Monday's Letters: Keep the banks nationalised so they can act for Britain

It's no good cutting public services, if there are no jobs in the private sector for the redundant staff. Banks cannot be relied upon to act in the public interest and provide the necessary loans to help private business. The answer is to keep them nationalised so as to ensure that they do act in the national interest, and lend money so as to provide employment. Regrettably common sense does not seem to prevail in Government.

Instead, for years we relied on North Sea Oil as a substitute for tax income from heavy industry, which we allowed to go to the wall. Then we relied on a seemingly endless rise in house prices to keep business going by encouraging people to borrow above their means to buy privately produced goods. Then we tried to solve unemployment by massaging the figures and expanding public services, instead of rebuilding our industries.

When the crash came, we nationalised the banks to save us from a depression. This seems to have worked. However, in order to balance the books, we find we have to cut services. This is all very well, but the task of Government goes beyond balancing the books. We all expect government to help, insofar as this is reasonably possible, to create and maintain a just, fair and prosperous society where as many people as possible can reach their full potential in terms of employment and otherwise.

Keeping the banks nationalised could have helped secure the future prosperity of the nation. Regrettably this does not seem to have crossed the mind of any of our main political parties.

From: BJ Cussons, Curly Hill, Ilkley.

AS always, your correspondent HM Gill (Yorkshire Post, August 9) hits the nail on the head when she expresses concern about proposed changes to our banking system.

Have we not now enough experience of colossal computer failures to be wary of the consequences of those possible changes?

Already we are subject to warnings, threats and guidance, to beat the ever increasing computer fraudsters. Even simple things like a utility bill can be a nightmare to enter. Some sites – for example, Companies House, have so many amendments, new information requirements and diktats, that in the end one gives up altogether.

Now we are faced with an HMRC system which is increasingly directs one to the internet where one tackles a host of irrelevant menus and still cannot get anything relevant to one's problem.

Among other things the proposed changes will mean more and more direct debits on one's account. How long before the banks charge when direct debits are the only way accounts can be paid? In addition paper statements will become impossibly long forcing one to use internet with all its hiccups and security problems.

Surely retail organisations and charities are somewhere fighting this huge upheaval. Do you want to expose your credit and debit card details to all and sundry? Older people may be the ones who give most to charities, how long before they give up because of the obstacles. Even to send a donation in memory of a friend will go by the board.

Could our society, just for once, really consider the consequences of such a major change and stop the bank lobbying and force reconsideration of these proposals, just as identity passports and records are now being reviewed. Or are we going to wait till chaos ensues before people fight back.

The banks have already taken us all for a huge ride and seem intent on continuing to do so. Can we rely on Government to stop this huge cost when they are pre-occupied with making savings – in part due to schemes such as this one.

Give Turkey a chance in the EU club

From: David T Craggs, Tunstall, East Yorkshire.

I WISH Messrs Wright and Ross had studied a political map of that part of the world before condemning out of hand David Cameron's support for Turkey's entry into the EU: "We must say no to Turkey" (Yorkshire Post, August 6).

Turkey is as strategically important now as it was at the height of the Cold War, when, being a member of NATO since 1952, it defended Western Europe's eastern flank against any possible attack by the then Soviet Union.

Look at its strategic position today. It has borders with Syria, a country that would be a major player if ever the Middle East flares up again, which always seems a possibility.

Then there is Iraq, as unstable as it ever was, and will be for the foreseeable future. Iran follows, with it supposed nuclear ambitions and hatred of Israel. Turkey, as a member of the EU and with huge military strength, would not allow the Union's eastern flank to come under threat from any quarter.

It does appear to be a bit selfish to welcome the extra security that Turkey, as a member of NATO offers, but deny them full membership of the EU club.

The only reason that Messrs Wright and Ross appear to be able to come up with for keeping Turkey out of the

EU is to prevent the UK being flooded with Turks seeking a new life.

Perhaps I could remind them that when the refugee camp at Sangatte, just across the Channel, was full of migrants just waiting for the

opportunity to "cross over to the other side", reporters who covered the story in considerable detail, never, to

my knowledge, mentioned

that there were several Turks in the camp just waiting to get into the UK.

We must also never forget the Cyprus problem, one that would solve itself almost overnight if Turkey became a full member of the EU. It is also a popular destination for UK holiday makers, who speak highly of

the country and its people, although I would not suggest that this should necessarily be given too much weight in the country's desire for membership.

Messrs Wright and Ross seem to think that Turkey is some sort of backward country, with citizens who just can't wait to get to the UK. It is not. It is already a member of the Council of Europe, the OECD, the OSSE and is a G-20 major economy member.

It became an association member of the EEC as far back as 1963 – hardly some backward country.

Listen to Vince, not Eric

From: Coun John Cole, Bradford Council.

AS a Liberal Democrat councillor in Bradford, I give my full support to Vince Cable in his efforts to preserve as much as possible of Yorkshire Forward, our regional development agency.

In recent years, Yorkshire Forward, has raised its game (from shaky beginnings perhaps) to deliver very good support to regeneration in Yorkshire and Humberside. Parts of West Yorkshire (including the centre of Bradford, with which I am very familiar) need an active regional policy in order to counteract market failure.

It is regrettable that Vince Cable is having to battle with the arch-Thatcherite Eric Pickles in order to retain any semblance of government commitment.

Of course, residents of Bradford have long memories of Mr Pickles in our city. As a councillor and leader of the controlling Conservative Group here, he was responsible for vandalising local government services, stripping out spending in order to reduce the local tax burden. The Bradford local economy has never fully recovered and is even less likely to do so in future unless the coalition listens more to Vince and less to Eric.

Penalty for bad parking

From: SB Oliver, Churchill Grove, Heckmondwike.

THE letter from DI Foss (Yorkshire Post, August 6) tells us to "park at your peril" and recounted his/her anger at getting a 45 ticket for having both offside wheels encroaching the adjacent bay next to the chosen parking-bay in Castleford.

It is yet another "why me?" letter from a driver who admits contravening the simple regulations and wants a special dispensation for the oversight once the penalty notice had to be accepted.

When I park my car I always try to "middle" it, and sometimes it may need one more small manoeuvre in order to park pretty. It is a mistake to assume that public car-parks are as lax as the supermarkets where "it's near enough" is often the outcome as the engine is switched off. There are usually notice-boards advising drivers of the conditions and any penalty charges.

DI Foss should know that encroaching on the adjacent empty bay creates a problem for the next vehicle wishing to use it and a domino effect spreads along the line.

It is unfair to say that Wakefield Council is "unjustly" penalising motorists because DI Foss admits the offence and his/her letter should have read "park badly at your peril".

Nick Clegg made rational decision over coalition

From: Michael Swaby, Hainton Avenue, Grimsby.

A FEATURE of the recent General Election was that so many voters were dissatisfied with their own party's achievement.

Labour did better than some forecasts had suggested, but Colin Challen still appears disgruntled. The Government will not take readily to a new regulatory body, and I'm afraid that he may have a long wait before his Political Standards Authority sees the light of day (Yorkshire Post, August 9).

The comment "Politics is the art of the possible" is attributed to Bismarck, although I fancy Harold Wilson quoted him.

Certainly, in the immediate aftermath of the election, Nick Clegg and his team would have had something like this in mind. In theory, there were three possibilities to explore, none of which was the formation of a Liberal Democrat Government and the implementation of all its policies. Also, he had repeatedly stated that he would recognise the moral authority of the party with the most votes and seats.

As a Liberal Democrat, I was very wary at first. However, as it became clear that serious negotiations were proceeding well, the decision almost made itself.

I say this because the alternatives were a precarious rainbow coalition with Labour and others, or a minority Conservative administration, neither of which offered the nation badly needed stability.

At length, Mr Challen portrays negotiating concessions as bad faith, whereas in fact no coalition can be created without them.

The Lib Dems decided to accept the half loaf on offer, and I share Mr Challen's regret that it does not include a veto on the VAT increase. Despite this, I believe that Nick Clegg's decision to join the coalition was rational and responsible.

The one that got away

From: David Quarrie, Lynden Way, Holgate, York.

BERNARD Ingham and a group at Leeds University have been listing the top British Prime MInisters (Yorkshire Post, August 11) and ask: who do you think was the best? I do not rate any of them, but I do firmly believe that Enoch Powell was the best PM we never had!

From: Tom Howley, Marston Way, Wetherby.

BERNARD Ingham, "biased" in his judgment of Margaret Thatcher? No, besotted.

Nuclear cost

From: Andy Hall, Deputy Chief Inspector (Nuclear Installations), Nuclear Directorate, Health and Safety Executive.

DR Candida Spillard (Yorkshire Post, August 11) is wrong in her assertion that the Health and Safety Executive's dealings with the nuclear industry are "all done using Government money". Legislation empowers HSE to recover most of the cost associated with regulating the nuclear industry by charging licensees of nuclear installations, licence applicants and potential applicants..

Train times

From: David J Mitchell, Thornton le Dale, Pickering.

QUITE how new tilting trains (Yorkshire Post, August 12) limited to the present East Coast maximum line speed of 125mph will improve punctuality beats me. My observations suggest the solution lies in ensuring trains are loaded and away on time. In travelling from York, poor passenger control leads to cumulative time losses along

the line.