For the sake of democracy, both Trump and Biden must abstain

A few days before the debate that saw 81-year-old Joe Biden face off against 78-year-old Donald Trump, I saw the French debate pitching 35-year-old Gabriel Attal against 28-year-old Jordan Bardella and 38-year-old Manuel Bompard.

Quite a contrast!

There was certainly the age of the participants, 40 years separating the youngest American candidate from the oldest French candidate, but not only that. The French debaters knew their points thoroughly and spoke impeccably – the same can not be said for their American counterparts.

It is clear in my opinion, that Trump is a political ignoramus who lives in a parallel world. Considering the importance of the United States and its highest office, all the falsehoods and exaggerations that this “alley cat” spouted seemed incredible.

As for Biden, while we have seen that he is a very experienced politician who knows his issues well, his problem is age. And it was a problem which prevented him from expressing himself clearly and correctly. This debate certainly did not help him convince many undecided and independent voters.

The US constitution requires a presidential candidate to be at least 35 years old to run. I recommend that the United States government make an amendment to prohibit the presidency from any citizen aged 75 and over. You must be vigorous and sharp to occupy the White House. If such an article had existed already, both Trump and Biden would have had to abstain, for the good of democracy.

At such a crucial time in the world, for the great United States to see Trump at its head once again would be a damning indictment and more serious than ever before. For the health of the planet, it is essential that the United States remain democratic.

Sylvio Le Blanc

Montreal

I am incandescent with rage having seen the prime minister of this country on TV spouting about his government’s record. We have to put some of these things straight.

Rishi Sunak appears to blame everything on Covid and the war in Ukraine, yet it seems to me that the Conservative government had already broken the NHS, the justice system, the police service, our education and public services all by 2019. They also doubled the national debt from £800,000,000 to £1,690,000,000 and in the last five years they have doubled it again.

Sunak says Labour will put up taxes, speaking for a crew responsible for the highest taxes since 1947. He says Labour will not defend the country, standing for a government who have cut the size of our armed forces so much that the Army would not even fill Wembley Stadium.

He says Labour will allow more immigration while presiding over the highest levels of immigration in our history.

He says Labour will not provide a good education system, while the decline in state schools over the past 12 years means there are hundreds of children behind in their learning.

With all this in mind, how can anyone still consider voting Conservative ever again?

Tony Bourner

Axminster

The big lie that major parties are pitching in this election campaign, virtually uncontested, is the promise of “eternal growth”. There can be no such thing, on our island or on our planet.

Labour’s pledge to build 1.5 million houses in the next five years equates to concreting over 125,000 acres (plus a good deal more for infrastructure) an area the same size as Middlesex. Setting aside the landscape horror of such a vision, it is entirely incompatible with the concurrent abstract pledge of “net zero”.

Such is our addiction now to the concept of unending growth that its leading sale slogans of “housing crisis” and “cost of living crisis’” go unchallenged. If we have a real “housing crisis”, where at present are our tent cities? If we have a “cost of living crisis”, why are there so many new cars on the road? Why does everyone have an expensive mobile phone? Why do we see almost nobody wearing patched-up old clothes?

Look back to a version of Britain which existed even into the period of living memory, where most income was necessarily spent on food, and there was no stigma attached to multiple generations living in one home (grandparents spared the cost of child care). It was not a society in “crisis”, but a far stronger one than our own; and how our forebears have lived for centuries.

It is time we recognised our present addiction to “growth” for what it is, and stop feeding it. An honest political party should seek to deliver stability.

Richard Munday

Herts

I agree with Anne Woolf, in her recent letter, that we need to rethink our attitude to tax and recognise that we pay taxes in order to fund our public services and improve the lives of all of us.

It may be worth spending a moment to examine the ideology that underpins the short-sighted Tory commitment to a low-tax economy.

The slavish belief in lowering taxes is predicated on a commitment to individual desires and consumption rather than the common good. Low taxes do not stimulate enterprise or opportunity. Trickle-down economics do not increase productivity. Growth only comes from a government that can stimulate investment, as Labour’s manifesto indicates.

The profligate waste of taxpayers’ money by recent Tory governments should not pass without mention.

In reality, low taxes mean that the rich get richer while the vulnerable pick up ever-diminishing scraps from the former’s overladen tables. Instead of bringing people together with a common objective, it drives people apart and places the focus on looking after “me and mine” rather than on reaping the benefits we all gain from collective endeavour.

It is to be hoped that an elected Labour government can engage the public in a mature debate about the values that underpin our society and what we get for what we pay.

Graham Powell

Cirencester

The NHS is on a pedestal in the UK, but many claim in its current state it does not rate well in comparison with other national systems.

I believe that depends on the rating parameters...

In Europe, it is approximately halfway up the ratings table. In 2017 it was ranked the 34th health care system in the world.

In 2000, the WHO ranked the NHS at 18th in the world and the USA (which inputs more of its GDP into its health system) at 37th.

In addition to this, it now has more than twice as many staff per citizen as it had in 1948 despite all the technological advances and centralisation.

It would appear therefore to be half as efficient per citizen as it was in 1948... if that is the case it is costing twice as much per citizen, allowing for monetary inflation.

Australia is often accused of stealing our NHS staff, with sunnier, better-paid roles. Yet as a country, they invest less of their GDP per capita into their health system than we do. So whilst it’s difficult to rank any health service, the last thing we should do if the system requires improvement is to treat it as a god.

One of my daughters worked in NHS admin some years ago, she noticed and pointed out efficiency and cost savings which could have been made, but she was ignored, and eventually, she left.

To be efficient it needs tougher and more competent management.

Graham Cooper

Address supplied