Martin Kettle cited a former Whitehall Mandarin saying “The Government has not yet cleared what kind of Britain is trying to make” (Rachel Reeves got his moment – whatever comes in the future, the economy is now set, 12 June). He had a point, Raquel Reeves was not fully addressed. This is the vision thing, and the ability to say it. It’s about to describe what’s hard, in a general sense, beyond a list of environmental environments. Growing is important, but as a means, not an end. “Securomomics” is interesting, but no public resonance.
If people are not sure what working stands for, because the task of ideological meaning of self-neglect. It is not like 1997, before a process of revision produces new work and the “third road”. Something similar is needed today. There is a wealthy tradition of the British’s social democratic thinking, including the argument of RH Tawney for the same access to his so-called “basis of a common culture.
Pragmatism is precious, but it is not enough. An argument should be built into three columns of security, opportunity and community to unite with all the government wants to do. And in a way people understand.
Tony Wright
Labor MP, 1992-2010
I agree with Dhannonjayan Sriskandarajah that investment focus alone does not work (Rachel Reeves do the right choices? Our panel responds to spending review, June 11). New public investments are worthless when surgery and maintenance of what is not yet used enough to be funded.
After years of being austerity, the easiest and intended way to increase GDP and improve public services to ensure that we know the full potential of what we have. The highest priority must relieve the financial pressure of deliveries of services, especially our severe cash-strapped local authorities. It will provide more rude economic-based economically, as opposed to the central investment fund allocation of the projects in decades to bring results.
Entrepreneurs want to live and invest in safe areas with good health and education, good maintenance of roads and pleasant hobbies. The properly funded local authorities can encourage higher private investments by delivering it. Unfortunately, instead they expect to implement an expensive and harmful reorganization and finding money to pay the higher minimum wage and national insurance while receiving a settlement of cutting. Labor should re-think again.
Michael Foster
Chelmsford
According to Raquel Reeves, NHS “protected” and receives “a 3% increase in its budget” (Re-spending 2025: Who are the winners and losers ?, 11 June). But will it do? In a recent meeting of the Prime Executive Hostingham University Hospitals Latch, he told us to order him to do £ 97m cuts in this financial year. This means leading to loss of 750 jobs and closing some wards.
In addition, these many cuts are the contribution of trusting the more likely to be placed on the integrated care board for our local health care. So, which one, protection and 3% rise, or a lot of cuts?
Mike Scott
Chair Chaigh, Nottingham & Netts still our NHS Public
