Financial and business news and articles
Posts tagged Letters
Now, more than ever, we must push for women’s rights | Letters
Mar 14th
During a week with women’s issues unusually high up the agenda, the lack of progress for millions is frustrating
During a week when women’s issues have featured unusually high on the agenda, culminating in Mother’s Day and encompassing both International Women’s Day and the 54th UN Commission on the Status of Women, we feel compelled to point out the lack of progress for millions of our sisters across the developing world who are denied basic human rights.
Two-thirds of all children denied school are girls. Of the world’s 876 million illiterate adults, 75% are women. Women earn only 10% of the world’s income, yet work two-thirds of the world’s working hours.
Domestic violence is the biggest cause of injury and death to women worldwide. Women hold only 14% of the world’s parliamentary seats.
While we join in the celebrations for Mother’s Day today we can’t forget the women dying needlessly in childbirth, or as the first and last victims of conflict, watching their daughters grow up without hope of change and suffering unpunished abuse at the hands of men who are charged to protect them.
We urge men and women for whom such circumstances are unimaginable to challenge their governments to make a priority of the lives of these silent millions, by linking development money with gender empowerment and holding leaders to account for denying 50% of their populations the basic rights we take for granted. It’s to our communal shame that the Beijing Platform for Action, Millennium Development Goal No 3, UN Security Council Resolution 1325 and the African Union Solemn Declaration on Gender Equality in Africa all remain largely unfulfilled. The AU has declared 2010-2020 “the African women’s decade”. Join us in our fight to ensure that in 10 years these aren’t more redundant slogans that leave suffering women’s lives untouched.
Without the liberation of women in the developing world there can be no end to the cycle of violence and extreme poverty. The greatest asset of emerging nations is its female workforce. Our mission is to ensure they are given the tools with which to achieve their ambitions.
Colin and Livia Firth; Samantha Cameron; Sandra Kamen; Emma Freud; Esther Freud; Rupert Friend; Miriam Gonzalez; Noreena Hertz; Damon Albarn; Beverley Knight; Richard and Ruth Rogers; Keira Knightley; Yasmin Alibhai-Brown; Mishal Hussein; Henry Porter; Mirella Ricciardi; Lucy Siegle; Melanie Chisolm; Dr Scilla Elworthy; Jendaye Frazer; Kate Allen, Amnesty; Hadeel Ibrahim Mo Ibrahim Foundation; Brigid McConville White Ribbon Alliance UK; Marie Louise Baricako; Vanessa Branson; Pilar Brennan; Naomi Campbell; Marc Carter; Jo Cox; Nathalie Delapalme; Bineta Diop; Mariella Frostrup; Glenys Kinnock; Annie Lennox; Jason McCue; Elle MacPherson; Angelique Kidjo; Brigitte Lacombe; Karen ‘Duff’ Lambros; Ticky Monekosso; Thandi Orleyn; Karen Ruimy; Daphne Trimble; Shriti Vadera; Jasmine Whitbread – all Femme Africa Solidarité Trust (Fast)
No, affairs do not help marriage
How can it be “acceptable” for people to have affairs behind their partner’s backs? (‘Is anyone faithful any more?’ Magazine, ). Esther Perel believes it makes people happier and it causes them to act differently towards their partners. She hasn’t considered the repercussions of a cheating partner on the innocent party. I can tell you from experience, it hurts. If you’re unable to commit to one person, you shouldn’t be in a relationship. Those who think they are being “nicer” to their partners (and even their children) due to cheating are being deceitful. Say the other party in the affair brings the cheating into the open. They tear apart a family. It will ruin relationships once the cheated partner learns the truth – then nobody will be happy, and there will be nobody to blame but the cheater.
Sarah Harding-Roberts
Cardiff
So wrong about Paul Scott
Robert McCrum writes that “Paul Scott did not even bother to come back from America to collect his cheque” for the Booker prize in 1977 (“Last year was sheer hell for the novelist Paul Bailey. Better times may be here“, In Focus). In fact, my father would have loved to do just that – but he was undergoing major and extensive surgery for the cancer that was to kill him barely four months later.
Winning the Booker was a major event for him, and not only would he have leapt at the chance to attend in person, had he been able, but the prize money, too (£5,000 – the last year at that rate before it went up to £10,000), would have been a godsend had he lived to benefit from it. His dire financial situation during most of his writing life, and especially the last years, had been the main reason for accepting the teaching post in the US. He simply could not afford to turn down the dollars on offer for two semesters there.
Sally Scott
Eye, Suffolk
Take it in the right spirit
I must defend Arthur Koestler from the various charges of entertaining increasingly “crackpot theories” that have recently been quoted in the press with the release of his latest biography. He and his wife visited some relatives of my husband’s who were experiencing “paranormal” events. During their short visit Arthur and Cynthia, (with Prof Arthur Ellison from City university) soon put the family at their ease. Because he had enough intellectual curiosity to travel to a northern town to investigate these phenomena, and then to bequeath money for a chair in parapsychology at Edinburgh university, he is to be admired rather than insulted. A few eminent scientists are now working in the field and I hope such studies will uncover the laws of physics which give rise to such rare phenomena.
name and address supplied
Oh, what a tangled web
Britain is the target of 300 significant cyber-attacks on government computer systems annually according to Lord West of Spithead, who fears that hackers could disable our infrastructure (“Britain fends off flood of foreign cyber-attacks”, News). Our government responds by setting up the “Office of Cyber Security”. Wouldn’t it be better to admit: “Come back, Gary McKinnon, your country needs you!”
Lesley Kay
London NW1
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Time to hang up on 3’s mobile phone policy?
Mar 13th
Insurance wouldn’t cover my broken mobile because I reported it ‘too late’
In June last year I was persuaded to take out mobile phone insurance on a new Nokia N95 by a saleswoman in a 3 store. I have since been paying £6.99 a month.
I dropped my handbag, and my phone fell out on to a tiled floor, cracking the screen. I was going away on holiday and, on my return, claimed from Lifestyle Services Group, which manages the insurance on 3’s behalf. My claim was declined because I hadn’t reported it within 48 hours.
This might have been in the small print, but I cannot see how this has any bearing on the veracity of a claim. As far I can see, it is only designed to enable them to refuse paying out on as many claims as possible. JH, Plymouth
Guardian Money has long warned that mobile phone insurance is a waste of money, because policies are riddled with get-out clauses, and rarely pay out – as your case demonstrates. We asked 3 about your claim, and it immediately agreed it should have been handled differently. The 48-hour rule should only apply if the phone was stolen, to prevent the thief running up a big phone bill – not an issue in your case. After getting nowhere with 3, you bought a replacement handset on eBay.
The companies have now had a rethink, and have agreed to pay £230 for the phone and to waive the excess as a gesture of goodwill, which is much more like it. Also, 3 says it will be taking this issue up with its insurers and retail team to make sure it is better interpreted in the future.
Can we help? If you’ve got a problem you would like us to investigate you can contact us by emailing consumer.champions@guardian.co.uk or writing to Bachelor & Brignall, Money, The Guardian, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU. Please include a daytime phone number.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
RAC car cover went into automatic
Mar 13th
I found cheaper roadside cover, but RAC took my premium and won’t give it back
I was recently sent a roadside cover renewal letter by the RAC which quoted a new premium of £228.
Thinking this was rather high, I rang the call centre and was eventually offered the same cover at £163.50, but decided this was still too much. After shopping around, I found similar cover for £100 and bought it. I have now discovered the RAC has taken the £228 via my debit card – even though I didn’t authorise it to do so. All my attempts to get my money back have failed. Please help! CT, Hove
The RAC says you were placed on an annual automatic renewal payment in 2009, which comes with a 14-day cooling-off period to allow you to cancel. The RAC admits mistakes were made when you called, and you weren’t made aware of this. However, since we got involved, it has moved super-fast to resolve it. It has now sent you a cheque for the £228, plus a further £50 to cover your costs and say sorry. It also says it will be taking stringent measures to ensure this problem is not repeated.
Can we help? If you’ve got a problem you would like us to investigate you can contact us by emailing consumer.champions@guardian.co.uk or writing to Bachelor & Brignall, Money, The Guardian, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU. Please include a daytime phone number.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Dear Jeremy
Mar 13th
Problems at work? Need advice? Our agony uncle has the answers
Should I care this much about giving up my marketing career?
I spent several years in marketing and studied for a CIM diploma before I became ill with stress. This was partly down to working long hours and partly due to working for an autocratic bully. I suffered a stomach ulcer, eczema, had fortnight-long headaches and was treated for depression.
Though I had many interviews for other marketing jobs, these were unsuccessful and I took a support worker job in a care home. I’ve risen through the ranks quickly, becoming deputy manager in a few months, and there are aspects of the job I enjoy – working with the residents and using various skills, such as IT, admin and organisational, in the office. I now have the opportunity to go further and could apply for a manager’s job.
My dilemma is this: I loved marketing, especially the writing, and have spent the last year grieving for everything I loved about the job. However, my confidence has been knocked to the extent that even reading an advert for a marketing job causes anxiety levels to rise, especially as they usually specify a dynamic, thrusting young person (I’m pushing 50).
I could stay with care and make a new career; I have a lot less stress and can do the work; but I have the constant feeling I’m not in the right place. I’m not writing, which was always important to me, and I can’t give myself wholeheartedly to my work the way I used to; but is that a good thing?
By its very nature, marketing is always going to be competitive. It’s driven by sales targets, key performance indicators and lots of other extremely demanding objectives. So even those jobs that don’t involve working with autocratic bullies tend to be stressful. Some people thrive on this sort of stress but I doubt if you’re one of them. And there’s absolutely no shame in that.
I suspect one of the reasons you’re less than fully satisfied with your job is that you’re only too aware it wasn’t your first choice. You took it because your attempts to return to marketing were unsuccessful, and that knowledge stays with you.
But just pause for a moment. It’s entirely possible that chance and necessity have steered you into a career for which you’re extremely well suited and which can provide you with even greater satisfaction in the future. If you continue to progress, as seems likely, I believe you’ll again have the opportunity to use those parts of your brain that are being under-utilised.
I’m intrigued it’s the writing element of marketing that you miss the most. That suggests to me that what you most enjoy is the intellectual challenge of framing a strategy and putting it into words. This ability can be put to valuable use in just about any job above a certain level of seniority.
So I’d strongly advise you to stay with your care home and go for that manager’s job with real enthusiasm. You know you can do it and your organisation rates you highly. With every step of progress, your confidence will grow. And the more responsibility you acquire, the more you’ll need to employ your strategic and communications skills.
If you come to think of it, most interesting jobs demand some marketing skills – even when they’re not called marketing jobs.
Has a problem with CV made me the author of my own misfortune?
I graduated with a degree in English last June and since then have undertaken a variety of unpaid internships/work experience. I have worked for Penguin, PFD literary agency, Bloomsbury and John Murray and am now on a three-month internship at a PR company specialising in the arts and culture sector.
I adore reading and writing (I am 20,000 words into a book I began writing at university), but despite having applied for numerous jobs over the past eight months I am yet to be called for an interview. I have worked very hard and despite living a two-hour commute from London, often stay later than expected as a sign of my commitment. But now I’m beginning to wonder where I’ve gone wrong.
Everyone I’ve worked for has commented on my positive nature and hard work but no job opportunities have arisen. I don’t know if there’s a problem with my CV, or if the sheer competition is the obstacle; most feedback I’ve received says I simply don’t have enough experience but it seems a catch-22 situation. I don’t want to give up my dream of working in publishing but am wondering if, after nine months of unpaid work, I should accept defeat.
It’s much too soon to accept defeat. Working away for nine long months with nothing to show for it must be very dispiriting, but – believe it or not – you’re in a better position than you were nine months ago. You’ve racked up some impressive experience and there must be a few of those companies you’ve slaved for who’d be happy to say nice things about you. Don’t chuck all that away now.
The trouble, as you know only too well, is that your dream job is a great many other arts graduates’ dream job too. But I’m still surprised that you’ve never been invited for an interview, and that does suggest you’ve not found an approach or a CV that makes you interesting enough.
If your letter to me is any guide I suspect you’ve concentrated too much on what you want, and not enough on what you can offer. The fact that you adore reading and writing, I’m afraid, won’t single you out in any way.
So rewrite the personal bit of your CV – and this time, with one or two specific companies in mind. Highlight any differentiating talent you may have, or any interest or experience, that seen through a potential employer’s eyes might make you worth seeing.
All-purpose CVs do tend to get all-purpose rejections.
Did Jeremy get it right? Email dear.jeremy@guardian.co.uk or post a comment below and we’ll print the best replies.
Readers’ advice
• Re: the geography teacher that needs pointing in the right direction (Dear Jeremy, 6 March). Alarm bells rang when I read they had completed a PGCE, with the aim of teaching while “I decided what I really wanted to do”. I also studied for a PGCE and taught in a sixth-form college with a similar idea. After a couple of years the “daily performance” sapped my energy and filled me with dread; I also developed a desire to work in the industry rather than teach it (for me this was media studies) so I quit my job.
I started again in a charity sector job without any of the benefits of being a teacher. Since then I’ve flourished in a communications career.
My advice to the teacher is to look for a job in the environmental charity sector, such as delivering conservation projects using volunteers (who’ll need training and managing). Alison Couch
For Jeremy Bullmore’s advice on a work issue, send a brief email to dear.jeremy@guardian.co.uk. Please note that he is unable to answer questions of a legal nature or reply personally.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Letters: Fear and loathing in New Labour
Mar 13th
In light of the articles by Simon Jenkins (The bankers lied. And Darling, merely a puppet on their string, knows it, 12 March) and Mehdi Hasan (It’s defeatist nonsense to talk of a crisis of leftwing thinking, 12 March), it seems evident that there is the need for a rearticulating of the political discourse. The hegemony of neoliberal thinking has defined the political space for 30 years, so much so that even in the present crisis, when we all should be marching on the streets against the bankers, New Labour is still running in fear of framing the debate in social democratic terms.
For the 30 years the right have had a stranglehold on how we define freedom. The political classes have been fearful of any reference to the state as a means of solving problems. Individual freedom, essentially defined in terms of freedom from the state, has been their mantra. For example, George Osborne’s first reaction to the nationalisation of the banks was to jump enthusiastically up and down, claiming that old socialist nationalisation is here again. Cameron is careful that his slogan that there is such a thing as society is followed up by a clear rejection of any idea that this means a bigger state.
The current crisis has left both parties searching for ways to rearticulate a progressive politics, but it is up to the left to grab this opportunity, because they won’t have another like this, to reshape the political discourse and redefine the state and its relation to individual freedom. This is a hegemonic struggle to reclaim the terms of liberty and equality in social democratic terms.
Robert Proni
London
• Donald Hirsch is quite right to say that decent employers should pay a living wage of at least £7.14 an hour, and more in expensive areas (The wages of dignity, 10 March). However, we also need to realise that the legal minimum wage of £5.80 an hour is not being paid to many thousands of employees. The root of the problem is that the statutory enforcement powers are held by Revenue & Customs, and they are failing to do their job properly. That is hardly surprising as there are only 123 enforcement staff for the whole of the UK.
In Hackney, where I live, only 258 investigations have been carried out in seven years. Anecdotal evidence of illegal avoidance abounds, but the onus is on the individual to complain, and few feel able to do so. Ideally the enforcement powers should be transferred to local authorities, but in the meantime high-profile awareness campaigns could be organised by councils with advice and information points located in their buildings. This policy will be part of the Hackney Labour manifesto for the forthcoming local elections.
Tim Webb
London
• Neil Kinnock (Letters, 10 March) utterly fails to comprehend the burning sense of disillusionment that has driven so many former Labour supporters either into cynical abandonment of politics or, like John Kampfner, to embrace the Lib Dems. The charge against the New Labour project is not that it did not deliver the benefits he lists. It did, and there were others which curiously he omits, above all the lancing of the Northern Ireland carbuncle and significant constitutional reforms – devolution and human rights legislation. The charge is that it squandered its massive parliamentary majorities and the goodwill that the electorate bestowed on it to transform a divided, sick society.
On the contrary, it took to its bosom the neoliberal ideology that nourished that divide, extending privatisation; it renounced and even demonised public sector initiatives and went back on the welfare state concordat that was the hallmark of the postwar Labour settlement. So, Labour administrations have presided over the widest gulf ever between the haves and have-nots and now the inevitable massive recession. We have witnessed a generation of politicians intent on feathering their own nests, the expenses “scandal” being a minor part of this. Not to speak, as Neil Kinnock dare not, of the criminal adventure that was the Iraq war. I, a onetime Labour activist, like John Kampfner, have joined the Lib Dems, who I see as a catalyst for, and working partner of, a rejuvenated Labour party once it is purged of the New Labour virus.
Benedict Birnberg
London
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Letters: What about women?
Mar 12th
I’m heartened that Labour’s election strategy will target “middle-class mainstream mums”, although I hope they extend this to all women (Report, 11 March). Fawcett polling shows that 49% of women don’t think politicians are considering their view on key issues such as the economy, though they are more likely to vote for a party with a women’s equality plan. But tackling women’s equality is still too often seen as a fringe issue, even while the gender gap in voting intention is likely to be key to the election result. On the big issues like the economy and crime, policies can have a significantly different impact on women. If there are to be drastic cuts to the public sector, women are more likely to lose their jobs, as they make up 65% of the workforce and also make greater use of public services. This is why we’ve launched our What About Women? campaign, calling on politicians to explain what their policies would mean for women.
Ceri Goddard
Chief executive, Fawcett Society
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Letters: Central and local roles in the funding of social care
Mar 11th
On Monday, it was announced that a cross-party blueprint was being drawn up in an effort to stop the squabbling about funding for the care of elderly people (Political parties trade blows ahead of elderly social care talks, 10 March). Just a few days later though, these efforts have been sabotaged by the parties’ unwillingness to compromise. Progress cannot be made in the current pressure-cooker pre-election atmosphere. The priority must be for the parties to outline their approach to the problem, rather than become trapped in ironing out the intricate details of a solution before their central visions are even defined.
But what is clear, is that each of the parties is neglecting to mention a key partner in this social care debate – the children of older people. The baby-boom generation will soon need support. It may well be that their children – in many cases affluent children – should be means-tested and assessed for contribution, in much the same way as older people themselves are asked to make a contribution. I hope that at the very least, the party manifestos will include a statement of what they intend to do. The worry is that by the time the election arrives, other priorities will take over and funding care for the elderly will slip down the agenda.
Leon Smith
Nightingale care home, London
• Localism is now the mantra of all three major parties. In principle, it’s unarguable. But is also raises the key issue of who is accountable for what. In terms of government resources allocated to primary care trusts, the issue is simple. How can a government ever announce that money is going to be spent on this development or that expansion of a service when they no longer have any control over the decision-making mechanisms? This wouldn’t be a problem if there were real accountability at local level. There is not. MPs or ministers can write to PCTs, hold meetings with them or require explanations. But in the end, the PCTs are responsible.
The Treasury has never liked earmarked funding. Devolving funding and responsibility ensures that reductions in spending aren’t placed at the Treasury’s door. It also makes it easier to announce that something will happen, even if the responsibility for delivering it doesn’t lie with central government. One solution would be to ringfence funding – as was done in the early days of this government – to kickstart a particular programme. Everyone would know that the money would be absorbed locally, be it by local government or an agency. The government would get the credit for getting the service going, the politicians wouldn’t be held in disrepute for promising something that the public doesn’t see delivered and we would be able to have some genuine accountability.
Unfortunately, the trend is in entirely the opposite direction – which is one reason why people’s disaffection with politics and politicians is so profound.
Lab, Sheffield Brightside
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Letters: Frail economy needs another stimulus
Mar 11th
The Conservative party’s calls for immediate cuts to the economy have been met by a growing chorus of criticism, warning that this risks sending the economy back into recession (Report, 8 March). The government was right to stimulate the economy with a variety of measures last year and so offset some of the worst effects of the recession. Yet, as some of the world’s leading economists have pointed out, the fragile nature of the recovery means that fiscal stimulus is still required. However, according to the IMF, Britain is one of only two G20 countries not currently planning any such fiscal stimulus in 2010.
A programme of government investment would not only stimulate the wider economy in the short term, but would increase long-term growth, thereby lowering the debt levels through a higher tax take. To this end, we encourage the chancellor to use the forthcoming budget to announce a second fiscal stimulus – especially in housing and transport, where investment has fallen most, and with a focus on developing a low-carbon economy – which would both help to secure economic recovery and create much needed jobs.
Colin Burgon MP
Alex Smith, Editor, Labourlist
Austin Mitchell MP
Anne Cryer MP
Alexandra Kemp, Chief Executive, West Norfolk Women and Carers’ Pensions Network (personal capacity)
Bellavia Ribeiro-Addy, NUS National Officer
Billy Hayes, General Secretary, CWU
Byron Taylor, National Trade Union Liaison Officer, Trade Union & Labour Party Liaison Organisation (TULO)
Cat Smith, Vice Chair, London Young Labour
Chris Edwards, Senior Research Fellow, UEA,
Chris McCafferty MP
Chris McLaughlin, Editor, Tribune
Christopher Cramer, Professor of Political Economy of Development, SOAS
Clifford Singer, Director, The Other TaxPayers’ Alliance
Colin Challen MP
Compass Youth Executive
Dave Anderson MP
David Drew MP
Dai Havard MP
Dave Prentis, General Secretary, Unison.
David Hamilton MP
Diane Abbott MP
Denis Murphy MP
Edward O’Hara MP
Ellie Gellard, Labour blogger
Grazia Ietto-Gillies, Emeritus Professor of Applied Economics, Director Centre for International Business Studies, London South Bank University
Glenda Jackson MP
Gerry Doherty, General Secretary, TSSA
Gordon Prentis MP
Prof. George Irvin, Univerity of London, SOAS.
Professor Ian Gough, Professorial Research Fellow, LSE
Hugh Lanning PCS Deputy General Secretary
Hywel Francis MP
Harriet Yeo, Labour Party NEC
Hilary Wainright, Co-Editor, Red Pepper
Ismail Erturk, Senior Lecturer in Banking, Manchester Business School
Janet Dean MP
Jeremy Corbyn MP
Jim Cousins MP
Jim Sheridan MP
Jon Cruddas MP
John Austin MP
John Ross, Editor, Socialist Economic Bulletin
John Weeks, Professor Emeritus of Economics, SOAS, University of London, and former director of the Centre for Development Policy and Research.
Jonathan Rutherford, Professor of Cultural Studies, Middlesex University
Katy Clark MP
Karen Buck MP
Keith Norman, General Secretary, ASLEF
Ken Livingstone
Kevin Maguire, Associate Editor, Mirror
Kelvin Hopkins MP
Martin McIvor, Editor, Renewal
Malcolm Sawyer, Professor of Economics, University of Leeds
Mehdi Hasan, Senior Editor (politics), New Statesman
Michael Connarty MP
Michael Meacher MP
Mick Shaw, President, FBU
Mike Wood MP
Michael Burke, Economist and contributor to Socialist Economic Bulletin
Neal Lawson, Chair, Compass
Neil MacKinnon, Chief Economist, VTB Capital
Paul Kenny, General Secretary, GMB
Paul Truswell MP
Paul Sagar, New Political Economy Network.
Pat Devine, Honorary Research Fellow, University of Manchester
Peter Kilfoyle MP
Peter Willsman Labour Party NEC
Prem Sikka, Professor of Accounting, University of Essex
Richard Ascough, Regional Secretary, South Eastern GMB
Richard Murphy, Director, Tax Research UK
Roger Berry MP
Robin Murray, Fellow, Young Foundation, Author of Danger and Opportunity:Crisis and the New Social Economy
Roger Godsiff MP
Ronnie Campbell MP
Sam Tarry, National Chair, Young Labour
Sunder Katwala, General Secretary, Fabian Society (personal capacity)
Susan Himmelweit, Professor of Economics, Faculty of Social Sciences, Open University
Terry Rooney MP
Tim Roache, GMB Yorkshire Regional Secretary
Tony Juniper, environmentalist
Tony Woodley, Joint General Secretary UNITE
Will Straw, Editor, Left Foot Forward
• Madeleine Bunting is spot on (Comment, 8 March). Why on earth is Labour stumbling into an election playing to Tory rules? Who decided the public were not capable of understanding it will take time – and a strategy of growth and investment – to recover from the disaster brought about by the clowns of finance? Instead we are supposed to choose between competitive cuts manifestos which are financially illiterate. The economy should not be subjected to a choice between losing an arm or a leg when it should be given a hand up.
Ric Carey
Southsea, Hampshire
• Reading Madeleine Bunting’s article, I was struck by everyone’s reluctance to ask the beneficiaries of the last 10 boom years – those who made money out of property and shares, or saw huge pay increases – to pay something back to help repair the public finances. It’s perverse that low-paid workers should have to pick up the tab.
Scott Wilson
St Andrews, Fifeshire
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Letters: Up in arms over Brown and Iraq
Mar 11th
The debate over resourcing the armed forces that has ensued from Gordon Brown’s presence at the Chilcot inquiry (Editorial, 6 March) is put into perspective by the recent failure of the MoD to respond to MPs inquiries about “black holes” in defence procurement. Without wishing to let the PM off the hook, is it not time for those responsible to be held to account? There is a long history of complacent mismanagement that appears to go unpunished, and this becomes all the more pertinent when other sectors of the government are expending huge amounts of energy to defend budgets that are, by comparison, petty cash.
Jeremy Theophilus
Sudbury, Suffolk
• The Chilcot inquiry has given rise to many accusations that our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have been under funded and inadequately equipped. It could be argued that, whenever a soldier is killed or wounded in combat, he has been inadequately protected – so there is no easy answer. One thing is certain; our troops are infinitely better equipped than those they are fighting. Those of us who fought in Normandy were painfully aware that our Shermans were much inferior to the German tanks, but nobody made political capital out of it.
Harvey Quilliam
Maghull, Merseyside
• Timothy Robey (Letters, 8th March) states “Gordon Brown told the Iraq inquiry that no request by the military for equipment had been turned down when he was chancellor This is quite different from his saying the military had everything that it needed.” Is he accepting that there were things the military needed that they didn’t ask for? How likely is that? There is a difference between what the military needs and what it wants. Boys and their toys cost this country quite enough as it is without requiring a blank cheque of any government – Trident being the obvious, but not the only, example.
Iain Montgomery
Glasgow
• Your editorial once again pursues your self-justifying stance against the war in Iraq by criticising Gordon Brown. By implication this means that the many people who supported the fight to rid Iraq of its dictator are also maligned. Given the failure of the security council to relieve the subjugated majority in Iraq from their predicament is in itself an indictment of this less than effective body. Brown was honest enough to claim that to take action was the right decision, and to show remorse for those who lost their lives. Iraq would never have been freed without direct action.
Colin Bower
Chelmsford, Essex
• Chilcot’s statement that “life in Iraq today is almost incomparably much improved from where it was under Saddam”. must be challenged. Iraqi lives continue to be blighted by the violence unleashed by a senseless and bloody war. For the chairman of the inquiry to make such a contentious remark raises serious questions of judgment.
Laurence Rowe
Manchester
• A quick answer to your editorial question “Why on earth did [Gordon Brown] not take a stand against the war?” Because, with so many Blairites on one side and anti-invasionists on the other, Brown would have split the Labour party in two. Brown is both a statesman and a party loyalist. We should be thankful.
Dr Ian Flintoff
Oxford
• In his testimony before the Chilcot inquiry, Gordon Brown said he was not privy to crucial information concerning the buildup to the war. Clare Short told the inquiry that at the beginning of 2003 several Arab countries were negotiating exile with Saddam Hussein. The right question to ask those who will be heard should be: how would have you reacted had you known that there was a way, such as Saddam’s exile, to avoid a war? The entire truth needs to emerge or we will have missed an opportunity to restore the west’s credibility in the promotion of human rights and democracy.
Marco Perduca
Senator, Radical party, Italy
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
What mortgage can I get on a rental home?
Mar 10th
Q I am considering buying a second home to rent out as a medium- to long-term investment. I have a £50,000 deposit and do not have a mortgage on my own home. I am looking for a loan of £80,000 for the second property. Am I restricted to buy-to-let mortgages only, or can I utilise other mortgage products which may have better rates to meet my requirements? RE
A No you are not restricted to buy-to-let mortgages. Instead of securing a loan on the second property you could take out a mortgage on your own home, provided it is worth at least £80,000. Doing this is likely to give you access to more competitive interest rates than those available on buy-to-let mortgages. If your home is worth considerably more than £80,000 you will also benefit from better rates because of borrowing a low percentage of the value of your home.
Also, if you were to secure a loan on your own home you would still be able to set the mortgage interest against the rental income from the second property for tax purposes.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds