Letters: Labour’s rail plans herald a return to the bad old days of the 1970s
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
SIR – The news (telegraph.co.uk, April 25) that Labour plans to renationalise the railways if it wins the general election confirms that we are about to return to the 1970s.
The trade unions are to be given more powers, and it is likely that the country will come close to bankruptcy, as was the case when our standing in Europe was at its lowest.
Still, at least we know what to expect, and perhaps we should just resign ourselves to it – given that we did have some good times in the 1970s – while we wait for the next Margaret Thatcher to come along and get us back on track.
Brian Cole
Robertsbridge, East Sussex
SIR – Labour plans to repeal trade union legislation within 100 days of forming a government and renationalise the railways within five years. What could possibly go wrong?
Roger Gentry
Weavering, Kent
SIR – Labour claims that the renationalisation of the railways would save £2 billion, partly in dividends, but strangely it omits to say how much the new executives would cost in salaries and pension pots.
At least it has the sense not to guarantee lower fares, as this will obviously not happen.
The plans for unions to have more say in companies is the equivalent of giving children the keys to a sweet shop. The only loser in all this, as usual, will be the public.
Charles Penfold
Ulverston, Cumbria
SIR – Lord Blunkett (Letters, April 25) argues that the metropolitan elites have learnt nothing, and need to understand that they do not know what is best for people.
This is an excellent assessment. If only the government in which he served had taken this view, we would not be in the mess we are in now. I suggest that, rather than telling us what we already know, Lord Blunkett explains these basic truths to Sir Keir Starmer, who is clearly unfamiliar with them.
Jim Doar
Consett, Co Durham
SIR – In the House of Commons on Wednesday, Angela Rayner, the Labour deputy leader, made fun of Rishi Sunak’s height (report, April 25) – as if such things matter.
If Labour wins the general election, we can no doubt look forward to much more of this kind of talk from Ms Rayner. Enjoy!
Dan Hartley
Solihull
SIR – I have never voted Labour and never will.
Despite this, I find Angela Rayner a breath of fresh air in Parliament. The attacks on her over her living arrangements are a distraction.
Ray Brooksbank
Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire
Yousaf and the Greens
SIR – Rather than being “political cowardice” (report, telegraph.co.uk, April 25), scrapping the coalition between the SNP and the Scottish Greens is a sign that Humza Yousaf, the First Minister, has found some political backbone.
One can only hope that he will now swallow his pride and invite Kate Forbes back into the fold.
Dr Richard A E Grove
Isle of Whithorn, Wigtownshire
Police bureaucrats
SIR – On May 2 the public in England and Wales will be invited to vote for a police and crime commissioner (PCC) for their area, usually based on party-political allegiance rather than deep knowledge of policing.
I have no idea of the administration costs of such a vote, but I can say with confidence that less than 25 per cent of eligible voters will bother to turn out, and many fewer could even name their current PCC. Designed to be the voice of the people, this role has turned into an expensive waste of time.
Since 2019, PCCs have cost the public £102.2 million, according to the Liberal Democrats. What people want is to see police officers patrolling, not a load of bureaucrats pontificating from comfy offices.
Would anyone seriously argue that policing is better now that we have these PCCs?
Graham Sharp
Market Drayton, Shropshire
Field’s bold thinking
SIR – It was a privilege to work for Lord Field of Birkenhead (Letters, April 25), especially around the time he was minister for welfare reform.
Tony Blair saw that the system required major change, as it discouraged personal responsibility and suffered from widespread fraud, among other things. But the excitement was quickly doused by the hostility of those within the welfare organisation and many leaders in the Labour Party, and finally the reform project was axed.
Several of the predictions made, including that the system was unsustainable and morally corrupting, have turned out to be correct, and we are now suffering the consequences.
Recently, Lord Field asked me to re-open a dialogue with the Policy Unit, but I was met with silence. I advised him that there was no appetite for reform, an assessment with which he sadly agreed. This is a great shame.
His death provides an opportunity to re-examine his legacy, and for political leaders to focus attention on the nature and scope of our welfare provision. The risks of doing nothing are too damaging. We owe it to the millions of people who either pay for it or are dependent upon it. And we owe it to Lord Field.
Peter Gray
Tunbridge Wells, Kent
SIR – We regarded Lord Field as one of only a few politicians who knew better than our Maypole pub (right-hand corner) committee – quite an accolade. RIP.
Mike Forlan
Hayling Island, Hampshire
SIR – Mark Peaker (Letters, April 25) rightly describes Lord Field as a man of principle, dedication and service. I would add that he was a man of style.
Working in the Whitehall area, I have seen many MPs over the years, including Lord Field numerous times. Unlike some, he was always dressed immaculately in a sharp suit and tie – representing his constituents and the House with class.
John Ryder
High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire
Britain’s security
SIR – Admiral Sir Tony Radakin’s welcome of the Prime Minister’s announcement of greater spending on defence (Comment, April 24) made a number of pertinent points. However, I disagree fundamentally with his assertion that the United Kingdom is safe because it is a nuclear power.
This may have been the case when we first acquired our “independent” nuclear deterrent, but I am less certain it is so in modern times. Sadly, our nation is no longer the power it was.
When serving, I was proud that the deterrent was in the hands of the Royal Navy. Now, however, I question whether it makes any difference to the worldwide equation of power that the UK has nuclear weapons. We would be much better to use the resources devoted to our deterrent in ensuring that our defence forces are properly equipped and manned.
Captain Charles Crawford (retd)
Winchester, Hampshire
Online safety
SIR – I agree with Tom Tugendhat (Comment, April 23) that we must protect our children from all forms of online abuse, including self-harm and suicide. Yes, tech companies should take responsibility for their content, but this has not been evident so far.
Our own Online Safety Act 2023 not only enables Ofcom to impose fines, but also, under Section 138, provides for the imprisonment of big tech bosses for up to two years, following an amendment put down by myself and Miriam Cates in the House of Commons, endorsed by the NSPCC and accepted by the Government.
Indeed, Britain’s legislation is far better than the EU Digital Services Act, which merely imposes a 6 per cent fine. It demonstrates that, now we have left the EU, we can protect our children far more effectively. We do, however, need Michael Grade and Melanie Dawes, chairman and CEO of Ofcom, to use the full powers.
Sir Bill Cash MP (Con)
London SW1
The first drink
SIR – When I was 16, my very young father took me out to a respectable local pub and bought me a Babycham (“Child drinkers rise in ‘generation lockdown’”, report, April 25). I thought it was ghastly and could not finish it.
It was a salutary lesson. Since then I have always been a sensible drinker, even at art college in the West Country. I now prefer a good sauvignon.
Jacqueline Davies
Faversham, Kent
Debunking Jeremy Clarkson’s porky about pigs
SIR – I take issue with Jeremy Clarkson’s claim that in general pigs do not make good mothers (report, April 23). In 29 years of breeding on a commercial farm, I have found that these animals, given the right conditions, are extremely good mothers. They are very protective, as can be seen if one tries to remove piglets from a Saddleback.
John Radcliffe
Fulbrook, Oxfordshire
The Church of England’s reparations muddle
SIR – It’s extraordinary that the Church commissioners, who run the Church of England’s investments, failed to do their homework thoroughly prior to publication of their report arguing that reparations of £100 million should be made for perceived wrongdoing regarding Queen Anne’s Bounty (“Is the Church paying reparations on a false premise?”, Comment, April 23).
Surely it is not too late to reassess, as these funds are needed to keep the Church on its feet in the here and now.
There is more than enough bureaucracy in the Church without recruiting “racial justice” officers. Our excellent vicar is dashing between five churches, one of which is almost certain to close after a mere 1,000 years, as we cannot afford to maintain it and keep it safe. Where is the justice in this?
Rosy Drohan
Marksbury, Somerset
SIR – Charles Moore’s article on Queen Anne’s Bounty shows yet again how the ever-expanding hierarchy of the Church of England occupies its own private world, divorced from those who built it and sustain it today.
On April 17 1124, our village church, St Kyneburgha of Castor, was consecrated by the Bishop of Lincoln, who must have travelled for days along the medieval roads of his vast diocese for the great occasion. Last week the church was packed with children and adults of all ages to recreate the event, exactly 900 years of worship later.
These days Peterborough Cathedral is 20 minutes away by car, but no modern bishop was available to join us. “Other commitments”, apparently.
Norman Burden
Ailsworth, Cambridgeshire
SIR – There are 26 bishops in the House of Lords. I can think of no other failing organisation whose leadership is so well-represented in the legislature.
Might they consider returning to their dioceses and concentrating on the day job of supporting, preserving and enhancing the parishes under their supervision?
They have access, through the Church commissioners, to £10 billion with which to do that vital work, and, at least for the time being, a large, willing and unpaid workforce to assist them.
Tim Reid
Mayfield, East Sussex
Letters to the Editor
We accept letters by email and post. Please include name, address, work and home telephone numbers.
ADDRESS: 111 Buckingham Palace Road, London, SW1W 0DT
EMAIL: dtletters@telegraph.co.uk
FOLLOW: Telegraph Letters on Twitter @LettersDesk
NEWSLETTER: sign up to receive Letters to the Editor her
