Friday's Letters: UK firms have their hands tied in international market

I thought: "At last we have a Government with some sense," and realised that real jobs and real money flow from industry. How soon was I to be disillusioned?

What has followed is typical of all politicians who have little or no knowledge of industry and still believe that finance generated by

whizz kids is still the way even after the recent exposures proved what a fickle situation we are in.

I spent all my working life of 51 years from apprentice to sales executive with an international group and was acutely aware that some 2,000 families at one time depended on the sales team's success.

It often felt that we fought with one arm tied behind our back as we knew that our foreign competitors had plants bigger and better than anything in theUK.

For instance, France has a press of 100,000 tons capacity; in the UK capacity is in the region of 12,000 tons.

It's no coincidence that the Airbus range of aircraft are completed in France even though Hawker Siddeley secured the wing contract on the first build and have retained it to this day. When one is fighting to secure contracts for UK industry, I found complete ignorance from politicians who did not seem to realise that he who comes second gets nothing.

At one time, there was a list of plants known as "essential for the defence of the realm."

This had to be maintained in good working order for that purpose. I wonder if it still exists and how many of today's decision makers were even aware of it.

I sincerely hope that there is a revised decision and that we can try to get back to a position when we can be proud of British products

in the hi-tech industries – but it appears that, true to form, we are falling at the first fence.

From: JC Winter, Valley View, Wheldrake, York.

From: JW Smith, Sutton-on-Sea.

THE letter from the chief executive of Forgemasters (Yorkshire Post, June 24) and that from Adrian Bull of Westinghouse (Yorkshire Post, June 25) make it clear the previous Government's loan offer to Forgemasters had been worked on for at least two years and was

certainly not a last-minute marginal constituency bribe.

As a Sheffield MP, Nick Clegg was surely aware of this, or, at least, should have been, so how can he claim it was such a bribe?

Let's think positively for a fresh era

From: JH Craven, Station Road, Oxenhope, West Yorkshire.

IT'S more than appalling that George Osborne is singling out genuine disabled people who are not fit to work through no fault of their own (Yorkshire Post, June 29).

There are, I agree, a large majority of people who are claiming and should be struck off, especially those from Eastern Europe and so-called asylum seekers.

In other European countries they don't pay unemployment benefit or sick or disabled benefits until you've worked there for three years. It's appalling that anyone in the EU and anywhere in the world can come to the UK and get priority and all benefits paid immediately. Cut them for those that don't deserve it and not the genuine UK citizens and their families who do deserve it. They call this country "Treasure Island".

Blair never ratified this clause and Cameron and Clegg, this double act, are also apparently not revoking this crippling clause in UK law. Yet again, this new UK Government isn't in touch with reality.

From: Stanley Parr, Maple Avenue, Pershore, Worcestershire.

GEORGE Osborne presented his financial "menu" and already Labour says it is indigestible. What short memories they have. People complain

loudly on every TV news bulletin, saying the cuts affect them

personally – of course they will, that's the idea.

We have been living well beyond our means, yet Labour doesn't seem to understand that. Thirteen years ago, the Tories left the nation

wealthy, but they were physically and morally bankrupt, behaving in a way in which MPs should not behave. They lost office with their disgraceful behaviour 13 years ago.

Labour, as usual, inherited the wealth and then blew the lot. It was so much money, it took them 13 years to achieve it, but they have done it – now the invoice has arrived.

The coalition isn't perfect, but I wish them luck and they can use the brains from a wider range of MPs than would have been the case, with a single-party win. We must all "think positive" from now on. This could be the start of a bright, new era.

From: Tim Mickleburgh, Littlefield Lane, Grimsby.

I'M somewhat amazed that the Liberal Democrats could oppose an initial 6bn cuts package as outlined by the Tories in the run up to the

General Election, yet can throw their lot in behind a Budget that proposed measures that go well beyond Thatcherism.

I mean, did the Iron Lady ever suggest a cut in housing benefit of 10 per cent for those out of work? Yet that's what the Tories are

proposing if you read the small print that escaped the initial budget headlines.

Meanwhile, unemployment will rocket still further as the public sector is hit by spending reductions, affecting particularly those areas where state jobs were created to lessen the impact of manufacturing's decline.

From: Terry Palmer, South Lea Avenue, Hoyland, Barnsley.

It hasn't taken the madmen of the Con-Dems long to renege on promises they so fraudulently made to the British people in order to get their feet into Downing Street.

Vengeful budget cuts which will cost thousands of jobs, a 20 per cent hike in VAT, which they promised they would not touch while at the same time spending millions of pounds on creating jobs in Afghanistan.

Pitfalls of Thatcherism

From: Keith Nunn, Burton Street, Farsley, West Yorkshire.

I DISAGREE fundamentally with the ringing endorsement of Thatcherism as expounded by Peter Neal (Yorkshire Post, June 29).

"Popular people's capitalism" deprived England of precious council housing stock, a public shortfall whose full detrimental force we now reap. It is one thing to inspire people to better themselves; but it is quite another to deprive other relatively low-paid workers of their right to affordable housing in decent, well-maintained, collective urban areas.

England's obsession with home ownership reached an irrevocable nadir. It sowed the seeds of over-grasping, over-reaching, over-spending. But more importantly, it encouraged selfish individualism, and destroyed many hallmarks of community spirit. I'm all right, Jack.

In 2001, it was my own particular misfortune to be housed in a council flat, above another ex-council flat that had been purchased privately. It was a horrible experience. The owner had no respect, no neighbourly feelings, no goodwill. Owners and tenants are a bad mixture. The legacy of Thatcher's manic drive for self-aggrandisement, at the cost of community cohesion and spirit, is the overpowering memory. A war on the community.

"Freedom and choice for the individual are virtues of the Thatcher legacy". Really? At enormous social cost? I don't think Mr Neal has any concern for the public wreckage endemic in Thatcherism.

Long-standing community problems, including the lack of public

transport infrastructure, proud workers tossed on the unemployment scrapheap, and the drive for private money and status over the greater public good, resulted in a nation of compulsive homeowners and car

owners. So much for "capitalist success".

England beat Argentina in a war. The devastating social ramifications of encouraging human greed and selfishness made any triumph of Thatcherism a merely Pyrrhic victory.

Graduates should learn to mind their languages

From: Mrs Jennifer Hunter, Farfield Avenue, Knaresborough, North Yorkshire.

TOM Richmond raised some interesting points (Yorkshire Post, June 26) with regard to graduates' command of the English language. He outlined certain observations which John Redwood had made which provoked me to reflect upon experiences I had when starting my university studies in the early 1980s.

I started studying German (with French as my subsidiary subject) at a Yorkshire university. At the end of our first study week, my fellow-students and I were handed a translation test (from German into English) which had to be completed within an hour and then submitted to our Director of Studies supervising this class.

This particular lecturer, who had a doctorate in both German and English, relished meting out regular criticism. He handed our work back to us individually, and made a personal comment as he did so at the

next session a week later.

I trembled as I received my humble offering because there were some

words and phrases which had been unfamiliar to me. Although my test result was adequate, I was informed that in spite of comprehension deficiencies, the standard of my English was "fairly good".

The doctor proceeded to berate the group generally. He maintained that in order for a person to acquire a good command of a foreign language, competence in English must be of paramount importance. He also stated that he failed to comprehend how some class members had passed their

A-levels with respectable grades after having demonstrated to him such a poor written command of the English language.

This Director of Studies was absolutely correct. I listened to him and decided that I would, henceforth, improve my English written skills and broaden my English vocabulary range at the same time as improving my foreign language skills. Whether or not people agree with John Redwood's political opinions, I feel compelled to emphasise his

veracity where job applications and language are concerned.

Unfairness over closures

From: John Rossington, Bond Street, Dewsbury, West Yorkshire.

THE Department of Justice's lists of magistrates' and county courts set for closure (Yorkshire Post, June 25) undermines the Government's claims for fairness in its implementation of public expenditure cuts. Many of the proposed closures come in some of Yorkshire's poorer communities like Pontefract, Goole and Barnsley.

Here in Dewsbury we are faced with the closure of both the magistrates' court and the county court with all their functions being transferred to the far more wealthy and successful Huddersfield town centre. Yet Dewsbury Court is recently purpose-built and will have lower

maintenance costs and I suspect better security than those of the neighbouring court in Huddersfield.

Where is the fairness in developing one end of a borough at the expense of the poorer end?

Far better would be to close Huddersfield Magistrates' Court and have its function transferred to Dewsbury. I suspect that this would also be the cheaper option for the Government.

A question of geography

From: Nino Hoblyn, North Street, Caistor, Lincolnshire.

THE headline (Yorkshire Post, June 22) wasn't very big, but still carried a punch as if this latest news coming from Afghanistan covered a full page.

"UN staff in Afghanistan moved as violence rises" must surely have put a wry smile on the faces of our serving troops who in all these years of conflict have never known a day that one can use the latrine in safety and comfort, let a lone a nice cool beer in the NAAFI and a sneaky fag behind the CSM's luxury apartment.

And, as I read that all 300 staff are being moved to some place called Kuwait, I in turn looked at my map of the Helmand Province but I just could not spot this place named Kuwait in the outlying district.

Can the Yorkshire Post please help me solve this?