Letters to the Editor – week ending 13th September 2026

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

Disagreeing well

Dear Emma

In your note on the pressures to suspend the whip from Diane Abbott you quite rightly said that contentious issues should be dealt with as debates, not disciplinary matters; particularly matters of enormous importance, like the war in Ukraine. That is particularly urgent now, as the war shows signs of escalating into a wider European conflict which, if it escalates far enough, will lead to a nuclear war; which poses the need to step back and take a long hard look at the course we are on – which has no other conceivable result.

In so far as there is any debate at all on the war in Ukraine and relations with Russia in this country, it is between those who favour a slow escalation of the war and those who want it faster based on two delusions. 1 that the war in Ukraine can be “won” and 2 that Russia has the capacity and intention to launch a war with the rest of Europe. If you think about it, neither of these are anything other than fantasies. The 19% of the pre war Ukrainian population who primarily identified as Russian, and who live in the areas currently occupied by the Russian army, would hardly welcome reconquest by Kyiv, even if it were possible. How possible do those arguing that the Russians are itching to launch columns of tanks Westward think it would be for those forces to get through European NATO armies that are already twice as big and, if they did, make a successful occupation of large countries like Western Ukraine or Poland? The whole notion is absurd.

The alternative option that – to 1 avoid nuclear war 2 to allow Europe to recover from the war’s economic blowback and avoid the burden of greater military spending – 3 to relieve the burden on the Ukrainian population, which now includes forced conscription – Europe itself should have peace negotiations with Russia to de escalate towards a continental modus vivendi, is systematically deplatformed. Hence the kneejerk reaction to anyone prominent, like Diane, who steps out of line and asks awkward questions.

In this context, you argue for an open debate, on the presumption that the merits of “international defence cooperation” are self evident, without specifying what the purpose of that cooperation is and, linked to it, with whom. At present the UK “cooperates” primarily with the United States. As

• the US is perceived by popular majorities in every country in the world, bar about a dozen of its allies, as the country that is the greatest threat to world peace, an opinion based on what it has done in the past and is doing now.
• and any military risks that the UK now faces result from blowback from that cooperation, 

that debate is long overdue. I should add that the view that the US is the greatest threat to world peace is also the majority view in the UK and…the United States.

Paul Atkin

*****

Dear Editor,

I disagree with the argument put forward by MP Afzal Khan in his 9th September article ‘As Israel invokes Balfour…‘ as I feel that the UK did its best during the ‘Mandate Palestine’ period to accommodate and cater for both the Jewish and non-Jewish communities in the region. 

And I don’t think the UK Government has anything to apologise for in this regard.

The ‘Balfour Declaration’ did indeed pledge the UK Government to support the Jewish people’s aspirations for a national home in the territory, but it did also pledge to ensure that all the rights of the non-Jewish people would be fully protected too.

And in 1937, the UK Government proposed to give approximately 75% of the whole territory to an Arab nation-state and approximately 25% of it to a Jewish nation-state. 

It was the Arab leadership of the area which point-blank rejected the offer (the ‘Peel Plan’)

What is also not mentioned by Mr Khan is that the Arab leader of that area at that time (Amin al-Husseini) was in active partnership with Nazi Germany. 

Has today’s Arab leadership apologised for this? 

Fraternally,

Karl Stewart
(Basingstoke CLP member, personal view)

*****

The world seems to face a perfect storm, with warnings about AI wiping out humanity in 10 years, whilst climate change probably brings Armageddon that bit closer.

AI also, of course, impacts climate with its energy consuming modus operandi.

Making matters worse the world leaders that we rely on to manage the situation and avoid Armageddon are some of the most dangerous and irresponsible seen in modern times. President Donald Trump gives free rein to AI companies, whilst actively opposing moves to address the climate crisis. Vladimir Putin seems wedded to war. Meanwhile, the militant right gains ground across Europe.

There may though be a way forward. Properly regulated and controlled AI could improve people’s lives and help address the climate crisis. Climate has to be prioritised, with resources shifted to dealing with that struggle, rather than others conjured up by crazy leaders beholden to the military industrial complex.

Britain has a chance to lead in charting this new way forward, let’s grab the opportunity. 

Paul Donovan
London

• • SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at [email protected].
  • SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning.
  • BECOME A FRIEND: If you enjoyed this, why not consider becoming a Friend of LabourList? Help sustain our journalism, and of course Friends do get benefits…
  • PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or projects, email [email protected].
  • ADVERTISE: If your organisation would like to advertise or run sponsored pieces on LabourList‘s daily newsletter or website, contact our exclusive ad partners Total Politics at [email protected].