The introduction of voter ID will erode our democracy

The introduction of photo identification to address the minuscule problem of voter fraud is a cynical ploy to disenfranchise large numbers of the electorate, undertaken by a government intent on manipulating circumstances for its advantage.

Those voters who are least likely to have photo evidence available are the ones that the government would least want to cast a vote. I understand that whilst I am able to brandish my senior bus pass as proof of identity, no such parallel opportunities are available to young voters. It is no coincidence that older voters, myself excluded, are likely to vote for the current party of government.

Yet again, we see a party using sleight of hand in a bid to maintain power at any cost. And so we erode our democracy and inch toward the kind of state beloved by autocrats the world over.

Graham Powell

Cirencester

Peter Westmacott’s recent piece in The Independent describes Boris Johnson’s language and behaviour towards his successor but one as “beyond the pale”. I agree, but Johnson’s behaviour is beyond the pale full stop.

In almost every area of action, from Brexit to Covid and all stops in between, Johnson has failed, badly prepared often to the point of laziness. By repute, he did not read the agreement produced by his own “oven-ready deal”. Did he actually know what it was when he uttered those words? Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe suffered 5 years of unjust imprisonment facilitated by his unhelpful remarks. There are many other examples. 

His actions are occasionally relatively trivial, more often very consequential, and the outcomes consistently bad. He has proved himself self-serving and damaging beyond nuisance with behaviours seasoned by an abundance of willing deceit and disrespect. 

In relation to the Northern Ireland protocol and the Good Friday Agreement he is now a nobody and given its provenance those that matter should treat his intervention with the contempt it richly deserves. As Westmacott appropriately commented it arises for “reasons which appear to have little to do with the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.” Should the agreement materialise as anticipated it will confirm his ineptitude in handling the matter in the first place.

Some will welcome the damage he now inflicts on his own party. He is politically dead but he will not lie down. In a paraphrase of David Davis and in the interests of us all "In the name of God, go".

David Nelmes

Newport

The continuing commitment of the state to paying for Boris Johnson’s legal costs, currently said to be £222,000 and likely to rise by a further six-figure sum, throws into sharp contrast this government’s skewed approach to legal defence support.

Under the life of this government, legal aid has seen its funding cut to the bone and, as a consequence, those in need of legal criminal defence through the courts but without the financial means, have been denied access to justice. The Criminal Bar Association was forced last year to take prolonged strike action to restore some of their income following years of cuts to legal aid defence funding.

Yet the “arch scrounger” Boris Johnson, who seems to have a ready supply of friends ready to pay for home furnishings, exotic holidays, large rented houses and contribute to wedding celebrations, is happy for the state to finance the legal costs of his defence.

It is said that the additional six-figure sum likely to be incurred is because of delays in the select committee starting its deliberations as to whether he deliberately misled parliament over the status of numerous social gatherings during the Covid lockdown.

We should remember, that the committee’s hearing is a direct result of his own behaviour which appears well documented. Yet it appears those delays are due to the reluctance of his government to hand over the necessary evidence. It is also clear that since his resignation as PM, he is earning millions from talks, book deals and speeches, and is therefore well able to fund his own defence.

Is paying for anything out of his own pocket a complete anathema to Boris Johnson?

Kate Hall

Leeds

James Moore is spot on when it comes to the treatment of disabled people on our shoddy railways.

Railways are a public service and the government has a duty to ensure that as a service it is readily accessible to all members of the public, including those with disabilities.

The argument needs to be taken further. We need to hold Mark Harper, the transport secretary, accountable. How will closing ticket offices and dismissing on-train and platform staff in the name of “modernisation” benefit the travelling public who may need assistance?

Helen Bore

Scarborough

In The Independent’s recent letters, I read about the supply of tomatoes to Britain from Guernsey 50-plus years ago.

At that time I was working as a greengrocer having just left school and we did indeed import the majority of our tomatoes from Guernsey, except during the winter months when tomatoes came from the Canary Islands. Moreover, my home town of Worthing in West Sussex developed through the production of tomatoes and grapes during the late Victorian period.

The writer is correct in saying that it is big business that seems to dictate what and where groceries are to be produced. When a production area is deemed to be too expensive, big business moves on to the next cheaper area of production area and so on. When did you last see tomatoes from the Canary Islands? Or from Guernsey?

I blame supermarkets, as well as Brexit, for the shortages in shops. Supermarkets’ obsession with profit margins has led the cost of certain goods to sore far too high. Brexit has only added to the misery with the endless red tape around trade.

Eamon Crouch

Address supplied