Your editorial (Should we be hitching our star so closely to Beijing’s wagon?, 20 October) and Martin Jacques’s article (China is rising as the US falls. Britain can’t ignore this reality, 20 October) on turning to China to fund the infrastructure we badly need miss out a range of other options for Britain’s future. First, much of the infrastructure we need is local, for example upgrading local rail and road systems, or saving energy through local networks. Here the solutions include enabling local government or development corporations to promote sustainable growth and regeneration projects, borrowing against the consequent uplift in land values. There is more than enough finance looking for a relatively secure return before we need to increase our dependence on China.
Second, the pent-up demand for housing would provide the economic boost the UK badly needs to rebuild its worn-out economy, and create the greener new industries to replace the old declining ones. We should strengthen relationships with European cities that offer better models for sustainable growth and human wellbeing. Finally, if we want to act on the world stage, why not rebuild trade with India, where growth is much higher and the second language is English? We sell them less than Belgium does, and yet they have the trained engineers and IT specialists that the UK lacks.
Dr Nicholas Falk
Director, URBED (Urbanism Environment and Design)
• The chancellor has announced that in June-August unemployment fell by 79,000 (Osborne hails rising pay and lowest unemployment level in seven years, 15 October). Readers will know the various reasons these figures only ever give part of the story: zero-hours contracts, underemployment, the growth in self-employment, DWP compulsory “work-related training” and unpaid “work experience”. All take claimants off the register while high levels of activity in seeking work are required.
Yet apprentices are rarely mentioned in this context, and seem to be universally regarded as a good thing. I imagine, though, that few readers realise how badly paid an apprentice usually is. There have been about 500,000 new apprenticeship starts a year since 2010. In 2013-14, 27% of apprentices were under 19, 36% were 19-24 and 37% were over 25.
From 1 October the minimum wage for apprentices under 19 and all in their first year of apprenticeship rose to £3.30 an hour; only those over 19 and in a second or subsequent year – very much in the minority – are eligible for the minimum wage for their age band. Who thinks £3.30 an hour is a fair return for what, anecdotally, is often simply a rebadged low-paid job? No wonder government and some employers are so enthusiastic about what can often, it seems, be simply a cheap source of labour, but one keeping unemployment figures down.
Delia Koczwara
Prestwich
• How ironic that on the day the Chinese president arrives for a state visit, we hear how the Chinese steel industry is swamping the market so much that the British steel industry is now looking into the abyss (Cameron urged to show some steel with Xi, 20 October). The visiting dignitaries are being lavished with carriage processions, guards of honour, a flag-lined Mall, banquets and general opulence – but what about the steelworkers who are losing their jobs? No such treatment for them; only an uncertain future with few prospects of re-employment, and uncaring treatment from the DWP, which is proactively cutting benefits.
Rather than cosying up to the Chinese government, Cameron and Osborne should be spending their time working out what they will do to save this important industry; out and about meeting the people and communities that really matter and ensuring that we have a welfare system that is fair and supportive.
Anthony Fitzpatrick
Sheffield
• Chris Hodgkins (Letters, 19 October) sets out a plan of action for the future. But this needs to be reinforced with some immediate action if the production plants are to be prevented from cooling and becoming useless. Could a solution be to continue to produce a minimum amount of steel, to keep the workforce in place and the plants hot, and create the equivalent of an old-fashioned butter mountain? This steel would then be ready for Chris’s “reindustrialisation”. Moreover, as the steel would not be sold immediately, it should avoid contravening EU trade rules.
Richard Bull
Woodbridge, Suffolk
• Why does Britain need Chinese money to build a new atomic generator (Letters, 20 October)? The answer is simple: British money that should be invested in British industry is lodged with hedge funds – organisations that are no more than parasites that add nothing to the wellbeing of the country. Their sole purpose is to make money for the already rich by speculation and market manipulation, forcing up the price of commodities for the end users.
AB Crews
Beckenham, Kent
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
