Tag: letters

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

Letter: the ideology of greed

Dear Editor

The Tory Party is known a the rich people’s party; it is motivated by the belief that private ownership of industry, business, energy supplies and land, etc. is the right and only way. Their every policy action is geared to maintaining and extending that control, as the continuing break-up and privatisations of national organisations and social services over the last three years shows.

The very act of privatisation puts the interests of the few above the majority; they believe their money creates all wealth – some honesty about their real intentions would be illuminating. Opponents of the Tories so not hide their intentions: they say and want the wealth produced by the majority to be distributed fairly to the majority, and if it needs national organisations and social welfare in all forms to do it, then that is how it will be done, This is open and honest, the Tories have difficulty in being so by the very nature of investors’ interests having priority over everyone by having the power to close down an industry or business and move their investment, irrespective of the colossal damage to the employees and their families.

It is a very backward, selfish and greedy ideology; how otherwise can it be described?

A. Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens

 

Letter: A race to disaster?

Dear Editor

Every indicator shows that sources of gas, oil, fresh water and the growing of food needs international cop-operation to secure them for the future; this co-operation is urgently needed now: no one country can solve these problems, particularly the destruction of the world’s forests, widespread flooding and climate change.

Despite all of this, David Cameron continually talks about competing with other nations in an ‘Economic Race’. We know from bitter experience that unrestricted competing ends in fewer people employed, with industries closing in both our and other countries.The ‘economic race’ may benefit investors, but in the long run very little good happens to most people.

Without co-operation, the problems outlined above will become more acute in the next decades. ‘Economic Racing’ will pitch nation against nation with disastrous results for ordinary people.

A. Delahoy
Silverknowes Gardens

Letter: Unite against the Bedroom Tax

Dear Editor

The ‘Bedroom Tax’ is an immoral tax, hitting people who are already on low incomes. The consequences can be devastating for a family, even being forced to move out of their home: to where, and how?

If the impacts of this benefit cut are known to most people, then it is also known to Tory/Lib government. Do they not care, but are quite prepared to break up families and destroy their home life, all this in pursuit of breaking up our hard-won welfare system? If so, what a bunch of bullies and cowards they are!

They also know that local councils are forced by law to implement the Bedroom Tax, the tragedy of which is the potential division between local communities ans their councils – but councils should make every effort to help people affected, and operate a No Eviction policy.

We see in this again the Tory principle of divide the people and rule them being put into practice. This must be resisted by a united pressure from people, their local councillors, their MPs, MSPs and all community organisations. It Can Be Done.

A. Delahoy
Silverknowes Gardens

Letter: Words, words, words

Dear Editor

Words, Words, Words

So many have been written, spoken, thought, agreed with, rejected, ignored.
Far too many for any individual to assess their value, opinion, fact or lies.
Words are an interpretation of events, of life that can be viewed from many angles.
Words can be a guide, this also viewed from many angles.
Words, then, are quite powerful in guiding events and influencing minds.
It follows in whose interest are events guided and minds influenced?

We, as individuals of the human race, have a limited span of time in which to grow up, live and love and create better conditions for the next generations.

Tremendous advances have been made worldwide, yet as you read these ‘words’ there is widespread poverty here in the UK but worse is happening in many countries: thousands of the next generation are dying of hunger and disease – why? Why, when the world has the resources and technology to prevent this happening, but does not or will not so so?

Is it that powerful people are operating a system that cannot so it; if so then the system must be changed. Do the powerful people want to change the system? – the answer is NO. They expend millions of words in support of the existing system; guiding events, influencing minds to ascertain their powerful positions of control.

Are they then evil? Some would say so. Are they indifferent to the results of the system they promote? Most likely, otherwise normal human concern and feelings would conclude this system of capitalism no longer has any place in this world.

A Delahoy, Silverknowes Gardens