Calls for an end to austerity are misguided – our debts are still piling up
sir – I am becoming increasingly concerned at the number of calls for an end to austerity (leading article, June 14).
The facts are that seven years ago the Conservatives inherited an economy in a real mess. In spite of seven years of hard and often unpopular work, the situation is still dire. As a country we are living well beyond our means and our debts are increasing by the day.
I would be happy to accept meanstesting of all benefits and a change in the system of paying for elderly care if such measures helped to reduce the deficit. The idea that government expenditure should, or could, be increased is nonsense. Geoffrey Wyartt
Newent, Gloucestershire
sir – Can we please stop using the word “austerity” when referring to government economic policy?
This word, much-loved by the BBC, has even been adopted by some Cabinet ministers, when surely they mean “trying to live within our means” – something which every responsible family in Britain must aim to do, no matter what their circumstances. Mike Dyble
Lymm, Cheshire
sir – Lord Saatchi (Commentary, June 13) is right to suggest that the Conservative Party needs to re-learn what it stands for.
At the next election, socialist dogma needs to be countered with a vision for a small state, lower public spending and taxes, deregulation, further privatisation and trade union reform.
This is how one wins general elections, not by droning on about making companies adopt policies on gender pay gaps and workers’ rights. We need policies that embrace our beliefs in individuality, enterprise, property ownership and freedom.
One only gets run over in the middle of the road. Theresa May has been hit, but thankfully has she not lost her political life. However, she will do so if she does not tackle Jeremy Corbyn’s Marxist economics head-on. Tim Janman
London W6
sir – The electorate is clearly focused on a better economic future. If the Brexiteers driving the Government today do not have the courage and clarity to explain how that economic future is to be achieved, then we may find ourselves rowing back very quickly indeed. The alternative seems to be an extraordinary re-awakening of 19th-century socialism. Patrick Seely
London SW1
sir – The T-shirt worn by Stieg Larsson’s heroine in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo sums up Mrs May’s current quandary: “Armageddon was yesterday – Today we have a serious problem.” Roger Small
Salisbury, Wiltshire
sir – I fail to follow the logic of your front-page headline “May calls in Gove to save her from leadership challenge” (report, June 12).
How can the Prime Minister’s cause be helped by appointing a man with the electoral appeal of a bath sponge? Peter Wyton
Gloucester
sir – Twice in the space of a year, a Conservative prime minister has gambled with the country’s stability by calling an unnecessary vote that very few wanted, in order to strengthen their own position.
Twice the gamble has backfired, with serious political and economic consequences for us all. Now Theresa May is at it again, gambling with the fragile peace in Northern Ireland – already at risk because of Brexit – by entering discussions with the Democratic Unionists to secure a Commons majority.
As Sir John Major, one of the architects of peace in the province, has said (report, June 14), the peace agreement requires the British government to be neutral. This is impossible if you are in some kind of coalition with one of the parties.
Our stability, security and prosperity, and the very future of the United Kingdom as we know it, are now at greater risk than they were this time a year ago. Dr Kevin Sullivan
Swansea
sir – The humiliation of the election result is nothing compared to completely mistiming one’s contribution to a Mexican wave (report, June 14). Michael Sheehy
Maidenhead, Berkshire
sir – Everyone bent on attacking Theresa May seems to overlook the fact that she achieved an increase in votes for the Conservatives of over two million compared with the last election. She also increased the Conservative share of the vote from 36.9 per cent to 42.2 per cent.
The election is now over, and everyone should get behind her to help her get the best possible Brexit deal. Max Faber
London SW19
sir – However hard or soft Brexit ends up being, it can only ever work for Britain if the economy is vibrant, flexible and creative.
A Brexit accompanied by higher taxes, more business regulation, more state intervention and more publicspending profligacy would be a disaster. We would again become the “sick man of Europe” that went begging for entry into the Common Market in the first place. If our domestic policies are now to ape Labour’s, then I would like a second EU referendum. Dr David Cottam
Montauriol, Lot-et-garonne, France
sir – Michel Barnier, the EU’S chief Brexit negotiator, is complaining that the election result makes our position on leaving the EU less clear.
This is simply not the case. The Labour, Conservative and Ukip manifestos all stated that they would end free movement. Taken together, these three parties picked up more than 84 per cent of the popular vote.
As the EU insists that membership of the single market requires acceptance of free movement, Mr Barnier now has complete clarity on these two major areas of the negotiations. Tim Beechey-newman
Caversham, Berkshire
sir – I don’t believe many (if any) Leave voters wished to prioritise reduced immigration at the expense of jobs and wealth creation. That is simply being economically illiterate.
Immigration controls are dubious at best when it actually comes to reducing numbers. Our past performance over that part of immigration we do control – relating to arrivals from outside the EU – has been pretty ineffectual. Alan Law
Streatley, Berkshire
sir – The European Union Committee of the House of Lords, of which I am a member, produced a report last December suggesting that Britain should consider the merits of remaining a member of the EU customs union on an interim basis as part of a transitional arrangement.
This would give some certainty to business, help with the workload (new trade agreements take years to negotiate) and assist in the Northern Ireland border problem. It would not rule out an eventual bespoke agreement.
This would seem a sensible way out of the Government’s difficulties. Lord Horam (Con)
London SW1
sir – There is no reason for the British approach to the negotiations to soften; if we are leaving the EU, we are leaving the single market and the customs union.
From 50 years of experience, I know that to get a good deal one must be prepared to leave without one. Stephen Garner
Colchester, Essex
sir – Rohaise Thomas-everard (Letters, June 14) says that her grandchildren want a soft Brexit so that Erasmus funding for educators can be continued.
I hope she pointed out to them, first, that Britain had a substantial exchange programme operating pre-erasmus, and, secondly, that the trinkets dished out by Brussels are all paid for by the UK taxpayer, from a net contribution of around £1 billion a month.
They would seem happy to hand over British sovereignty in exchange for a glorified term-time holiday while they are meant to be studying at university. Kevin Prescott
Littlehampton, West Sussex
sir – As a chartered surveyor, I have long thought that all tower blocks should have an external steel staircase.
Internal stairs merely allow fires to travel between floors, and can be impossible to use in a fire. Lower blocks, such as two- or three-storey conversions, should have one roll-up rope ladder per flat, inside an opening window. Even two-storey houses should have the latter.
Hampstead Norreys, Berkshire