Labour Party should adhere to its long-established principles
I AGREE with Bob Downie that all, the rich included, need to have access to services and benefits (Letters, October 3). I would further add that not only will this further push the belief that the rich owe society nothing, but it will not even be an effective way of saving money.
Back when the Labour Party still stood for something Barbara Castle was asked why even the Duchess of Westminster should receive child benefit. She replied that it should be paid out to everyone and then taxed back from the rich.
This is the sensible way to proceed. It is both more efficient as it saves on costly bureaucracy, not to mention intrusive means testing, and also reinforces the principle of solidarity that must underpin the welfare state. Johann Lamont should be ashamed of herself for abandoning this. Iain Paterson, 2F Killermont View, Glasgow. IN my opinion as a lifelong non-Labour supporter, Johann Lamont has come in for a lot of unwarranted stick for thinking what in some circles is apparently the unthinkable, that we simply cannot afford all the various “SNP freebies”, and difficult choices may have to be made (“Lamont takes gamble on ditching SNP ‘giveaways’”, The Herald, September 26, and Letters, September 27, 28 & 29 and October 1, 2 & 3).
What is wrong in her calling for a grownup debate on the matter to determine what can and what cannot be afforded? I commend her for her courage, but having watched the dismissive reaction of Nicola Sturgeon at Holyrood last week, there will be no such debate this side of the next Holyrood election. I wonder why? Alan Fitzpatrick, 10 Solomon’s View, Dunlop. IN his stirring speech to the Labour Conference, party leader Ed Miliband rejoiced that his refugee parents were received into Britain thanks to “the compassionate tolerance of our great country” (“Miliband declares: We’re the true One Nation party”, the Herald, October 3). So why has he supported the harsh policies of New Labour and the Coalition against asylum seekers? Hundreds of rejected asylum seekers are so terrified of returning to probable
ED MILIBAND: Celebrated the values of Britain in his speech to the Labour conference. torture or death in their countries of origin that they remain in Britain, although destitute. Bob Holman, 76, Balgonie Road, Glasgow. IN a speech long on rhetoric but short on substance, Ed Miliband promises us banking reform. In January 2010, President Obama promised the same and in much greater detail. He concluded: “If these people want a fight then it’s a fight I’m willing to have.” Within a few months he admitted failure and went for a round of golf with his Treasury Secretary Tim Geitner, the latest in a long line of former directors of Goldman Sachs to hold this post. Closer to home, the SNP imagines that Scotland could be independent and keep sterling and with it, of course, the entire facade of London banking regulations.
Whatever limited economic success we achieve from time to time occurs in spite of the banking system and it is clear that, left to the politicians, banking reform is a dead duck. It is, however, a dreadful indictment of both democracy and capitalism that other intelligent business people and academics seem equally unwilling to confront the reality.
Indebtedness to a bank is conceptual and without substance – it could be written off tomorrow, yet we allow it to control parliaments and destroy nations. We must stop being frightened of financial shadows and insist upon a return to responsible banking. RF Morrison, Millig, 29, Colquhoun Street, Helensburgh.