Letter of the week: Labour's sorry stories
Andrew Marr is right about external shocks remaking countries (Cover Story, 27 June). But gifted politicians show countries how to adapt and survive them. Lloyd George in the First World War, Churchill in the Second, and Bevin and Bevan in 1945 all explained problems and solutions in simple, memorable terms. Not everyone agreed with them, but everyone knew what they were trying to do.
Labour must urgently learn from their example. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor are hard-working managers, but colourless and cardboard communicators. Neither seems to have (or be capable of conveying) a clear and compelling vision of where our country is going and how we get there. Consequently, they come over as making piecemeal administrative decisions (winter fuel allowance and benefits cuts, then partial and ill-planned U-turns) without explaining how any of it fits into an overall plan for Britain. This government must start evoking a consistent policy narrative and vision. If it can't tell a joined-up story of hope, supported by logically connected policies, it will inevitably lose its battle with Farage's opportunistic but far more fluent storytelling.
Robert Dear, Enfield
Time to unionise
As someone who reads the New Statesman in order, Politics followed by the Encounter (27 June) gave me the idea that, in an 'era of personality politics', Mick Lynch could lead a new leftist party set up by Corbyn. The problem was not Corbyn's policies but his personality, whereas Lynch excelled at 'put downs of… junior ministers' and 'eviscerations of… television presenters'.
Moira Sykes, Manchester
Eddie Dempsey's understandable desire to see a trade union revival needs to be earthed in a humble understanding of why so many working-class people turned against unions in the 1980s, and kept the Conservatives in power. Closed shops, block votes at conferences, hostility to innovation and continual strikes, all lost the unions credibility. On the other hand, a friend of mine in rail network management always valued the contributions of his union reps, because they knew the business better than he did and wanted to make things work better. So… a little less class warfare, perhaps?
Chris Hudson, Morpeth, Northumberland
Book smarts
I enjoyed Simon Winder's excellent piece (Diary, 27 June) on the trepidations of authorship and the pre-publication fear of others pipping his prized book to the post. I recently had a historical novel published, The Poet Laurie Ate, and share his pain. Congratulations to Winder on his effectiveness in bringing his book's title so readily to the attention of the New Statesman readership – something a retiring debutant author such as myself would never dream of doing…
Ash James, Stourbridge
Movement but no progress
Mindful of the fact that 2026 will be the centenary of the General Strike, I was prompted to ask, on reading Anoosh Chakelian's article on overcrowded housing (Bursting the Bubble, 27 June) just how much progress has been made at resolving many of the issues that led to it. Certainly poor and insufficient housing was one. Arthur Griffith-Boscawen, one-time minister of health after the First World War, charged with doing something about the housing problem, apparently chose to tell 'young couples to continue sharing their parents' cottages and tenements, rather than seeking a home of their own'. Boscawen lasted one month in office, supposedly. Plus ça change.
Derek Evans, Stafford
Doctored statistics
I am puzzled by Phil Whitaker's report from Canada (Health Matters, 27 June). He says one in five Canadians have no GP, so new patients come to him are already suffering serious illnesses. He then says Canadian GPs are finding a 'sweet spot' where 'it is possible to provide high-quality primary care in the present era'. So, first-class service for 80 per cent, no service for 20 per cent? I really don't think this is the sort of statistic the NHS should be aiming for.
Peter Norton, London N6
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
None the wiser
Andrew Jefford (Drink, 27 June) addresses the idea that wines can somehow possess 'minerality'. An even shakier claim is that a particular wine shows 'class'. I once dared ask the tutor at a tasting what this meant. My neighbour (pink jacket, blue-spotted bow tie) interjected with the hackneyed, but no less insulting: 'If you have to ask, you will never know.' I still don't.
Alan Conn, Newcastle upon Tyne
We reserve the right to edit letters
[See also: Labour's rebel MPs are rubbish at maths]
Related
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
43 minutes ago
- New Statesman
The opportunity of expanding free school meals
Photo by School Food Review Last monthmarked a defining moment for the government. Coming up to their one-year anniversary in office, Labour took their most meaningful step yet towards honouring their manifesto commitments to break down barriers to opportunity and to make this the healthiest generation of children ever. The relentless combined efforts of celebrities such as Marcus Rashford, Jamie Oliver and Emma Thompson, leading health and education experts, young people and parents, politicians across the political spectrum, many NGOs including the Feed the Future campaign (an initiative run by the School Food Review), all finally culminated in a game changing commitment from government; Kier Starmer announced that all children in families receiving Universal Credit in England will become able to register for free school meals, helping an estimated 500,000 children who previously did not meet the criteria to qualify despite living in poverty. 'A few weeks ago, I met with Stephen Morgan and told him straight: the current system is broken — too many kids are falling through the cracks. So hearing the government actually listened feels like a huge step forward. But this isn't the end. We need proper investment in food quality, shorter queues, longer lunchtimes, and canteens that don't feel chaotic,' said Yusuf, a Bite Back Campaigner. This investment will be genuinely life changing for the children impacted. Over the years we have heard haunting stories of children hiding in the playground or pretending to eat out of empty lunchboxes because they're too embarrassed to let anyone see they can't afford anything for lunch, and teachers digging into their own pockets to give hungry children some food. Hopefully this will now come to an end. But expanding Free School Meals is not just a fair intervention; it's a smart economic one. Children who are not distracted by their stomachs rumbling from hunger do better at school, ultimately resulting in higher earning potential, a stronger workforce and better off economy. To realise this full potential, a clear next step should be to automatically register children who qualify, removing the unnecessarily arduous application process which currently prevents many eligible children from benefitting. Beyond this, there is an exciting prospect for government to make their investment in Free School Meals go even further. Ministers would be wise to recognise the scale of the opportunity before them and seize the chance to revolutionise school food. With children spending 190 days a year in school, the school food system offers huge potential just waiting to be tapped into. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe A healthy school lunch can provide essential nourishment for children to grow up strong and healthy. The need for this is undeniable when looking at the latest worrying government stats on overweight and dental decay in children as young as five years old. With children on average consuming half the recommended intake of fruit and veg and twice the maximum recommended intake of sugar, improving the quality of what our children are given to eat in school creates a real opportunity to turn the tide on children's health. 'As a parent, I'm thrilled the government is extending free school meals. This is such a huge step forward – every child deserves a proper, nutritious meal to help them learn, play and enjoy their school day. I'd love to see the government go even further to improve the quality of food offered to children, especially in secondary schools where the options can be really hit or miss,' said Mandy, a Sustain Children's Food Ambassador. Thankfully, government has also announced a review of the School Food Standards – the very outdated, mandatory-but-not-enforced guidance intended to help schools serve children food that is healthy, but in need of ambitious changes to deliver this aim. To really be effective, monitoring of compliance is also needed to hold schools to account and support given to them when falling short. Even better, these changes will make expanding Free School Meals deliver even greater long-term financial savings to our drowning healthcare system. Government could go even further still in their ambition. School food creates an ideal opportunity for government to demonstrate some much-needed support for British farmers by updating the rules on procurement, simultaneously benefiting local economies while ensuring our children are eating more minimally processed foods produced here in the UK. The power of food in shaping our society should never be underestimated. The culture created in school canteens, eating together and trying new foods, can foster community and establish healthy eating habits that will stick with children for life. If government choose to be bold, this could be the first step in unlocking the full potential of school food and turning it into a real national asset. Related
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
If Labour and SNP won't push for change, populists will
What mainstream parties lack is the bite. The impetus to be unashamedly radical with the powers of the parliament to introduce wealth taxes on income, property and assets. But there's some new players in the game. 'New' is perhaps stretching it a bit given Jeremy Corbyn is hardly a fresh face to political proceedings. But his new party may be. And in the other corner, we have the Reform steam train pulling into town. Announced a few weeks ago by former Labour MP Zarah Sultana, the ex-Labour leader and Ms Sultana look set to lead a new left leaning political party. We have few details, if any, on the policy platform this party will stand on. We don't even have a name. But that's hardly been a barrier when, according to YouGov, 18% of Britons would consider voting for them already and other polls put them neck and neck with Labour at a UK level. Will voters flock to a new party led by Jeremy Corbyn? (Image: PA) That tells us two things that should send alarm bells ringing in Labour HQ. Firstly, yes, polls are fickle and being the party of government is never a popularity contest but if you're neck and neck with a party of no-name and the haunting spectre of your ex-leader is looming large over you, you've got some serious reflecting to do. Secondly, in the process of that reflection, the penny may finally drop that appeasing the right-wing of the electorate isn't where electoral salvation will be found. Becoming a pale imitation of the Tories or Reform, with the Prime Minister himself cosplaying their patter with his 'island of strangers' immigration speech – words he has since admitted regret over – won't turn his ship around. Read more Roz Foyer: It's been abundantly clear that working people are searching for a radical solution to their ills. Look at the rallies that we saw the length and breadth of the country during the cost-of-living crisis demanding an urgent solution to sky-high bills, increasing inflation and rising mortgage payments. The Enough is Enough movement lit a fire in folks' bellies. The momentum was there. The people turned out. Rallies in every city and town, from village hall to community centre, clearly looked for an alternative to what is being served by mainstream politicians in Westminster and in Holyrood. It was a tremendous, heartening collective of energised working class people looking for an alternative, but rallies alone can't maintain the momentum, and those who turned out in their thousands drifted back to either voting for one of the mainstream or not voting at all. Perhaps this new project can be different. Time will tell. But this could have implications as we hurtle towards the Scottish Parliament elections next year. Scottish Labour and the SNP now find themselves at a crossroads. They can either step forward with a bold, progressive vision that speaks to working people, or retreat into the familiar comfort of caution. If they choose the latter, they risk not only losing ground to Reform UK on the right but potentially ceding space on the left to a new political force that may well speak the language of trade unionists, campaigners and working-class communities more vociferously than they do. For Anas Sarwar, if he wishes to be the next First Minister and stave off the threat of Reform and a potential challenge from a new left project then he must act as the workers' champion. [[Scottish Labour]] must show that it is ready not just to manage [[Holyrood]] but to lead in the interests of Scotland's working-class. That it will build a Scotland where workers' rights are protected – through the devolution of employment law; where unions are seen as partners in progress, not problems to be sidelined; and where public services are fully funded and [[pub]]licly owned. Is it time for John Swinney to reflect on the SNP's current policies? (Image: Gordon Terris) For John Swinney, if he wants to be seen as more than a First Minister that steadied the ship, then he must be bolder. In an era of low-growth and stagnant living standards it isn't enough to be all things to all sides. You can't bring down energy bills while giving unconditional support to the private companies that run our energy system. You can't bring down rents while exempting developers from rent controls; and you can't build first-class [[pub]]lic services while cutting more than 12,000 [[pub]]lic sector workers. It's about offering hope. Hope means confronting inequality. It means redistributing wealth. It means building homes, raising wages, investing in care and green unionised jobs and giving people real power over their lives and communities. It means collective bargaining, workplace democracy and an end to exploitative employment. If Labour and the SNP won't lead that charge, then others will. We're already bearing witness to it. Reform has stolen some of the clothes of the left. Farage's bombastic promises on re-opening mining pits and nationalising steelworks, whilst pledging to reinvigorate high streets and bring jobs into local communities that have been left behind by deindustrialisation, is striking a chord with folk who, otherwise, were disposed to voting for left-leaning parties. Read more Roz Foyer: Now, of course, this is the quintessential privately educated, super-rich career politician trying to speak the language of working people. But understandably when someone who isn't Labour, Tory or the SNP promises the world to folk who are feeling disenfranchised or sick of politicians not delivering change, people will gravitate. The message is therefore simple: to those drafting Scottish Labour's and SNP's 2026 manifesto: you are running out of time to show you're serious. You can't defeat the far-right by chasing their rhetoric. Nor can you dismiss demands from the left as irrelevant. The only path forward is to offer a vision worth voting for: a Scotland of fairness, dignity and collective strength. Roz Foyer is the general secretary of the STUC
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Giving young people the vote is an inspired move
I am one of the youth workers who supported young people to campaign for votes at 16 in Scotland 10 years ago, during the run-up to the Scottish independence referendum. The votes at 16-17 went through the Scottish Parliament with support from all MSPs of all political parties. During the debate many MSPs praised the superb contribution that young people had made to the independence debate, saying that they brought new ideas and dared to ask politicians difficult questions, and convinced them that the voice of children and young people had to be listened to. We had already established our Scottish Youth Parliament which is consulted by the Scottish Parliament on all issues affecting children and young people. The UK and Welsh Youth Parliaments were created much later. Many adults do not think that 16-17-year-olds are smart enough, and do not have enough experience of life to be be trusted to vote. Many adults do not even bother to vote and are no more knowledgeable about the many complex political issues our parliaments need to address, so why do they argue that we do not need to listen to our children? Our children are having to live with the horrendous problems of sexual exploitation, homelessness, poverty, drug barons exploiting them and their families, lack of mental health services, bullying and violence in schools, economic decline and climate change. We should be doing everything we can to convince children that democracy can work for them, that they can contribute their idealism, their energy and their solutions to child and youth issues that they have more knowledge of than adults. With fewer children reading newspapers, watching or listening to the news, to inform them on political matters, yes there is a danger that TikTok and other powerful social media could influence how they will use their votes. But this is already a problem for adult voters. Max Cruickshank, Glasgow. Read more letters Change Holyrood voting system With elections for Holyrood taking place next year, I wonder how many of your readers are aware of just how grossly unfair the method of electing our MSPs is compared to the arrangements in place for the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies? Having gained 47.7% of the total votes cast in 2021, the SNP won 62 of the 73 constituency seats. If the flawed system of first past the post had operated for [[Holyrood]], the [[SNP]] would have won a thumping majority, as the Tories won only five constituency seats and Labour just two. However, the 56 regional seats were allocated using the d'Hondt method. It is worth remembering that these MSPs are chosen by their parties; they are not individuals whom we have actually voted for on a ballot paper. This method saw the [[SNP]] gain only two additional seats, leaving it with a total of 64 seats, just one short of an overall majority. Meanwhile the Tories picked up 26 regional seats and Labour 20. It is worth reminding ourselves that at the last UK General Election, Labour won 411 seats out of the total of 650 with just 37.7% of the votes cast. Compare the arrangements here in Scotland with the election procedures operating in the other two devolved assemblies. In Northern Ireland the 90 Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) are all elected by Single Transferable Vote (STV) with each voter able to rank the candidates and vote for however many candidates are on the ballot paper. The d'Hondt system is then used but only to determine the allocation of positions in the country's executive government. It is not used to allocate additional seats in the Assembly. Why do the same voting arrangements not apply to [[Holyrood]]? In Wales, 40 of the Assembly members are voted using the first past the post system with the remaining 20 seats allocated using a form of the d'Hondt system. This is where the arrangements applied here in Scotland are so unfair. Whereas in Wales just 33% of the available regional seats are awarded using the d'Hondt system, here in Scotland it is 49%. Dividing the population of Scotland by the number of regional seats gives us one regional seat per 98,000 of the population. Compare this with Wales, where a similar sum gives us one regional seat per 155,000 of the population. So why do we have so many regional MSPs in Scotland? It is widely believed that the d'Hondt method as applied here in Scotland was insisted on by Tony Blair. It is hard not to believe that it was chosen deliberately to make it almost impossible for the SNP to ever obtain a working majority of MSPs. Surely we should be electing our MSPs using the STV system that we use when electing our local government councillors. Eric Melvin, Edinburgh. Scotland's raw deal The election of 37 Scottish MPs at the last General Election has been a disaster for Scotland, as these MPs have effectively been voiceless in Keir Starmer's UK Government, which won a large majority at Westminster with only 20% of the votes of the electorate. With the commendable exception of Brian Leishman, these Scottish MPs have toed the London-orchestrated party line and remained silent while Scotland has been stitched up. Pensioners, children, Waspi women, the disabled and the poor have been denied the support one would expect of a purportedly socialist party while, contrary to the rhetoric, major deals on industrial infrastructure have been committed to projects in England without comparable investment in Scotland to benefit the workers of this country. The Acorn CCS Project in Scotland was set to go ahead yet £22 billion was committed by the UK Government to nascent projects in England while Acorn and Scottish Cluster partners have been advised they may receive a token amount of around £200 million in development funding. This same relatively paltry amount of around £200m is what may be paid out by the UK Government 'to support the area's economic transition' while the Grangemouth refinery is shut down and hundreds of workers lose their jobs; yet the same Labour UK Government immediately committed to maintaining operations at the loss-making Lindsey Oil Refinery while refusing to reveal the cost to taxpayers. This follows UK Government funding of £2.5bn to keep Scunthorpe's British Steel plant open. As if this continued heavily-distorted UK infrastructure investment wasn't bad enough for Scotland, the Labour Party has rowed back from repealing the Tory's Internal Market Act which further restricts the already limited powers of the Scottish Government. To add insult to injury, we now learn that the Secretary of State for Scotland, Ian Murray (aka Starmer's Scottish poodle), has the audacity to claim he has no role in delivering devolution deals for Scottish cities as disingenuous justification for Glasgow and Edinburgh not receiving the funding provided by the [[UK Government]] for City Region deals in England ("Glasgow and [[Edinburgh]] need both of our governments to step up on devolution", [[The Herald]], July 16). In the 2026 Holyrood election it is important that everyone who believes in democracy and cares for the futures of our children to grow up, study, live and prosper in Scotland, gets out and votes for a party that will speak up for the right of the people of Scotland to determine their own future via the directly-elected Scottish Parliament. Stan Grodynski, Longniddry. Scottish Secretary Ian Murray (Image: Tejas Sandhu) A major worry for Ireland Martin Togneri contends 'the evidence of over-reliance on inward investment in Ireland is sparse" (Letters, July 8). Irish government statisticians, the Bank of Ireland, and independent researchers beg to differ. Multinationals (many with global reach) represent less than 3% of the active business base in Ireland. Their economic impact, however, is vastly disproportionate. These corporates account for 80-85% of the value of Irish exports, 50% of employment in Ireland's trading sector, and the major part of the Government's corporate tax take. Repatriated profits alone account for around a quarter of Irish GDP. Ireland also runs a consistently high trade surplus with the US (for example, €50 billion in 2024). Moreover, 70% of the flow of Ireland's inward investment hails from the US. Together these facts make the Irish economy especially vulnerable to Trump tariffs designed to re-balance trade and re-shore US jobs. Ewen Peters, Newton Mearns.
