My wife and I have just received a letter from our glorious leader reminding us why it is common sense, and the only way forward, to vote Conservative in the forthcoming election. She has personally pledged to us both that she will not let us down, “Brenda and David”. And that she will stand up for us and govern for us, “Brenda and David.” And with our help “Brenda and David” and our votes, locally in Yeovil, together we will get it right. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.
Why does she continually bang on about a “coalition of chaos”? Labour and Lib Dems have stated there will be no coalitions. I (David) am approaching 67 and my wife (Brenda) is in her sixties. And this woman thinks we will vote for a manifesto that:
1. Will take £200 from us
2. Will abandon the triple-lock pension
3. Will abandon the NHS and education standards despite all the bluster about paying more money into them.
And through all the unrest “Chuckle Brother” Hunt nods and smiles at everything his glorious leader says and does. He wouldn’t dare do anything different. So I’m sorry Theresa…see we’re on first name terms already…it’s a no from us.
Brenda and David Higgins
Why is Theresa May so scared of debating?
I watched the ITV Leaders’ Debate last night. Why does Theresa May shy away from debate with other UK political leaders? I have a few guesses:
1. Theresa May stands aloof from the chatterings of insignificant minor party leaders. She believes only in the two largest parties fighting it out using the out-of-date first-past-the-post system.
2. Theresa May is very determined, very dogmatic and very slow-thinking. Her planning takes her a long time, and then it needs to be fixed in stone or her state would become unstable. Facing any other more quick-thinking political leader in public debate would immediately expose her weaknesses. What she might be like facing political leaders of 27 EU countries and all the commissioners one can only cringe and guess.
3. The biggest words on the blue bus are hers. There are hundreds of Conservatives but she clearly does not trust any of them to voice her plans in the way she would wish. To have such a phobia about her political colleagues does not bode well for her leadership.
Which of these guesses do you think is closest to the truth?
There is no moral argument when it comes to cannabis legalisation
That liberalising society can have moral consequences (J Longstaff’s letter, Thursday 18 May) is a given, but then this is the stuff of politics. Would the writer prefer that no liberalisation is ever attempted?
If anyone is afraid of the moral consequences of legalising cannabis use, they might remind themselves of the moral consequences of, for instance, alcoholic consumption, which causes lawlessness (drunk driving and alcohol fuelled violence – all too often directed towards police officers, ambulance men and women, and casualty department nurses).
Should they not consider the moral consequences of the legal sale and consumption of synthetic cannabiniods, which are damaging so many lives – perhaps even more so than the consumption of herbal cannabis.
This is not, never was and undoubtedly never will be a perfect moral society – the possibility that legalising cannabis might have moral consequence should not be accepted as an argument to try to better organise our society for all.
There will be no free continental breakfast on offer for kids post-Brexit
Rob Merrick (19 May) reports that the free breakfasts for infants proposed in the Tory manifesto will only cost a tenth as much as free hot lunches. These must therefore be continental breakfasts rather than the full English to be expected post-Brexit.
Bury St Edmunds
Support for pubs is welcome
Following the publication this week of the main party manifestos, it is heartening to see some strong commitments to an industry that may not be making headlines amidst Brexit and the NHS, but nevertheless supports nearly 900,000 jobs and contributes £23.1bn to the UK economy each year.
While support for pubs may not be top of everybody’s list of priorities, they provide one of the very few places in the UK where people can come together to socialise and drink responsibly. Pubs have an immeasurable benefit both to local communities and to individuals, and might unfortunately be the first thing that people cut back on when purse strings tighten.
Thankfully, the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem manifestos have all included some degree of pro-pub support, with each party echoing the need to review the burden of the business rates scheme and its impact on publicans. While the Liberal Democrats have focused on rural pubs and the Conservatives on lowering VAT, Labour has confirmed it will undertake a review into the sector if elected.
We can only hope that each of these parties will hold firm to these commitments if elected, because without specific support in place pubs will be the first victims to potentially challenging times in the years to come.
Colin Valentine, national chairman, Campaign for Real Ale
The social care policy needs questioning
The Tories’ plan for elderly people to pay for their own care when they are frail and dying is typically callous. But what happens to any bereaved spouse or partner when the house owner dies and the house has to be sold to reimburse the state? If it is jointly owned are they to be allowed to remain, with only their financial worries to think about? Or will they be forced out of their homes at a time in their lives when they are most vulnerable?