Short-sighted approach to banking issue

HERE we go again, the Left-inclined media leading attacks on bankers’ bonuses. Together with the suggestions by Ed Milliband that the big banks will be broken up to encourage competition to lend money to businesses, we have two of the most naive approaches to the issue of banking.

The history of banking has shown that the small ones of necessity had to close or merge into larger wider based units in order to cope with the various buffetings of the international money markets and to compete within them. Britain emerged, until the most recent debacle, with one of the most respected banking systems. The London financial market was renowned for its strength and prudence.

The last banking crisis seemed to be initiated in America, where money was lent to both individuals and corporations who were unable to repay their debts. In Britain, with the complicity of the favour-seeking Blair/Brown regime, sensible shackles were removed and cash flowed around like tap water.

The people wallowed in this growing mountain of debt as the media reported on the so-called booming state of the economy. Then Bang... it all fell apart.

Of course there need to be regulations to prevent recurrence, but if the British banking system is not to go the way of the rest of our once great industries it must have encouragement for the enterprising, not jealous restriction. After all, financial rewards for those who kick a ball around a patch of grass are not short of gross excesses. Why target bankers and business people?

In any case, it would do no harm for the British people to evaluate their own personal commitments and consider where they have over indulged financially on non-essentials, paying penal rates on credit cards for the excess they have borrowed. So-called small business entrepreneurs should take stock of their ability to make a profit, repay loans and stand on their own feet and not just be on a constant cry for “loans”. If a business cannot survive and progress without routine borrowing, it is not worth propping up.

Before the
Big Society

From: Mrs S M Abbott, Melbourne Road, Wakefield.

FURTHER to the letter from Richard Billups (Yorkshire Post, January 14) his father has to be commended for helping others in society, ie with coal, although as I understood getting free coal was a “perk” or “extra” to wages, not part of them. Nevertheless I’m sure his contribution made a difference to those people he helped

However, not all were so generous. Reading my Dad’s journal following his death a few years ago, it has been eye-opening to read about his early years and the hardships the family faced. I was surprised to read how difficult life was for his mother, who was widowed and left with three young sons to bring up. They lived in a cold house but no one would sell her, let alone give her, any coal. She also had her hens stolen by a miner and no one, not even the police, wanted to know.

My Dad and his brothers were later all on active service during the Second World War and Grandma was left to struggle on her own. No Big Society in this small mining community then.

The journal doesn’t make easy reading, not only because of these early years but also of the war years and Dad’s struggle when back in Civvy Street to be able to continue with his working life and to get housing on his marriage to Mum.

Thankfully Dad had a very happy marriage and enjoyed a long and healthy retirement. Two sides to every story – you bet there are.

Farce over
wind turbines

From: Colin Seabrook MBE, Skerne, Driffield, East Yorkshire.

I AM generally not motivated to write to newspapers, but the latest planning application for three wind turbines at Scurf Dyke Farm, Hutton Cranswick (130.5 metres to tip) comes in the category “enough is enough”.

However many times the residents object, in many cases supported by the council planning committee, the end result is the same. Along comes a Government planning inspector and inevitably it gets approval. What a farce.

We have yet to see published the true figures covering CO2 generated during their manufacture and total costs of delivery and installation, inclusive of site generation and transportation along our inadequate minor roads. Further costs are associated with the massive annual grants paid by the Government to the landowners which, coupled with their overall inefficiency, renders the entire project a monumental mistake.

The environmental costs are immeasurable. Waterways, underground streams and land drainage; wildlife inclusive of birds and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs); quality of life; noise; and visual amenity are all compromised. Some damage will be immediate, other detrimental effects surfacing long term.

This Government promised to curb land wind farms (this is not a wind farm as such), but granting of these three opens the door to many other similar applications which will inevitably be approved by precedent). Such a promise appears not to be forthcoming.

This land is fast becoming one vast field of soon-to-be obsolete steel and concrete excrescences.

What a legacy to leave our children.