Letters: The Eurozone

Seeing how Europe's leaders have responded to Greece's sovereign debt crisis (leading article, 29 April), we are clearly a very long way from the days when Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterrand buried more than a century of Franco-German hostility to launch their vision of a united Europe.

If governments as well as the European Central Bank had stepped in earlier, and acted decisively to agree a programme of austerity with the Greek government, the current crisis would not have escalated and spread to other Eurozone economies, as it has now done.

The German government especially has decided to put its national financial interests ahead of the stability and prosperity of the Eurozone economy as a whole. This is short-sighted: if other Eurozone economies are affected by financial markets' concerns over sovereign indebtedness, Germany too will feel the effects, as most of Germany's exports currently go to Eurozone economies.

Financial institutions based largely in London and New York have continued to generate instability in the Eurozone. If European governments, both inside and outside the Eurozone, do not act together to stem the current crisis, there may well be a new financial crisis within Europe, over sovereign debt.

Shouvik Datta

Bromley, kent

The banking crisis and now the Greek situation are being used by many as an example of why it is good that we are not in the euro.

But consider: if we had joined in the mid-Nineties we would not have been allowed to deregulate the banks and thus be turned into an off-shore outlet for American risk. The Germans and French rightly would not have tolerated it. That means that the present crisis would not, could not, have happened.

It also means that we would not have killed the main core of our value adding business: manufacturing. Instead now we would be building it up strongly as Germany has done. Think, we might be exporting railway equipment, wind turbines and power station technology, not importing them as we now are doing for our biggest capital spending projects.

Gordon Brown, if he had not followed his Thatcherite exemplar Blair, would be heading one of the world's strongest economies, not the man who made the wrong decision based on the wrong tests. Remember the "five tests"? What a farce they were.

If we had been in the euro 15 years ago this mess could not have happened.

Mike Bell

Leeds

Now that the Germans have come out in their true colours about the Greeks, perhaps it is time for us, even if we cannot help them financially, to rekindle our friendship with this great people by returning their Parthenon marbles. We could do with a good friend in Europe, and I cannot think of a better one.

Robert Allen

Edinburgh

Will we be asked to bail out BP?

Based on recent custom and practice, where private companies come cap-in-hand to the state to be bailed out with taxpayers' money for their poor decision-making, it cannot be too long before we see BP follow the financial sector and the airlines to help to maintain their balance sheet and bonuses.

Perhaps someone should be running a book on this phenomenon. There could be some interesting spin-off betting like how long will it take to reach a tax rate of 100p in the pound to keep the private-sector CEOs and managers in the luxury to which they are now accustomed. Or which sections of the public sector will be privatised so that spending public money on them meets the approval and blessing of the small elite who run the financial markets and who hold democracy to ransom with their demands.

Dave Hansell

Sheffield

Whichever political party can pledge that on 7 May it will withdraw all British troops from Afghanistan, and send them to help protect the marine ecosystem off the coast of Louisiana, will have my support. Some things are more important than economics and immigration.

Giles Watson

Uffington, Oxfordshire

Now to choose a prime minister

I find Peter Trevvett's description (letter, 1 May) of Nick Clegg as "telegenic" to be very apt. If all we want is a Prime Minister who can give a good televised address to the nation, then Nick Clegg is your man, but I would hope that we want a bit more than that. Gordon Brown is no better of course, and has shown us time and again how clumsy he is with the ordinary person on the street.

In contrast, David Cameron is very personable and is able to relate convincingly to anyone he meets, whether they are traditional Tories or even hard-core Labour voters. This is also extended by his wife, who is always out there meeting people and taking an interest in them. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Miriam Clegg.

The government of this country is in desperate need of "real" people with common-sense policies, and out of the three main political parties, this is what David Cameron and the Conservatives offer best.

Russell Brett Pillar

Kilmarnock, Ayrshire

Apparently, New Labour has "broken" Britain by giving us the minimum wage, decreased unemployment, Sure Start, the winter fuel allowance, hugely expanded university education and a massive school rebuilding programme. We also have crime figures continuing to reduce, NHS waiting lists dramatically cut, rising school standards and a Kyoto emissions target that has already been met.

Cameron and the Tories, offering nothing but "blame it on Brown" and spouting their "friend to business" mantra of old, will reduce regulation, withdraw from Europe and step back from global agreements. I'm sure it will be an uplifting experience seeing a caring free market and generous big business support our "Big Society" whilst a small government watches us all toil to mend a Britain that is, by all indicators, far from broken.

The moment of truth is almost at hand: will it be Shrek (ugly and rude but capable with a good heart) or Prince Charming (pleasant to look at but vacuous, privileged and with vested interests)?

Time for a change? I don't think so.

Steve Tainton

Bristol

The only trouble with Cleggmania is that voters may forget that the Lib Dems also have the best potential Chancellor.

Chris Evans

Teddington, Middlesex

For and against a coalition

No single party has either the potential or ability to deliver the solution for an unprecedented economic deficit that we are currently facing.

Coalition governments all over the world have an excellent record of managing economic crisis. Out of the 16 countries worldwide that currently have the top triple-A financial stability rating, 10 are being run by coalition governments. The majority of nations that have taken the toughest action in recent decades to tackle their debts were also governed at the time by coalitions.

We have a huge financial deficit: an increase in income tax and cuts in public services is inevitable. Whatever nasty medicine has got to be taken, it would be more acceptable coming from a consensus government.

A balanced parliament means that the process of forming a government will move beyond the simple process of election, and will continue into a public debate between the parties on what they need to do to form a coalition. Might not a coalition government be better able to think long-term and tackle the fundamental economic, domestic and foreign policy problems facing us today?

Dr Kailash Chand

Stalybridge, greater Manchester

The prospect of a "hung parliament"or a "minority government"with Brown, Balls and Mandelson at the helm would be a disaster for our once-proud country.

They can blame the global recession as much as they want, but the truth is that they have more than doubled our national debt, they wrecked the best private pension scheme in the developed world, while they created a public service pension time-bomb; they sold off our gold reserves at rock bottom prices and they took us into an illegal war in Iraq. They have wrecked our economy and damaged our society and they have the cheek to attack the opposition, desperately trying to make sense of it all.

Yet they still think they've done nothing wrong. The IMF must be very concerned about the outcome of this crucial election.

Even solid Labour voters must doubt the competence of Brown. But for the undecided, this is the Last Chance Saloon. If you vote Clegg and Cable you get more of Brown and Balls and the Prince of Darkness. We must come out in force and vote for Cameron's change agenda.

Neville Newton

Ripon, North Yorkshire

Over the past 60 years the UK has been badly governed, whichever party was in power, precisely because of our first-past-the post system leading to absolute majorities. Because of the power of patronage the Prime Minister is an elected dictator and does not have to listen to anyone. In a coalition the Prime Minister has to listen.

There are many examples of bad decisions that could have been avoided, but I will cite three major ones.

Sir Anthony Eden could not possibly have led us into the Suez fiasco in coalition.

Margaret Thatcher pressed ahead with the disastrous poll tax against the advice of senior members of her cabinet. That could not have happened in a coalition.

Tony Blair could not have forced us into the illegal Iraq war if there had been a coalition.

So much for "strong" government.

Tony Somers

London SW5

I always thought the British public were dozy; now I know it. Apparently 70 per cent would prefer to be ruled by a strong conspiracy of politicians than a representative parliamentary democracy. How stupid can you get? Blair – or is it Stalin – welcome back.

Richard Burton

Steeple Aston, Oxfordshire

British nations up in arms

So it looks as though Cameron might sneak it in the end. And the Clegg bounce might have achieved nothing more than to have shielded Tory policies from scrutiny for much of the campaign.

From a Scottish perspective we might face a London Tory government that has had to answer no questions about Scotland. And yet the prospect that they are unlikely to win more than one or two seats in Scotland, and could easily win none if David Steel's daughter benefits from the Clegg bounce, has generated no media attention.

In spite of a probable poor result for the SNP, thanks to the unfair TV coverage, the most important consequence of the election might be the end of the Union.

Andrew Anderson

Selkirk

In the event of a hung Parliament, it will be intolerable for Labour and the Lib Dems to form a coalition to rule over England, using their Celtic MPs to impose ever more taxes and biased policies on to us. Just the thought of it makes me want to grab a pitchfork and march on London.

I won't stand for it and neither will the majority of England. Just let them dare to try it.

Della Petch

Driffield, East Yorkshire

Young people eager for politics

Political parties are thinking about all sorts of things to make the election accessible and interesting to young people – apart from, I think, really getting out there enough and talking to young people themselves.

That is the main reason I went to Downside Fisher youth centre in Bermondsey, south London, last week to witness candidates from the three main parties take part in a two-hour question-and-answer session with over 50 local young people.

The crowd of 15- to 20-year-olds showed a passion and thirst for political issues that belies so much public opinion about apathy and young people today. It was exhilarating to see them debate the issues that matter to them and their families.

However, for all that debate and interest, very few of them knew much about the actual workings and processes involved in Westminster and local government. Many of them wanted to know more about the political process and wished they had been taught it at school.

If we want a more politically literate and engaged society, and especially if we are serious about a voting age starting at 16, as has been mooted, then surely all secondary school children should be taught politics as a subject in its own right – one as equally important as history, geography or the sciences.

Chris Mounsey-Thear

Youth Engagement Consultant,

Forster, London SE1

Women not quite equal

Andrew Grice (29 April) suggested all politicians were not equal and women MPs and candidates were invisible. On the following page Simon Carr's article on the fight between David Heath and Annunziata Rees-Mogg in the Somerset and Frome constituency described them both – but felt it necessary to tell us only Annunziata's age and her marital status (which is "unmarried" – what the hell is unmarried? He makes it sound like she has failed at something).

So it seems it is not just in Westminster that women politicians are not equal – it is between your pages too.

Laura Willoughby

London N4

Value of a vote

My wife and I are 1.6 per cent of the majority in Southampton North and Romsey constituency (Lib Dem majority 125), whereas my brother and sister-in-law's votes in Hemsworth (Labour majority 13,481) are but 0.015 per cent of the majority, so our votes are worth more than a 100 times theirs, which is confirms that our electoral system is "potty".

Colin Pritchard

Southampton

Tricky subject

Here in North-West Leicestershire , our Labour Party candidate devotes the first full page of his leaflet to the issue of immigration. Look what we are doing, he says, itemising new rules for employers, an Australian-style points system, more immigration officers, tough enforcement action. This is apparently the only matter worth mentioning. Should Gordon Brown know he has a "bigoted" man standing for his party?

Alan Seaman

Coalville, Leicestershire

That man again

I was havering between Gordon and Nick when, out of the blue, bronzed, fit and grinning manically, the Pinocchio de nos jours, Tony Blair, entered the fray. So I guess Nick gets my vote.

George Rees

Swansea

Elections that changed Britain

Johann Hari's analysis of the "forces blocking democracy" (23 April) is not wrong, but misses something far deeper. The elections of 1945 and 1979 represented fundamental shifts in societal values which were championed by strong politicians.

At the end of the Second World War, people wanted a change to the old rigidly structured hierarchical society. Several politicians in the Labour Party had fiercely held convictions and a clear idea of the big changes they would make to re-order society. Servicemen and women returning from the war wanted a Labour government for those reasons, and many people voted Labour to support them.

What we now call the post-war consensus lasted for about 30 years. The notion that anything that improved the lot of working folk was "a good thing" became corrupted and abused. "You can't get me, I'm part of the union" became almost an anthem played at every works function in the land.

Governments of both hues during the 1970s found it impossible to deal with trade-union belligerence because they both occupied the mildly socialist moral high ground which finally collapsed with the Winter of Discontent. Margaret Thatcher merely had the courage and conviction to articulate what everybody was feeling: "That's enough, we simply cannot go on like this."

The moral value of personal aspiration and endeavour became society's guiding value. We are now another 30 years on. The consequences of "me first" have become clear, through the self-induced implosion of the financial system and its dreadful consequences, and the widening and debilitating gap between rich and poor.

Taken together with the threat of terrorism, plus climate change, it all suggests that another profound change in societal values is necessary, and is in fact under way. But which politician might we now compare to Bevan, Bevin, or Thatcher?

David Humphrey

London W5