Letter: Essentially wrong over Clause IV
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Mark Evans (letter, 12 October) suggests that the difficulties in redrafting Labour's Clause IV could be overcome by saying that common ownership etc should cover only 'essential goods and services'.
Unfortunately, this will not do.
Take just goods. It is essential to drink, eat and, in our climate, to wear clothes. Drinking might not present too much of a problem, public ownership of the water industry would be in order. But would Mr Evans really mean that all farms, supermarkets, corner grocers' shops, fish and chip shops, pubs selling 'good grub' etc should be in public ownership? The briefest reflection on clothes would lead us into an even deeper morass.
Yours sincerely, G. F. STEELE Kesgrave, Suffolk
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments