Will the magic money tree fund the prime minister's post-Brexit festival of Great Britain?

Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

I am sure there will be some who think May’s idea of a Brexit festival is wonderful. The same prime minister who last year told us that there was no magic money tree.

Surrey County Council is making cuts of £21m to special needs budgets this year and parents are quite rightly taking the council to judicial review in response.

Financial support for women’s refuges has been cut by almost £7m since 2010, cuts which put at risk the physical safety of vulnerable women and children.

Mental health budgets for NHS trusts in England have been cut by £105m in real terms since 2011. And only one in four tube stations in London has step-free access for disabled people.

The fact that the prime minister is even thinking about this idea as a populist sop to the Eurosceptics in her party shows just how out of touch she is with the financial priorities of this country.

She also completely fails to acknowledge the fact that trade deals in the 21st century are done via delegations, not Festivals of Britain. May should be focusing on making sure that the supply chains of car manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies aren’t affected by Brexit. Not yearning for a white elephant trade show, as if we were back in the 1950s.

Chris Key
Address supplied

Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing was a spectacular failure for women

Like so many around the world, I watched the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing for Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination confirmation this week with dismay.

I am a 32-year-old woman who has lived and worked on three continents in various management-consulting related roles. In every job I’ve ever had, I’ve experienced inappropriate moments that have ranged from silly to uncomfortable to physically and professionally threatening.

In my first job interview, the male interviewer stared at my boobs for the duration. In my first project, a software vendor consultant asked if I’d like “a cup of coffee or (him)” during a workshop tea break.

I’ve had a boss claim that I was successful because of my “smile and a bit of leg”, and a potential supplier corner me with magic card tricks insisting I was so impressed by his skill “we’d go to bed” if he did this to me in a bar. And that’s not to mention the countless meetings I’ve been in where the boys have named female colleagues as MILFs or gone out of their way to make me blush.

All of these are “minor” incidents, but all have made me uncomfortable; and some made me fearful, ashamed and unsure. But these experiences are a given if you’re a woman in a male-dominated environment and “making a fuss” could do more harm than good. So, we stay quiet.

#MeToo shone a light on inappropriate behaviour and got people talking about what is and isn’t acceptable. Understandably, many men feel afraid and uncertain; women have felt like this for centuries. So it’s OK if we’re all a bit uncomfortable for a moment while we figure out how to deal with flirtation, versus stupid, inappropriate comments, versus harassment, versus sexual assault, versus rape. While related, they are not equal.

This past month saw a key test for a powerful institution to set a standard for how we treat information on these matters and the people involved. The result is a spectacular failure to respect people and due process.

The actions of the Senate Judiciary Committee have indicated that it’s OK to pretend to give airtime to the victim, whilst in the background blaming and shaming her; to praise gorilla-style chest beating defence by the man, and to proceed with promoting the accused anyway. In fact, it’s worse than that.

This test should have helped us debate whether the apparent actions of a high school boy should impact the future of a 50-something-year-old man. It should have shown us that it’s OK to listen and important to investigate claims fully. These allegations have overshadowed other important questions about whether a candidate with such a strong history of anti-Democrat action (ie Kavanaugh’s involvement in the Starr Report to impeach Clinton and working for Bush on the 2000 Florida election recount) is a suitable candidate for the Supreme Court. And importantly, what is the rush to confirm his nomination?

Instead of helping move the discussion and norms forward, we’ve watched a deeply divisive horror show with an appalling lack of respect for people as human beings. The alleged victim has been shamed further with suggestions she’s a political operative, or in it for the publicity. Why on earth would anyone volunteer to put themselves through reliving their trauma, enduring death threats and unsettling her family just for money or publicity? We should show her compassion.

Kavanaugh’s response to Dr Ford’s testimony was embarrassing and in my opinion did more harm to his nomination than anything else. He was aggressive, interrupted questions and didn’t listen. We did establish that he liked beer. His performance and attitude was not befitting of someone to be a judge in the highest court in the land, ruling on the most difficult and sensitive matters (abortion, gay rights, gun control, to name a few).

This was a missed opportunity to create a safe space for women to be heard, claims to be impartially and thoroughly investigated, and men’s futures to be decided on full facts.

Another opportunity will certainly come; there are too many of us with stories to tell. I only hope the approach can be recovered. Our mutual success and harmony depend on it.

I’d encourage everyone to watch the discussion Man Enough: #MeToo, which provides a space for men to discuss this issue.

Carina Collins
Teddington

We can’t shape Britain’s destiny without investment

Anne-Marie Trevelyan’s article on Sunday was revealing. The ambitions aired are very far-reaching. The UK must have the best of everything, be a recognised world leader in every field, institute gold standards, invest in people, promote world peace through a first rank military establishment, etc, etc.

Policies can impel changes but only funding will secure them. Where is the money coming from? At what point in this process will all the harm that austerity has caused to our national fabric be remedied?

The Brexit that Trevelyan promotes will reduce UK revenue under all current estimates for anything from 10 to 50 years.

It doesn’t add up.

Steve Ford
Haydon Bridge

Why should I pay for a service I can’t use?

I support the concept of the NHS – my wife at one point worked for them, my daughter still does, and I understand more money is needed – but I object to paying extra income tax to fund what I’m not allowed to use.

I am a UK taxpayer and British, but I live in Germany. If I had access to the NHS-funded treatment in Germany but chose not to use it I would happily pay more income tax.

Even if I was able to travel on holiday to the UK to visit family and have access to free NHS-funded treatment I would happily pay more income tax

But as I am under 65 and live in Europe, I am not allowed access to free or funded NHS treatment whilst in Germany, and as I am classified as not normally resident in the UK, if I returned to the UK to visit family, I would not be entitled to free NHS treatment. So why should I pay for something I am not allowed to use?

If the tax was to be in the form of extra corporation tax I would be content; if it was to be levied in the form of extra VAT I would be content; if it was to levied on alcohol or tobacco products I would be content; if it was to be levied in the form of a new tax on unhealthy food and drinks I would be content. But if it is to be levied in the form of additional income tax, why should I pay more? Don’t forget the old saying “you get what you pay for”.

If anything, it could be argued I should get a tax rebate, not pay more tax.

Name supplied
Balve, Germany

Something in the water?

What are they putting in the coffee at the Foreign Office? First we had Boris Johnson hallucinating about the EU, and now Jeremy Hunt has claimed the EU is like the Soviet Union.

Roger Hinds
Surrey

I’m backing the Boris bridge

Whatever views one may have of Boris Johnson, his support for a Northern Ireland fixed link is worthy and the scheme should be applied.

I voted Remain and make no apology. However the imperatives of post-Brexit competitiveness necessitate a serious upgrading in UK-wide infrastructure to include expansion of all major UK airports – and a Belfast fixed to fully interconnect the United Kingdom.

By a happy coincidence such a scheme would necessitate a reinstatement of the Dumfries-Stranraer line to facilitate freight and passenger trains from Belfast to London and indeed continental Europe via channel tunnel.

John Barstow
Pulborough