PLEASE keep your letters to 250 words maximum giving your name, address and daytime telephone number - even on emails. Email: letters@swindonadvertiser.co.uk. Write: Swindon Advertiser, 100 Victoria Road, Swindon, SN1 3BE. Phone: 01793 501806.

Anonymity is granted only at the discretion of the editor, who also reserves the right to edit letters.

An uncertain future

WESTMINSTER Palace is undoubtedly one of the most prominent, iconic buildings in the country and a must for camera-festooned tourists.

How such a huge target avoided destruction during the Blitz in London in 1941 is a mystery.

Although the House of Commons did receive a direct hit causing considerable damage, that was duly and skilfully repaired to its original splendour.

It was discovered while this work was in progress how badly the structural stone work was deteriorating, which apparently, due to the constraints of war, was disregarded until recently. The situation is now becoming critical, endangering the politicians within.

An authority on the subject appeared on TV recently - obviously a power of indecision - informed viewers of what was already known, finally declaring the cost of restoration may well be too high, obviously implying that this magnificent, fully functioning edifice was for the chop.

No reference was forthcoming as to where the seat of Government would be transferred to, should this gross act of vandalism be sanctioned, ironically by an act of Parliament.

By their own volition Honourable Members may find themselves conducting affairs of state from a marquee erected in one of London’s splendid parks, which would prove to be rather uncomfortable and decidedly draughty during the winter months.

The destruction of Westminster or indeed any other heritage establishment would be appreciated by the ultra liberal fraternity, regarding such as an anathema to their Internationalist aspirations.

Also with the prospect of such a prime vacant plot the modern whizz kid architects would be scrambling for their drawing boards, to give vent to their desire to further blot the capital’s skyline with more unimpressive, often hideous structures, such as the Gherkin and the City Hall, which as if built on sandy foundations is about to hopefully disappear.

A most recent intrusion in this regard is The Shard, an impressive object if only for the imposing height and engineering feat. Other than that it is a featureless monolith that a child could design.

Viewed from any angle due to a dispute, shortage of material or more likely an error in design, the top section appears to be unfinished. How planning authorities gave licence for it to be erected on a prime location in a renowned historical city warrants investigation.

The prospect of the restoration of Westminster is not looking favourable, considering the extensive cuts and underfunding in Social Services, notably the NHS.

This Government and the previous one have had no conception of reducing the national deficit, which apparently remains at £1.3 trillion, costing annually £50 billion in interest payments - indicating that the country is bankrupt. This has not influenced overseas aid other than to increase it.

Philanthropy is an admirable concept, but when sustained with borrowed money then the donor’s sanity is obviously in question.

GEORGE HUMPHREYS

Purton

Total confusion

STEVE Halden’s letters on industry offer a mix of simple truisms like “manufacturing is not the enemy” with confused notions of what left wing politics is about. He does at least seem to have broken with the right wing view that there must be no government interference with market forces. That of course was the mantra of the Thatcherites (note to Steve: right wing) who laid waste to the manufacturing industry. Steve’s call for government support for industry sounds pretty much like what the current leadership of the Labour Party are arguing for, for example through John McDonnell’s National Investment bank.

The critical point missed by Steve is the waste of a system owned and run entirely by a very rich minority which puts its own profit before the needs of the majority who actually produce that profit. Steve’s perspective on industrial collapse even ignores that in the early years of his chosen example company 94 per cent of profits went straight to shareholders while almost nothing was reinvested.

At least Steve avoids the ludicrous notion that “all the problems we now have to live with” are because of Muslims which Ian Hunt writes in a letter which is more a fantasy laden spasm than a view.

PETER SMITH

Woodside Avenue Swindon

Spread the rewards

STEVE Halden continues his self-appointed role as economics lecturer to your readership, (Industry Means Wealth, S. A. 25th March). In it he claims that I’ve “missed the point” that industry creates wealth. He also has his customary dig at “left wingers”. Well, can I first of all tell him that I’m a left winger and, secondly, assure him that I certainly haven’t missed the point? I am a qualified accountant with a post-graduate Diploma in Management Studies from Bath University.

In the late 1960s I was a member of the corporate planning team at Swindon Borough Council. Swindon was a Labour council at the time with plenty of left wing members all of whom were concerned at the run-down of the Railway Works. Our objective was to attract new employers to replace the old industrial jobs that we could see would be lost, otherwise the prosperity of the town and its residents would decline.

The corporate plan was subsequently published in the “Silver Book”, but the local government reorganisation of 1974 thwarted much of what we hoped to achieve.

Even in the late 1960s it took an investment of £10,000 for every manufacturing job that was created. However, it wasn’t lack of funds that was a problem but the reluctance of British investors to commit to the long haul. The City of London always seemed to want a quick return while by comparison investors in Germany and France were prepared to be more patient. In Japan they went even further, with an almost symbiotic relationship between the banks and the manufacturers.

To draw a simple comparison, we were using presses installed in the 1930s to produce car bodies in Swindon while Renault, in France, had a rolling programme to replace every machine in its factories on a five-year cycle. Their presses were as much as eight times faster than ours. A British director of my acquaintance said “It’s policy to ‘sweat the assets’” because it increases the dividends and enhances “shareholder value”. Of course, “sweating the assets” often means sweating the labour force as well and that’s probably where Steve Halden and I differ.

In my view there needs to be a fair division of reward between producers, managers and investors, a goal for which employees and their unions are fully entitled to fight.

DON REEVE

Horder Mews, Old Town, Swindon

A cunning plan

FRIDAY’S Advertiser carried a report about the council’s proposed Old Town bus corridor.

The article suggested that the bus times from Wichelstowe into town would be improved by 10 minutes by getting rid of three pedestrian crossings. Really?

The documents on swindontravelchoices.co.uk suggest the cunning plan actually is that the 20mph zones and junction changes will make driving through Old Town such a pain that drivers will avoid it (“a significant percentage of traffic would be dispersed to the wider network”). Whereabouts on the wider network and the impact thereof doesn’t appear to be addressed.

For a “shared space” 20mph zone to be effective you need a traffic flow of less than 200 vehicles an hour (fewer than four a minute). Does the council really think they can achieve that? If not, what do they see as an acceptable level of traffic flow for the 20mph zones to succeed?

S DUXBURY

Wembley Street, Swindon

Here’s an easy one

A QUESTION for you: Can you guess who wants to spend £3.28m ripping out three pedestrian controlled crossings to supposedly save 10 minutes’ journey time into Swindon centre? Also they want to route buses up Wood Street.

No prizes for correct answers, it’s too easy a question. You couldn’t make it up, could you?

DM JENKINS

Greywethers Avenue, Swindon

Yet more hot air

A SHAME that the editor doesn’t set an exam in basic comprehension to certain correspondents before being allowed to send in their pennysworth, namely Messrs March and Smith (Adver 10/3/17) .

The latter, yet again, misquotes me.

As Scripture says: “when people twist and distort Scripture they not only do so to their own destruction, but they also lead others astray.” (2 Peter 3:16) Peter Smith wants Christians to “interpret their scripture in a progressive way”.

Someone has clearly been whispering in Mr Smith’s ear! Satan is never idle; he is a busy bishop indeed in his diocese.

So as the centuries pass and future Peter Smith’s don’t like what they read in Scripture, simply “interpret their scripture in a progressive way,” - adapt to ‘modern times.’ I fear there would not be much left of the Holy Bible!

Please sinners and dishonour God.

God instituted marriage in paradise; he brought the WOMAN to the man. ( Gen ii 22) Politics is about the art of compromise, religion is about the eternal truths that never change. Some correspondents cannot seem to grasp this, or do not wish to.

Howard March advises me to quote where in scripture my work came from. I did, but in his haste to reply he failed to notice.

Who exactly is “forcing one’s opinions on you”, Mr March? How can anyone force an opinion on someone else?

He writes “Guess which group makes a big noise about their views on homosexuality.” Care to enlarge, instead of sly inuendo?

I assume you mean by writing to the Adver-which you have just done!

He mentions “others which prefer to work quietly in the background to make sure that everybody gets equal treatment.”

The giveaway phrase is “equal treatment”.

Mr March clearly believes that homosexuals should be allowed same-sex “marriage,” blessed by God.

Only he won’t admit to it.

As a Christian, then Mr March, let’s see where in Scripture it says so – show us! So far you have given us only hot-air.

There’s worse: he says ‘...but it (the Bible) is aimed mostly at the people and circumstances of a particular time.”

This statement beggars belief.

It’s called The Living Bible!

Finally he says: “Many people who call themselves atheist or agnostic lead a life of self sacrifice and service to the community; others claim Christianity but preach hate and division.” Lovely and simplistic-with not one example! but this is what you excel at, Howard March, isn’t it?

As a “Christian” Mr March, you should be perfectly aware that all our rightous deeds are like ‘filthy rags’ to God without faith,” (Isaiah 64.6) and does not give them entry into God’s presence after death. The subject of Hell may be removed from some politically-correct pulpits these days but it’s not removed from the Holy Bible.

Homosexuals and their supporters cannot use scripture to justify same-sex “marriage” inside a church with God’s blessing. It simply won’t happen.

JEFF ADAMS

Bloomsbury, Swindon