Labour must stop harming the people it pledged to protect

Letters to the editor: our readers share their views. Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

The Labour government’s first few months in office have been a litany of missteps, exposing a troubling disregard for the values of fairness, self-determination and economic stability that have long defined Britain (“Lucy Powell says she understands public’s frustration with Labour in office”, Sunday 22 December).

The decision to surrender the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, against the wishes of many Chagossians, betrays Britain’s legacy of standing for the oppressed. This decision silences the voices of the Chagossians, excluding them from determining their own fate.

Labour’s domestic policies are equally alarming. Their inheritance tax raid on farms, projected to raise £520m annually, disproportionately impacts hardworking families in rural areas. At the same time, the government allocates £536m to overseas agricultural projects. If financial prudence is the goal, why not reallocate these funds instead of penalising British farmers who cannot benefit from the tax loopholes used by the wealthy?

Labour campaigned on a promise not to raise taxes on working people, yet their actions tell a different story. Increases in inheritance tax and national insurance affect not only farmers but also pensioners and charities already reeling from rising costs.

The impact on pensioners is particularly egregious. Many in our ageing population, who have contributed to this nation for decades, now face further financial strain.

These decisions are not inevitable, they are political choices. Will Labour admit their mistakes and chart a new course in 2025, or will they stubbornly cling to policies that harm the very people they pledged to protect?

Alastair Majury

Dunblane, Scotland

Mandelson’s no moron

Whatever one’s opinion of Peter Mandelson’s character and political acumen (“Trump ‘gave permission’ for aide to call Mandelson an ‘absolute moron’”, Saturday 21 December), it has to be acknowledged that he is a man of obvious ability and intelligence.

To describe him as a moron simply indicates the ignorance and superficiality of the name-callers and the, regrettably, rapidly diminishing standards of insult (now surely at playground level) thrown about more often than not at all levels of society, particularly by those who should know better.

Rosemary Mathew

Cambridge, England

Taste test

Mark Almond writes that Starmer and his cohorts view anxiety about immigration as “distasteful” (“Whatever the aim, the German Christmas market attack will surely make the West more divided”, Saturday 21 December)

If that is accurate reporting, which I hope it isn’t, then the government regards the views of many, many of its citizens as distasteful.

It is difficult not to feel some anxiety when there are violent incidents, and sometimes civil unrest involving immigration regularly reported by the media, including The Independent.

Adrian Barrett

Kingswinford, West Midlands

How Machiavellian

Sending Peter Mandelson to Washington is rather like dispatching Machiavelli to the Roman court of Nero in the hope of putting out the political fires already consuming Washington in the run-up to the January inauguration.

It may represent the most audacious Anglo-American ambassadorial appointment since a mischievous President Roosevelt sent the Irish-American financier, Joseph Kennedy, to London to stir up the British establishment on the brink of the Second World War.

That proved a disastrous appointment as the appeasing Kennedy, himself more of a rule-maker than rule-taker, soon clashed with Winston Churchill and had to be unceremoniously recalled.

Better cross-Atlantic appointments followed, including Lord Halifax who helped sustain the Atlantic Treaty and Lord Harlech, whose near telepathic thinking with his close family friend President Kennedy diffused the crisis over Skybolt and cautioned restraint during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Likewise, Peter Jay’s tenure as British ambassador during the Callaghan-Carter era helped smooth over relations during a period when Europe and America had sharp differences over Middle East policies.

Though Labour governments invariably get on better with Democratic rather than Republican administrations, the Blair-Bush relationship was a notable exception that Mandelson might have usefully cited if it wasn’t for the fact that Trump is no friend of George Bush Jr.

Paul Dolan

Northwich, Cheshire