Tag: letters

Letter: Political Assassination

letter (2)
Dear Editor
The anti-Jeremy Corby campaign is relentless. It is to the shame of those labour members of parliament who have not only joined in but have and are actively taking part.
Jeremy Corbyn was elected as the leader of the labour party on policies supported and expounded by him.So what has happened ?, Jeremy Corbyn still supports and campaigns for those policies he was elected on, it is his opponents who have changed their minds and claiming that he, Corbyn, is splitting the party
.
This allegation is denying reality in that far from splitting the labour party it has grown to over 500,000 since he was elected the leader, This number being larger than all other party memberships put together!
The conclusion must be it is the policies the anti-Corbyn campaigners disagree with but have not the honesty to say so,Further,, their course of action should have been to debate policies in the democratic structures of the party instead of choosing to act as they have.
A. Delahoy (by email)

Letters: No time to lose

letter1

Dear Editor

For decades Unions and Associations of working people have struggled to reduce working hours: the employers have always resisted.

It has taken many generations to get the working week reduced from seven days to five days and from having to work unlimited hours reduced to a forty hours week.

As time went on, new technology produced a greater output: this, coupled with worker pressure, helped to gain justice. Again, it was not a change of heart by the employer.

Today’s technology has vastly raised output needing a highly regulated distribution service. Also, employers in increasing numbers are operating different forms of employment: zero hours contracts, split duties spread over seven days and sometimes ‘flexible’ hours – all these schemes are designed to have a workforce available to suit the employer. It costs them less, saving on pension schemes, sick pay benefit and no security of employment.

Unions and Workers Associations have to urgently rethink their ideas on working hours and conditions. As new technology is and will be developed, we must ensure the value created by them is used to benefit all people in whatever way they want it, not simply tomake the very wealthy even more so.

A. Delahoy, Silverknowes Gardens

Letters: Change WILL come

capitalism

Dear Editor

We are asked by the new leaders of the Conservative government to accept as genuine that there will be a change in attitude towards people and that they will pursue policies fair to all.

We have to remember they are politically commited to maintaining the system of capitalism. The system where very wealthy financial institutions have the power to invest depending on the amount of profit to be made – if not enough, they will have no hesitation in moving to where it can, anywhere worldwide. In doing so, the issue of jobs, poverty or family life does not concern them, so the potential contradiction between words and deeds of the political supporters of the system arise.

As the last six years have shown, despite any feelings of sorrow expressed they will always pass the cost of a slump onto the people in widespread cuts across all aspects of life.

Their determination to maintain a system that creates such devastation to peoples’ lives worldwide is matched by an equal determination by many others to replace it with a more just, fair and workable system of socialism, where the results of people’s work will be used to benefit all, not just the few.

History shows that systems have always changed when circumstances made it necessary and able to do so, from slavery to serfdom to feudalism to capitalism. It will change again because peoples’ circumstances will make it.

A. Delahoy, Silverknowes Gardens

Letters: Red Alert over rampant nationalism

letter1

Dear Editor

In living memory we saw before and during World War II how bad rampant nationalism can be.

Today the rise of nationalism is leading to more advocacy by the right wing of an ‘anti-everyone not a national from their country’, it is a form of racism and a tactic to divide people, instead of tackling the real problems working people face.

This is being seen in places like America, France, Germany and many other countries including the UK: this was particularly evident during the referendum, the result of which is already showing its affects on the economy and helping those using divisive talk and actions.

The danger signal is at red, we must not go down this road again: it solves nothing, and poses great danger.

A.Delahoy (by e-mail) 

Letters: Something fishy about EU stories

Dear Editor

Much of the information about the EU put out by ‘Leave’ campaigners was untrue or misleading. One example of this was about the fishing industry: we were told the fishing boats were destroyed by the EU paying to have the boats burnt.

The truth is that fish stocks had reached danger point of running out due to overfishing so all members of the EU agreed a reduction in the catch over a period of time to allow the stocks to replenish. This would involve a reduction in everyones fishing fleet but compensation would be paid from EU funds.
Without this agreement fishing fleets faced destruction by falling fish stocks.

This agreement has worked well because it was in the common interest of all members, but since opting to ‘Leave’ the possibility of owners of big fleets calling for a return to as much as possible catches brings with it two dangers: the overfishing danger to stocks and the danger of confrontation with others as happened between Iceland and ourselves over cod fishing, which nearly involved gunboats!

This is the reality of misleading information on this issue alone: a closer look at others and the reasons why are needed. The full effects, particularly on working people in leaving the EU, was not talked about but you can bet they will try to make us pay for it, if we let them.

Tony Delahoy (by email)

Letter: EU’ve been duped

eu flags

Dear Editor

The UK-wide confusion caused by the referendum resulted in an approximately 50-50 split. It is now obvious that many things told by the ‘Leave’ side were untrue and misleading.

It is always easy to blame others for misfortunes; the Leave side did this quite successfully in parts of the UK. It shows once again the power of publicity in shaping minds and attitudes.

It was not the EU that imposed tremendous cuts of all kinds on working people over the last six years, it was the Conservative Party government, in which most of the leaders of the ‘Leave’ campaign served and supported.

These same people have led 50% of the population to think the EU is to blame: and what is more, they have created a situation where further cuts on working people will be made.

At this most serious moment when the Labour movement must unite in resisting the imposition of further cuts and proposing an alternative programme of social progress, opponents of such a position have chosen to split the PArty by their actions of resignation. Why? This action can can only benefit the very people whey should be opposing: the Conservative government.

As the recent referendum has shown, Divide and Rule is a long-tried Tory policy and it is still working for them.

A. Delahoy, Silverknowes Gardens

Letter: Righting Wrongs

Dear Editor

When people feel strongly about an issue and voice it very clearly, it stands a good chance of changing that issue. There have been a number of recent examples of this happening: cutting disability income, attempting to take schools away from local authorities, etc.

The main lesson learned is that issues need widespread support to necessary changes, issues that affect most people.

Potentially the most unifying issues are the electric, gas and water supply industries and the prices the utility companies charge. Everyone is dependent on these services, these supplies are absolutely essential to all, yet these industries are in private ownership whose main aim is to maximise profits.

It cannot be right that something so essential to everyone is run on that basis, when people are struggling to pay their bills. There can be no argument or reason against making these industries publicly owned and managed. They are as essential to everyone as the NHS.

This is an issue around which maximum unity can be built: righting this wrong is possible.

A. Delahoy, Silverknowes Gardens

 

 

 

Letters: EU be the judge

eu flags

Dear Editor

In my many letters over many years I have always highlighted social injustices imposed by our own politicians against working people, and urged the need for ordinary people to work together in resisting further attacks.

We have helped, and have been helped, bu all people in the European Union in passing laws:

  • A maximum 48 hours working week
  • A minimum break at rest from work between shifts
  • Four weeks paid annual leave
  • Paternity Leave
  • Health & Safety at Work rules
  • Equal pay for men and women
  • Making racial and disability discrimination illegal
  • Clean water supplies and pollution controls
  • The right to join a trade union or association
  • And many other benefits

All of these laws were minimum requirements, but could be improved on by individual nations’ own parliaments. Bear in mind it was ALL the member states of the EU who cooperated and agreed these regulations, covering approximately 500 million people.

The main threat posed by those who advocate leaving the EU is to do away with all these laws on social justice and replace them with their own legislation. Why?

Two questions immediately arise:

First, why not improve the existing laws if their intention is to pass better laws – this can be done by any nation in the EU.

And second: Why did they not do it years ago?

When the world is crying out for more cooperation to tackle pressing problems of unemployment, climate change, energy supplies, water and food provision, the depletion of natural resources, those people who want to leave the EU represent the most backward step the UK could take. WHY? And WHO are they?

A. Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens

Letter: time to recapture a social spirit

Miners by Norman Cornish

Dear Editor

Private ownership and control over major parts of industry and commerce does not and cannot operate for the benefit of all. If individuals or groups of investors do not make enough profit they have no hesitation in moving their money elsewhere to do so. It cannot be right that such power to determine if one has a job or not is theirs.

In my long life I have seen some of the poverty and despair of the 1920s and 1930s, and the devastating effects of World War Two, but in 1945 ordinary people said ‘we are going to change things, where the wealth of the country will be used to benefit the people’, and they did so in many ways: the NHS to care for all, taking the essential industries of gas and electricity suppliers into public ownership (and, at that time, the main energy provider – coal mining) and many other public services were also started.

Later, many circumstances contributed to undermine this determination to push forward more changes in society to benefit the people: this allowed the wealthy to regain power and control over our lives.

The very nature of the system of private control and ownership cannot do other than create devastating cycles of poverty and despair for millions of people both here and abroad, as investors fight each other to maximise their profits.

The last fifty years have seen the results of their gross greed and mismanagement; recent events within our own industries show all too clearly they will continue to wreak havoc on the lives of millions – unless these millions regain the determination people had in 1945.

A. Delahoy, Silverknowes Gardens

Letter: we want PPP answers

gracemount-001

Dear Editor,

Given the recent incidents with Schools in Edinburgh that have been closed down due to the substandard quality offered by the Edinburgh Schools Partnership, I would like to see local Labour candidate for the Scottish Parliamentary Elections, and current Edinburgh Councillor Lesley Hinds explain why this situation arrived.

Considering PPP ( public-private partnership) was part of the Labour party’s policy for a long period time, and while this was introduced when labour run Edinburgh council, the Scottish Executive and Westminster Goverment, I would be interested to hear what the Councillor would have to say on this matter.

Alba Reilly (by email)