After reading the Symposium in last week’s issue, as well as the articles by Andrew Marr and Al Carns, it is striking that the question of migration was addressed only by Ryan Wain (and even then, briefly), despite this issue being the one that has fuelled not only Reform, but also the wider rise in popularity of Tommy Robinson and his ilk. Labour has failed, as did the Tories, to find a credible response to the issue of small boats; the void has been filled by the far right.
It may be true that blaming immigration for the woes of the country misses the complexity of a wider malaise, but it remains the case that Labour and the Tories have lost the trust of many voters because both parties have failed to “stop the boats”. Farage and Reform do not have the answers and Labour has shown itself not to have a viable strategy. It is hard to see how Wes Streeting or Andy Burnham would make a meaningful difference in combating the Reform narrative and also addressing the human misery at the root of illegal migration.
Tim Pearson, Lockington, Yorkshire
It’s later than you think
Most of the contributions contained within “How to Stop Reform” were relevant but read like a shopping list of policy prescriptions. Immigration didn’t really feature at all. But, as in the past where the Tories have sought to neuter the NHS as an issue in general elections knowing it is intractable, Labour need to do the same with immigration to get any sort of a hearing from Reform-minded voters. This may gall many but it is the reality of where we are.
Time is running out with the strategic issues but they matter most and it is still possible to set the wheels in motion. Addressing inequalities – geographical, wealth, income, opportunities for the young – is fundamental. Changing the electoral system is vital to enable people to vote positively for a party rather than having to vote tactically against one. Meanwhile, holding new Reform representatives to account is a must from day one, as is exploring party finances.
What is so very disappointing is that many of these issues have been known for years and there should have been more movement on them from the morning after 2024’s general election. Instead, it is only now that we’re scrabbling around to do something. And it may be all too late.
Michael Haskell, Broughton, Flintshire
The Burnham doctrine
What legitimacy could Andy Burnham claim as the next prime minister? The legitimacy of the victorious 2024 Labour manifesto is being questioned. It promised to abolish the leasehold system, amend employment rights and equalise the national minimum wage regardless of age. Although it did not mention the erosion of the right to trial by jury, the abolition of the automatic right of appeal from the magistrates’ court to the Crown Court, the imposition of digital ID and facial recognition or Palantir’s access to our medical data. But will Burnham plant his flag on that ground? No, of course not.
David Lindsay, Lanchester, County Durham
Wesi, Andi, Rodney
Please may we have a triumvirate, Roman style? Kier: diplomacy and justice; Andy: planning and money; Wes: action to make things actually work.
Rosemary Simmons, Bath
Keir for the duration
I write as a long-term Labour Party member about the madness about to be launched if a Labour leadership contest goes ahead. It is a majority government with a good record of delivery. Yes, there have been lots of mistakes but, in the present national and global climate, the recent mid-term election results were not a surprise.
I cannot believe that Streeting and others have resigned, undermining the government unnecessarily. As for Burnham, does he really think Labour can win a by-election when every opposition party will stand against him? He would very likely give a seat to Reform and hand over the Manchester mayoralty too.
There is no reason for Starmer to go. A leadership contest will only distract, give coverage to Reform and fatally damage Labour.
Ruth Potter, London SW6
Converting scale into growth
Andrew Marr is confident that there is a really strong story to tell about Britain’s economic future. He explains that Will Hutton is convinced we are “on the cusp” of creating a step change in wealth creation all round the UK, the spill-over employment effects of which can be compared to a new Industrial Revolution.
In the last year alone, young British start-up companies attracted record levels of investment – at $24bn, more than investments in France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands combined. Innovative tech companies – such as Open Cosmos, Wayve and Raspberry Pi – are fast cornering the market in ideas and research. The issue is that they are so good that the development and scale-up of their ideas is being snapped up and siphoned off by foreign businesses.
Some 1,700 scale-ups sold out in the last 15 years, their financial gains lost to the UK economy. Marr argues that No 10 should set up a growth unit, independent from the Treasury. Were it to have a remit to direct investment in what Hutton calls “the only growth game in town”, the potential rewards would indeed be immense.
Austen Lynch, Garstang, Lancashire
Back to reality
Further to Kenan Malik’s excellent critique of AJA Woods’s The Cultural Marxism Conspiracy, surely both rationalist left-wingers and right-wingers should now focus their civilisational concern upon the advance of postmodernism rather than on the Frankfurt School? The former has established the primacy of ideology and language in determining our understanding of reality. The left has thus, consciously or not, gone down a road of hyper-idealism in order to establish its assertions of group-based oppression in relation to fictitious “relations” and “structures of power”.
This flight from objective reality has resulted in today’s left embracing, for example, trans ideology. It has also led to an ever more authoritarian desire to control what can be expressed in order to help bring about a more “equal” society. It finds echoes too in some elements of the right who seek solace in a reinvigorated, muscular Christianity. What is needed now is a form of political combat in which collective choices are derived from an appreciation of what actually exists, not quasi-spiritual fantasies and feelings.
Marc Glendening, Royston, Hertfordshire
Beyond the boundary
Regarding Nicholas Lezard: I’m a Middlesex member and can be seen reading the Staggers and the Grauniad in the members’ enclosures at Lord’s (though not the Pavilion). I also hate wearing jackets and ties!
Alan Douglas, Glasgow
California dreamin’
I enjoyed reading Prince Harry’s column. I hope he becomes a regular contributor, possibly under the title “Down and Out in California”.
Colin Chellen, Scarborough
Shining example
In his review of Monsters in the Archives – about Stephen King’s novels – Ian Thomson asserts that the famous line “Here’s Johnny!” from the film version of The Shining “is not even in the novel”. In fact, it wasn’t in the film script: that best of actors, Jack Nicholson, improvised it.
Chris Simms, Greater Manchester
[Further reading: The long coup]
Write to letters@newstatesman.co.uk
We reserve the right to edit letters
Content from our partners
Related
Join the debate
Subscribe here to comment