Letters to the Editor – week ending 16th November 2025

Read what people have been writing to our editor about this week. Find out how to share your own views here.

Taxing Questions

Dear LabourList

I don’t think any Labour supporter should need much convincing of the case for taxing wealth, so much of which is held by so few, and doing nothing to help our mission to grow the economy and bring prosperity to working people.

But agreeing a principle is not enough: an actual Wealth Tax needs to be practical. An annual Wealth Tax was in Labour’s 1974 election manifestos, but as Denis Healey explained in his autobiography, “in five years I found it impossible to draft one which would yield enough revenue to be worth the administrative cost and political hassle”.

In the half century since, the places and forms of wealth have not got fewer, so the cost is going to be higher. Supporters also need to be clear that (as BBC Radio 4’s ‘More or Less’ put it) “exemptions are Kryptonite for wealth taxes” – it would have to apply to absolutely every type of wealth.

With comradely good wishes,

Cllr David Boothroyd

******

Dear Labour List

I am appalled that the government has ditched the plan to raise income tax. This one measure would have restored my faith in the Starmer/Reeves regime’s ability to do anything slightly progressive.

This decision does not mean low paid workers won’t pay more tax because freezing the thresholds ensures they pay more. Income Tax is the fairest tax we have and if you change the rate the rich pay more. That is why the Daily Mail tendency continue to keep changing the rate taboo, while making no bones about freezing the thresholds. 

After all, the government had made the case and economists agree the current situation requires tax increases. Why on earth back down now?

Yours in despair.

Roger Chapman
Bath  

We can be heroes?

Dear Emma, 

If, as Deborah Mattinson concludes, we are dependent on tactical voting to defeat ReformUK, an equally valid strategy would be to make sure we have retained and demonstrated sufficient progressive policies to make it easier for progressive voters to lend us their votes.

Better still, of course, and a much safer strategy would be to introduce a proportional representation system which will almost certainly end in a situation of coalition bargaining to form a government – much preferable to a ReformUK wipeout.

Current voting intention would not translate perfectly into Parliamentary seats, of course, but it’s  worth doing the sums: Reform plus Conservatives together are polling between 43% and 50% of support, whilst the figures for  Labour plus Greens plus Lib Dems run between 41% and 51%.

At least in a PR election the Labour Party could write its policy programme based on its core values, instead of trying to please all voters and satisfying few. And it would make it so much easier to explain to people on their doorsteps in Bishop Auckland why I am asking them to vote Labour.

Sincerely

Christine Hartas
Co Durham

*****

Dear Editor

 Deborah Mattinson has been pushing the same idea since the Fabian pamphlet ‘Southern Discomfort’ in 1992.

 Her technique is to set up focus groups of people who have not voted Labour, ask them why not and then suggest ways in which the Party could change to make itself more attractive to this particular group.

 What she never does is set up groups of people who do vote Labour, ask them what the Party does which they like and then suggest ways in which it could do more of it and do it better.

 Her ideas have been intermittently influential for many years. Their effect has been to promote a general rightward drift and to enlist some new supporters, mostly rather lukewarm. As an inevitable corollary a larger number of existing members and supporters have been lost, including many who had previously been among the most enthusiastic.

 Genuinely effective political movements, like MAGA in the USA, always start by consolidating their base. Only when it is secure do they try to push out beyond it. By contrast the Labour Party no longer really has a base, mainly because the leadership does not really want one. The sort of people who are deeply committed to the founding principles of the Labour Party and for whom these are an important part of their identity were already being treated with indifference and contempt in the New Labour years. The only difference under current leadership is that this has turned into active hostility.

 Deborah Mattinson has no plans for increasing actual support for the Labour Party. Her hopes for victory in the next election are based entirely on tactical voting, if it becomes the default option for people whose main objective is to stop Reform. In the unlikely event of this being successful it need hardly be said that it does not offer a route towards a radical transformation of British society for the better.

 Yours

Rory O’Kelly

 *****

Dear Emma,

Tom Belger’s interesting article of 7 November suggests that Labour’s reforms to workers’ and renters’ rights are failing to cut through to voters because of poor messaging. Isn’t it more likely that they’re not cutting through because, 14 months on from the general election, they haven’t happened yet? The Employment Rights Bill still hasn’t received royal assent, while most of the important parts of the Renters’ Rights Bill have yet to be commenced and don’t even have a clear timeline for commencement.  

Rather than endless discussions about messaging, the government needs to prioritise getting its flagship policies through parliament and into action. Voters can’t be expected to pay attention to policies if they don’t see them making a concrete difference to their lives. 

Best wishes

James Kane
Manchester

BBC Basics

Dear LabourList,

An excellent piece by Emma Burnell. 

A couple of comments. I have long links to the BBC. I worked there myself for 8 years in the 1960s and 70s, at Bush House, Broadcasting House and Alexandra Palace. My husband worked there for 32 years (we met at Bush House). My sister worked there for 35 years. Even my mother worked there before and during the war, and my father, a musician, did many freelance gigs with the BBC. And now my son-in-law works there. We are a BBC family!

It has always been a large organisation with many identities, and a focus of controversy. It has also been prone to ideology which has never served it well. At the moment, it is in a classic position of hitting the extremes – some brilliant shows, and some shameful actions. In many ways, it’s similar to the NHS. Both are great organisations which have been ‘captured’ by irrational ideologies and supported dubious actions. Big powerful organisations need to have systems which are on the lookout for this. Have we already forgotten Jimmy Savile? This was another example of both the BBC and the NHS letting through serious abuses. Everyone knew what was going on, but were too scared to talk. Both the BBC and the NHS need to look seriously at how they can have a sustainable policy and effective system to avoid this in the future.

Judith Fage
Hebden Bridge

*****

We must defend the BBC against the right-wing attack BUT for years I have noticed that, 365 days a year (yes, literally), the BBC News website contains 2-3 stories drawn randomly from  race/feminism/LGB/Trans/immigration and 100.000% are written from the left-liberal position. In the years that I read the Guardian, I noticed the stories and attitudes were identical to the Guardian. This opinionated liberal preaching is unsustainable when it’s financed by a compulsory license fee.

Christopher Clayton
Chester

International response

Dear Editor,

I want to thank LabourList for publishing “An opportunity to accelerate humane science.” Few want to confront the reality of animals used in research, so reporting on the latest statistics and reminding readers that each figure represents an individual life is truly commendable. It highlights the urgent need to transition toward modern, humane methods.

MP Race’s article underscores that these are not just numbers but living beings and it shows how innovation in human‑specific models can advance both science and compassion. By giving attention to this issue, you help ensure the public understands the stakes and that policymakers are encouraged to act.

I appreciate your commitment to shining a light on this subject and for championing better science guided by humane values.

Sincerely,

Sara Crane
Toronto 

Share your thoughts by writing to our Editor. The best letters every week will be published on the site. Find out how to get your letter published.