Money from the royal estates should be given to schools and the NHS

The royal duchy estates should be dissolved and the money refunded to the NHS and state schools. (“King Charles and William ‘making millions from NHS and public services via property empire” – Sunday 3 November).

This is something that should have been done years ago. I have always considered myself a royalist, but I am now of the mind that their wealth and power should be vastly reduced. How many palaces do the royal family really need?  Why do they receive public money to fund their lifestyle?

They have vast amounts of money generated from inheritance and from the taxes and rents of the British public, yet they are exempt from the same rules and taxes that their subjects have to pay.

This situation is a disgrace – and it has been well concealed for decades. Something must be done to abolish this behaviour before the monarchy itself is abolished due to its own excesses.

Catherine Bolton

Derbyshire

Western leaders have failed to turn the tide of the war in Ukraine – partly due to a lack of unity and strategic planning; partly through self-defeating caution – but also because their respective populaces are insufficiently motivated to demand that more be done. (“North Korea troops in Russia shows Putin is desperate to make up for losses, say G7” – Tuesday 5 November).

We live our comfortable lives as usual, roundly condemning the invasion in conversations with family, friends, and colleagues, then go safely to our beds each evening. For the sleep-deprived, traumatised, and beleaguered citizens of Ukraine, however, their endless nightmare of violence and destruction continues with diminishing hope of salvation. Worse still, North Korea has sent soldiers to join the Russians.

We simply don’t care enough. If we did, millions of us would be writing, lobbying, and protesting in support of Ukraine. But we don’t. Instead, we permit our complacent leaders to escape such demonstrative pressure, which might otherwise force a much more courageous, potent, and coordinated response from them.

If Russia prevails and poses an increased threat to our democratic way of life, which seems entirely possible, we should not point the finger of blame solely at our weak politicians. We should also ask ourselves what we did.

David Platts

Newark

One of two Americas could emerge over the next few days and the difference between the two is of immense consequence for the rest of the world. (“Americans cast votes as polls show Trump and Harris in one of closest races in history” – Tuesday 5 October).

The first would likely remain engaged with its traditional allies, seeking diplomatic solutions and restraint in the Middle East, supporting Nato and the UN, respecting the rights of small nations to self-determination and work collectively to combat the disastrous effects of climate change.

The second would likely embark on isolationist and even vindictive policies, impose high protective trade tariffs, show hostility to its old liberal democratic allies in Nato and the UN, court authoritarian tyrants, even if it sacrifices the freedom of other nations and reject global cooperation in tackling climate change.

In either case, Britain may be the best-placed nation to work pragmatically and tactfully with either of these Americas in the hope that better angels will prevail.

Paul Dolan

Cheshire

At a recent rally, former president Donald Trump said: “And to get me, somebody would have to shoot through the fake news. And I don’t mind that so much.” (“Trump jokes assassin would have to shoot journalists as Pennsylvania rally goes off the rails” – Monday 4 October).

This was followed by laughter, instead of condemnation.

So often there are reports of journalists being killed. Some cases are well known, such as Jamal Khashoggi’s murder. Others less so, such as those journalists killed in the current war in Gaza. But none of their deaths are a joke.

Why are journalists killed? It is rarely accidental. It is because they tell the truth and hold those in power to account.

As a potential leader of the United States of America, a nation built on the idea of freedom of speech, it is horrifying that Trump doesn’t appear to support free and independent journalism.

But I think we all know why he doesn’t.

Dennis Fitzgerald

Melbourne

After any Budget, it often takes a number of days before the dust settles and the full implications become clear. The devil, as they say, is always in the detail.

The revelation from the economic secretary to the Treasury, Tulip Siddiq, that 60 per cent of the impact of Brexit is yet to materialise is just one of these. (“Worst of Britain’s Brexit pain is still to come, admits Treasury minister” – Monday 4 October). The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has forecasted that the economy will shrink in the long run due to the UK leaving the EU.

It also noted that Britain’s imports and exports will end up 15 per cent lower than they would have been had the UK stayed in the EU.

Back in 2022, the Centre for European Reform compared the UK to similar economies and assessed that Brexit meant a loss of tax revenues of £40bn. This week the chancellor increased tax by £40bn, the biggest rise in decades, impacting businesses already in many cases deeply affected by Brexit.

Earlier this year, a report – commissioned by the Labour mayor of London and using Treasury analysis – concluded that the UK was already £140bn worse off due to Brexit and would be £311bn worse off over the next decade.

On top of that, the exit bill to leave the European Union is still costing taxpayers. The UK has paid £24bn to leave, so far, with billions more still to pay to settle the UK’s obligations.

Brexit it appears is an issue [of which people] dare not speak its name, and yet the impact on our public finances of this profound act of economic self-harm significantly outweighs any other aspects of the Budget.

Alex Orr

Edinburgh