
Labour's 'sunlight of hope' is now the darkness of despair
Well, a lot of things were supposed to be different under Labour; the problem is though that they are not. Voters who were promised "Change" are increasingly feeling conned. The "sunlight of hope" which the Prime Minister promised in his General Election victory speech has become the darkness of despair, and anyone hoping that Sir Keir Starmer might show some respect for the voters of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse and turn up to explain himself will be sadly disappointed, with Labour's own sources admitting that the Prime Minister is "not playing well on the doorsteps and is not considered an asset at this point in the electoral cycle". And those are the truest words we've heard from Labour for a long time.
Ruth Marr, Stirling.
An electoral disaster beckons
The way things are going, it does not look as though Labour could win a second term in office.
It came in with big ideas about growth and investment to rescue the UK from the yawning chasm of inequality only to find that there was a shortage of funds despite the highest level of taxation for eons.
Out of fear of catastrophic headlines, Labour tied its own hands by ruling out increasing taxation in important areas, thus leaving itself little wriggle room for its manoeuvres.
In its desperation to show that it could be steely in its determination, it hit targets which were clearly going to provoke vociferous public outcry destined to damage its standing in opinion polls and to test the strength of its resolve.
The reduction in numbers of those eligible for the winter fuel allowance has left an indelible imprint in the minds of many voters which will backfire on Labour at the next election while the National Insurance increase on employers' contributions has put a squeeze on Labour's much-vaunted ambition to boost business growth.
Read more letters
Labour must have hoped that the electorate would understand that Labour's project to reform the economy would take time, but it had not factored in the the fragmentation of society where individual groups and institutions do not see themselves as members of the larger national community but are interested only in protecting their own members' interests and devil take the hindmost.
Where Labour needs every business, public service and trade union to realise that a sinking ship needs all hands to the pumps, it faces demands from all sides for a restoration of parity with the economy prior to 2010 and additional funds to put into operation the about-turn Labour advocates for the economic betterment of the UK.
Unless patience and belief in the efforts of community action replace the selfishness and impatience of individual entitlement, Labour will be in the position of Sisyphus, condemned never to succeed in the task it has taken on.
That will just spell out electoral disaster when the burden of blame rests elsewhere.
Denis Bruce, Bishopbriggs.
By-election opportunity
For the last few weeks, the environment in the UK has been particularly stressful: widespread anti-government protests have swept the country, whereas the approval ratings of Sir Keir Starmer have hit a record low of 22%. Such an outcome is a response of the population against rising taxes, withholding social safety net programmes and healthcare reform. But despite the growing frustration of the public, the PM has been building up multi-billion aid to Ukraine from already shaky budgets with no concern about internal problems.
Taking into account the reluctance of the Government to scale back its ambitions that are affecting the population, the victory of Reform UK in the English local elections seems to be no surprise. Even Nigel Farage is regarded as a worthier candidate than any member of the Conservative or Labour parties that left the public disappointed with their unpopular policies. As people didn't manage to get through to the Government by ordinary means, they resorted to drastic measures. 'Change your political course, otherwise we'll replace you with the opposition' – that's what the population wanted to say by voting for the right.
The by-election in Scotland on Thursday is one more opportunity to show the Government that Reform UK's big win in local elections was no accident. People can't put up with the fact that their problems are being put on the back burner, they are now in a serious mood to struggle for their welfare. And in this struggle every single voice is badly needed.
Iain Brocklebank, Glasgow.
• The Hamilton by-election seems to be an opportunity for all mass media outlets to be showing images of Nigel Farage grinning. This is a little disturbing because of the uncanny resemblance between Mr Farage and Joe E Brown, the actor who stole scene after scene from Marilyn Monroe, Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon, as the useless millionaire Osgood Fielding III in Some Like it Hot, Billy Wilder's 1959 smash-hit comedy.
Given that the film's two male actors pretended to be women throughout and the trouble we're having in Scotland with the issues of gender identity, seeing the final scene in which Joe E Brown, with his trademark wide, wide grin announces that "Nobody's perfect" is quite comforting. Nobody is, but I still can't quite imagine Nigel Farage adopting such a magnanimous position – on anything.
AJ Clarence, Prestwick.
Joe E Brown and Jack Lemmon in Some Like It Hot (Image: United Artists)
Existential crisis for the NHS
I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed by Dr Andrew Docherty (Letters, May 29) regarding the parlous state of the NHS.
It is perhaps going too far to say that the NHS, which is supposed to protect us from danger, has become the danger in the same way as Frankenstein's monster turned on its creator, but long waiting lists and lack of adequate resource (both human and material) mean that people are dying needlessly.
The truth of the matter is that the NHS has become a huge, bloated, costly monster with an insatiable appetite for cash on which it gorges but with no consequent improvement in patient outcomes.
This is hard to accept as it goes against everything we have been taught as believers in the 'national religion' and the myth of the NHS's saintliness.
I would emphasise that this assessment does not apply to the doctors, nurses and other medical support staff who are generally excellent, but the organisation they work for, which is well past its sell-by date.
The problem is simple but difficult. Unlike most other business entities, the NHS does not exist to make money. It exists to spend it and so, because it is taxpayers' money it is spending it has to be monitored by a committee to ensure there are no financial shenanigans going on behind the scenes. As that committee is a public body it has to be monitored to ensure it meets all its sustainability and diversity targets. Then the body set up to do that will need an HR department to ensure that the mental health issues are being properly addressed.
Then all these bodies, panels and committees will need to be housed in offices which will have to be financed.
Then suddenly there is a need for a CEO who will need some supporting staff, and they will need an HR department too, which means a private finance operation will have to be started which will in turn need an oversight committee which will need another HR department.
And then from way down the food chain a doctor will say that he could do with some new PPE and there will be a massive outcry about buying medical supplies.
This means a procurement committee will be necessary and the Chancellor will announce she is spending enough already so Labour will be accused of underfunding the NHS.
No private company would allow this to happen. It would concentrate on the core business and house the HR department in a Portakabin in the car park. Private companies exist to make money, not to waste it on meeting mindless irrelevant targets
Of course, you can't just shut the NHS down for six months to do the required reforming and restructuring followed by a grand reopening ceremony but accountability and good governance completely focused on patient outcomes is the only way out of this existential crisis.
Keith Swinley, Ayr.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Times
an hour ago
- Times
Ministers fight over scraps as reality bites on spending review
At cabinet on Tuesday morning Sir Keir Starmer expressed his gratitude to ministers for their work before next week's spending review. For several of those sitting round the table the prime minister's words might have rung a little hollow as they grapple with deep cuts to their budgets. The next few days will have far-reaching implications for their departments and their political aspirations. The parlous state of the public finances means that unprotected departments — those outside the Department of Health and Ministry of Defence — are facing real-terms cuts in the spending review on June 11. The run-up to this year's spending review, which will set out departmental funding, has been particularly bloody and, with a week to go, three ministers have yet to reach settlements with the Treasury. Given that the bulk of government departments have now settled, the remaining ministers find themselves locked in a battle for an ever-diminishing pool of resources. They include Yvette Cooper, the home secretary; Angela Rayner, the housing and communities secretary; and Ed Miliband, the energy and net-zero secretary. Even Wes Streeting, the health secretary, whose funding is ring-fenced and who will enjoy the lion's share of money in the review, has yet to reach a settlement although officials acknowledge that the dispute — over drug prices — is of a different order. Wes Streeting's department of health has its funding ring-fenced LEON NEAL/POOL/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES The negotiations have been tense and there has been an extraordinary level of lobbying, both inside and outside Whitehall. Reports that Rayner and Miliband stormed out of a meeting with Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the Treasury, have been denied but there are claims that secretaries of state are refusing to deal with him and demanding instead to speak to Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, directly. Rayner, the deputy prime minister, was said to have been left 'very, very frustrated' by the spending review process. A source said negotiations with the Treasury became so fraught that she ended up holding meetings past midnight with officials to discuss strategies. For the ministers still locked in discussions with Reeves, one of the fundamental concerns is that the government is failing to put its money where its mouth is. Between them they are responsible for delivering some of Starmer's biggest priorities — halving knife crime and violence against women and girls; recruiting 13,000 additional frontline police officers; building 1.5 million homes; and using clean energy to power the electricity network by 2030. All of these announcements have been repeatedly put up in lights by Starmer, made in a succession of laudatory press releases and speeches and promoted with countless leaflets and social media posts. Ministers now find themselves being asked to deliver on these same pledges with significantly less money. The tense atmosphere has been exacerbated by some extraordinary lobbying. Last week The Times disclosed that police chiefs and the deputy director of MI5 had written to the government to warn that its plans to release thousands of prisoners early posed a risk to public safety. On the same day seven police chiefs including Sir Mark Rowley, the head of the Metropolitan Police, wrote an article in The Times warning that failing to increase their budget would put Starmer's pledges at risk and represent a return to austerity. They have since gone further. On Friday Rowley and other police chiefs cut out Cooper and Reeves and wrote to Starmer directly, saying negotiations between the Home Office and Treasury were going 'poorly' and that they faced stark choices about which crimes to deprioritise. For a law-and-order prime minister, their letter is unlikely to have gone down particularly well. The challenge for Starmer is that behind their warning lies a tacit threat. Should they be unable to deliver on Labour's promises, they are willing — both publicly and privately — to point the finger of blame at government. It is a similar story in other departments. Green groups and charities are alarmed by proposed cuts to Miliband's £13.2 billion warm homes plan. Farmers are raising the alarm over plans to slash a big land management scheme. Developers are warning that the failure to invest in affordable housing will lead to homebuilding targets being missed. The ministers will all ultimately settle — they have no choice in the matter. But the process itself points to the fact cabinet is increasingly emboldened in questioning the chancellor. While Reeves was once arguably the dominant figure in Starmer's Labour, she is now a relatively diminished one after a public backlash over the decision to scrap the winter fuel allowance. The prospect of further tax rises has not helped matters. A government source said: 'The word that keeps coming up about Rachel is 'captured' — people think she's just been absorbed by the Treasury orthodoxy. There's no imagination. There's no theory of growth.' This is categorically rejected by allies of Reeves, who say the spending review will be focused on improving living standards. At the root of the problem is that, after two years of relatively generous spending fuelled by big tax rises, Reeves is now determined to apply the squeeze. Real-terms spending will grow by an average of 1.2 per cent a year over the three-year spending review period, well down on the 2.5 per cent over Labour's first two years. But ministers have already promised a big increase in defence spending and if the NHS budget increases in line with the long-term average of 3.5 per cent, then other departments face real-terms cuts of 1 per cent a year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned it will be 'impossible' to fund all the priorities without 'chunky tax increases'. Reeves does have a good news story to tell. She will use her budget to announce £113 billion of capital funding, including investment in 'shovel-ready' transport and infrastructure projects in the regions to fend off Reform UK. There will also be an announcement on Sizewell C, a nuclear power plant in Suffolk that will produce enough energy to power six million homes, and the green light for mini nuclear reactors. But officials acknowledge that the cuts will dominate the headlines. In a week's time the battles that have raged behind the scenes will be laid bare in black and white. The winners and losers who emerge from this fraught process could have a defining role in Labour's prospects at the next election, for better or worse.


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
UK's steel industry spared Trump's new 50 per cent tariffs – but exemption deal still not in place
The UK appears to have been spared from the immediate hit of Donald Trump 's 50 per cent steel and aluminium tariffs – although an exemption deal is still not in place. The US president has decided to 'provide different treatment' to the UK after an agreement was struck between the US president and Sir Keir Starmer last month. Levies will remain at 25 per cent for imports from the UK, according to a version of the order confirming the tariff increase posted by a White House X account on Tuesday – however Britain could still be subject to the higher 50 per cent rate from July. The UK government said it is 'pleased' the UK will not be subject to the additional tariffs as it vowed to secure the removal of the 25 per cent levies too. Sir Keir 's trade deal with the US, struck last month, included an exemption on the steel and aluminium tariffs, but the implementation has not yet been finalised. Business secretary Jonathan Reynolds met White House trade representative Jamieson Greer in Paris on Tuesday. According to the Department for Business and Trade, Mr Reynolds and Mr Greer discussed a desire to implement the deal struck as soon as possible, and committed to working closely to make it happen. According to the text of the order released on Tuesday, Mr Trump has 'further determined that it is necessary and appropriate to allow for the implementation of the US-UK Economic Prosperity Deal of 8 May, 2025 (EPD), and to accordingly provide different treatment, as described below, for imports of steel and aluminium articles, and their derivatives, from the United Kingdom'. The order later says that rates will for now stay at 25 per cent and adds: 'On or after 9 July, 2025, the Secretary may adjust the applicable rates of duty and construct import quotas for steel and aluminium consistent with the terms of the EPD, or he may increase the applicable rates of duty to 50 percent if he determines that the United Kingdom has not complied with relevant aspects of the EPD'. The 50 per cent tariff rate more widely is due to come into force from 12.01am Washington DC time on Wednesday, which is shortly after 5am in the UK. A government spokesperson said: 'The UK was the first country to secure a trade deal with the US earlier this month and we remain committed to protecting British business and jobs across key sectors, including steel as part of our plan for change. 'We're pleased that as a result of our agreement with the US, UK steel will not be subject to these additional tariffs. 'We will continue to work with the US to implement our agreement, which will see the 25% US tariffs on steel removed.' The general terms for the agreement between the UK and US were published in May when the deal was announced, and outline the intended plans. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked if there was a text of the full deal ready to be released, and told reporters on Tuesday: 'There 's most definitely text with this deal, there is language that this side has seen. 'You'll have to ask the UK parliament why they haven't seen it from their own government, I obviously can't answer that question.'


Belfast Telegraph
an hour ago
- Belfast Telegraph
UK appears to have been spared immediate hit of Trump's 50% steel tariffs
The US President has decided to 'provide different treatment' to the UK after a deal that was struck between Washington and London last month. Levies will remain at 25% for imports from the UK, however Britain could still be subject to the higher 50% rate from July, according to a version of the order confirming the tariff increase posted by a White House X account on Tuesday. According to the text of the order, Mr Trump has 'further determined that it is necessary and appropriate to allow for the implementation of the U.S.-UK Economic Prosperity Deal of May 8, 2025 (EPD), and to accordingly provide different treatment, as described below, for imports of steel and aluminum articles, and their derivatives, from the United Kingdom'. We need your consent to load this Social Media content. We use a number of different Social Media outlets to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. The order later says that rates will for now stay at 25% and adds: 'On or after July 9, 2025, the Secretary may adjust the applicable rates of duty and construct import quotas for steel and aluminum consistent with the terms of the EPD, or he may increase the applicable rates of duty to 50 percent if he determines that the United Kingdom has not complied with relevant aspects of the EPD'. The 50% tariff rate more widely is due to come into force from 12.01am Washington DC time on Wednesday, which is shortly after 5am in the UK. A Government spokesperson said: 'The UK was the first country to secure a trade deal with the US earlier this month and we remain committed to protecting British business and jobs across key sectors, including steel as part of our plan for change. 'We're pleased that as a result of our agreement with the US, UK steel will not be subject to these additional tariffs. 'We will continue to work with the US to implement our agreement, which will see the 25% US tariffs on steel removed.' Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer's trade deal with the US, struck last month, included relief on the steel and aluminium tariffs, but the implementation has not yet been finalised. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds met White House trade representative Jamieson Greer in Paris on Tuesday. According to the Department for Business and Trade, Mr Reynolds and Mr Greer discussed a desire to implement the deal struck between London and Washington as soon as possible, and committed to working closely to make it happen. The general terms for the agreement between the UK and US were published in May when the deal was announced, and outline the intended plans. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked if there was a text of the full deal ready to be released, and told reporters on Tuesday: 'There 's most definitely text with this deal, there is language that this side has seen. 'You'll have to ask the UK Parliament why they haven't seen it from their own Government, I obviously can't answer that question.'