Letter: Kinnock's choice
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: Matthew Symonds wrote on 16 July ('Calumny conceals the true value of Kinnock') that Neil Kinnock was denied any choice about the timing of his departure 'by a tacit understanding within Labour's ruling circles (for which read trade union leaders) that if the party lost, he would immediately face a challenge from John Smith which, if it came to a fight, he would lose'.
This is not true. Neil made a decision very early in his period of office that he would not lead a Labour opposition into a third general election. This decision was right and, as usual, it was his and no one else's.
This is just another example of misinformation about Labour's links with trade unions.
Yours faithfully,
TOM SAWYER
Deputy General Secretary
National Union of
Public Employees
London, SE18
17 July
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments