Dear Progress
Your statement of aims says that Progress is a diverse and inclusive group. However it seemed to me that the attack on the anti-war protesters by Pilgrim (Progress, June/July 2003) ran completely counter to this objective. There is still a debate about the legality of the actions taken by the British government given the dubious nature of the evidence put forward as justification for the invasion. This article contained nothing of substance but resorted to smear, innuendo and triumphalism. In my view it does a disservice to the aims of Progress to publish this kind of article and I would ask you to take steps to ensure that the content of the magazine does not undermine Progress’ aim to be inclusive and tolerant.
John Sunderland, Lewisham and Deptford CLP
Dear Progress
Does Pilgrim really believe that by appearing at the same rally as Jesse Jackson and Tony Benn, Charles Kennedy was signifying his agreement with all they stand for? That is like saying that because Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher agreed on the war they must agree on everything – clearly bonkers. It was the presence of more than a million of his fellow Britons that really spoke volumes, rather than the attendance of the leader of the Liberal Democrats.
Alex Folkes, Peckham CLP
Dear Progress
Your comment says wisely that, ‘The sometimes deliberately provocative language in which some elements of the government make their case… needs to be abandoned’ and ‘The tendency of some left publications to… engage in personal vilification needs to end.’ Perhaps you could get Pilgrim, with his/her description of those who opposed the government’s policy on Iraq as Saddam’s useful idiots’ and the personal vilification of Charles Kennedy, to follow this advice.
Keith Chesterton, Guildford CLP
Dear Progress
One can almost hear Margaret Thatcher’s hysterical tones when Pilgrim writes: ‘If the one million demonstrators had their way, Saddam Hussein would today still be in power in Iraq, murdering, torturing and intimidating his own people.’ In fact, this is just what he was allowed to do for fifteen years with the active connivance of the British and US governments – not least Donald Rumsfeld. The consistent opponents of his regime were some of the very people on the marches who are now denounced as ‘useful idiots’ and who, had they been allowed to be heard, believed that there were other ways to bring down the regime.
Terry Philpot, East Surrey CLP
Dear Progress
David Walker (Progress, June/July 2003) appears to believe that central management of our public services is both practical and necessary, almost a sufficient condition of achieving equality. The history of a myriad of nationally organised services and projects suggests otherwise. Of course government needs to be involved in the setting of standards and in securing an equitable distribution of resources, but Walker’s new centralist command society would stifle diversity and innovation. Even if Walker’s prescription worked with a benign Labour government, what would happen under a Tory government? Better by far for central and local government to work together to deliver what is appropriate locally on the basis of shared priorities and local public service agreements, with local councils championing, and accountable to, their communities.
Sir Jeremy Beecham, Chair, Local Government Association
Dear Progress
To stop the BNP, Labour must start to talk the language of ordinary voters. We’ve got to speak with fewer long words and engage with non-PC views on asylum, crime and Europe. Working people in the UK have views spreading into the right (just look at the popularity of the tabloids) so as progressives we must be true to our name. Let’s be straight-talking, take on the far-right territory and create policies from the real world as much as from conferences.
Gary Tregoning, Swansea West CLP
Dear Progress
I would like to suggest an addition to Steve Smith’s call for a graduate tax (Letters, Progress, June/July 2003)– the money should go to the university the graduate studied at. Then universities that produce marketable graduates would see a bigger income. Their costs would be paid off sooner than universities that produce inferior graduates, presumably through inferior courses.
Jonathan Morse, Croydon North CLP