It was so good to read Andrew Rawnsley’s comments on the success of Tony Blair and Labour winning three elections in a row and listing just some of the many achievements over this period (“Tony Blair and the left’s perverse preference for failure over success”, Comment).
It is shameful that none of the Labour leadership candidates is brave enough to give him credit. They should remember that if it hadn’t been for him the Tories would have been in power instead, resulting in us losing our NHS, the BBC and the welfare state, and these candidates would never have been heard of.
Linda Theobald
London NW9
Rawnsley rightly notes that so many Labour people fail to acknowledge Blair’s mastery of politics, but their mistrust of him is not just over Iraq.
As Peter Mandelson famously said, New Labour was intensely relaxed about the filthy rich “as long as they pay their taxes”. But they didn’t and they don’t. Despite brilliant innovations, of which Sure Start was the least recognised and most successful, such a casual view of inequality ruined any chance of a Labour government embedding a lasting respect for social justice in the nation’s consciousness.
Dr Sebastian Kraemer
London SW2
Despite Blair’s best efforts, the free-market social democracy that prevailed throughout the late 90s and beyond to no small extent helped put in place the economic and social structures that were a prerequisite to and that acted as a launchpad for the hardline austerity of the Cameron, Osborne and May years.
Many on the Labour left take the view that Blairism, with its large parliamentary majorities, did little to reverse the drift toward the glaring social and economic inequality that now blights this country and which has led to much of the intolerance we see around us.
It is not “an eccentrically self-destructive relationship with the concept of success” that compels many on the Labour left to regret Blairism and to be reluctant to contest another election under a version of its ideologically empty banner. It is an understanding that electoral success is a necessary, but not totally complete, condition to effect real and lasting social justice.
For that, to quote French economist Thomas Piketty: “We need ideas and ideologies and we need to take them seriously.” We need to win, but we need to win by believing in something more than just winning.
Ron Foulkes
Newcastle-under-Lyme
Billionaires to blame
Kenan Malik’s article is a timely reminder of how our democracy is being undermined by the hypocrisy of the super-rich (“Charity clearly doesn’t begin at home for Jeff Bezos”, Comment).
Ten years ago, I wrote a letter to several multibillionaires, including Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, asking them two simple questions: “What is the hourly rate of workers in your companies and how much tax do you pay in countries where you made your profits?” Needless to say, there was no reply.
It is a shameful fact that inequality widens in tandem with corporate profits. Simple changes to our tax system, such as a financial transaction tax and enforcing tax collection more rigorously, would have an immediate impact and Bezos, Gates and Buffet et al would not have a spare $10bn lying around to throw at their “latest philanthropic wheeze”.
These billionaires are the cause of the twin crises of climate change and inequality. We need visionary leaders and governments that will take responsibility rather than abdicate it to global contractors who have become a virtual branch of government.
Dr Christina Kadir
Brighton
Giving away Britain’s fish
Harriet Sherwood’s article on the British fishing industry stated that “currently EU boats are entitled to more than 60% of overall landings by weight from the seas around the UK… the UK is allocated 9% of Channel cod, while the French get 84%” (“Battle of the high seas”, Special Report).
In the 1980s, the European commission made finance available for the modernisation of boats and fishing tackle to improve the efficiency of the industry and to ensure overfishing was reduced. This money had to be match-funded by national governments, something the then UK government refused to do, unlike other European governments.
This resulted in our fishermen being unable to compete with the modernised fleets of our neighbours, leading to many smaller fishermen either selling out to larger UK fishing companies or selling their quota to other countries. Europe did not “steal our fish”, as claimed by Ukip, but paid money for the right to catch more fish in our waters.
Veronica Hardstaff, former Labour MEP for Lincolnshire and Humberside South, and member of the European parliament fishing committee 1996-9, Sheffield
A proud Olympic protest
It was interesting to read Emma John’s article on the proposed ban on protests at the 2020 Olympics (“IOC’s Tokyo protest ban is the latest chapter in a rich history of hypocrisy”, Sport). As well as the example of Tommie Smith and John Carlos in 1968, there was a brave and poignant demonstration at the 1936 Berlin Olympics.
Sohn Kee-Cheung was the winner of the marathon that year. He was the world record holder and just 23 at the time, but he did not run for his country of birth, Korea. Instead, he ran as a member of the Japanese Olympic team. In May 1910, Japan had made Korea its protectorate.
The Japanese were eager to do well in Berlin, so they sent Sohn and fellow Korean Nam Sung-yong. Sohn delivered, with Nam taking bronze. In winning, he set a new Olympic record time of two hours 29 minutes.
At the victory ceremony, the name of the winner was announced as Son Kitei, the Japanese version of the characters in his name. And next to that was the name of the country, Japan. As the Japanese national anthem played after the medals were awarded, the two Korean runners bowed their heads.
Sohn was brave enough to show the world his political views in the most public way, potentially at great danger to himself, given that the Olympics were in Nazi Berlin, whose leaders were close to those of Japan.
Bob Wolfson
Rudford, Gloucestershire
Rowbotham’s legacy
Sheila Rowbotham’s article on 50 years since the start of the Women’s Liberation Movement brought back many uplifting memories of my involvement (“In 1970, driven by chaos and energy, we felt like pioneers in female protest”, Comment).
However, although she rightly reminds us of what we all owe to women activists of the past, she is typically modest about her own achievements.
It was her writing that persuaded many of us that our voices needed to be heard. For me, it was her book Women’s Consciousness, Man’s World that provided an epiphany: her forthright and passionate comments on the reasons for women’s inequality are coupled with sympathetic understanding and gentle humour.
Sheila’s method was (and still is) to encourage and possibly cajole rather than lay hostile blame. Her successes should teach us all that talking and collective action work best.
Eva Tutchell
Teddington, Middlesex
