LAST week's (November 21) Review letters page had another four letters from local UKIP zealots – maybe they're aiming to turn the Review into a UKIP newsletter.

As ever they were largely listing things they were against not offering actual policies.

Averil Summers' contribution was to complain that Neil and Glenys Kinnock had been too well paid for work they had done in the EU on behalf of Britain.

But in her anxiety to assert that anyone on the left should only ever be paid pauper's wages she forgot to mention the UKIP MEPs who have been pocketing their large salaries and expenses for decades while undermining Britain's standing in the EU, contributing nothing positive in the European Parliament on the rare occasions when they actually turn up, irritating other EU members and using their salaries mainly to campaign against Britain's membership.

Alan Preest argued against the need for local housing developments, taking a break from objecting to wind generators and photo-voltaic panels.

What we need to hear from him is whether his campaign against renewable energy schemes is just a populist stance to gain local brownie points for UKIP or a genuine disbelief in global warming or the nation's dwindling stock of generating plant.

Either way it would be nice to know if he has any thoughts on future sources of generation – does he support the Severn barrage, or nuclear power, or fracking?

And Malcolm Charnock seems to think that the obvious and largely accepted need for the EU to sort out its internal financial and budgeting systems somehow justifies the UKIP argument that Britain's economic and political future would be brighter and risk-free if Britain pulled out of the EU altogether, and that meantime anyone who argues for our continued membership is, ipso facto, more right wing than UKIP.

All in all I feel that while they're doing their best, a few column inches by a recognised comedian would be preferable.

­­– David Norman, Blaisdon.