Which part of Theresa May’s political career ever showed heart and soul?

Theresa May’s open letter to the nation concludes with the promise she will be campaigning with her “heart and soul” to get her Brexit deal through parliament.

This is yet another Tory lie.

May has backed eight years of austerity which the UN recognises is a “punitive, mean-spirited and often callous” policy which has inflicted “great misery” on everyone except the rich.

May is the author of the “hostile environment” which was designed to make the lives of immigrants and refugees as difficult as possible.

May boasted to “deport first, hear appeals later” – a policy which led directly to the Windrush scandal where British citizens were deported out of a country they had given their lives to build.

May can’t fight “heart and soul” for her shoddy Brexit deal as she has neither a heart nor a soul.

Sasha Simic
London N16​

Whilst reading Sunday’s The Independent – in particular such articles as Tom Peck’s excellent political sketch, which was immediately followed by an article by May Bulman (More than half of people denied universal credit have cases overturned on appeal), itself immediately followed by articles relating to the PM’s response to the impending criminal court case against Arron Banks, and the knighthood for the veteran Eurosceptic Tory MP John Hayes – I was struck by the notion that if you ever wanted to prove the old adage that the Tories are the Nasty Party is still true, you could not do a better job.

In these few articles, you have all the proof you need.

In these few articles there are tales of liars rewarded with cabinet positions, and supporters of a litany of historic lies about the EU being rewarded with knighthoods, to tales of the Tories happy to get into bed with politicians who believe they are doing God’s work, with no thought that they might actually be unwittingly working on behalf of Satan himself (not just the Boris Johnson version).

Here we have news of the government’s insistence that Brexit is the “will of the people”, despite growing knowledge that “the people” did not include UK ex-pats since they might be considered a foreign influence, whilst happily accepting the growing evidence that one of the main Leave campaigns was supported by money provided by a foreign company.

In Bulman’s article, we are reminded yet again of the Tory government’s happy acceptance of the damage their policies are doing to so many of the very people that voted to leave the EU, and that the government says it is listening to, but apparently only when it suits them.

Unlike the members of the DUP, I do not believe in God, or heaven and hell, but nonetheless am forced to believe that if there is a hell, it probably has a corner set aside for the majority of our Tory government.

David Curran
Feltham

As universal credit (UC) continues to wreak havoc for hundreds of thousands of people, I ask myself: where is the outrage? Just imagine for one minute, if UC was introduced in France.

We need demonstrations to oppose this cruel welfare reform; who is going to do it? Perhaps I should? OK, others too. You know it makes sense. We have to stop this reform before there is a major spike in suicides.

The amount of worry the credit causes is shocking. As a benefits adviser, it scares me and others due to the numbers affected. A claimant has their worries, and we have claimants to support, so imagine the stress.

Anyone can be affected, except for those who brought it in.

Pause, scrap, reform, in my view. Anyone agree?

Gary Martin
London E17

Paul Renteurs is right and courageous to question the appointment of Sir David Attenborough to be the spokesperson on climate change.

I have been saddened by his lionisation in recent years: more than 25 years ago, on a quiet family holiday, we were shocked by the amount of plastic lying on the western shores of the island of North Uist in the Outer Hebrides.

We questioned at that time where it could have come from; there seemed to be more than could have been thrown from ships at sea but where else might be the source? I am ashamed to say that we went back to work that year without raising our concerns (we had/have no influence) but have never forgotten the feeling of shock.

The recent public awakening to the problem of plastic in the sea is most welcome. But I have found myself asking, if Sir David Attenborough has been travelling all over the world looking at it from every point of view (lucky man! those of us who have tried all our adult lives to be responsible with our carbon footprint will never have such wonderful experiences), why has he never questioned what was patently obvious to us all those years ago? His championship of the anti-plastic lobby is welcome because he has power to influence, but was he truly looking through all those years of opportunity?

He is not a scientist and there are many, younger, better informed voices who could speak more powerfully for those of us who have been trying to live our lives responsibly in respect of the dangers of climate change for very many years.

Thank you, Paul Renteurs.

Elizabeth Harrison
Twyford

Your article “Bitcoin price crash causes bankruptcy and mass cryptocurrency mine closures” picks up on the effect bitcoin’s price has on the economics of mining bitcoins, but not on bitcoin’s underlying inefficiency.

This hides the key flaw at the heart of bitcoin. A cryptocurrency like bitcoin uses blockchain technology to create a database. This is only secure when lots of computers solve an utterly pointless maths problem. This problem does not advance science nor create wealth – except within the bitcoin world. This process consumes more electricity than the Republic of Ireland.

Just to run a single database.

This fundamental waste of resources is one very good reason to doubt bitcoin’s longterm future. In terms of electricity used per transaction, bitcoin is over 2,000 times less efficient than a traditional approach.

One estimate shows that bitcoin consumes 29 TWh of electricity a year to handle around 68 million transactions. RBS, a traditional bank, consumes a rather more modest 821GWh while handling somewhere in the region of 4 billion transactions a year (as well as providing many other services such as offering loans, mortgages, credit cards, financial advice etc to 15 million customers).

Bitcoin’s inherent inefficiency makes it the financial equivalent of rubbing two sticks together to make fire.

John Young
Edinburgh

I find it incredible that politicians, journalists and academics have failed to notice that having a people’s vote has replaced representative democracy with direct democracy.

It’s not surprising that there is much confusion in the minds of the people what they voted for. The country doesn’t seem to understand how elections and referenda connect with a representative parliament.

Elections are conducted in the public domain after parliament has been prorogued. Referendums are conducted while parliament is in session to allow the people know what politicians are thinking when processing the EU withdrawal bill and to allow Hansard to record the arguments to trigger or not Article 50.

If parliament had rejected Article 50, there would not have been a referendum because the constitution remained unamended, the bill would have been withdrawn and parliament would have moved on to other business. However, it was amended, which should have automatically brought forward a referendum bill to give the people the final say based on Hansard arguments, not the lies and misinformation spewing out of the red, blue and purple buses. An affirmative threshold caveat of at least 55 per cent is a given, and referendum translates from Latin as refereeing Hansard arguments.

UK representative democracy is in free fall and is on the cusp of crashing if deluded MPs manage to replace first past the post with a another fabricated PR voting system to elect the Commons which should be known as the House of Representatives.

Kenneth R Jarrett
Bournville