Stop using our funds for political gains
Letter of the Week: Mark Eastwood, Dewsbury
Further to the piece in last week’s Press relating to a political article featured on the supposedly impartial Kirklees Council’s ‘Together’ website, it is an outrage – but not the least bit surprising – that our money and media platform is being used to publish left-wing propaganda.
I would suggest in future that if Comrade Sheard and his cabinet of mediocrity want to put out their own version of Pravda they use the Labour Party’s website and funds, not the taxpayer’s.
The Labour leader of Kirklees is all too happy to complain about reduced budgets, yet serious questions need to be asked as to why we are continuing to fund the ‘Kirklees Together’ vanity project to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds per year, unless he sees it as a vehicle to promote his party’s ideology, which based on the evidence within last week’s web article would appear to be the case.
At a time when newspaper circulations and advertising revenues continue to decline, you also have to question why we, as taxpayers, are funding not only a website, but additionally the ‘Kirklees Together’ magazine circulated to thousands of residents, effectively putting Kirklees in competition with local media outlets potentially damaging them commercially in the process as well.
Surely, now is the time for leaders of Kirklees Council to stop using public funds for political gain and scrap ‘Kirklees Together’ in all its forms to prove to us they are serious about coping with budget demands and tackling unnecessary waste.
Propaganda is intolerable
From: Philip Tolson, Mirfield
Can I say how astounded I was to read of the blatant politically-motivated publication where Kirklees Labour Party councillors, on the council’s own website, using public money, used one-sided intemperate opinion to lay all the woes of their mismanagement at the door of the new government.
This outdated Stalinist-style propaganda from “the Kremlin” is intolerable.
If they wish to avoid accusations of corrupt use of public money in such political posturing they need to concentrate their minds and words on solutions to our local problems not excuses for not doing their jobs.
We are the paying public and they are the ones charged with getting results. We don’t want their left-wing political ideology stuffing down our throats using our own money.
From: Aleks Lukic, Staincliffe
I write in dismay that the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) group in UKIP has been banned from attending this year’s Pride in London event.
Their application had been previously accepted by the organisers, who now express concerns for their volunteer stewards and event safety.
Approximately 2,000 people have signed a petition against UKIP’s inclusion.
According to this petition UKIP is ‘an inherently homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, racist and misogynistic political party’.
UKIP is simply a party of ordinary people who want to see Britain become an independent self-governing nation once again.
I am sure that thousands upon thousands of UKIP votes at the general election came from the LGBT community.
On a local level, I was proud to declare my support for equal marriage at the election hustings in the Al-Hikmah Centre.
I was also proud to see my openly-gay colleague Nathan Garbutt challenging Yvette Cooper.
Nathan achieved second place in the Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford constituency.
Pride in London’s organisers aim to be ‘fully inclusive of all sections of the LGBT community’.
Unfortunately, pressure and intolerance in some quarters has now led to segregation.
Proud people will not be permitted to challenge misconceptions and attend under the banner of Britain’s third most popular political party.
Sign petition to scrap the deal
From: Patricia Foley, Birstall
I have to say the idea of reading up on ‘trade deals’ does not usually get my pulse racing.
The more I find out about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) however, the more it does just that – but for all of the wrong reasons.
You could be forgiven for not having heard of it – it’s being negotiated in secret by the EU and USA.
Which makes me suspicious straight away – after all, if it’s that good why keep quiet about it?
Why should we be worried about TTIP? It’s dangerous. It will allow US corporations to take over our public services including the NHS.
It will allow unlabelled genetically modified foods and pesticides (currently banned in the EU), which will kill off our bees, into the UK.
It will allow our democracy to be completely undermined as big business will be able to sue our government if it takes any decision which limits their profits!
Once in place, it would not allow any future British government to reverse the privatisation of the NHS, because they would face so many huge compensation claims.
I’m one of two million people who have signed the petition to scrap the deal, because I want to protect our food standards, public services, jobs and democracy in the UK.
Still shrouded in secrecy
From: David Honeybell, Heckmondwike
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), on the face of it, sounds like a good proposal.
An agreement between the USA and EU to create a massive trading area has the potential to bring jobs and security.
So if TTIP is as good as it sounds, why is the whole deal shrouded in secrecy?
Why has it not made news in the papers? Many Press readers will possibly not even have heard of it.
The agreement goes much further than we are being led to believe.
Nothing would be safe from being taken over. What a prize our NHS would be for the American health insurance companies.
And if the deal is signed and sealed in its present form, it would leave the multi-national companies more powerful than governments.
Whatever is agreed now, no matter how disastrous it turns out for us in the future, the government of the day, if it tries to make changes, can be sued for potential loss of profit.
Whatever is agreed now will be binding on all EU members.
At the very least, we must make sure our NHS is exempt from the agreement.
We are being given raw deal
From: Wendy Senior, Dewsbury
In reply to Ian J Harms’ letter last week; I have attended most of the CCG and trust meetings for ‘Meeting the Challenge for Changes at Dewsbury Hospital’.
I have not met Mr Harms there, but I think I know who he is.
He left the ‘Let’s Talk’ meeting, which was in the Oakwell Centre at Dewsbury Hospital, and told everyone there we should listen to what Dr Fishwick had to say, and not ask questions.
The leaflets advertising the meeting said ‘Let’s talk to hear the public’s view on the changes planned, how to make services better, please come along and tell us what you think’.
That is not what the organisers of the meeting wanted to do. They wanted to tell us what was going to happen.
You obviously do not see things very well, Mr Harms. The NHS does have money to spend on our hospitals, a lot is wasted on changes which do not work – clinical commissioners on huge wages, not getting good results for our hospitals.
Perhaps, Mr Harms, if you had trained and worked at Dewsbury Hospital, Crossley Maternity Unit in Mirfield, across the Kirklees district for over 20 years and now working voluntary for a memory loss group, you might have a better insight to the problems we have in our hospitals at the moment.
Also, you say £40m will be spent on Dewsbury Hospital; the figure is £20m.
This is from the Clinical Commissioning Group, and if you are happy to see our services downgraded to a cottage hospital, I am not.
I will fight to keep all services at Dewsbury Hospital; and I will research to find out if any of Dewsbury Hospital’s buildings are listed, Mrs Jones.
We are being given a raw deal here at Dewsbury, but people are beginning to take notice, as they cannot get appointments at Dewsbury Hospital.
Councils are still inefficient
From: Craig Westwood, Cleckheaton
Do any other readers get annoyed when Labour councillors come on TV and always blame central government for cuts in services?
Everyone knows that most councils are inefficient, and areas of council administration need a ‘haircut’.
There is still a ‘jobs for the boys’ culture, with some top people getting massive redundancy pay-offs, only to emerge weeks later in another top job at a nearby council.
Also, highly-paid politically correct ‘non-jobs’ seem to be surviving.
A lot of the austerity is because of the last Labour government’s over-spending, which some Labour MPs are now admitting, and some still in denial!
What about Ed Balls’ ‘scorched earth’ policy, when he quickly spent as much as possible in his last days as Chancellor, to make it harder for an incoming government to manage, knowing the task was to fall on the Tories?
Finally, I haven’t yet heard a Labour MP say that a lot of votes were lost because of their planned immigration policy, which brought 3.5 million people in, who are now having families. Everything else has been blamed, but never immigration!