Letter of the week: Home truths

Write to letters@newstatesman.co.uk to have your thoughts voiced in the New Statesman magazine

Photo by Francis M. R. Hudson/Topical Press Agency/Getty Images

Vicky Spratt (Cover Story, 4 September) made some good points about intergenerational equity, but too easily equated class with housing tenure. Pondering the definition of middle vs working class, she writes that “once it may have been as simple as those who owned property”. Yet, in some parts of the country, such as East Lancashire, there was extensive working-class home-ownership, while in London it was not unusual for families well up the social scale to rent or lease, for example in mansion blocks. If anything, decades of Right to Buy, a virtual prohibition on council-house building and tax breaks for home-ownership have strengthened the alignment between tenure and class, at the expense of choice.

At several points the article states only home ownership can offer people “a secure home of their own”. Yet security can be provided by social housing, or a regulated private rented sector. Policy should aim to reduce the disparities between owning and renting, by moderating the financial advantages of ownership while expanding public and institutional investment in well managed housing to rent.
David Griffiths, Huddersfield

Generation Why Bother

Among the many pledges broken by Keir Starmer following his election as Labour leader was a commitment to free tuition. Instead, his government increased tuition fees further and failed to reform the student support system that currently guarantees students from the least resourced households leave higher education with the most debt.

Andy Burnham cannot afford to ignore the catastrophe of the current higher education and student support system in England that he has inherited. A good start would be to provide some debt relief for the loans that have been unfairly incurred by students and graduates since 2012. Many of these loans will be written off after 40 years, but doing so now would release a generation from student debt and ensure that the money they would have spent on loan repayments could be spent in other, more productive ways.
Pam Tatlow, Richmond

Thank you to Vicky Spratt (Cover Story, 4 September). These problems – stagnant wages, unaffordable housing, poor training, student loans – have been brewing for decades. We pay little attention to them, compared to Brexit, the culture wars, small boats and Donald Trump.

The real stinger is in the closing paragraphs on our ageing population. Much of the increasing proportion of over-65s in Britain’s population will be from the screwed generation. And they will have little or no savings, pension or property to sustain them.
John Waterworth, Orpington

Vicky Spratt is right when she says that we live in an “inheritocracy”. We live in a world in which passive investment is more profitable than employment. A cornerstone of any solution has to be higher inheritance taxes, which some see as unfair.

It’s the definition of unfairness to get a leg-up in life based purely on an accident of birth. Whatever we stand to inherit isn’t ours – it belongs to our benefactors, and we certainly never earned a penny of it.
Ryan Cooper, London N4

Silence in Kabul

Lyse Doucet’s Diary (4 September) on her return to Kabul after five years made for haunting reading about the lives of women and girls under the Taliban’s autocratic and repressive regime. Their lack of work and educational resources is heartbreaking and Western administrations bear a great responsibility on this issue.

Before the debacle of the evacuation of Kabul, most of the female population knew personal freedom and autonomy. Now there appears to be movement for a workable rapprochement with the Taliban. But its vacuous statement, that this regime is “working on it”, doesn’t cut it. This cohort deserve far better. Western allies afforded them their freedom, and that their actions allowed it to be snatched away is the cruellest indictment of all and should not be forgiven or forgotten.
Judith Daniels, Norfolk

No trust in the National Trust

I ceased my National Trust membership years ago (This England, 4 September) when I realised the subscription contributes to enabling the descendants of the original owners to retain rights of residence, and others to live in smaller properties at peppercorn rents. I wonder how those tenancies are allocated? It is interesting that the trust does not publish figures relating to these arrangements.
Richard Crombie, Carnforth, Lancashire

Regional variations

William Stocks (Correspondence, 4 September) writes that I have given my address as Surbiton, Surrey, and adds that this has not been the case since 1965, and that “If Mr Stubbs can be from Surrey, then I see no reason why I cannot declare myself a Londoner” before putting an SW15 postcode to the end of his Guilford domicile. Surbiton has a Surrey postal address because it was part of Surrey before 1965. However, I am happy for Mr Stocks to apply whatever Postcode What-Nottery he wishes to his residence.
Tom Stubbs, Surbiton, England

Now that the King of the North is ensconced, perhaps the New Statesman can address the elephant in the room? Your recent letters page included 12 letters – ten of which were from correspondents who live in the south.

In addition to looking after our pigeons and whippets, watching proper rugby and enjoying Eccles cakes, black puddings and Greggs’ sausage rolls, we northerners read magazines. Some of us even have the temerity to write in about northern concerns. What about a northern office – may I propose Bradford or Hull?
Steve Chapman, Bradford

Me first?

In reading Ralph Leonard’s review of The Good, the Black and the Boujee (The New Society, 4 September), I was struck by the argument that neoliberal individualism can get in the way of building strong multiracial coalitions. I wonder whether seeing ourselves first as individuals rather than mainly as members of a community, could make it easier to move across social boundaries and create opportunities in wider British society.
Mohamed Aiad, Huddersfield

Reassigned first edition

While Them was Jon Ronson’s literary breakthrough, it was not his debut (The New Society, 4 September). That was actually Clubbed Class. This “book-shaped” object later disqualified him from the Guardian First Book Award, for which Them was nominated in 2001. I was lucky enough to sit next to Ronson at a screening of the film he co-wrote, Frank, where he signed my copy with the message “pls destroy this book”.
William Campbell, Bristol

Living with insecurity

Rachel Cunliffe’s article (Future Perfect, 4 September) fails to note the bleak reality facing cohabiting couples in the UK. Common-law marriage is a myth, but millions wrongly believe that it offers them legal protection. Women can be thrown into destitution on illness, separation or death.

The law fails to recognise non-financial contributions within unmarried couples. Women can be disproportionately vulnerable at the end of relationships due to lower earnings and larger pension gaps. In the event of death, blood relatives of the deceased have more rights to the person’s assets than their long-term cohabitee.

The government’s consultation should be seen in the context of its manifesto pledge to halve violence against women and girls. It is vital that those leaving abusive relationships are supported by the law.
Mary Creagh, MP for Coventry East

All you can Eton

A question for Finn McRedmond: if you don’t care for “right-wing” restaurants (Silver Spoon, 4 September), why are you keen to give them your custom?
Michael Henderson, Rochdale, Lancashire

Write to letters@newstatesman.co.uk
We reserve the right to edit letters

[Further reading: Prince George starts at Eton and enters the belly of the beast]