This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/02/questions-to-answer-as-the-tories-flounder
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| Questions to answer as the Tories flounder | Questions to answer as the Tories flounder |
| (4 months later) | |
| The Tories’ free market philosophy has failed, writes Steve Munby. Norman Gowar and Pat Brandwood unpick Theresa May’s tuition fees pledge. Plus letters from Anthony Lawton and Valerie Crews | |
| Letters | |
| Mon 2 Oct 2017 19.11 BST | |
| Last modified on Mon 27 Nov 2017 16.04 GMT | |
| Share on Facebook | |
| Share on Twitter | |
| Share via Email | |
| View more sharing options | |
| Share on LinkedIn | |
| Share on Pinterest | |
| Share on Google+ | |
| Share on WhatsApp | |
| Share on Messenger | |
| Close | |
| The picture Matthew d’Ancona paints is one of voters falling out of love with the free market policies his party believes in (Only the shock therapy of truth can save May’s party, 2 October). What his account misses is that we are going through a paradigm shift, similar to that of the 1980s. As Jeremy Corbyn pointed out in his conference speech, we live in an era of rentier capitalism, not free markets. The previous drivers of “growth” – rising house prices, financial services and the extraction of profit by private cartels from public services – do not reflect a productive economy and market competition, but rather a system dominated by rent-seeking. This model is broken and we are beginning to see a move away from the beliefs, institutions and policies that dominated for the last 40 years. To create a more just society and more sustainable models of growth, requires a new and enhanced role for the state, albeit a more democratic and devolved one. We need a fundamental rebalancing of the economy from the rich to the poor, the south-east to the rest, and rentier capitalism to more productive models. If the Conservative party is to have a future it must admit that the “free markets” it embraced were a sham and that only a more interventionist and participatory state can break up the current concentrations of wealth and power.Steve MunbyRiverside ward Labour councillor, Liverpool | The picture Matthew d’Ancona paints is one of voters falling out of love with the free market policies his party believes in (Only the shock therapy of truth can save May’s party, 2 October). What his account misses is that we are going through a paradigm shift, similar to that of the 1980s. As Jeremy Corbyn pointed out in his conference speech, we live in an era of rentier capitalism, not free markets. The previous drivers of “growth” – rising house prices, financial services and the extraction of profit by private cartels from public services – do not reflect a productive economy and market competition, but rather a system dominated by rent-seeking. This model is broken and we are beginning to see a move away from the beliefs, institutions and policies that dominated for the last 40 years. To create a more just society and more sustainable models of growth, requires a new and enhanced role for the state, albeit a more democratic and devolved one. We need a fundamental rebalancing of the economy from the rich to the poor, the south-east to the rest, and rentier capitalism to more productive models. If the Conservative party is to have a future it must admit that the “free markets” it embraced were a sham and that only a more interventionist and participatory state can break up the current concentrations of wealth and power.Steve MunbyRiverside ward Labour councillor, Liverpool |
| • Theresa May’s feeble attempt to appease students by taking the foot off the pedal misses the point (Theresa May is playing the survival game – and losing, 2 October). From the outset it was clear that the fees policy did not make economic sense or would achieve its aim of producing a market in education. The argument is that because a university education may enhance earnings, graduates should contribute by a tax surcharge. But an electrician or plumber by dint of working through a course for qualifications is also likely to earn more. And somebody with A-levels is more likely to earn more that someone without. So why should they not also pay a tax premium to pay for their post-compulsory education? The answer is they do. If they earn more, they pay more income tax and, by virtue of spending more, contribute more VAT. Progressive tax policies are a simple and efficient way of paying for an education system essential for a prosperous and well functioning democracy. But Tories talk of tax as a “burden”, rather than of paying for a contribution to a society we are proud to be part of.Professor Emeritus Norman Gowar | • Theresa May’s feeble attempt to appease students by taking the foot off the pedal misses the point (Theresa May is playing the survival game – and losing, 2 October). From the outset it was clear that the fees policy did not make economic sense or would achieve its aim of producing a market in education. The argument is that because a university education may enhance earnings, graduates should contribute by a tax surcharge. But an electrician or plumber by dint of working through a course for qualifications is also likely to earn more. And somebody with A-levels is more likely to earn more that someone without. So why should they not also pay a tax premium to pay for their post-compulsory education? The answer is they do. If they earn more, they pay more income tax and, by virtue of spending more, contribute more VAT. Progressive tax policies are a simple and efficient way of paying for an education system essential for a prosperous and well functioning democracy. But Tories talk of tax as a “burden”, rather than of paying for a contribution to a society we are proud to be part of.Professor Emeritus Norman Gowar |
| London | London |
| • Theresa May represents a generation of politicians who all were able to access free higher education if they wished, but who chose to impose this burden on young people at the start of their adult lives, instead of, as a generation, choosing to pay more taxes to enable young people to access free higher education. The Conservatives also chose to allow many of those responsible for the 2008 crash to get away, in the main, with their ill-gotten gains. The unacceptable inequality between the increasing wealth of the very rich and the increasing indebtedness of young people is a disgrace.Pat BrandwoodBroadstone, Dorset | • Theresa May represents a generation of politicians who all were able to access free higher education if they wished, but who chose to impose this burden on young people at the start of their adult lives, instead of, as a generation, choosing to pay more taxes to enable young people to access free higher education. The Conservatives also chose to allow many of those responsible for the 2008 crash to get away, in the main, with their ill-gotten gains. The unacceptable inequality between the increasing wealth of the very rich and the increasing indebtedness of young people is a disgrace.Pat BrandwoodBroadstone, Dorset |
| • You report that Theresa May refused to answer a question on TV about whether “[Boris] Johnson was sackable” (Report, 2 October). She may not be able to sack him, but he is sackable. He has been fired by others, not once but twice for lying. In 1988 he was sacked from the Times for making up a quote, and in 2004 he was “relieved of his duties” as shadow arts minister for allegedly lying about an extramarital affair.Anthony LawtonMarket Harborough, Leicestershire | • You report that Theresa May refused to answer a question on TV about whether “[Boris] Johnson was sackable” (Report, 2 October). She may not be able to sack him, but he is sackable. He has been fired by others, not once but twice for lying. In 1988 he was sacked from the Times for making up a quote, and in 2004 he was “relieved of his duties” as shadow arts minister for allegedly lying about an extramarital affair.Anthony LawtonMarket Harborough, Leicestershire |
| • In telling the Queen that she had the support of the DUP to enable her to form a government, when in fact she did not have such support for another 17 days, is Mrs May’s government constitutionally legitimate?Valerie CrewsBeckenham, Kent | • In telling the Queen that she had the support of the DUP to enable her to form a government, when in fact she did not have such support for another 17 days, is Mrs May’s government constitutionally legitimate?Valerie CrewsBeckenham, Kent |
| • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com | • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |
| • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters | • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters |
| • This article was amended on 3 October 2017 to correct the spelling of Norman Gowar’s surname from Gower in the subheading. | • This article was amended on 3 October 2017 to correct the spelling of Norman Gowar’s surname from Gower in the subheading. |
| Conservative conference 2017 | |
| Theresa May | |
| Economic policy | |
| Conservatives | |
| Conservative conference | |
| Tuition fees | |
| letters | |
| Share on Facebook | |
| Share on Twitter | |
| Share via Email | |
| Share on LinkedIn | |
| Share on Pinterest | |
| Share on Google+ | |
| Share on WhatsApp | |
| Share on Messenger | |
| Reuse this content |