If the left has taken over Labour completely, why is Tony Blair still a member?
Send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk
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.Former Labour MP Laura Pidcock has suggested that Tony Mr Blair was to blame for Labour’s crushing 2019 electoral defeat, and that the former prime minister’s legacy “hangs around this party like a millstone”.
I agree it played a part, but a bigger part in this defeat was also played by Blair, ably backed by his array of ennobled former ministers, in keeping up their four-year barrage of anti-Corbyn pronouncements, including during both the 2017 and 2019 election campaigns. Interestingly, these actions did not result in their expulsions, as party rules dictate: hardly proof of Blair’s claimed “total takeover of the party by the left”.
Eddie Dougall
Bury St Edmunds
Beyond salvation
What point the Labour leadership contenders see in “saving” their party escapes me. All involved clearly feel unhappy and let down, and if they were of sensible mind they would want to escape to pretty much anywhere else. They should retire and let this sad old organisation shrivel away like a prune down the back of a kitchen cabinet.
Gisette Hornchurch
Cowes
Leave it be
I have been reading The Independent for 25 years, and been a subscriber (to my door and then the digital edition) for 15 years. I was looking forward to a bit of a break from politics over the Christmas period, but I’m frustrated by your attempts to shape an upcoming Labour leadership election – one that hasn’t even been declared yet.
Obviously there are numerous reasons for the outcome of the election. Undoubtedly Brexit has played a part in dividing the nation, as has the electorate’s views on Corbyn – rightly or wrongly – and the divide in the Labour party. Personally I think that we need to try and come together as a nation, listening more to each other respectfully and accepting that sometimes we may have to compromise for the greater good.
In today’s paper you carry a story about David Lammy, which is fairly neutral, and three about Rebecca Long Bailey, all of which look encouraged to prejudice against her before she’s even declared herself to be in the running. If the media helped to shape the public’s views about Jeremy Corbyn, then you’re complicit in doing this now about future Labour leaders, before a contest has even begun. Leave it be. Who leads the Labour party should be a matter for Labour party members. The Labour party and its leadership have made their bed and they will have to lie in it.
Your reporting about where and when that went wrong are good political analysis. But continual negative reporting won’t succeed in bringing the country together. It is the politics of division that have brought Boris Johnson to power and by uniting with the other papers doing that you’re complicit. Maybe that’s what you want, but I think a period of reflection would be good for us all.
Gerald Clark
Address provided
21st-century housing
It is unfortunate that your article on “charity homes” was accompanied by pictures of almshouses from earlier centuries. These photos and the text do not give the full picture, which is much more encouraging.
Our almshouse charity was formed in the 1970s and built 31 flats for the less economically advantaged. We don’t recognise the phrase “deserving poor”. Our criteria are age, local association and financial assets of less than £130k.
The rents are determined by the size and condition of the property, not by reference to individual circumstances, as the article said is sometimes the case.
Our small size means that we are not maximising value for money for our residents, therefore we are in the process of amalgamating with a larger almshouse charity, which shares our values and is limited to East Yorkshire, as we are.
Our partner is currently building about 50 new properties and has plans to build a further 200 in the next five years. The assets we are contributing to the new amalgamated charity will help bring this plan to fruition.
Your picture of almshouses as being constrained by restrictive covenants and unimaginative boards is distressingly lopsided.
Bob Sandham, Chair, Mrs Richardson’s Charity
Hull
Irrational man
The ongoing failure to tackle the cause of the climate crisis, rather than the symptoms, is going to cost us all dear.
Back in 2006, in a report for the British government, Sir Nicholas Stern warned that failure to act would be very costly in the long term. Better to bite the bullet and really address the climate problem then.
Needless to say, Sir Nicholas’s words were ignored. Now, the cost is beginning to grow – rising sea levels, increased floods and droughts are all among the symptoms to be dealt with – and that’s without even mentioning the repercussions of going beyond the climate tipping point, where interrelated chain reactions kick in.
The human being is supposed to be a rational creature, so why does it not respond to the evidence and seriously act to address this crisis, rather than simply addressing the symptoms as they arise?
Paul Donovan
Wanstead
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments