Letter of the week: Racism, riots and reality

Write to letters@newstatesman.co.uk to have your thoughts voiced in the New Statesman magazine.

Paul Collier’s analysis that the “underlying problem” behind the Southport riots this year and the Toxteth riots of 1981 is “one of blighted opportunities” (The Economics Essay, 18 October) is misleading in both cases. The Southport and related riots were racist riots against asylum seekers and ethnic minorities, sparked by online conspiracy theories and far-right agitators, and fostered by decades of anti-immigrant rhetoric and “stop the boats” vitriol. At the Toxteth riots – a community response to the sustained pattern of racial harassment, criminalisation and victimisation in Liverpool over many years – it was seemingly open season on young black men for the police.

To argue that these disturbances have been about economic disadvantage – though doubtless these links do need to be made – risks understating the reality of the racist framing and mobilisation of the asylum and immigration issue, and downplaying the impact of racial discrimination, including by the police.
Gideon Ben-Tovim, University of Liverpool

Disruption, interrupted

Felicity McGowan (Correspondence, 18 October) asks if we have had enough of so-called great disrupters, citing Kemi Badenoch, George Osborne, Dominic Cummings and Liz Truss. But there are many one might consider good disrupters: Aneurin Bevan (NHS), Barbara Castle (Equal Pay Act) and Gordon Brown (Bank of England independence) to name a few.

George Eaton reports that Keir Starmer’s government aspires to be transformative, as Clement Attlee’s, Thatcher’s and Tony Blair’s were (Politics, 18 October). I suspect that many would agree that transformative solutions are what we need to break this country’s cycle of decline. As voters, we will sometimes be excited or inspired by this disruption, finding it painful or disarming. But that is transformative government, and that is leadership.
Mark Thorp, Manchester

Starmer’s great blunder

John Gray hits the nail on the head when he describes Starmer’s project of “vacuous mix of liberal legalism and Treasury economics” (These Times, 11 October). Starmer is a rare leader in as much as he spent much of his career as a public lawyer, reaching public prosecutor. Not many people have entered parliament after being knighted. Starmer has limited experience of politics as a Labour Party activist. He remains a lawyer, not a politician.

This explains the monumental blunder of attacking vulnerable pensioners, depriving them of the winter fuel allowance. Any Labour Party member should know in their guts that “pensioner” in this country means poor. No doubt the 9,000 “poor” millionaires worried about their tax status will be consoled by the Budget because saving the rich is “good for growth”.
Meghnad Desai, House of Lords

No zzz’s for Reeves

Reading Andrew Marr’s interview with Rachel Reeves (The Politics Interview, 18 October), I wonder how she sleeps at night. I don’t mean that in a pejorative way; I cannot conceive how a Chancellor with the weight of the UK’s economic fortunes on her shoulders can relax. Her commitment to balancing the books, seemingly in the interest of us all, can be admired.

I hope to be pleasantly surprised by the Budget’s canny control of the finances, with the broadest shoulders taking the weight. I still consider the removal of the winter fuel allowance to be an ill-conceived measure, so one hopes there will be fewer hammer-blows. Halloween follows in its wake, with perhaps treats rather than fiscal tricks.
Judith A Daniels, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk

Peace talks

All-out victory as a strategy is a recipe for mutual destruction. In Politics: A Survivor’s Guide, Rafael Behr refers to “the inverse Clausewitz principle”, which states that “politics is the resolution of conflict without recourse to war”. He affirms the primacy of democracy over violence as a means of resolving difference, and goes on to elucidate the distinction between democracy and populism. All populists, he claims, erroneously define themselves as democrats because populism violates the inverse Clausewitz principle. Populist certainties tend towards violent means; messy democratic politics favour compromise and negotiation.

Wolfgang Münchau may be wrong in supposing that “defensive war” can achieve peace (The NS Essay, 11 October), but at least he advocates a strategic approach that is prepared to envisage an endgame. As the First World War showed, defeat of the central powers by the Allies was insufficient to mitigate against further trouble. All wars end in negotiation, all peace begins with compromise. Politics is essential to survival.
Austen Lynch, Garstang, Lancashire

Critical state

Hannah Barnes (Out of the Ordinary, 18 October) articulates many of my own concerns about the assisted dying bill. I agree with Health Secretary Wes Streeting that, given the dire state of palliative care, we aren’t ready for this proposed law. But there are measures we could take without calling on doctors to take lives. For a start, we could guarantee that no friend or loved one would receive a visit from the police on their return from Dignitas. I would also like a project of public education on the advisability of making a living will. Before the conviction in 2000 of Harold Shipman for killing his patients, the doctrine of double effect was widely applied in the treatment of those in extreme pain. This meant that, as long as the primary intention was not to kill the patient, a dose of, say, morphine, could be administered that would alleviate the agony but also potentially shorten the patient’s life. I think this doctrine should be reinstated, with safeguards.

As a volunteer at my local hospice, I know what end-of-life care can look like: tranquil surroundings, single rooms giving on to a garden, plentiful staff and an array of services for both patients and the bereaved. Yet hospices get only a fraction of their funding from the NHS. They are in crisis, and are becoming available to even fewer patients.
Vera Lustig, Walton-on-Thames, Surrey

Forever toasty

My thanks to Will Dunn for his excellent Money Matters column (4 October). I didn’t know the term “Bifler” but I am one. I bought a Dualit Toaster in the UK in the 1990s and brought it with me to Australia. When two of its plates stopped working, I found a toaster-repair man in New South Wales. Sadly the things we can “Bifle” are getting fewer. We must fight against this urge for easy and wasteful consumerism.
Marina Marangos, Brisbane

Write to letters@newstatesman.co.uk
We reserve the right to edit letters