Hostility to austerity needs a voice

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jan/27/hostility-austerity-needs-voice

Version 0 of 1.

It is no surprise that George Osborne is continuing with an economic strategy that is so obviously failing in terms of its publicly declared objectives. The reason, as you say (Editorial, 26 January), has been clear from the start: the strategy is not primarily economic but political: namely, to dismantle the welfare state once and for all, thereby relieving the elite of the burden of having to make provision for their less fortunate fellow countrymen.

So where is your call-to-arms in response to this ghastly situation? You make no criticism of the coalition Lib Dems, a handful of politicians with a delusion that they are safeguarding the national interest. Nor do you challenge a parliamentary Labour party so terrified of attracting the "class war" jibe that it has rendered itself largely irrelevant. There is widespread hostility to what the coalition is doing, but until that can be focused into a coherent alternative narrative there will be little to persuade Osborne he needs to alter course. Trevor Bull Brightlingsea, Essex

• Boris Johnson's quip about "the hair-shirt, Stafford Cripps agenda" as an example of what George Osborne shouldn't be doing (Report, 26 January) is mischievous and misleading. Yes, Cripps was rigorous in the application of rationing and restrictions on what he saw as unnecessary personal consumption. He also raised taxes and ensured sufficient levels of public expenditure to fund the newly created NHS, maintain national housebuilding programmes, ensure the growth and reliability of welfare, state schooling, and sustainable employment initiatives, at a time when sterling was in crisis. Economic historians credit Cripps with laying the foundations for the growth and prosperity that would be enjoyed in Britain from 1952 on. This was not achieved by crushing the poor. Bruce Ross-Smith Oxford

• Christine Lagarde can talk at Davos about the benefits of "a more equal distribution of income" (IMF sees hope beyond the crisis …, 24 January) but she must be aware that the deregulation, privatisation and globalisation pursued by the IMF, the World Bank, the OECD, et al cannot but promote greater inequality, both between nations and within them. How else would she explain the continued increase in inequality since the 1980s and the emergence of a kleptocratic corporate elite that has benefited from this? Joseph Nicholas London

• Reducing inequality means protecting and/or increasing the share of national income going to the poorest, yet Angela Merkel wants to keep driving down labour costs (Report, 25 January). Labour is but one cost of production. Why not drive down rents, profits and interest? They all contribute to the cost of production and those who receive them are typically more able to absorb cuts than can labour. It would also help us move towards Christine Lagarde's policy. David Heathfield Southampton

• If David Cameron really intends to tell Europe's emperors to get dressed (Simon Jenkins, 25 January), why is he following their disastrous policy of austerity when we don't need to, precisely because we did not join the euro? Margaret Phelps Colchester, Essex

• The chancellor claims he has talked to British people. This British person would like to tell him that people who haven't a large amount of money, who pay the lower rate of tax and have children usually spend every penny they earn. Poorer people without children are also likely to spend every penny that comes their way. If you give them more money via taxes or benefits they will spend it and, in turn, the UK economy will benefit. If you give richer people more money via taxes some or all of it goes in the bank. Sue Pike Portsmouth

• If the maintenance of a AAA rating from the (dis)credit(ed) rating agencies that failed to predict the subprime mortgage losses that precipitated economic decline is the only thing preventing the chancellor's strategy from a state of "complete tatters" (Analysis, 26 January), that is a truly telling indictment. Neil Macehiter Cambridge