Just like the Brexit Party, a Remain Party would distract us from real class politics

Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

I take strong issue with Steve Ford and Vic Gaunt in their respective advocacy of a Remain Party and a “sensible” centre party.

First, the sensible centre is actually no such thing at all – but merely a pretext and a facade for yet more of the right-wing neoliberal policies to which we’ve been subjected for the past four decades. With the centre ground having shifted so far to the right, a la Keith Joseph, anything mildly to the left of social democratic (which is what Labour under Corbyn will be) can then be erroneously labelled “extreme left” by forces determined to retain the largesse of the few and scupper a progressive government for the many.

As for the mooted Remain and Brexit parties, to entertain such a possibility is to collude with the mass distraction from real class politics for which the Brexit pantomime has been responsible. Just as Ukip has virtually disappeared because it never had any class base that mirrored the class forces in society, exactly the same calculus applies to any yearned for Remain Party.

At the next “which side are you on?” general election, it’s going to be a straight choice between five years of scorched-earth market fundamentalism under Bullingdon Johnson, or five years of a left-progressive reforming government under Corbyn – and no amount of Brexit obfuscation should distract us from this most existential of political choices.

Dr Richard House
Gloucestershire

Freedom of movement is the essence of our society

The decision of this government to end free movement of people is madness. When farm owners are talking about crops rotting in the fields, and when the NHS has tens of thousands of nursing vacancies unfilled, what is the government’s plan to fill the gap?

Many families like mine wouldn’t exist were it not for free movement of people from Europe. Those who want to end it include Dominic Raab whose Jewish father came to Britain to escape the Nazis and Priti Patel, whose parents were given sanctuary before Idi Amin came to power in Uganda. The double standards are breathtaking.

Chris Key
Address Supplied

No plans for no deal

The leak of an official document predicting that a no-deal Brexit would lead to food, medicine and petrol shortages seems (I doubt) to have taken the Brexit Tories by surprise and sent them (I don’t doubt) into a bit of a tizz. They clearly have no idea how best to respond to this non-leak. Such outcomes have long been documented yet we are now led to believe that the Brexit government has no plans for their much-trumpeted no deal.

No 10 has blamed the leak on a “hostile former minister” intent on ruining Boris Johnson’s trip to see EU leaders this week. That will be the meetings with EU leaders Mr Johnson said he would not hold. What on earth was that “hostile former minister” thinking, wasting time in sabotaging something that would never take place?

Mr Gove has frowned on camera in what he hoped was a statesman-like demeanour (it wasn’t) and told us the contents of this document are “old”. What, then, is new? Precious little is my guess.

He tried to reassure us by saying “there will be bumps in the road” associated with a no deal without giving any indication of the number of bumps, the height of the bumps, the speed limits or the length of the road. I’d be happy with an honest best guess or, even, “we have no idea”. I’m sure his classicist boss and our PM has read (in the original Greek) of the wisdom of not knowing.

Alongside these shenanigans, the chancellor has promised an overhaul of the Treasury’s approach to Brexit, beginning with “significant extra funding” this week to get Britain “fully ready to leave” with or without a deal. He, then, thinks “significant extra funding” is necessary.

We are indeed in very safe hands. Not.

Beryl Wall
London W4

Ken Clarke and Harriet Harmon are a dream team

The political bar is so low at present that every creeping, crawling thing can get over it (as our present government proves) so that even I – lefty granny – greet the idea of Ken Clarke and Harriet Harmon leading a unity government as some sort of fantasy utopian dream team.

Maybe Ken Clark could call his unity government KC & the Sunshine Band?

Amanda Baker
Edinburgh

200 years since the Peterloo Massacre, it is time for a new movement for democratic reform

Westminster is broken. The majority of parliament remains unelected through the House of Lords, and millions are voiceless – excluded by a politics that feels remote from many communities.

This month has shown just how unreliable our political system is. Boris Johnson is threatening that even if he loses a vote of no confidence, he’ll stay on as PM – or that he’ll call a general election for after the most extreme version of Brexit has taken place. With talk of proroguing parliament, it’s clear our already-fragile democratic rights are in the firing line.

With the far-right capitalising on the frustration and dislocation people feel, it’s vital that the Labour movement has a plan for a radical overhaul of the democratic system.

Our inaugural Politics for the Many conference in Manchester on 31 August conference hopes to kick start a new reform debate for today. Hundreds will gather to try and outline a positive way forward. It’s time for action: we have no time to waste.

Lynn Henderson, chair of Politics for the Many and PCS national officer
James Meadway, economist, former adviser to John McDonnell
Paul Mason, journalist
Pauline Bryan, Labour peer in the House of Lords
Cllr Amna Abdullatif, Manchester Labour councillor
Shavanah Taj, vice-president of Wales TUC
Sam Tarry, president of Class think tank, national political officer TSSA union
Holly Rigby, Momentum activist
Mathew Lawrence, CommonWealth
Adam Ramsay, journalist, openDemocracyRick Burgess, Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People
Charlotte Hughes, writer and campaigner

UK immigration is not comparable to the system in Singapore

What is it about Singapore that fascinates the doctrinaire wing of the Conservative Party?

This time it’s the management of immigration. “Priti Patel pushes to end freedom of movement on day one of no-deal Brexit” – and sends Home Office officials to investigate.

Singapore has a population of just under five million. In addition to the Port of Singapore Authority which maintains five wharves and terminals, there are two other wharves, three ferry terminals, three marinas and a pier. In addition there are three airports and four airbases and one railway station. Two bridges connect Singapore to Malaysia.

There are five authorised entry points, three by air, one by sea and one by rail. At least this is what my reading of chapter 133 of the Singapore immigration act indicates. It’s hardly comparable to the United Kingdom with over 140 million international visitors each year.

Perhaps the Home Office officials could spend a day or two looking at socialised housing and medicine in Singapore instead. The streets are safe as well, but perhaps that’s what a highly controlled political system delivers. Politically, economically and socially Singapore is very different from the United Kingdom, it also runs an annual budget surplus.

Possibly the only thing that we have in common is that we are island states.

Chris King
London N3