What links Geoffrey Wheatcroft's lament about Labour's lack of principles and Iain Duncan Smith's fantasies about universal benefit (Comment, 29 July) is Labour's failure to enunciate the fundamental principles on which the social security system has been based since the time of William Beveridge.
The system exists to ensure everyone freedom from the fear of unemployment, sickness, disability or old age causing poverty and homelessness. Freedom is one of the three fundamental principles which the French Revolution expressed in the 18th century and which today still distinguish social democracy, in its real sense, from the other two parties: the Conservatives, who believe in freedom but deny equality or solidarity; and the Lib Dems who may concede equality, but assert individualism against solidarity.
If Labour could show how its policies are based on all these three principles instead of mere electoral expediency, it could offer a real social democratic alternative of the kind that has made the Nordic countries successful for their peoples and economies. If its thinkers don't know where to start, they should read how the Swedish Social Democratic party links its principles and values to policy programmes. A booklet given to new party members and available in English is on the Nordic Horizons website.
*John Veit-Wilson*
Newcastle upon Tyne
• Geoffrey Wheatcroft really does encapsulate why Labour is struggling to capitalise on the difficulties that the coalition is still facing.
A party whose creation had a real purpose at the end of the 19th century and was assisted greatly by the willingness of the Liberal party to stand aside in many working-class seats – as happened in Ramsay MacDonald's Leicester constituency – and also to support the latter's short-lived government of 1924, has now lost its way.
In our age of political pluralism I wonder whether any party will again achieve levels of popular support enjoyed by the Tory and Labour parties in the early 1950s. In 1997, with a huge majority created by first past the post, Blair could have done whatever he wanted with our so-called constitution to create an electoral system that could effectively reflect this pluralism in terms of representation. He chickened out. Why should anyone trust any of his successors to grasp the nettle?
*John Marriott*
Lincoln
• Michael Orton (Letters, 24 July) is, I fear, wrong. Labour's key problem is not the lack of a core message (though that does not help). The key problem is a leader who is simply not credible. I have a wide circle of friends and acquaintances throughout the country and not one (regardless of political party) believes that Ed Miliband could be prime minister. As a lifelong Labour supporter, I cringe every time I hear him on radio. It is like Neil Kinnock all over again. When the general election comes, a crucial number of people will say to themselves: "II do not see this man as prime minister." Unless Labour changes leader before 2015, David Cameron will win – by default – and we shall have to start all over again. A further five years wasted.
*Roger Nuttall*
Birmingham Reported by guardian.co.uk 4 hours ago.
The system exists to ensure everyone freedom from the fear of unemployment, sickness, disability or old age causing poverty and homelessness. Freedom is one of the three fundamental principles which the French Revolution expressed in the 18th century and which today still distinguish social democracy, in its real sense, from the other two parties: the Conservatives, who believe in freedom but deny equality or solidarity; and the Lib Dems who may concede equality, but assert individualism against solidarity.
If Labour could show how its policies are based on all these three principles instead of mere electoral expediency, it could offer a real social democratic alternative of the kind that has made the Nordic countries successful for their peoples and economies. If its thinkers don't know where to start, they should read how the Swedish Social Democratic party links its principles and values to policy programmes. A booklet given to new party members and available in English is on the Nordic Horizons website.
*John Veit-Wilson*
Newcastle upon Tyne
• Geoffrey Wheatcroft really does encapsulate why Labour is struggling to capitalise on the difficulties that the coalition is still facing.
A party whose creation had a real purpose at the end of the 19th century and was assisted greatly by the willingness of the Liberal party to stand aside in many working-class seats – as happened in Ramsay MacDonald's Leicester constituency – and also to support the latter's short-lived government of 1924, has now lost its way.
In our age of political pluralism I wonder whether any party will again achieve levels of popular support enjoyed by the Tory and Labour parties in the early 1950s. In 1997, with a huge majority created by first past the post, Blair could have done whatever he wanted with our so-called constitution to create an electoral system that could effectively reflect this pluralism in terms of representation. He chickened out. Why should anyone trust any of his successors to grasp the nettle?
*John Marriott*
Lincoln
• Michael Orton (Letters, 24 July) is, I fear, wrong. Labour's key problem is not the lack of a core message (though that does not help). The key problem is a leader who is simply not credible. I have a wide circle of friends and acquaintances throughout the country and not one (regardless of political party) believes that Ed Miliband could be prime minister. As a lifelong Labour supporter, I cringe every time I hear him on radio. It is like Neil Kinnock all over again. When the general election comes, a crucial number of people will say to themselves: "II do not see this man as prime minister." Unless Labour changes leader before 2015, David Cameron will win – by default – and we shall have to start all over again. A further five years wasted.
*Roger Nuttall*
Birmingham Reported by guardian.co.uk 4 hours ago.