Angela Rayner proved Labour is not fit to govern

Angela Rayner's fumbling performance on the Andrew Marr Show underlined, yet again, that Labour is still not fit for the purpose of responsible government and totally unfit to oversee a child’s piggy bank, let alone get its hands on the nation’s finances.

Rayner’s failure to explain how she intends to fill a “£100bn” black hole left by abolishing student fees follows a pattern of incompetence from opposition spokespeople seen throughout the general election campaign.

One presumes that her eye-watering ball park figure does not include her other giveaways such as restoring the trainers and phone credit allowance (EMA) and setting up a free “national education service”.

Like Diane Abbott on police and Jeremy Corbyn on free childcare, Rayner proved that Labour's crowd-pleasing public spending trolley dash would head straight for the baked-bean-can pyramid if put into place.

Labour has proved itself very good at gimmick politics but hopelessly out of its depth on fiscal policy. Its manifesto remains nothing more than a jamboree bag of freebies funded not by the tooth fairy or money tree but the usual victim: the hardworking taxpayer.

Pity that Supermarket Sweep Labour forgets that “there is no money left” for such gimcracks after the mess it created during its spendthrift years in power.

Anthony Rodriguez
​Middlesex

I would like Angela Rayner to tell me how many more people are going to university since the introduction of tuition fees? I'm a natural Conservative, but voted for Ed Miliband last time. He was a decent person and, I thought, had some good ideas. He was also much preferable, in my mind, to David Cameron. I am, therefore, a voter who could be persuaded.

However, I wouldn't give the time of day to voting for a party that tries to make political points out of the most appalling of tragedies, nor which – as an audience member said on Question Time – appears to have a money forest (rather than tree) and which has in its midst (politics and public alike) some of the most objectionable people in this country.

Neil Coppendale
Address supplied

There is daily and abundant news coverage of the plight of this tragically ill baby. The whole world is now involved in this discussion and the resulting legal issues. The core argument being, who owns this child.

According to the news reports, quoting statements from the treating doctors, it appears that Charlie’s condition has resulted in brain damage. He cannot breathe without a ventilator, blink, move, swallow, see nor hear.

The doctors argue that Charlie’s suffering should not be unnecessarily prolonged, that his life support should be switched off. His parents argue that Charlie is not suffering.

Not being able to breathe voluntarily, blink, move, swallow, see or hear, I find it difficult to understand how Charlie’s state of not suffering can possibly be assessed.

Apparently there is experimental treatment on offer which may possibly improve Charlie’s condition, though no evidence is being offered. It is clear and understandable that no predictions can be made regarding what, if any, improvements, either short- or long-term, may possibly be achieved.

I would offer the suggestion that this alone should be the core argument. Can this experimental treatment hold out sufficient hope that Charlie’s life becomes viable and, as a very minimum, self-sustainable? Because, if not, there is no life. There is only a heartbeat.

So should the Government, and for that reason the legal system, have the right to make decisions on behalf of Charlie and his parents? I would suggest that the answer may well be a no.

Seeing that the cost of treatment is already covered, that the medication has been offered to be supplied to the treating doctors in this country, why not try such treatment?

As it is, whether Charlie is suffering or not, his plight is already being endlessly prolonged while the learned men of the law, doctors and politicians argue over what would be in Charlie’s best interest. Or theirs?

This aspect seems to have been completely overlooked with everybody so busy arguing their viewpoint. It seems to me that Charlie’s plight is no longer the issue here, but who has the moral authority, or the political clout?

Gunter Straub
London NW3

In this difficult situation, where some doctors differ with the parents of an 11-month-old boy, Charlie Gard, about what treatment is best for their son’s rare disease, and other doctors who specialise.in the particular disease say there is an experimental drug worth trying, I support the parents of.the little boy, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, to decide what is best for their son.

Genevieve Forde
Auckland

Perhaps I should be sending this to Ivanka Trump if Sean O’Grady is right about what is facing her in dealing with her father over the Mexican wall and climate.

Isn't the answer to her dilemma to suggest to Daddy that he could get the wall built by constructing a row of south-facing solar panels along the border, selling the output and, if there is a surplus of electricity on sunny days, give it to Mexico to use?

Harold Smith
Leeds

The Pride Parade (significantly no longer a “march” for rights) was composed of LGBT people of all sorts, 50 years after Parliament designated gay men, with stipulations and reservations, as “legal”. It was a “gay” occasion, in both senses of the word, brilliant, bright and buoyant. But one delegation, towards the end of the procession led by Peter Tatchell and the one in which I proudly walked, expressed solidarity with the men and women who are still persecuted in Chechnya, and behind us walked a larger contingent representing those of Africa. The response of the crowd, hands held out to shake or slap, was deeply moving. The serious truth of our statement was recognised, appreciated and shared.

Peter Forster
London N4