Tag: letters

Letters: Winners and losers of the global race

Dear Editor

The repeated use of certain words and phrases, for example ‘let me be clear’, ‘openness and transparency’, ‘hub’, ‘flat-lining’ are very irritating; and ‘we must win the global race’, often repeated by David Cameron and most Tory politicians, is both annoying and dangerous.

Dangerous; when the state of the world needs nations to work together to solve problems of food production, fuel and energy supplies, diseases, protection of the world’s forests and climate change.

Dangerous; because ‘winning the global race’ means there are losers, creating disastrous unemployment, poverty and health problems.

There are many examples of companies engaged in the ‘global race’, making vast profits in one country, closing industries in others, showing little concern for people’s’ lives and wellbeing. The ‘global race’ does not exclude the working people of the UK from this exploitation.

A. Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens

Letter: Pension Plan

Dear Editor

Sometimes one hasn’t a choice but I would expect everyone would wish to have a long and good life. To achieve both ‘long’ and ‘good’ requires reliable and steady employment and a society that is run for the benefit of all – this has been the aspiration of past generations of workers who struggled to improve their lives; we owe them our gratitude and respect.

The same applies to the pensioners of today, who in their time have striven to create better conditions for all of us. Now today’s generation must help, protect and care for their parents and grandparents whose welfare at the moment is under attack from a vicious reactionary government determined to undo all the social progress fought so hard for.

People who are working today are the pensioners of tomorrow and the government’s sights are firmly fixed on them – by playing the ‘divide and rule’ game, pitting one section of people against another, they hope to achieve their aims.

People working today must rally to support their parents and grandparents (the pensioners); this would then be their contribution to the ongoing struggle to achieve a society run for the benefit of all.

A. Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens

Government pushes ahead with Royal Mail sell-off

postalQueen of the privatisers Margaret Thatcher thought the better of doing it, then New Labour’s Peter Mandelson tried but failed to do it but now it seems that it’s going to be third time unlucky as the coalition government moves to sell off the Royal Mail … a national asset that belongs to all of us:

Business Secretary Vince Cable told MPs yesterday: “Now the time has come for government to step back from Royal Mail, allow its management to focus wholeheartedly on growing the business and planning for the future. It’s now time for employees to hold a stake in the company and share in its success. This government will give Royal Mail the real commercial freedom it’s needed for a long time.”

Around 150,000 staff will be offered free shares when Royal Mail – one of the world’s oldest postal services – is sold off. It’s expected that the company will be worth snywhere between £2.5 – 4 billion when it is floated on the stock market later this year

Mr Cable said privatisation was necessary to ensure that universal service, which currently guarantees delivery to all parts of the country six days a week, can continue. Th government also says that the sale will give Royal Mail the access to private capital it needs to grow and remain competitive.

Royal Mail is currently refocusing it’s business priorities, targetting parcel delivery to cash in on the rapid growth of internet shopping as the number of posted letters falls due to the explosion of email. This change of emphasis saw Royal Mail more than double its profits last year after years of losses.

Ed Davey, minister for postal affairs, said the proposals ‘safeguard the future of both Royal Mail and the Post Office – two cornerstones of British life’, but there are many who are question whether the sell-off is either desirable or necessary – and industrial action looks likely.

Billy Hayes, general secretary of the Communication Workers Union, said: “The fact of the matter is the British public don’t want to see the Royal Mail privatised. Vince Cable is flogging this company to the very people he denounced at the Liberal party conference – the spivs, the speculators and those who just want to make a fast buck.” He went on: “Royal Mail is thriving in public ownership, increasing its profits, providing good quality services and decent jobs. We want it to remain that way. Privatisation would be a throwback to the tired old politics of the 1980s.”

Dave Ward, CWU’s deputy general secretary, said he expected members to be balloted before the end of September. “We will be balloting for strike action, we’ve already adopted that policy. I expect that policy to be ratified by the conference of the union at the end of July. That’s about our members’ terms and conditions, I want to make that clear. It’s about what we fear will happen with Royal Mail as a private operator – what we want is a legal binding agreement that protects their terms and conditions, their contracts of employment, their pensions, for the foreseeable future.

“I don’t think our members will be bought off by the free share issue,” he added. “I believe our members are too long in the tooth not to know the dangers of privatisation.”

Speaking after the announcement North and Leith Labour MP Mark Lazarowicz said: The Government has nationalised Royal Mail’s liabilities in the form of the pension fund in which there was a large shortfall and is now intent on privatising the profits. It argues that it is necessary to subject Royal Mail to commercial discipline and give it access to private sector capital but Royal Mail’s overall operating profits more than doubled over the last year from £152m in 2011-12 to £403m in 2013-13!

“A privatised Royal Mail might continue to operate the universal service provision of delivering 6 days a week to anywhere in the UK for the same price but for how long if its commercial rivals don’t have to? As with the East Coast Main Line, ideology seems to have won out over common sense – it will be private investors who benefit from its commercial success not the taxpayer or customers.”

POSTMAN PAT to join the picket line?
POSTMAN PAT to join the picket line?

Letter: Warning – pensions under attack

Dear Editor

Pensioners of today and tomorrow, be aware: the government is laying the ground for further attacks on pensions and pensioners benefits.

First, they have to divide opposition, for example by saying they wish to be fair by stopping the wealthy getting the winter heating allowance. It sounds fine, but does that mean the introduction of a means test for everyone to qualify? And who sets the level?

Other benefits, such as travel passes, television licence and free medicine prescriptions – things to help pensioners maintain some quality of life – are threatened: the government is looking to see if the nation can ‘afford’ them.

The campaign of setting one section of people against another is well-prepared, with millions of words and pictures; every person working or retired is the target. Just a few figures:

  • 31% of the population are of retiring age; not all get a full pension as many qualifying conditions apply
  • The government is raising the age of retirement for women from 60 to 65 by 2018 and for both men ad women to 66 by 2020, with increases to 67 and 68 later on
  • The ‘full’ state pension is only approximately one sixth of the average age
  • The amount paid out in pensions from the total wealth produced in one year is approximately 5%, yet the percentage of the population’s pensioners is 31% (and most have contributed to a pension scheme throughout their working lives).

Just two further points: today’s working population, who now produce all the nation’s wealth, were raised, loved and cared for by our pensioners. Today’s working population and pensioners combined have massive voting power: use it!

Tony Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens

 

 

 

Letter:Reality

Dear Editor
From and including the times of Thatcher there has  been a steady campaign to depict the ‘working class’, 90% of the population, as uneducated, fairly lazy  and undeserving. What is behind this campaign – such a sustained attack must have motives?
The 1other 10% of the population, the wealthy class, have always feared a united people striving for and getting major improvements to their lives and gaining control over decision-making; this, they had to stop. This unity had to be broken,
First they had to break any resistance by people’s organisations, launching a
vicious attack on the trade unions, following this  by wholesale closing of industries, from shipbuilding, ports, coal mines, printing, car & aircraft  production, steelworks etc, destroying scores of thousands of people’s  lives.
What better method could there be to break this unity, by pitting one against another in a scramble for a job while at the same time propagating the possibility of  individuals climbing up the ‘social ladder’ and becoming ‘middle class’!!
The 90%, if opportunities are available, have  differing levels of skill, giving differing levels in quality of life, but nevertheless are still of the working class in  which everyone depends on everyone else to maintain their quality of life. The 90%, have the values of decency and thoughtful  caring in wanting society to be organised and run for the benefit of all.
The same cannot be said of the remaining 10%, their  campaign of vilification of the working class goes on; the recent  past and present times are  witnesses of their intentions.
Tony Delahoy (by email)
thatcher

Letter: Wealth and Power

landownerDear Editor

Have you ever wondered how the wealthy made their money in the past?

Do you think most of today’s wealthy got it through inheritance?

Do you agree that wealth gives rights of power, privilege and decision-making?

Interesting questions, worthy of some research – but how deep?

We ll know about the appalling exploitation and working conditions of men, woman and children who worked in mills, factories, coal mines and on the land, making vast fortunes for the owners. This in itself begs the question: how did these people become owners in the first place? Owners who were also law-makers, magistrates and lords of the manor to whom everyone had to defer.

Today, a great part of land is still in private hands, although landowners derive massive wealth from leasing.

The wealthy industrialists have now moved their money, mostly into speculative financial stocks and bonds both nationally and internationally; they still hold positions of power beyond ‘one person one vote’ and weald great influence on all aspects of our lives.

Despite these positions of strength, tremendous struggles throughout history by men and women in groups, organisations and as individuals have taken place – and will no doubt continue to change society and make it work for the good of all.

A Scottish miner was carrying home a brace of pheasants when he met the landowner, who told him that he owns the land and the pheasants are his too.

“Your land, eh?” asks the miner.

“Yes, and my pheasants”, replies the laird.

“And who did you get the land from?”

“Well, I inherited it from my father”

“And who did he get it from?” the miner insists.

“His father, of course! The land has been in my family for over 400 years!” the laird splutters.

“Okay, so how did your family come to own this land 400 years ago?”

“Well – well – they fought for it!”

“Fine@, replies the miner. “Take off your jacket and I’ll fight you for it now!”

 

Tony Delahoy, Silverknowes Gardens

 

 

 

 

 

 

Letter: Eu turn if you want to

Dear Editor
What a game it is when the antics of the Tories’ anti-European Union campaign, supported by the UKIP party, is designed to
manipulate public opinion. In the absence of any real information on the EU  being readily available for the public, they feel confident of succeeding.
If you listen carefully you will find one main aim is to do away with the EU Social Policies; why? Is it because they wish to improve on them? if so  that can be done right now. I suspect this is not their intention at all. Listed below are some of the EU Social Policies for member states:
Health Protection and Workplace Safety.     
Equal Treatment for Men and  Women.
Protection for Children, Older People and Disabled  People.
Improved Working Conditions.  
Freedom of  Association and Collective Bargaining.
Social Security Protection. 
Fair Pay.  
Promotion of Employment as High Priority.
Why are they then so keen to opt out?  Do they disagree with any or all of these policies?
Be very aware of their call for our support in their campaign which if successful could inflict serious damage on our lives.
Tony Delahoy
(by email)
                                                                                                    

Letters: Lest we forget

Dear Editor

Unfortunately last week, May 8 passed with not a mention that it was the anniversary of V E Day.

Victory in Europe came after nearly six years of a fearful and vicious war in which fifty million were killed in defeating the greatest threat to civilisation – the evil threat of Fascism, that initially came to power in Germany, Italy and Japan.

It may seem that the non-recognition of 8 May last week, the 68th anniversary of VE Day – doesn’t really matter too much, but the importance of remembering are the lessons to be learned by today’s and future generations: being on guard against a fascist revival.

A. Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens

Letter: The Blame Game

UKIPs Nigel Farage: blame game?
UKIPs Nigel Farage: blame game?

Dear Editor

UKIP is cashing in on voters’ discontent over the inability of the TOry/Lib Dem government to maintain and create more jobs and houses. UKIP is directing people’s anger not against the causes of the problems: the system and it’s incapability ti provide jobs and houses.

They are setting people against people, seeking by their actions to maintain that system; the problems of immigration being highlighted as one of the main causes of our increasing poverty, too many people chasing too few jobs, etc. etc. – it is becoming a numbers game.

If one accepts that as the main cause of today’s decline, then the days when things were booming, of rising living standards, must in part be due to immigration labour contributing to it.

Over many, many years the emigration of Scottish, Irish, Welsh and English – whose motives for moving was to find a better life – now can be blamed for the troubles happening in Spain, Italy, Greece, Cyprus, France, etc., – where maybe the numbers game is also being played.

Serious questions do arise about the level of wages and conditions of work that are found in private-run companies whose interests are profit-making as a priority. Public services in the main do have Unions and Associations to try to maintain wages and conditions.

The system of capitalism under which we live cab only continue if the capitalists’ search for ever greater profits is aided by competition, driving down costs by making individuals compete for jobs and security, and nations competing for markets. In this system the problems of jobs and security become a source of conflict in which it is handy to have scapegoats to blame. This is what UKIP is doing; a quick look at modern history blaming sections of people shows just where this can lead.

Real problems do exist and people worry for their families, but the greatest problem is the system itself: it cannot solve the problems it creates, it is time for it to go.

A. Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens

Letter: A May Day message

Dear Editor

In the 1920s and 1930s people in the UK were suffering widespread poverty, imposed on them by a Conservative Government and their allies.

Following the end of the 1939 – 1945 war it was the returning servicemen and women, mainly in the age group 20 – 40 – and allied to the older generations – that determined there would be no going back to pre-war conditions, and that radical changes would be made. The war had devastated the UK financially and the main basic structures – railways, coal mines, power stations and gas works – were worn out and failing. A brief reading of those times will give an idea of the colossal tasks faced, but they were backed by serving the interests of all people, taking those main basic industries out of private hands and control, thus introducing a whole series f social welfare services – of which the NHS is the most important.

Starting with the Thatcher government and continued by the Conservative government and it’s allies of today, the process of returning industries and social welfare services to private ownership has been stepped up. Despite their protestations to the contrary their first interest us to make money; why otherwise would they be willing to take over?

With regard to the NHS, the privateers know that people at large recognise it’s importance and are prepared to defend it. So instead of outright privatisation the Government is dismantling it piece by piece, allowing private companies to tender for NHS services amongst other ways.

This, almost the last of the universal public services, must be protected from those whose aim in life is to make a profit. As in the period after World War Two, men and women in their twenties, thirties and forties – again allied to the older generations – must make sure that the wealth produced by the nation is used for the benefit of all, not the few.

A. Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens

May Day