Don’t set hopes of the young against needs of the old
THE inter-generational report by think tank the Resolution Foundation seems to be cherrypicking reasons to show the old are benefiting at the expense of the young (Mail).
Tell that to the legion of women who can’t retire for years after they expected due to the increase in the state pension age.
Tell that to those who are losing their life savings in care costs while others freeload.
Tell that to the millions who relied on a modest income from the interest on their savings to supplement their pensions.
Tell that to the generation who did not have luxuries as children or the chance of a gap year.
The young enjoy a lifestyle we never dreamt was possible, with holidays, cars and electronic gadgets. Isn’t it time we gave up on the idea of further education for all, with fees of £9,000 a year, which would rid the young of an albatross around their necks?
The pressure to go to university was brought in by Labour to massage unemployment figures. Let’s get down and real with the kids. Make further education elitist once more and encourage everyone else to go to work, with or without an apprenticeship.
It is not an argument about young and old, or even the haves and the have-nots. It is an argument about the inability of those who seek to govern our lives to make the best use of the resources entrusted in them. JOHN becKeTT, crondall, Hants. BY THE time my father was 25, he had been fighting the Japanese in Burma for three years.
He had left behind my mother to look after her elderly parents and two children while coping with Hitler’s efforts to bomb their home. I’m sure he’d have been delighted on his return in 1947 to find the government had awarded him the equivalent of £10,000 to spend AS he pleased. But as one of the forgotten Army fighting in the Far East, he barely got a thank you. I dread to think what would happen if millennials were called upon to fight for their country.
STUART THOMPSON, Prestatyn, Denbighshire.
A question of trust
IF we cannot trust the word of the First Minister of Scotland then who can we trust?
She stated unequivocally in a statement to Holyrood in October last year that ‘Scotland should welcome the fact that fracking in Scotland is banned’.
All good and well except that the government’s lawyers now claim it is not banned after all. So her statement was – at the very least – misleading and if the person misleading happens to be the FM it should not make a blind bit of difference. Nor should it prevent her from having to pay the price that anyone else making a misleading statement would pay.
Is it any wonder politicians are not trusted?
Alexander Mckay, edinburgh.
DURING a period of serious economic downturn in Scotland, surely Nicola Sturgeon should be grasping any opportunity to welcome fracking, a major industry that will create thousands of jobs and bring in millions?
Her stance appears to be based on fear of losing much needed support from the green brigade who pull her strings when it suits them. Time to put the future of the people of Scotland first. Elizabeth Corbett Zok, Glasgow
Lording it over us
IF THE House of Lords was not prepared to accept the result of an EU referendum, it should not have passed the European Union Referendum Act 2015. The options were to oppose the legislation or to pass it, which meant accepting there would be a referendum and that either of two results was possible. There can be no legitimacy in attempts by members of either House – or anyone else for that matter – to block Brexit just because they don’t agree with the outcome. Colin Macdonald, Nottingham.
THERE is no point in holding a referendum to abolish the House of Lords. They would only overturn the result.
Michael Harvey, Seaview, isle of Wight.
HOW is it members of the House of Lords who draw pensions from the EU are able to vote on matters regarding Britain leaving Europe? If this was a planning matter in a council committee or an issue decided by a board of directors, they’d have to declare an interest and be unable to vote.
When the House of Lords was filled with non-political peers who were there because of experience rather than favours or boosting party coffers, there could be proper discussion. It’s all very well calling for a democratic House of Lords, but if we vote for them at the same time as a General Election, we shall end up with the same party balance as the Commons and if we hold the vote midterm, the opposite will happen. Richard Martin, Hazlemere, bucks.
Royal dress to impress
WHY criticise the cost of the royal wedding (Letters)? Can you imagine the derision we would suffer if Meghan wore a cheap dress and had a simple wedding?
The whole event will be on show to the world and Meghan is under an unwritten obligation to spend a lot of money on a dress.
Other countries have a high regard for our Royal Family and a lot of revenue is raised through tourism connected to anything royal. Why would they have a cheap wedding? The idea is ludicrous. If you want to preach restraint on obscene spending, look at celebrity weddings.
Chris Peat, Accrington, lancs.
I WILL not be celebrating Prince Harry’s wedding to Meghan Markle. I’ve better things to do.
The Queen has been a great monarch, but the rest of the Royals leave a lot to be desired.
The standards she has set over her long reign cannot be matched by her heirs. Prince Charles is aloof and out of touch. It’s about time to get rid of these hanger-ons and let them get a proper job.
Alan Warner, Ripley, Derbys.
Poignant reminder
WE love John MacLeod’s column and his article on small shops (Mail) was so wonderful and poignant. My husband was brought up in the Forties and Fifties in Southern Ireland and the description of Lewis is identical… the shop and people popping into houses without knocking. They called it rambling in Ireland. Caroly AND Alex Quinn, via email.
BELIEVE me, John MacLeod’s unique voice in journalism – as evidenced by his articles on the Castle of Mey and vanished Hebridean life – is much treasured. Keep up the valiant work!
STUART Mitchell, Glasgow.