Letters to the Editor – week ending 23rd November 2025

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

Shelter from the storm?

I left the Labour party today in part because the tone and rhetoric of the asylum/migrants debate put me on a different side of the line to where Labour party values seem to be now. I had been planning to hang on for the budget but I suspect it will not deliver. 

You asked today what do ‘we’ want from the budget. I wanted a labour budget that went bold on progressive taxation and redistribution. I wanted more of Milliband’s green economy investment. I want restoration of public services to help the most vulnerable. I’m happy to pay more tax because I want a better world and some hope. We’re now in the trenches fighting each other about migration policy, leadership challenges etc so I have no hope for that better world right now. 

BTW the Ukrainian refugee scheme works. It’s quick. Efficient. Manages risks as far as I can see. 

Best wishes 

Catherine Pope

*****

Hi Emma 

Shabana Mahmoud’s proposals are focused on how to deal with migrants after they arrive in the UK. Surely complementary measures should be taken, in coordination with French authorities, to advise, deter and prevent asylum seekers setting sail from the French coast?

The UK Government already has measures in place with the French but to do what, at what cost and their effectiveness?

Could LabourList readers ( and our Ministers and MPs) seriously think that measures be taken like:

1. Advise migrants of their prospects of obtaining refugee/ legal migrant status . Distribution of Leaflets / social media and also  Immigration Service personnel in the camps.with protection . Such measures would show Labour’s compassionate initial approach .
2. Deploy drones to monitor movements to the beaches.
3. French police puncture smuggler dinghies in shallow waters – done on isolated occurrences previously but now police only watch from the beach as migrants wade out to dinghies
4. Locate inshore craft which can operate in French shallow waters to deter launch of dinghies and save anyone in danger – Border Force vessels appear too large but RNLI (and Royal Navy?) has inshore craft which could be agreed for short term deployment by naval personnel 

What do you think?

Regards

Tony Rooth
Farnham and Bordon CLP 

*****

Money Money Money!

Hi Emma,

PFI was/is a disaster, ‘snake oil’ sold to Gordon Brown by so called ‘conventional’ economists. Eventually, they (mostly Conservative govts) had to resort to ‘unconventional’ QE – £900Bns of money created to buy back govt. debt, supposedly to release the cash for private sector investment. The poison in the snake oil this time was that the BoE started paying interest on commercial banks current accounts at the BoE, so the banks kept the cash there and it continues to cost us that interest.

Use money creation properly and use it to pay off PFI debt.

Stop paying interest on reserves after making a law that commercial banks have to keep a percentage of their assets in BoE reserves, reducing over time, so that those reserves aren’t released immediately causing unregulated inflation.

Regards,

Colin Bryant

*****

Dear Editor,

The article today about government debt by Tom Belger perpetuates a long standing myth about UK government finance.

The article opens with ‘When governments predict tax won’t cover spending, they borrow. They ask potential lenders for funding now, by selling an IOU repayable in several years’ time.’

This is not how it works. Firstly, a government with its own fiat currency such as GBP, a functioning democracy with the rule of law, and a trading account with the rest of the world, never depends on tax or borrowing to finance its spending.

Secondly, our UK government creates money at the push of a button by the government owned Bank of England. This means it does not have to wait until someone pays some tax or the government borrows from the bond market.

Thirdly, the government sells bonds via the Bank of England, not because it needs the money (it creates it after all) but because it provides a two-fold function – to take money out of the economy in the same way tax does, and also to provide a safe and long term place for the financial markets to park their money. The financial markets need this facility. 

Inflation control is the big issue. You cannot just create money and not tax it back (or not sell bonds) because that would push too much money into an economy that does not have the capacity to use it, due to a shortage of labour, productive capacity or other resource constraints. If you do push too much money in, you will get inflation. 

Truss made a big mistake, but the mistake was to cut taxes drastically, and therefore increase the amount of money in the economy, while at the same time the Bank of England had just started buying back bonds to reduce Quantitative Easing. This meant one branch of government was pushing money in, while another was pulling money out. The bond markets rightly identified this as a nonsense and caused the price (interest rate) of government debt to rise, which in turn caused the pension funds to get in a panic. 

So in answer to Tom Belger’s question ‘are we in hock to the bond markets’, the answer is an emphatic no. We never have been and we should stop talking as if we were!

Kind regards

Chris Counsell

*****

Dear Editor, 

I do agree that MPs need to stop being Super Councillors & get back to legislating but there are other reasons why this is happening, the public aren’t getting the services they expect (and pay for) from Councils so get little shrift when they complain with the main response being “Govt are keeping us starved of funds” so they see their MP as the only avenue to get their complaint prioritised – and funded. 

Personally I think local public services have been worst affected under previous administrations and should come second in line for improvement after the NHS & hospice care. 

Regards

Alex
Wirral Peninsula

*****

Leading questions 

My wife and I have been members of the LP for over sixty years other than resigning when Corbyn was leader and rejoining when he was defeated. We are disappointed with Andy Burnham who we once voted for when he stood for the leadership. Burnham and the MPs who want Starmer out need to smell the Coffee. They are the problem as they won’t face up to the fact the UK was Bust and Broken when LABOUR TOOK OVER. If Starmer goes, that is the end for the Labour Party. We will also resign after 60 years of membership. Starmer won an election that no one thought was possible.

Kind regards

Tessa & Bill Rees

*****

Hi,

No way do I support a leadership battle now! Imagine the outcry if a new leader was to be elected, every Tom, Dick and Harriet would be calling for an immediate general election.

I know the Tories sat it out after  two leadership elections, but labour hasn’t got the support of the msm unlike the tories had.

So all MP’s and cabinet members, and especially the mayor of Manchester, take a deep intake of breathe, roll up your sleeves and get on with the job you were elected to do and bring big changes that this country needs! 

For now is not the time to change leader!

Sincerely 

Bob Haddon.

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.