YP Letters: Vote was not endorsement of fracking

Was the election an endorsement of fracking or not?
Was the election an endorsement of fracking or not?
Have your say

From: Michael Farman, Willow Grove, Beverley.

LORRAINE Allanson (The Yorkshire Post, June 13) and Dr Graham Marshall (June 14) are both ecstatic about fracking, and Ms Allanson even says she wants to “embrace the shale industry”.

The cause of all this joyfulness seems to be the supposition that an increase in the Conservative vote in their constituency represents wider public support for fracking. Do they really believe that fracking was uppermost in the minds of people voting at the election?

As I recall, Brexit, immigration control, and terrorism were the topics that dominated the media and, regrettably, fracking got scarcely a mention. Yes, the Conservative manifesto includes a plan to loosen regulation of fracking much further, but who bothered to read the small print of manifestos when the media daily bombarded us with the three dominant subjects?

What is the true measure of support for fracking? The Government’s own latest survey showed only 18 per cent of the public support it compared to 31 per cent who actively oppose it.

The other 51 per cent either have no opinion or are still uninformed about the likely destructive impacts if the shale industry is given free rein.

It is absurd to demonise us as extremists, or claim that we are being controlled by some sinister organisation from London.

If there is any extremism, it is from an industry that is gung-ho to impose fracking on populations who do not want this polluting industry anywhere in the UK.

From: David Schofield, Highfield Drive, Garforth.

NOW that the dust is beginning to settle following the General Election, and the blame game gathers momentum, I was encouraged to read the letter from Hugh Rogers (The Yorkshire Post, June 13).

Once again common sense seemed to have little part to play, and as Mr Rogers so rightly says in his final paragraph “...in their refusal to back Theresa May, the electorate have once more demonstrated their obsession with issues which are personal to them... rather than the needs of the nation as a whole”.

The election was called on the basis of the Government needing a strong hand in the Brexit negotiations. Sadly, Jeremy Corbyn saw this as an opportunity to shun the needs of the country and brought out all the usual election topics.

But Brexit is a one-off, and we need to get it right. Once its done, it can’t be undone. Let’s get it right and put the country first for once.

From: MP Laycock, Harrogate.

JAYNE Dowle (The Yorkshire Post, June 12) criticises Theresa May for “appearing not to care at all”. There is a great difference between “appearing not to care” and “not caring”.

Whilst I disagree strongly about many of her policies, I have never doubted the fact that she cares. She is an administrator rather than a communicator. it is all too easy to mistake social awkwardness for lack of care.

Jeremy Corbyn, by contrast, is a great communicator. He certainly knew how to tell his audiences what they wanted to hear. He offered undeliverable promises, hoping to pay for them out of unsustainable funds.

From: Charles Rushton, Pasture Close, Strensall, York.

NOT a single opportunity was lost by the BBC after the election in giving us yet another party political broadcast supporting the Labour Party. Someone should take a long hard look at the Charter requirements, then clear out the present incumbents starting with Laura Kuenssberg.

She is totally unable to present a non-partisan view and is frequently aggressive and rude. The BBC is unfit for purpose.

From: Keith Turnbull, Ryton Way, Doncaster.

THE democracy of our election results is worrying. In an absurd purely theoretical situation one of our main parties could get 51 per cent of the votes in every constituency, and the rival party could pick up the remaining 49 per cent. One party would get 650 seats and MPs while the other got no representative whatever. Can this be right?

Speed limit is no safer

From: Don Metcalfe, Annes Court, Southowram, Halifax.

I SEE that the benefits of the 20 mph areas are to be evaluated in two of our major cities (The Yorkshire Post, June 13).

This limit was installed at great cost in my local village. There was no apparent accident rate and no call for it from local inhabitants.

As a motorist trying to obey the law, it has made me a more dangerous driver. I spend more time looking at my speedometer and less time looking at the road.

In a hilly village, I am constantly applying the brakes to keep within the law.

This upsets the “Hooray Henrys” who then overtake me in the most ridiculous places putting myself, my passengers and other road users in danger.

To attend speed awareness courses also causes most of the effects given earlier and makes for a more dangerous driver. It is to be hoped that evaluation will show up the doubtful benefits of this law.

Irony of BBC arrogance

From: The Rev Neil McNicholas, Yarm.

THE BBC really should be renamed the ABC – the Arrogant Broadcasting Corporation. The other evening, it screened a documentary praising the deference and consideration shown to other people in Japanese society.

Ironically it was followed by a “change to some listings” as the continuity announcer put it – in other words a different programme to the one viewers had been expecting.

There was no explanation and certainly no apology, just an attitude of “this is how it is, take or leave it”.

I left it, and I really wish I could also have left the license fee – in my bank account.