RACHEL Reeves has told Laura Kuenssberg that an English Labour government’s economic inheritance “will be the worst since the Second World War.”
Reeves should study how the 1945 Labour Attlee government dug itself out of the fiscal hole it inherited. It launched a massive public spending programme that created the NHS, brought coal mines, power companies and railways into public ownership, and invested in education, social services and housing. The economy flourished with full employment and no inflation. The people became the owners of public assets that were foolishly sold to private companies under Margaret Thatcher, robbing the people of trillions of pounds.
READ MORE: 'Just dire': Rachel Reeves under pressure to rule out Labour spending cuts
The post-war economic miracle was possible because John Maynard Keynes, Attlee’s advisor, knew that cutting spending during an economic slump would only deepen it. He understood that because the government creates all the money, it can never go broke. He knew that government spending priorities signal to the private sector where it should invest, eg in new hospitals, schools, energy-efficient homes. Public, not private, spending drives growth.
The last 15 years demonstrate that spending cuts don’t grow the economy. The UK’s in recession, unemployment is up, businesses are failing and inequality is worsening. Yet Reeves promises more austerity.
READ MORE: Vote for Labour and Scotland will lose its voice at Westminster
English Labour have also reneged on their pledge to renationalise energy, rail, mail and water (in England). They need only look to Norway, France and Denmark, who fully or partially own their energy companies and are part-owners of UK energy where they make significant profits. If they can see the benefits in public ownership, why can’t Labour?
Reeves bragged to Kuenssberg that leftover croissants from meetings go to her staff. Crumbs are all that English Labour offers Scotland. It’s time to end the failing Union.
Leah Gunn Barrett
Edinburgh
AFTER the UK election we will be under either the current Tories – surviving in power by skin of their teeth, which I have to admit is currently a remote possibility – or an incoming Labour government who have publicly stated they will not make any promises to voters before seeing “the books”.
Rachael Reeves, the chess-playing future chancellor, came through the recent political elite route: philosophy, politics and economics at Oxford then on to London School of Economics for an MSc, on to Bank of England and Halifax/Bank of Scotland. Should we, the Scottish public, expect radical monetary policy changes that support the “many not the few”?
I doubt it, as Starmer and Reeves are wedded to saying not much other than apparently performing Theresa May’s “strong and stable” dance. I can predict that within the month of taking power they will go on TV and tell us all that there really is no money left, and we will have to keep our belt tightened for another few months or possibly years.
READ MORE: Scottish Labour MP contradicts Anas Sarwar on council tax freeze
Many folks will not make it due to the effect of “trunk strangulation” caused by extended austerity.
The Starmer party had to be dragged into speaking about the Gaza conflict, for fear of undoing all of the membership surgery he has undertaken since taking over his party by risking being called antisemitic himself.
If the Starmer party is feart to condemn the unjustifiable retribution of the IDF and Israeli government against the Palestinians, is it likely we as voters will get any detailed plan on the economy from which we can judge their direction and competence?
Unlikely. They won’t want to scare the horses by saying five more years of austerity.
Alistair Ballantyne
Angus
JOHNSON got Brexit “done”. Now Tory MPs want him to front a right-wing move to get the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) “done” – that is, removed from UK law. How? By having another referendum, this time on the human rights issue, attached to the coming General Election.
How many times has Scotland tried to include a referendum on its independence as attached to a Scottish election, only to be usurped by the Westminster government telling Scotland “now is not the time”?
READ MORE: Tory MPs 'want to combine election with human rights referendum'
Ironically, it was Theresa May who gave us that infamous phrase, as well as being the advocate for getting rid of the ECHR. It’s not a small coincidence that she will no longer be standing as an MP whenever the election happens.
To get rid of the ECHR from UK legislation would leave Scotland at a greater mercy from this Tory government if it wins the next election. As a part of this now unjustifiable United Kingdom, Scotland would lose access to the ECHR where immigration is concerned, for example, or when justice needs to be seen when anyone’s human rights might be in jeopardy.
READ MORE: Charlotte Church backs The National's urgent Gaza fundraiser
The convention has had a significant influence on the law in Council of Europe member countries and is widely considered the most effective international treaty for human rights protection. Oddly enough, the United Kingdom was one of the states that drafted the ECHR, and was one of the first to ratify it in 1951. The convention came into force in 1953.
Now, 71 years on, a right-wing faction of the Westminster Tory government wants to rid the UK of the European Convention on Human Rights because it interferes with its notion of a “once upon a time Great Britain”, devoid of immigrants from other countries. Never mind the fact that several members of the government are sons and daughters of immigrant ancestry themselves. They are simply not concerned with the fact that racism might be a factor in their considerations, including islamaphobia, and even perhaps antisemitism.
Alan Magnus-Bennett
Fife
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel