Latest news with #ShaunCurry

New Statesman​

Letter of the week: The legacy of lasting peace

Photo by Shaun Curry/Getty David Reynolds' observation that the ideals of 'unity, hope, love and peace' which have come to characterise VE Day were perhaps more relevant in 1945 and 1995 is uncomfortably and inconveniently true. But while it is important to consider Bosnia, Sudan, Cambodia, and other genocides, such as Rwanda, when conducting an honest assessment of the trajectory from VE (and VJ) Day 80 years ago, it is equally important to note that they all occurred in spite of institutions such as the UN and Nato – not because of them. And without Nato, one need only imagine how, for example, the Balkans might have looked with a 'Greater Serbia' at its heart. This is why leaders of the democratic world must recalibrate foreign policy and retain a clear focus on the values for which VE and VJ Day were fought, and ensure they are not compromised at any cost. The axis of Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping has displaced the geopolitical order of the world. Those committed to democracy and unity must persevere, and remember that without meaningful 'unity, hope, love, and peace', the currency of the democratised world is debased. Jordan Scott, Newcastle Labour on notice Those working in the public services have been keeping things going for years despite increased workloads, reduced real pay and other stresses. Simultaneously, cash-strapped parents have been struggling to do their best for their families. As last week's editorial and Andrew Marr's article (Politics, 9 May) both outlined, too little is being done by the government to remedy things. The need for a 'hard reset' is urgent but the government seems largely oblivious. A failure to reset means another four years of far less social improvement than could be attained and is needed. In all likelihood, it would be followed by a very damaging right-wing administration. It is time for Labour MPs to put the present leadership on notice – as the electorate did on 1 May. In particular the leadership needs to know that if they do not embrace progressive taxation they will be replaced. Mike Shone, Stafford Andrew Marr discusses what Labour needs to do to counter the progress of Reform. The people who voted for Reform want to improve their prospects and halt the decline in the areas where they live, whether that be the deindustrialised parts of the north-east and Midlands or the coastal areas which have lost their fishing and tourist industries. People living in these areas feel neglected by the mainstream parties and yearn for the lost 'halcyon days' of full employment, skilled jobs and strong communities. They have more in common with people in the deindustrialised areas of the US or Russia, which have also seen an authoritarian turn in politics, than prosperous parts of the UK. Labour needs to confront Reform by demonstrating to these communities (and the trade unions) how skilled jobs in new eco-technology can bring back strong employment. It needs to introduce progressive taxation to encourage people back into work and reduce income inequality. It needs to show how migrants have contributed to the UK and economic growth over many years. Finally, Labour needs to decentralise and properly fund local government so that local people can be involved in local decision-making. People know their own communities better than Whitehall. Ruth Potter, Stamford Bridge Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe No name calling Jason Cowley's latest column about Nigel Farage raises an important point when highlighting that many of his opponents direct ad hominem abuse at him with 'ever-diminishing effect'. While this is undoubtedly a problem, it suggests that he is more sinned against than sinning. Farage, like Boris Johnson before him, is incapable of engaging in a rational debate, and often resorts to snide comments and bluster when his policies are challenged effectively. It should be the task of his opponents (wherever they sit on the political spectrum) to stop the name calling. His mask will inevitably slip and he'll show his true character to the electorate when his policies are given detailed scrutiny. Jeff Howells, London SE25 Common law In both her article (Out of the Ordinary, 9 May) and in her recent interview with Naz Shah, Hannah Barnes discusses the assisted dying bill as if it were a pioneering piece of legislation. In fact, similar laws have existed in at least 22 other jurisdictions for anything up to 23 years without a single one having been repealed. These laws have given terminally ill people in great suffering the opportunity to end their lives in dignity, and surrounded by their loved ones, something our existing legal system cruelly denies them. Coercion? In my experience, far from greedy people wanting to see the end of their dying relatives, it is common for relatives of those seeking an assisted death to try to dissuade them because they cannot bear to see them go. The subheading of the article is 'What will the full impact of the assisted dying bill be? We still can't be certain.' To my knowledge, not a single bill has ever been passed with complete certainty about its outcome. Philip Graham, London NW5 Deadly stalemate Jeremy Bowen refers to the illusion on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides 'that 'total victory' is possible' (Cover Story, 9 May). If neither antagonist is able to prevail and impose its will on the other, then it can only be a matter of time before the reality of this essential truth dawns on both parties. The utopian belief of securing 'total victory' will have to make way for the practical realism of securing a negotiated peace. Of course just how many Israelis and Palestinians will still be around to enjoy the fruits of peace is another question. Ivor Morgan, Lincoln Whiners take it all Well done Will Dunn for generating a new category, 'public nuisance capitalism' (Money Matters, 9 May), which seems to be prompted by notions of individual liberty as absurdly amplified as the audio played by headphoneless commuters. It's all about taking social responsibility for what you sell consumers. Is there a parallel here with investors happy to brag about the creative risks they are taking but are then all too ready to whine about how their losses should be covered by the taxpayer? David Perry, Cambridge Write to letters@ We reserve the right to edit letters [See also: Pope Leo XIV's centrist papacy] Related