It would indeed show great strength if Reeves and Starmer ‘retreated’

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

I read John Rentoul’s optimistic column (“Rachel Reeves is standing by her ‘tough decisions’ – but for how long?”, Saturday 23 November) with interest, and bow to his political nous about this.

Instead of showing weakness, it would indeed show strength from Rachel Reeves and Keir Starmer – that they had listened, understood and were ready to think again.

I am personally not so sure that they will, because I don’t think they really “get it”, in relation to the removal of the winter fuel allowance. As Martin Lewis states; it was a cliff-edge decision, with so many pensioners just marginally over the pension credit threshold losing out. Of course, it needed reforming, but not in such a punitive, cack-handed fashion.

As to the farmers, I agree that there is room for manoeuvre and family farms should have tax mitigations.

With regard to the suspension of the seven MPs for voting against the government on an amendment to scrap the two-child benefit cap, the hierarchy would do well to reinstate them because many people agree with their committed and moral stance.

Of course, the notorious black hole looms large – but they keep hiding behind that at their peril, as the public are perplexed by the recent manifestation of a Labour government that they really don’t recognise or, indeed, understand (notwithstanding some decent and proactive measures).

Judith Daniels

Great Yarmouth

Need over want

While reading Maira Butt’s sad article (“‘I’m earning £100,000 a year, but I feel poorer than ever’”, Sunday 24 November), I couldn’t help but laugh – and at the same time feel very sorry for the people she was describing.

Although I will be colder for longer this winter, I am going to live through the chancellor’s mistake and enjoy my retirement. My yearly income is circa £15,000, on which I pay tax, but I still manage to buy food and other items I need.

I have changed my eating, enjoyment and social habits since retiring. Of course, I want to drink good wine and whisky, holiday in the Bahamas and entertain friends lavishly. However, I don’t need to live the life I did prior to retirement.

Now I always think of what I need, rather than want. It makes a real difference to my mental health, I’m sure, and I still eat well, keep relatively warm – and, yes, enjoy a bottle of wine occasionally.

Family and friends understand that I can’t afford the lifestyle I had before retirement, but we still manage to meet and enjoy each other’s company. Those who earn £100,000-plus should not be unable to enjoy their lives if they shop for essentials over luxuries, and learn what they can live without. As one boss explained to me once; “You only have control over what you need to spend, not what you want to earn.”

Cooking for myself has opened up a whole new vista for me, and I’ve met new friends as a consequence. Attending new clubs has brought me much enjoyment. Having no car has really reduced my expenses and has not caused much inconvenience – just a change in my method of travel.

Lifestyle is a subjective view, however, and who am I to tell anyone how to live their life? But shifting away from want to need was the way for me – and I am indeed happy and content.

Keith Poole

Basingstoke

‘The Plot Against America’

Before the US election (the outcome of which I failed miserably to predict), all the machinations around Donald Trump and Elon Musk reminded me of a book I read many years ago. Trump’s second victory then took me up to my attic, where I was delighted to see that I had kept the novel in question: The Plot Against America, by Philip Roth.

I’ve since re-read it and, mindful of spoilers, it is about a non-politician – aviator Charles Lindbergh – who takes the Republican Party Conference by storm, gains the nomination, and then beats Franklin Roosevelt in the 1940 election.

Lindbergh in real life was anti-intervention, regarding the Second World War, and, to put it mildly, had unsavoury views on race, religion and eugenics. In the book, he swiftly appeases the Axis forces and brings in controversial policies at home regarding some minorities. It’s a brilliant read – and for the present, I’ll say no more.

I should have noticed a parallel when Trump won his first term, but with every expert saying it wouldn’t happen and then the forlorn hope that it won’t be too bad, I made no connection. However, now we have Musk in the equation, real life is feeling scarier than fiction.

Thanks to Jon Sopel, who inspired me with his article (“A fine bromance: why the Trump and Musk partnership is here to stay”, Saturday 23 November)

Robert Boston

Kent