LETTERSFrom Sam Turner, Sandown:
ALL this talk of having two MPs for the Island puts me in mind of the pro-fixed link campaign ten years ago, when 'true Islanders’ fought tooth and nail to oppose it.
People move here having holidayed on the Island for a number of years then feel cut off from their extended family on the mainland and want a fixed link! Why come here then? How strange.
At least J. Gibbons (CP, letters 06-08-10) is honest when telling us of the Island being an adopted home; but this is my whole point about in-comers who have 'adopted’ the Island and then want change.
And for Brian Dennis (CP, letters 06-08-10) to take a swipe at our MP Andrew Turner was incredulous to say the least.
Andrew Turner, (no matter where he came from), is totally, completely and unequivocally devoted to the Island in his endeavours as our MP. Shame on you Mr Dennis!
Dividing the Island with two MPs also puts me in mind of the EU’s demands that the whole of Britain be carved-up into 'manageable’ regions that can more easily be 'controlled’ by unelected bureaucrats in Europe; where slowly, slowly Britain becomes a hotch-potch of EU regions and not our traditional English counties of more than 1,000 years standing.
Let’s not forget here, that the IW is a county of England.
Dividing-up Britain? Dividing-up the IW? It’s all certainly got the same smell to it to me and should be opposed. So, an MP over the water knows what best for the Island, eh?
If you want a fixed link, go live on the mainland. If you want to be represented by a mainland MP, then go live there.
From P. Abbott, Ryde:
Too costly: The last thing IW taxpayers need is an additional MP to pay for.
They are expensive. The most efficient MP is the member for the IW as 110,228 electors are represented (source: 2010 Electors www.parliament.uk). Every other seat is more expensive per elector.
An additional MP for the IW would create vast added inefficiency, split attention on issues, and add at least 50 per cent more cost for Island representation (plus ferry costs). Inefficiency and added cost is the wrong way to go.
The Island model rolled across the UK would reduce total cost of MPs. This either by resizing constituencies to 100,000, plus or minus, or paying members by number of constituents represented. This reduces cost of members by 37 per cent for everybody.
All other seats are less efficient and over-represented. The IW member speaks with more electoral clout than any other MP as 110,228 electors are represented.
Votes in Parliament may easily reflect the number of constituents represented by each member, this is just mathematics.
The IW member vote should be valued at a factor of 110,228 and every other member vote should reflect their actual authority to speak for their own electorate block. This is a fair change and very efficient.
From D. Graef, North Carolina,USA:
Stay as you are: I am only an observer from afar but over the years I have admired the administration of your fair isle.
It is so obvious your excellent and mysterious, inviting IW, coupled with a marvellous newspaper, MUST (if I may say) be left to your always good decisions, with the population intact.
Please know I wish you to prevail.
From Cyril Morrison, Shanklin:
No use: I doubt the effectiveness of signatures against the Parliamentary division of the Island.
Perhaps at the next general election, a majority of Island folk promised to vote for any party other than Con or Lib might impress.
From Ray Ealey (member of Ryde Trades Council), Ryde:
Futile: So 1,500 people sign a petition for One Wight (CP, 06-08-10).
Almost two years ago, Ryde Trades Council handed Mr Turner MP a petition of a similar figure for a pedestrian crossing at the Busy Bee roundabout in Ryde but the highways department ignored it — they wait until someone is killed before they act.