THE real message of the European election result has been overshadowed by the ongoing controversies over MPs’ expenses and the political survival of the Prime Minister.

A party committed to the UK's withdrawal from the EU came second in those elections (UKIP) and in total around 27% of the electorate voted for a party committed to our leaving the EU.

In the light of such a vote, a widespread debate about Britain's future in the EU might have been expected, but the silence has been deafening!

Such lack of interest in the views of the British is likely to further alienate voters and drive them towards the more extreme parties.

We in the Liberal Party believe that the European Union is in need of fundamental, root and branch reform, and that the UK may have to withdraw from the EU, or threaten to withdraw, in order to achieve such reforms.

Without such reform, public anger towards an undemocratic, illiberal, protectionist and corrupt European Union is only likely to grow.

Daniel Wood, Chair of the Policy Committee, The Liberal Party

MPs’ pay is just fine

I COULDN’T disagree more with Mark Bill's assertion that it is "Time we paid our MPs more” (Letters, June 8).

Since when does paying higher salaries guarantee better people for a job?

Do our politicians of all parties not claim that they enter politics in order to "make a difference", not for the prospect of earning huge salaries? If they were true to their word, then a modest salary should suffice.

The late Terry Fields, former member for Liverpool Broadgreen, famously only allowed himself the wage of a fireman, giving the residue of his salary away. Is that not a better way of determining what an MP is truly worth?

In theory, anyone can become an MP, since no formal qualifications whatever are required. As such, the current salary of near £70,000 pa, plus expenses, generous pensions and very generous holidays, is a very adequate package.

PR Jones, Wirral

Disunited Lib-Dems

CLLR WARREN BRADLEY’S astonishing attack on his own party members (08/06/2009) is an example of the disunity within the Liberal Democrat Group.

He writes that his group has no fire in their belly or experience and they don’t have a record of action. He goes on to say that Lib- Dem councillors lost seats because residents felt like they didn’t represent them any more. This shows how disunited the Liberal Democrats are and how their leader blames everyone but himself.

He then goes on in the article to slam the Government for bankrupting the country.

This coming from the man who was in charge when our council was branded the worst council in the country because it couldn’t manage its money properly! And then he claims credit for the £500m investment in our schools.

It was the Labour Government that gave Liverpool this money as part of its Building Schools for the Future programme! You couldn’t make this stuff up.

Cllr Joe Anderson,Leader of the Labour Group

Resistance is futile

ANY attempt by the governors of St Margaret's School to resist the proposed re-location of the three C of E schools will almost certainly be futile (Daily Post, June 9).

Schools such as these can manage without vocational links and listed buildings. Their success relies upon generally teachable pupils, supportive parents and a learning-orientated ethos within which elementary principles, such as teachers being with their classes, are practised; their object should be to provide the pre-requisites for vocational training.

Their children could be taught successfully in a barn if it were fitted out with a few essential services (if vocational links were all that important, parents would be wondering why their children in other schools will be excluded from this privilege).

There can then be little doubt that the priorities of this proposal are not the advancement of education but the preservation of a listed building and the release for development of one prime site in the inner city and another adjacent to leafy Sefton Park, possibly for iconic and vibrant apartments or annexes to expanding higher education empires.

Any who object to this proposal will find that their carefully reasoned arguments will fail against perfunctory, poorly thought out assertions by councillors and council officers.

JF Lambert, Mossley Hill

Merrick bias claim

ANOTHER piece of pro-Labour bias by political correspondent Rob Merrick (Column, June 10).

Mr Merrick talks in breathless terms of Gordon Brown’s so-called achievements at the Treasury, claiming “he has done more to improve Britain and to help the poor . . . since the Attlee government”.

Strange, then, that we find ourselves mired in the worst recession in our history, taxpayers saddled with enormous debts and unemployment higher than when Labour came to power.

Oh, and the gap between rich and poor in this country at its highest ever. Yes, a track record of which a Labour chancellor and prime minister can be proud.

Carl Cross, Widnes

Ramsay’s ‘apology’

SO GORDON RAMSAY has “unreservedly” apologised for the rude comments he made about an Australian TV presenter. I bet he has.

He has a restaurant opening Down Under soon and television programmes to promote.

And, anyway, isn’t this whole rudeness thing getting a bit old hat?

Why doesn’t Mr Ramsay just stick to what he does best – cooking – and give us all a rest?

Mrs F Moore, Allerton