Today’s first letter, on the state of the Tory Party and their voters, comes from our contributor Roger Arthur:

Sir,

Many joined the Tory Party, hoping to vote a Brexiteer into No 10. But, even if there is a leadership contest, we can expect two candidates to be put to the Country, one possibly being TMay.

Since the majority of Tory MPs are remainers, they won’t want a Brexiteer with conviction, anywhere near No 10 and we can only guess that the other candidate for members across the country to vote on, will (at best) result from an attempted compromise.

In the meantime we continue to see more disillusioned Tory party members writing in the DT. They will be part of the 17.4m who will want to give Ms May and her party a good kicking at the next GE.

The question is, are they disillusioned enough to vote UKIP, despite what the media tries to paint us as? That may depend on the extent to which our party focuses on Brexit. What we need more than anything is some MPs to rock the Tory boat. We certainly don’t need more diversions, for the media to feed on.

Respectfully, Roger Arthur

Our correspondent Mr King sent in the following letter, on EU Taxation:

Sir,

As Corbyn said “The EU knowingly maintains tax havens … around the continent … and allows European companies to outsource their profits to countries where tax rates are low.” Yes the EU has been developing CFC (Controlled Foreign Company) regulations, but they are not designed to address tax avoidance WITHIN the EU, which Corbyn was referring to. The tax havens that are to be blacklisted are outside the EU, while the free movement of capital (which facilitates tax avoidance within the EU) is not up for negotiation.

We have been told many times that the four freedoms are not negotiable.

Respectfully, Mr King

Our correspondent Jim Stanley sent in the following letter:

Sir,

let us look at the current situation with unbiased eyes. Imagine for the next few minutes that you have a few Trillions in your petty cash box, which you wish to invest in the UK. As this is an investment, your main concern is trade, and who with, but as an ethical investor you are aware of the wider social responsibility. For convenience, you’re considering the Trade Blocks of the world, but for simplicity let us look at only 2, one “local”, one widely spread, but for our purpose un-named, Block One, a group of 27 Nation States, a total of some 560 million customers, an ambitious organisation trying to work as a Federal State, where Nations become Regions under the control of a central, unelected. self appointed “Committee”. Their current share of world trade including the UK production is around 15%, falling from a high of 29% in recent times, without the UK exports this is around 9%. Trade Block 2 is a group of over 50 Nation States, a population of 2.2 Billion people. The group has evolved over 200 years into an organisation as a Free Trade area, dedicated to supporting each other in practical ways, for the good of all. Their share of world trade is not to hand, but it is safe to assume it is in excess of 30%.

Joining Block 1 will result in accepting free movement of people (open borders), laws made overseas, a loss of Nationhood by becoming a number of Regions, effectively our Parliament having as much authority as a Parish Council and paying billions each year for the privilege of being controlled. Not forgetting that we could not sell widgets to Antarctica without permission. Block 2, with whom we have historical links, are all Independent Nation States, trading freely with whoever they wish, open societies, observing human rights, and as a treaty-led free trade group, joining, for us would be simple, with no restrictions on who we trade with outside the group. There is, as with any deal for an Englishman to consider, their defining National sport. Block 1 throws steel balls (cannon balls?) at a target, Block 2 is addicted to that uniquely English summer pastime, played in most villages, the simplest of games (for the English), I refer of course, to the magnificent game of Cricket.

Surely, this last point is the most important: would you trust a man who derided the great game of Cricket? The EU do not play cricket (Block 1), the Commonwealth (Block 2) do.

Two wasted years could have been saved by asking, on day one, the simple question, “Do you play and understand cricket?  – No! – Sorry, obviously we can’t join (remain) in a Block who do not follow the principles of fair play embodied in Cricket. Good bye.”

To quote a much loved meerkat, “Simples.”

Respectfully, Jim Stanley

Finally, Harold Armitage sent in the letter below, on UKIP and technology:

Sir,
If UKIP is going to get involved in technology and questions about it, they should know what they are talking about before raising any topic.  They can ask their membership, no doubt we have someone. Take for example a question on burning wood raised by Gareth Bennett in the Welsh Assembly (see here). It was clear that no-one there had the slightest clue what they were talking about. Including Mr Bennett who incidentally allowed himself to be fobbed off with irrelevancies about coloured rivers. The level of debate seems to be pretty low in the Welsh Assembly!

I was a combustion and energy saving engineer pre retirement.

Wood burning was dreamt up with the idea that waste wood would be turned into pellets and used as a fuel, waste wood being offcuts from the furniture industry and “brash” – timber/branches etc. from the forestry industry too small to be useful. However, the moment government subsidies became involved, the project morphed into something quite sinister. It became viable to transport this fuel from the USA. This is in itself no worse than transporting the coal it replaces. However, ancient forests of previously commercially useless timber in the USA suddenly became worth clearing, both for the wood and  making the land available for other use. Hardly very eco-friendly!

If wood is reduced to something uniform (ie pellets) and burned in a properly designed stove, all is reasonably well.  However, creating the pellets is energy intensive and calls into question the entire viability of the project.

Also, burning logs in a poorly designed stove is very air-polluting. Virtually all domestic wood stoves are of very poor design. If you can smell woodsmoke, it’s slowly killing you.
The reason for this is that, in stoves of inferior design, the combustion gases are cooled before combustion is complete, carbon particles and tars remain unburned and are released into the atmosphere.  Wet wood makes the problem even worse. The particles are coated in carcinogenic chemicals. The “smell of woodsmoke” is the unburned tars. The carbon particles penetrate deep into the lungs and are far more deadly than was previously realised and are responsible for cancer, heart, liver and brain diseases and may even be affecting our DNA, (hence our children).  Children are especially susceptible. There is a long list of other possibilities too. It’s only slightly better than diesel engines where the particles are smaller still, penetrate even further into the body and hence are more dangerous.

Respectfully, Harold Armitage

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email