Rishi Sunak now looks even weaker

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

We can no longer endure any further flawed Tory rule (Reuters)

The expert economists have left Sunak looking even weaker, a floundering, invisible non-entity whose government has put the country in the gutter.

The public are wholly sick to the back teeth of Tory lies, failure and deceit. It is time for change for the whole country. We can no longer endure any further flawed Tory rule.

Dale Hughes

Address supplied

A new way of governing?

Many will have welcomed Keir Starmer’s commitment to a new way of governing’ in the UK. His commitments – on replacing the Lords and empowering communities and regions – are, of course, welcome. However, there was no mention of other pressing concerns such as PR or independent enforcement of the Ministerial Code.

There was certainly more on the economy but the big vision here was still somewhat lacking. Starmer would do well to adopt the proposals made by economist Will Hutton for what he calls “stakeholder capitalism” (including reformed finance and a new companies act). This is a genuinely new, left-of-centre programme which would address many of the concerns that have grown in recent years.

No doubt more detail will appear in the weeks ahead – let’s hope they have the radical edge that is needed!

Andrew McLuskey

Ashford

Where is Nicola Sturgeon?

During the Covid emergency, Nicola Sturgeon was never off our TV screens. She dispensed the wisdom, or otherwise, of the medical establishment, who scarcely had a look in. Now that we have an A&E emergency, and a general NHS problem that is endemic, she is not to be seen. Nor is the health minister, Humza Yousaf. Should not one or other of them be telling us every day not to clog up A&E services with seasonal flu that can be treated with rest, fluids, paracetamol?

Instead, we have Jason Leitch sent out to bat for the administration, telling us to wear face masks. Should our elected politicians be hiding behind an unelected medic (or dentist) when the situation is catastrophic?

Jill Stephenson

Edinburgh

The Beano Brexiteers

Lord Heseltine’s comments are spot on. On the 50th anniversary of joining the European Community, it is worth reflecting that in 2023, no prominent Brexiteers, or those now pulling the governmental levers of power, have any personal experience whatsoever of life in Britain or Europe before joining. In 1973, few were little more than toddlers. Rishi Sunak, Dominic Raab, and Suella Bravaman were not even born. Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage were both aged eight, Michael Gove three; Lord Frost and Mark Francois were seven; the dynamic duo of Steves Barclay and Baker only one. Thank goodness for older heads: Chris Grayling was 10.

Nightly, it would seem, Eurosceptic brains swirl in a dreamworld of an idyllic England based somewhere in the late pre- and early post-war years. Brexiteer blood warms and veins positively throb to thoughts harking back to the years after “we” had won the war. In the early Fifties, Birmingham was the greatest manufacturing city in the entire world; we retained most of our Empire; immigration was under control; had a health service that worked, and Britain still ruled the waves. Everyone “knew their place”, and of course, we had “the bomb” for security. What was not to like?

Shielded in youth from adult responsibilities, and many hardships of recent European history, we often retain only warmer memories of a simpler, and kinder life. In 1973, as future Brexiteers read their Beano, Dandy, and Eagle comics under bedclothes by torchlight, we might easily deduce who foresaw themselves as Dan Dare and Lord Snooty. Several obviously found inspiration from characters such as Dennis the Menace, Biggles or Desperate Dan, even. Only Flash Gordon and Korky the Cat remain for allocation. Any suggestions?

Paul Hill

Writing under the name of ‘David Shoestring’, Paul Hill is the author of ‘Smoke Gets in Your Eyes’ – Birmingham industrial history, poems, and tales of life in the post-war years

Thank goodness for Channel 4

I read Adam Forrest’s column (Channel 4 should not be sold, says culture secretary, 5 January) and this by Michelle Donelan is a good decision, as she has seen the wood for the trees and the daft idea to privatise it in the first place. Of course Nadine Dorries is spitting feathers but I am sure we can all live with that. This successful channel with its innovative programming and output never needed this “white elephant” of privatisation and has been subjected to a lengthy wait, before common sense has prevailed.

I always enjoy Cathy Newman’s columns in this newspaper and Channel 4 News is always proactive, effective and questioning and long may it continue to be so, without government interference. I agree with Lucy Powell, the shadow culture secretary, that this has been a complete waste of time and now a line should be drawn under it. This public broadcasting channel should continue to do what it does best.

Judith A Daniels

Norfolk

Is this the same Rishi Sunak?

Is the Rishi Sunak who told us in his New Year’s message that the UK would continue “to stand with our Ukrainian friends against Putin’s brutality… defending freedom and democracy wherever we find it under threat” the same Rishi Sunak who is taking away the right to strike from workers in the UK?

Sasha Simic

London

I agree with Mick Lynch

Adam Forrest reports that in an interview with James O’Brien, Mick Lynch was challenged on his support for Brexit, and I think convincingly so. In common with many, I have a great regard for the formidable Mr Lynch and he must be aware that a number of our large utility suppliers are EU companies and are effectively nationalised and have been so for many years.

In Mr Lynch’s own industry the Italian state rail operator Trenitalia, German state railway Deutsche Bahn, Dutch state railway Nederlandse Spoorwegen (NS), and French state railway SNCF have all operated substantial franchises in the UK. In all cases EU governments have a controlling interest. There is, through use of a company limited by shares, the advantage of using some private funding for public purpose in a regulated manner.

These companies are largely owned by the people and the greater part of their net revenue is retained for the benefit of the people. There are also clear implications for investment and the welfare of their workforces.

Are these not acceptably successful models which could have been emulated in the UK whilst we were members of the EU and can be now?

David Nelmes

Caerleon, Newport