Improving transport is not a zero-sum game of investment in the north at the expense of investment elsewhere (“Wherever you build new infrastructure... build it in the north”, News). Investment is actually needed by cities across the country to drive economic growth. These economic benefits can only be realised if cities have greater financial flexibility. Investment should be evaluated on the strength of economic payback through the creation of jobs, housing and business growth. For example, improvements to London’s transport and the construction of Crossrail support almost 58,000 jobs and apprenticeships outside the capital.
The current system of funding is too centralised. Just 5% of taxes raised in Britain are controlled by cities themselves, compared to 30% in Germany. This is not a question of investment in the north versus the south. We need the flexibility to do both.
Sir Peter Hendy
Transport commissioner
London SW1
Our dubious dependencies
As well as hammering Jean-Claude Juncker and Enda Kenny, shouldn’t we also be looking at Britain’s own dubious dependencies, such as the “British” Virgin Islands, Jersey and the Isle of Man (“Ireland insists it can still be hi-tech hub despite axing ‘double Irish’ loophole”, News)? Is Ed Miliband so scared of not seeming “business friendly” that he doesn’t press David Cameron about these three tax havens. Something for him to do when he discovers his “inner radical”?
Ian Goodacre
Sevenoaks, Kent
Assisted dying is unacceptable
Dr Kailash Chand’s arguments in favour of the assisted dying bill are, at best, confused (“Assisted dying will be made legal in UK ‘within two years’”, News). He attempts to equate physician-assisted suicide, which is what this bill proposes, with dignity in dying, which is an entirely different concept.
He also shows scant respect for his colleagues if he thinks that around 80% of them would oppose this bill publicly while privately supporting it. If this bill becomes law, no judicial oversight could ever provide a safeguard for vulnerable people (or “unnecessary life”, as Chand chillingly puts it) implicitly offered a choice of ending their lives if they felt they were a burden on others.As deputy chair of the BMA, Chand must be aware of the possibility of an underfunded NHS hiving off or withdrawing funding for palliative care if a cheaper alternative was available. No change in the law is the only option.
Dr Barry Cullen
Fareham, Hants
True love ignores the years
In 1982, I met my second husband on an anti-apartheid demonstration. He was a single, vegetarian, academic of 29. I was a 42-year-old divorcee, a parent of three teenage children and carnivore (“I find older women attractive. I decided that youth doesn’t stop at 30”, last week).
After a few months, we decided to live together and eventually get married. Our wedding was the best Labour party meeting that I and my comrades ever attended. Our honeymoon was spent at a grim hotel on the M62 where I was being grilled by media hacks in preparation for the European elections in 1984.
When he died suddenly of a heart attack at the age of 54 some eight years ago, the day after I had been cleared of cancer, my friends witnessed my utter devastation. All I can say is those near-24 years were the happiest and most wonderful I have ever experienced.
Yes, there were difficult times, which were not helped by people asking us stupid questions such as: “Is he your toyboy?”, a term I loathe. Even worse was: “Is he your son?”. I say “good luck” to anyone facing a relationship with an age difference, but isn’t it sad that the adverse comments are usually in relation to an older woman and younger man?
Shirley Haines-Cooke
York
Speed up on the speed cuts
Local authorities try to look at three years’ worth of data before deciding on the impact of 20mph (“Limitations of speed limits”, Letters). Road accidents will continue to happen, whoever is at fault, but mistakes can be designed out of the system as far as possible. Cutting speed is a simple and cost-effective measure but on its own may not be enough. Other solutions, such as infrastructure, crossings, segregated facilities for cyclists and road design are also key factors.
The suggestion that speed restrictions should only be implemented in certain “sensitive” areas (around schools, near to hospitals) ignores the fact that all our streets are thoroughfares to somewhere else and used by everyone, including vulnerable people. All the evidence shows that reduced speed works much better on a community or borough basis, otherwise it is more confusing for pedestrians and drivers alike and is more costly. To suggest that lower speed limits may actually cause more harm through drivers’ frustration is to imply that anything that holds up a driver is wrong.
Too often missing from this debate are the many public health benefits of introducing slower speed, which can lead to an increase in cycling and walking, reduced obesity, improved air quality and adapting our public spaces for an ageing population.
Monica Saunders
Teddington
Richmond upon Thames
