Andrew Marr (Politics, 13 September) falls into the trap of pitting workers’ rights against economic growth. Marr agrees that the failed neoliberal experiment in the UK and abroad needs to be re-evaluated, but appears to want to keep the focus on growth rather than the worker. We have seen the consequences of neoliberal economic policies prioritising growth through the corporation: stagnating wages, rising income inequality, and growing dissatisfaction with the democratic order, to name a few. We should not repeat these mistakes.
When workers receive fair wages and better protections, and work in improved conditions, their life satisfaction increases. This can reduce the absenteeism and disaffection Marr describes as Britain’s “work problem”, while also increasing the productivity of the company. Better-paid workers spend more money, stimulating consumer demand. Worker protections are not a hindrance, but essential to fostering a more equitable, prosperous economy. We should all be sceptical of the dichotomy between workers’ rights and economic growth.
Richard Bernard, Chicago, Illinois, US
Three cheers for Gray
It must have seemed a good idea of John Gray (These Times, 20 September) to base his timely satire of the new government’s zeal for new laws, even to the extent of legislating for acceptable comedy, on Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal (1729). Swift’s text shocks us with its integrated solution to a problem of overpopulation and famine easily solved by the expedient of having the nation’s babies and children cooked up as nourishment for the Irish population, as well as enticements to the palates of the English gourmets who exploit them. Both Gray’s and Swift’s essays depend on the power of tone, the reassuring political speak always at hand to palliate the absurd and outrageous by the sounds, but not the substance, of reason. But the difference is stark: Swift leaves us desolate; Gray, mildly amused. A modest proposal indeed.
Philip Smallwood, Bristol
As a relatively recent subscriber I’m not yet overly familiar with John Gray’s writing. I’d previously heard him a couple of times on BBC Radio 4 and hadn’t realised he had such a good sense of humour. His column was, I thought initially, one of the funniest pieces of satire I’ve read in years. However on rereading it, I was left in some doubt. Surely the sign of a master comedian is the ability to leave his audience not really sure whether he’s being serious or not… I look forward to reading more of Gray’s work.
Alex Cooper, Sidestrand, Norfolk
My usual practice on opening my New Statesman (after reading Nicholas Lezard of course) is to turn to John Gray’s column so that I can enjoy disagreeing with him. Imagine my surprise then on reading his hilarious “modest proposal”.
Allan Howard, King’s Bromley, Staffordshire
Divisive Diane
Scotland’s former first minister Nicola Sturgeon makes an astonishing claim about the former US secretary of state Hillary Clinton (The Critics, 20 September): “There is no female politician in the democratic world who has suffered more vilification.” Really? I wonder if Sturgeon will have second thoughts about this after reading, just a few pages on, about Diane Abbott, whose story Rachel Cunliffe rightly points out has been “marked at every stage by racial prejudice”.
John P Asling, Broadstairs, Kent
My admiration for Diane Abbott took a nosedive after she wrote a letter to the Observer stating that while Irish, Jewish and traveller people “undoubtedly experience prejudice… similar to racism”, they are not all their lives “subject to racism”. Rachel Cunliffe reminds us in her review of Abbott’s autobiography that the politician took a history degree at Cambridge. Abbott’s studies must have skirted around the histories of many communities who suffered more than prejudice.
My mother did not study history at university, but did not forget that her family was torn apart by the atrocities experienced by Jews in Europe during the 1930s and 1940s. She later volunteered with a local United Nations group, standing up for those affected by racism worldwide. It is eyewatering that Abbott “apologised for [the letter], though she stands by the sentiment”.
Julia Edwards, Winchester
False logic
I am enjoying David Edmonds’ column, but am not persuaded by the counter-examples to knowledge being “justified true belief” (Philosophy Matters, 20 September). If Smith believes a sheep is in a field on the basis of his misperception of a large dog, then the belief is not justified even if there is a sheep hiding behind the dog. Suppose true belief really requires endless fine-tuning to cope with the over-ingenious thought experiments of philosophers. All that shows is that many of our perfectly serviceable, everyday concepts don’t have rigorous, necessary and sufficient conditions, as Ludwig Wittgenstein argued. So Timothy Williamson’s implausible alternative is redundant.
Mike Brown, Edinburgh
Silence of the cuckoos
Simon Armitage notes the absence of cuckoos in his part of the world (Nature, 20 September). This is sadly true around my parts, too. It also changes the meaning of the local saying: “I don’t think he’ll hear the cuckoo again,” the implication being that the subject won’t survive the winter.
John Young, Usk, Monmouthshire
Finding oasis
I read with sympathy of Tracey Thorn’s attempt to escape a busker’s rendition of “Wonderwall” by disappearing into a nearby church (Off the Record, 20 September). Perhaps she could take direction from another Oasis song and not look back in anger?
Adam Goldstein, Finchley, London
Write to letters@newstatesman.co.uk
We reserve the right to edit letters
[See also: Rachel Reeves’ great gamble]
Content from our partners
Related
This article appears in the 25 Sep 2024 issue of the New Statesman, All-out war