Martin Kettle quotes a former Whitehall Mandarin saying that “the government has still not specified what type of Britain it is trying to create” (Rachel Reeves has seized its moment – whatever the future, the economic course of labor is now determined, June 12). He has one point, not fully answered by Rachel Reeves. It is the vision and the ability to communicate it. It is a question of describing what the work is used for, in a general sense, beyond a list of political deliverables. Growth is important, but only as a means, not an end. The “securomics” is interesting, but has no public resonance.
If people do not now know what the workforce means, it is because the task of ideological self-defining has been neglected. This is different from 1997, which was preceded by a rethinking process which produced a new work and the “third way”. Something similar is necessary now. There is a rich tradition of social democratic thinking in Great Britain, in particular the HR argument Tawney for an access equal to what it called “the means of civilization” as a basis of a common culture.
Pragmatism is precious, but it is not enough. An argument must be built around the three pillars of security, opportunities and community that would bring together everything that the government is trying to do, and the kind of Britain it wants to create. And in a way that people could understand.
Tony Wright
MP, 1992-2010
I agree with Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah that the accent on investment alone will not work (did Rachel Reeves make the right choices? Our panel reacts to the expenditure exam, June 11). New public investments are useless if the exploitation and maintenance of what already exists is not adequately funded.
After years of austerity, the fastest and most sure means of increasing GDP and improving public services is to make sure to achieve the full potential of what we already have. The highest priority should be to relieve financial pressure on services for services, in particular our local authorities short of money. This will quickly offer broader and higher economic growth, unlike the central distribution of investment funds to mega-projects that will take decades to provide results.
Entrepreneurs want to live and invest in safe areas with good health and good education, well -maintained roads and pleasant equipment. Correctly funded local authorities can encourage higher private investments by offering this. Unfortunately, they should rather implement an expensive and disruptive reorganization and find the money to pay a higher minimum wage and national insurance while receiving a regulation which implies a reduction in financing. The work must think again.
Michael Foster
Chelmsford
According to Rachel Reeves, the NHS has been “protected” and will receive “a 3% increase in its budget” (Expenditure review 2025: who are the winners and the losers?, June 11). But does it go in practice? During a recent meeting with the director general of the Nottingham University Hospitals Trust, he told us that he was invited to make 97 million pounds sterling of discounts during this exercise. This would mean leading to the loss of around 750 jobs and the closure of certain districts.
In addition, these massive cuts are the contribution of the trust even greater imposed on the Committee on integrated care for our County: a reduction of 280 million pounds sterling in the provision of all local health services. So what is it really, a 3%protection and an increase, or huge cups?
Mike Scott
President, Nottingham and Notts keep our public NHS
