On Tuesday, it was “Pressure rises on Reeves”, last Friday it was “a lift” for the chancellor (29 August). Before that, it was a “challenge” for Rachel Reeves (12 August)(22 July), a “gloomy autumn” (22 July)“UK economy shrinks unexpectedly in blow to Rachel Reeves” (14 March) and a “generational shift” in investment (10 June). Reeves must feel like Mary Earps, keeping goal with balls flying at her from multiple directions! But the more serious take on this is the tendency for the media, including the Guardian, to push the narrative of a fragile economy whose health is subject to very short-term, daily events.
This is a narrative derived from the bond markets, which strive to reduce long-term stability to short-term volatility in order to multiply transactional opportunities. The time has long passed to exert the kinds of control on “casino capitalism” that were scrapped in the 1970s, and to reassert the priority of long-term thinking. There is no sign of Reeves doing that – in fact, almost the opposite. Some bond marketeers seem confident that the chancellor needs to keep the bond markets onside. Does she really? Perhaps we should start by challenging the narrative.
Prof Saville Kushner
Liverpool
• With the British government’s need to balance the budget by raising taxes, why is there not more discussion about taxing people for polluting, given the worsening climate crisis?
Why not consider bringing back vehicle taxes based on emissions (though be realistic about what plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) do – mine averages 120 miles per gallon, not the 250mpg claimed); increase taxes on aviation fuel, tax frequent flyers, tax heavy SUVs that enter cities, tax cruise ships that use diesel generators when they are docked. There are many taxes that can help reduce such harm to our planet. So, Rachel Reeves, take the blinkers off please, and also don’t be so afraid to tell greedy vested interests to get stuffed.
This government has, to its credit, started an incentive for production to buy EVs produced using greener methods, so why not tax producers who use the most polluting methods?
Dave Hollis
Norwich
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
