Labour needs to make its priorities clear to everyone | Politics

Martin Kettle quotes a former Whitehall Mandarin, saying, “The government still did not clarify what kind of Britain he was trying to create (Rachel Reeves seized his moment – No matter what the future, Labour’s economic course is now June 12). It has a meaning that has not been completely answered by Rachel Reeves. This is the vision and the ability to convey it. In general, beyond the list of policy outputs, it is about explaining what labor is for. Growth is important, but as a tool, it is not a purpose. “Securonomics” is interesting, but there is no public resonance.

If people are no longer sure what the labor force means, this is because of the neglect of the task of identifying ideological self -defining. This is different from 1997 before a rethinking process that produces new labor and a “third way”. Now you need something similar. In the UK, there is a rich tradition of social democratic thought, including the argument of equal access to what Rh Tawney calls “civilization tools ası as the basis of a common culture.

Pragmatism is valuable, but not enough. There should be an argument around three security, opportunity and community columns that will bring together everything the government is trying to do and the UK species that it wants to create. And in a way that people can understand.
Tony Wright
Labor Deputy, 1992-2010

With Dhanangayan Sriskandarajah, I acknowledge that it is not only the focus of investment (has Rachel Reeves made the right elections? If the operation and care of those who exist are not sufficiently financed, new public investments are meaningless.

After many years of bitch squeezing, the fastest and most precise way to raise GDP and improve public services is to make us realize the exact potential of what we already have. The highest priority should be to alleviate the financial pressure on our service provider, especially local authorities with serious cash shortages. This will rapidly offer a wider -based and higher economic growth in contrast to the central allocation of investment funds.

Entrepreneurs want to live and invest in safe areas with good health and education, well -maintained roads and pleasant opportunities. Local officials funded properly can promote higher special investment by providing this. Unfortunately, instead of receiving an expensive and destructive restructuring practices and a solution that means a reality that has been cut in financing, they are expected to find the money to pay higher minimum wage and national insurance. Workmanship needs to rethink.
Michael Foster
Chelmsford

According to Rachel Reeves, the NHS will receive “preserved” and “3% increase in the budget” (Expenditure Investigation 2025: Who are the winners and the losers?, 11 June). But will it be in practice? At a recent meeting with the General Manager of the University of Nottingham Hospitals Trust, we were instructed to make a deduction of £ 97 million in this financial year. This will lead to approximately 750 work loss and closure of some wards.

In addition, these major interruptions contribute to greater contributions to the integrated care committee for our district: a decrease in 280 million pounds for all local health services. So, which is really, protection and 3% increase or enormous interruptions?
Mike Scott
Chair keeps our Nottingham & Notts NHS open to the public