchester when there will only be one route under construction.

The prime consideration, while hoping it would be completed as quickly as possible, must be to get it right. A quick fix depriving a

substantial part of the area is neither use nor ornament.

A waste of council cash

From: Julie Fisk, Park Walk, Bernadette Avenue, Hull.

I CANNOT understand how the East Riding Council can possibly justify giving away our hard-earned money – equivalent to a football pools win for most of us – to the pension fund of Sue Lockwood, the East Riding Director of Corporate Resources (Yorkshire Post, March 13). Especially as this lady was one of several senior officers who has taken a large backdated pay rise just over a year ago.

When are our councillors going to recognise that they are servants of the people who elected them, and that they have an inherent duty to spend our money wisely and look after our essential services?

Just what does a Director of Corporate Resources do for 117,000 per annum? Why do we even need one? This would fund six jobs for frontline people providing essential services, or four teachers or it could provide funding for new business start-ups or help for a few existing businesses presently struggling to survive and keep people in work.

School for scandal

From: Victoria Cawkwell, Burley Road, Leeds.

I REFER to the article "Class supervisor given jail term over sex with a 15-year old girl" (Yorkshire Post, March 13) concerning the Headlands School teacher in Bridlington pleading guilty over the accusation of grooming one of his pupils.

I was disgusted and sickened by the actions of Christopher Reen and saddened by the ruined career for the 15-year-old girl. It would appear Headlands School needs to re-establish its reputation after this story, which is the fifth sexual harassment claim, as it will have affected the public's trust for the school and caused a general concern for all readers regarding the schooling system.

Surely you wonder how such adults are accepted into the profession of working among children? A school is believed to be one of the safest places for our children.

In my opinion, the jail sentence of three years and four months is not long enough, as it will live with the pupil for ever.

Walkers in the countryside have responsibilities

From: RP Hodgson, Kilburn, York.

I REFER to the letter "No help for stuck hikers" (Yorkshire Post, March 6) which raises several issues. I am sure that I speak on behalf of many people who live in the countryside, not merely out of choice but as a means to make a living.

Furthermore, as an ex-military man, practised in many outdoor

activities and privileged to pilot search and rescue helicopters, I leave it up to you to judge whether I am qualified or not to pass comment.

Walkers, as a whole, seem to think that they are the master race; the number I have rescued make interesting reading in my flying log book. As with all other sports, preparation is the key. When sailing, gliding or mountaineering, basic checks are made on equipment, weather

conditions, informing authorities of where and when you depart, times of arrival and, even before all that, ensure that competency has been achieved either by experience, examination and, thus, membership of the appropriate organisation.

This is something walkers are singularly good at not achieving; by

being in the Ramblers' Association a right of passage is issued without responsibility. All members should be given instruction and gain map reading skills, taught basic first aid and survival, understand and obey the Countryside Code and, in particular, legislation regarding such subjects as "the right to roam", control of dogs, respect for the seasons, etc.

Once a person can prove they are competent in all this, the Ramblers' Association should provide a membership card which should be presented to landowners if requested.

It seems unfair that if a landowner fails in his duties having a right of way on his/her land, then conversely there must be a system of redress if walkers misbehave.

I was brought up and have lived in the countryside all my life. I have experienced those places in England, like Salisbury Plain, Warcop and even Lulworth, where the Army has large areas of land for training.

The abundance of flora and fauna is incredible, the reason being is that there is not the endless stream of irresponsible people wandering around, totally oblivious to what is surrounding them, but totally dedicated to tramping everything under their feet, regardless of the

consequences.

Walking, like all other pursuits, can be just as dangerous as

parachuting, it holds the same responsibilities.

A case of ladies first

From: SB Oliver, Churchill Grove, Heckmondwike, West Yorkshire.

A TEAM from Surrey University, headed by a Dr Peter Hegarty, tells us that scientific studies indicate that there is an old, latent, sexist slant (against females) with phrases like "Mr and Mrs" and "Dear Sir/Madam" because the male is spoken/written first (Yorkshire Post, March 15).

I wonder just how much time and money was absorbed by this very valuable "study"? Couldn't they have investigated something a little more useful, like the discrimination against chips, tails, evens and white... as in "fish and chips" or "heads or tails" or "odds or evens" and "black and/or white" ?

Joking apart, I wonder if Dr Hegarty, or any of his team, has ever been at an event where a speaker addresses the audience with... "Ladies and gentlemen"? Maybe another study would provide the answer.

Air of confusion

From: James Bateman, Leeds Road, Harrogate.

BA cabin crew may be intelligent people as your correspondent Tom Howley suggests (Yorkshire Post, March 17). However, their cleverness does not extend to seeing that a strike is the last way to protect their cosseted conditions.

Saving grace

From: Edwin Bateman, South Dyke, Great Salkeld, Penrith, Cumbria.

THE EU Commission says: "Britain should take further measures to cut the deficit." How about exiting the EU and saving the 40m per day payments to it?