Wealthy people would welcome higher taxes if it were to save the NHS

Wes Streeting’s recent statements on the NHS make no mention of the need to reform NHS bureaucracy, which was fattened by Margaret Thatcher in 1988 long before the days when email and instant messaging brought about the possibility of improved communication. Surely any funding needs to be prioritised for the customer interface?

Raise the top rate of income tax to 50 per cent – that is nothing compared to the 83 per cent rate that existed when Thatcher walked into No 10 in May 1979.

I believe that most rich people are prepared to pay more in taxes to help fund the NHS and other aspects of the public sector. A raise in taxation could help reform the service through mature negotiation, and not through top-down economics as it has been under the Tories.

Previous governments, including the Conservative-LibDem coalition, were warned as far back as 2013-14 that there was a ticking time bomb around GP recruitment and retention. Now, those chickens have come home to roost – most people are unable to get GP appointments face to face unless they go through online triage, only creating more problems for walk-in centres and A&Es.

All aspects of the NHS need to work smarter: something we hear plenty of elsewhere in the industry and the service sector. What does Wes Streeting have to say to any of the above?

Come on Labour – let’s not throw out William Beveridge’s vision in all this...

Chris Jackson

Merseyside

Wes Streeting’s attitude and ideas on the NHS are spot on. But he must start to set out the strategy and the plan if Labour is to make a difference within a short amount of time.

If battles have to be fought against the intransigent, so be it. But renegotiating the contracts of our society must be the clear plan to bring ourselves back to a path of fairness and true democracy.

It is a disgrace that in our current society money generates entitlement and advantages that override fairness. It permeates our taxation system, our housing provisions, our laws and our central and local government systems. So often, you must be well-off in relative terms to afford fairness and opportunity.

Therefore, I believe that any business that generates a profit of more than 10 per cent over several years must pay tax on all the surplus at 80 per cent. This would allow for the government to reinvest in the productivity and effectiveness of the NHS.

Streeting is right. We can’t expect any change in the public sector without a greater use of the private sector.

Michael Mann

Shrewsbury

Ofcom’s investigation into whether David Lammy’s LBC show broke broadcasting rules raises an important question about accountability, not just impartiality.

On the face of it, Lammy’s reading of a news bulletin as part of his talk show segment doesn’t seem to have been a significant breach, if at all. However, there’s a risk we erode media impartiality if we normalise politicians acting in the capacity of interviewers or hosts, even when expressing opinions.

While Lammy’s show is not positioned as a news programme, it’s a talk show – and most listeners would understand this – the problem is that it normalises the idea of politicians being seen as being impartial when they aren’t.

The very purpose of impartial journalism in a democratic country is to speak truth to power. How do we hold politicians to account if they control the media narrative? Even when they’re not presenting news but acting as interviewers?

Zafar Jamati

Stafford

The problem with the Scottish government’s new “hate crime” law isn’t that it is wrong, but that it isn’t balanced by parallel legal measures to define and defend the right of freedom of expression or provide meaningful protection to those engaging in fair debate. In this regard, the Scottish government has allowed the “cart to go before the horse”, by not first putting in place properly enforceable legal protections.

The role of “hate crime” legislation (as with the existing laws on privacy, libel and slander) should be to temper and moderate the right of free expression, by placing reasonable and sensible legal limits, without stifling fair and open public debate. But it is hard for it to do this when there is no easily enforceable or adequately defined right to freedom of expression in the first place!

“Hate Crime” legislation without balancing laws in place on freedom of expression risks exacerbating the harm already done by the UK’s unduly harsh and punitive civil laws on slander and libel, in scaring off the press and public alike from engaging in fair debate and making disclosures on genuine matters of public interest.

All this matters because the implications go well beyond the current fracas on gender identity and extend to more general rights of political debate, press freedom and disclosure of wrongdoing (whistleblowing). As such, it is vitally important for our country to get this right (be it the Scottish parliament or Westminster that finally grasps the nettle).

Although the Human Rights Act 1998 gave us (UK citizens) plenty of “rights”, it failed to enact any real criminal law provisions to enforce them.

The result is that while paying lip service to the right of freedom of expression, it is only really enforceable against government bodies, not private organisations/companies or individuals. (And then only through lengthy civil/private prosecution, whose costs and financial risks lie well beyond the means and appetite of most members of the public.)

The loose and largely unenforceable provisions within the Human Rights Act 1998 do little to protect those who dare speak out from unfair consequences, or from misapplication of “hate crime”, slander, libel and privacy legislation.

Ultimately, the protection of freedom of expression is not solely a Scottish issue, but one that affects the whole of the UK, and it is shameful that successive Westminster governments since 1998 have skirted around and failed to address this issue (due, one suspects, to the broken system of political patronage at Westminster).

The Scottish government’s new legislation has proved a highly charged issue but has also sparked some healthy debate. For my part, it is worth being clear that nothing in any of the above is intended to detract from the guiding principles of tolerance and respect all minority groups in society deserve, nor in any way encourage or protect those who peddle hate and intolerance.

Mark Campbell-Roddis

Dunblane

In his article in Mail Online recently, Boris Johnson objected to banning arms sales to Israel and even supported the idea of the Israelis invading Rafah, thus sanctioning more mass killing of Palestinians.

Does this man have any conscience or principles? Is he not aware that at least 33,000 Palestinians have already been killed by Israel, at least 14,000 of them children, some deliberately targeted by Israeli snipers?

The seemingly unwavering support for Israel’s genocidal acts by many in the UK media and political class is evidence of the disconnect between the British establishment (represented in this case by a failed, has-been politician) and the British public, with their inherent sense of justice and fairness.

Riyad Tibi

Marlow

The haunting images from Gaza are of children scarred by conflict, displacement and deprivation. Children have been witnessing their past, present and their futures decimated amidst the rubble of Gaza.

This is a city that prided itself once on having the highest literacy rates in the Arab world. No words can describe the ongoing plight now.

I wonder whether those who continue to inflict such savagery on the people of Gaza still have words to justify their senseless bloodshed. For the sake of humanity, the international community must rescue these children from becoming a truly lost generation.

Dr Munjed Farid Al Qutob

London