Real culprits for decline in incomes

IN the panic to retrieve some credibility for Labour’s sterile stance on the economy, Rachel Reeves, Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Yorkshire Post, September 5) and Ed Balls, the Opposition’s pain-inducing Shadow Chancellor, attempt to divert the focus of popular opinion from economic growth to the level of incomes.

This new tack emerges as the economy appears to be surging on most fronts – service, manufacturing and even employment – contrary to the three years of dire predictions from Balls and his associates. Their constant line was that Osborne’s austerity measures were not working and would never work and it would all end in financial calamity.

Labour and the union movement have stuck to their primitive Keynesian theory of wholesale government borrowing and spending as the only chance of recovery – I say “primitive” because I believe John Maynard Keynes, given the abject, fiscal wilderness left by the last Labour government, would never had advocated such a debt-ridden policy. It’s a simplistic formula derived from Labour’s obsession with state interventionism, one that is written indelibly into all their chromosomes. It is what Labour is about.

The attacks on George Osborne continue, although the turn of events in favour of the Chancellor has moderated their intensity. So the new emphasis, as in Rachel Reeves’ edited article, is on three wasted years and falling living standards.

There’s no mention of the origin of the recession and the gigantic bubble they allowed to develop before it was burst by the pin of avaricious and over-extended banks. It’s like a study of the Titanic disaster without any reference to icebergs. Apart from the duplicity, their commentary is almost naive in its omission and evasion.

And who is the culprit for the patent decline in income? Once again it’s the Blair/Brown government that flooded the country with an unprecedented volume of immigrants, raising the UK population to more than 62 million in a stagnant economy.

Supermarket secrecy

From: M J Wadley, Olive Grove, Harrogate.

DURING the last month, I have had what I consider to be a very unusual experience with a local supermarket.

Having visited the store and made some purchases, I got home and checked my receipt and realised that I needed to ask a question. I searched all the telephone books that I had, but couldn’t find the telephone number for the store. I then thought to check the receipt but that only contained the Head Office number. So I rang that number in order to ask for the local store telephone number.

I was then told that the store could not be contacted by the public by telephone. I explained my situation and query and was told that if I kept on the phone she (the person dealing with my call) would ring the store about my query, and get back to me. This she duly did and gave me their response.

I thought the next thing they might do would be to lock the gates of the store car park.

Elite still look after themselves

From: David McKenna, Hall Gardens, Rawcliffe, Goole.

IT was comforting to read that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA), in its latest report, has managed to cut the amount of money spent by our elected representatives.

Based on the 2008/9 figures (selective figure-taking here), before the scandal of MPs’ expenses broke, £10.9m has been “saved”. However, MPs still managed to claim £23m in expenses, and when staff costs are added in, the bill for the 12 months to April this year is some £98m, up seven per cent on last year.

“Staff costs” usually means family members as office managers since 85 MPs employed someone with the same family name in their office. Labour MP and Shadow Business Secretary Chuka Umunna claimed £155,434 in staff costs. He must surely have a large office and staff, family or not!

There were “bonuses” paid to staff by 19 MPs and, strangely enough, eight MPs still owe capital gains repayments to IPSA on house sales, adding up to a total of £96,295. So no change there then.

So what does all this mean to the ‘hard working families up and down the country’ as Ed Miliband frequently calls us all? In reality, precious little. We still have an elite who, in the main, do not consider others but are more intent on self-preservation and financial aggrandisement.

If only we were “All in it together” we would all be better off.

True picture of risky drinking

From: Rosey Prince, Yeadon, Leeds.

I FOUND myself irritated beyond belief by the image accompanying your article on risky drinking (Yorkshire Post, September 11).

I do not doubt the facts of the article but you used a photo of a man drinking a pint of beer. Everyone knows that this is not where the problem lies. It’s the youngsters pre-loading with cheap drink from the supermarket and then drinking themselves into oblivion in wine bars and night clubs, mainly in city centres, or the alcoholic with real problems who tops up with spirits daily and drinks alone. It’s not the man enjoying a pint in the friendly pub.

An article about the perils of drink accompanied by this type of picture is entirely misleading and a totally unfair representation. Is it any wonder that pubs are closing and communities suffering as a result, when this is the received wisdom perpetrated by the media?

Can we please have the true picture?