SIR – I gather that council chiefs are drawing up plans to attract visitors.This new strategy will set a vision for Worcester up to 2021 and take into account the needs of visitors, the tourism industry, city residents and the environment.

So far so good, but if the council chiefs’ aim is to entice more visitors to the city, I hope they will reverse a previous decision made several years ago when, due to the cuts, it was decided not to retain beautiful over-hanging baskets along the river banks which were a sight for sore eyes.

I am often amazed at the efforts of other places in the country, such as Eastbourne, Brighton, Bournemouth, Torquay, Harrogate and Durham, to name just a few. Nearer home, there are Stratford-upon-Avon, Royal Leamington Spa, Gloucester, most of the villages in The Cotswolds and more locally Pershore.

The city council’s Cleaner and Greener team are quite capable of even better things. Please, for Worcester’s sake, “Give ‘em the money, Barney!”

Phil Pegler

Worcester

No goodwill for Dawkins

SIR – I read in today’s New Statesman Richard Dawkins’ article in which he was typically uncivil about how British citizens have voted for Brexit. He does not believe that most of us are qualified to reach an opinion on such a sophisticated and complex subject. He maintains that it is now admitted that the Leave Campaign was glaringly mendacious but conveniently neglects to mention that the Remain side many not have been entirely truthful. He refers to amendments to the US Constitution needing a two-thirds majority. He suggests that there should be second vote after a cooling-off period. Cameron could have set in place either or both these safeguards. Mr Dawkins suggests that our former PM now retire to well-deserved ignominy and good riddance to him; always a picture of good manners. Naturally he does not miss an opportunity to brand Ukip supporters xenophobic yobs.

He thinks that a second vote would “dispel the rancour” (his?) and have us all with goodwill pulling together for the good of the country. I am clear that I am not xenophobic and venture the opinion that most of us bothered to try to make ourselves informed of the main issues. Most of us try to be truthful, avoid “rancour” and are patriotic. In common with so many pro-remainers he cannot prevent himself from resorting to vitriol and insult despite his academic qualifications... where is his “goodwill”?

Wendy Hands

Upton-upon-Severn

Main parties out of touch

SIR – It is clear in the aftermath of the Brexit referendum that very large numbers voted to leave because they saw immigration as a threat to housing, health, education and jobs. Ivan Carter (Letters, July 22) is a case in point.

This particular fear of our services being overwhelmed by immigrants from within and without the EU needs to be explained because it is responsible for the consequences of the vote to leave.

There is nothing new about immigration or opposition to it. Both have been going on since the days of Enoch Powell and beyond. Immigration increased during the last 20 years. It was perfectly legal and was allowed by the Blair, Brown and Cameron governments. What New Labour and the Tories failed to do was to expand services to accommodate the immigration they were prepared to allow, causing pressures to grow on GP surgeries, school places, jobs and social housing. As in the past, such problems are always left to the poorest in our society to bear.

Quite simply, MPs have been growing more distant and out of touch with people for years, in particular Labour MPs. It was Labour supporters who abandoned the party in Scotland last year, and the same Labour supporters who voted to leave the EU because in both Scotland and England, the working class was taken for granted and ignored by Labour MPs who were blind to the dangers of austerity.

I shall campaign to reverse Brexit. It probably won’t happen in my lifetime now, but I just want immigrants to know that those who are here legally are welcome.

Peter Nielsen

Worcester Green Party