FOR years, since the Thatcher Government, we have been told that we should not worry about the loss of Britain’s manufacturing base, upon which our prosperity had depended since the Industrial Revolution.

Instead, we should place our faith in service industries such as banking, insurance and advertising. Oh yeah?

Now look what has happened. The banks are in a mess and people can’t afford to pay their absurdly large mortgages. Now the lenders themselves are going belly- up, along with the construction companies.

We are told that, through some mysterious osmosis, which is never explained, the market will eventually recover and we’ll all be happy again.

But how is that going to happen if we don’t make anything? We’ll have to buy from the Chinese and other countries, which have kept their manufacturing. These countries will be able to charge us what they want for everything we need.

Blair said that our future lay in “education, education, education”. I wonder how he thinks that people are now going to be able to send their children to universities.

Many families – not rich people, just ordinary people – invested modest amounts in shares. Most of these have lost thousands of pounds of their values.

Nearly all the economists say that company pension schemes, which are usually dependent on the stock market, will be next to go. So much for a happy old age.

Gordon Brown seems a decent man. He should tell us in simple terms what the future holds.

Ray Hunter, Birkenhead

Parking problem

I AM writing to you about the concert held last Saturday at the Metropolitan Cathedral, in Liverpool. The performance of Verdi’s Requiem was outstanding.

Could I please pass on my concerns, though, about the parking facilities. I have a disabled parking ticket, and encountered major problems. My husband and I arrived in Liverpool about 5.45pm, and drove to the Cathedral to use the car park. I should have considered this, but totally agree that the car park was for the orchestra and choir. We proceeded to the Philharmonic Hall to use the disabled parking facilities there. These were full. No problems.

We ended up parking at The Royal Liverpool hospital car park – I knew this was a 24-hour car park as I visit the hospital regularly for my leukaemia treatments and consultations.

However, we noticed that most of the university car parks near the cathedral were empty. Could I make a suggestion that in future might it be possible for stewards to be placed at the car park entrances with the appropriate equipment to open the barriers so that they could be used, not only for disabled parking but for all ticket holders.

To end on a positive note – the walk from the hospital was a flat one, whereas if we had parked at Mount Pleasant it would have been uphill. Thank goodness for the wonderful support of my husband in helping me walk.

Sandra Hatton, via email

Different view

WITH regard to the story “Complaints against police are second lowest in UK” (Daily Post, September 25). It is good to know that Merseyside Police has received the second lowest number of complaints from the public, compared to other forces. However, the story failed to mention the disproportionate representation of complainants from black and racial minority (BRM) backgrounds.

By the force’s own admission, complaints from our BRM communities when compared to the current Merseyside population are, “. . . disproportionately high . . . ”. Current figures (November 1, 07-April 4, 08) show that 7.52% of complaints are made by BRM people, compared to a Merseyside BRM population of 2.87%. We accept that not all complaints from BRM people allege the discriminatory transgressions of colleagues. Moreover, we also acknowledge that the cause of this disproportionality is complex.

Various research, reports and indicators (both local and national) continue to show a greater level of dissatisfaction and disproportionality among BRM people within the criminal justice system. There must be no complacency from Merseyside Police and all efforts to understand why complaints from BRM people are two and half times more likely, should continue.

Vinny Tomlinson, chair, Merseyside Black Police Association

PFI piffle

I AM writing in response to the front page on Tuesday, September 30 – “We had to fund hospital privately”. Mr Bell, the Royal’s chief executive, claims that, if a new hospital is required, it must be built using the Private Finance Initiative (PFI).

I’m sorry, Mr Bell, but this is a poor argument. Firstly, it is an admission that PFI is rightly unpopular. In simple terms, it means we pay a private contractor to build us a hospital. We then pay that contractor again and again over the next 30 years to use the building. In effect, we pay up to three times what we need pay.

Secondly, it is an admission that alternatives such as refurbishment haven’t been thought through properly. Mr Bell says the Royal is “failing and falling apart”. Yes, it needs maintenance and, yes, if you don’t apply that maintenance it will “fall apart”. Mr Bell says that PFI is the only game in town. What nonsense. We have a city full of Labour MPs. If they were to speak with one voice and tell our Government that PFI is not happening, they could be listened to. PFI has been rejected in Scotland. Let it also be rejected at the Royal in Liverpool.

Alan Martin, L14

Bonkers

LIVERPOOL Royal chief executive Tony Bell claims the Private Finance Initiative is “the only option” and the Trust “would not put forward a business case that was not affordable”.

The Royal Berkshire, Great Ormond Street and Broadmoor Special Hospital are major English hospital redevelopments funded by public procurement, not PFI. Scotland and Wales have ended PFI for the NHS.

As to “affordability”, last week Mr Bell told a consultation meeting that the annual capital cost would come to 12.44% of projected Trust income. But only 5.8% of that income is allocated for capital costs, under the national tariffs for payment by results.

The gap will cause an ongoing deficit of 6.64% of annual Trust income, once the new hospital is completed. The growing debt will drag down the local health economy, forcing further cuts in beds and services which will affect us all.

We know, because that’s what happened with major PFI hospital schemes in Manchester, London and around Britain.

Private finance costs at least twice as much as public procurement. It was a bad deal before the banking crisis. Now it’s bonkers.

Greg Dropkin, via email

Not democratic

WITH regard to Liverpool PCT’s “consultation” with the public over plans to build a new hospital, adjacent to the site of the current Royal, it appears that two important issues are being sidelined.

One is the issue of democracy, as each “consultation” has produced concern and debate over the financing of such a project and, in particular, the PCT’s adherence to the Government’s Private Finance Initiative. By dismissing this key public concern, on the grounds that PFI is the only alternative, as this is “Government policy”, the “consultation” ceases to be a true democratic process.

Two, is the issue of transparency. If the Government, the PCT and all independent scrutiny agencies involved in the final decision regarding the financing of such a project do not let the public have access to the Outline Business Plan before signing the deal – as members of the public have already requested – then transparency and accountability issues will be raised.

Richie Krueger, Keep Our NHS Public

No change

WHEN the current Conservative Party leader took over, we were presented with a “liberal” version of conservatism we had not seen for many decades.

He promised to defend civil liberties and to roll back central state control of local government.

How quickly the illusion has been blown away.

The short-term populism of promising a council tax freeze for two years comes at a terrible cost.

It could only be done with the most excessive central state control of local government spending. The only choice councillors from all parties would be left with would be which services would take the hardest hit.

Yes, it’s a great soundbite for the electorate damaged by rising costs, but it exposes the Tory Party to be as autocratic and opportunist as anything New Labour has had to offer.

It shows a Tory Party Leader who cannot look beyond the latest headline-grabbing opportunity, and for those of us praying for change it is depressing.

Cllr Steve Radford, Liberal Party

Uncertain

DAVID CAMERON said this week that his party must “fight every day, every week, every month” if they are to turn their lead in the polls into a return to office. And he is not wrong.

The economic meltdown this week definitely looks to have weakened their position. I know I am now not so certain I will be going blue.

Mrs E Wells, West Kirby

Pride plea

I CAN’T help but support residents of the Hoylake area when the issue of liquor licences comes up.

Hoylake was once an idyllic setting, like neighbouring West Kirby, and was always special to us “town children” of the fifties. Now we cater for lowlife who have no thought for other people’s privacy.

I moved to Claughton Village 35 years ago because it had special attractions and was a very desirous place to live.

Sadly, that’s gone by the board with litter and fouling of every description abounding. Our roads are second to Beirut, and we now have to endure more liquor licences being sanctioned.

The community is eroding rapidly.

Give us back our pride, Wirral Borough Council.

F Robinson, via email