We need to give our politicians a break – they’re humans, just like us

Of all the occupational groups which we cannot do without, politicians seem to be the least appreciated and the most vilified. Admittedly, I used to be one of many citizens who took their lives for granted, lives which are nevertheless enriched by the hard work which goes on out of our view. When I saw politicians squabbling, I didn’t appreciate that the heated debates were an essential part of the workings of democracy, a process which we are tremendously lucky to be a part of. Surely, while rival parties are keeping each other in check and trying to score brownie points, we citizens are better served as a consequence? But, as a young woman, I never thought it through.

These days, however, when I hear someone utter the words, “I’m not interested in politics”, I struggle to refrain from asking sarcastically, “Are you not interested in your life then?” Almost every aspect of our lives is immersed in politics – our rights, our freedoms and the many needs which we expect to be met. We notice when something is lacking or when a scandal breaks, but often fail to recognise the efforts of those who perform thankless tasks over and over again in jobs which carry huge responsibility but no security.

I admire them tremendously, and my admiration has caused a few raised eyebrows over the years. But, when asked recently if I had ever fancied a career in politics, my reply was, “Definitely not; I’m too much of a coward and I would not want to work that hard!” Politicians place themselves in the firing line, need skins as thick as a rhino’s, yet their hearts must not harden as they endure bullying interviews, biased and vitriolic journalism, protestors with rotten tomatoes or worse, and ridicule and shame when a decision goes badly wrong. It is easy to be wise with the benefit of hindsight – we’ve all been there – but a senior politician, it seems, must be superhuman.

How many situations have there been where politicians are damned if they do and damned if they don’t? As for a U-turn, we’d expect former critics to welcome the reversal, but it is seen as a weakness. For a superhuman I suppose it would be. But we criticise if politicians appear elitist and out of touch. So, human they must remain, with all that goes with it, including the capacity for error. As far as I’m aware, they do not possess two interchangeable heads.

The opposition parties must continue to do their job, but the rest of us could be a little kinder. We pass harsh judgement on those whose jobs are far more complex than we can imagine. In my forties I tried to study economics but failed miserably to grasp the subject. Now, even the mention of the work of the Chancellor of the Exchequer leaves me feeling humble, and it’s a feeling that I’m happy to have.

Perhaps, while we are watching the “stars” of reality TV we should consider who the real “reality stars” are – not just the politicians of course but also the security services, the armed forces, the police, our NHS staff, firefighters and everyone who has rallied round to give support in the wake of the terrible tragedies in recent months. And please, let’s give Theresa May a break. She’s been our Prime Minister for just over a year, yet some would lay the blame for all events at her feet. No doubt it would be her fault if an alien spaceship landed!

Karen Moore
Boston

As much as I sympathise deeply with the parents of Charlie Gard, I feel that the intervention by the Pope and Donald Trump, neither of whom has medical qualifications, to be nothing more than cynical political opportunism, playing to ill-advised populist sentiments.

A baby who has irreparable brain damage, who can neither hear, see, swallow and who is being kept alive by a machine, has no quality of life and no hope for a future. To continue to treat him as some kind of experimental animal is cruel – we would not submit an animal to such suffering.

Great Ormond Street has a fine reputation worldwide for its care of critically ill children. Please, let the doctors do their job, stop this baby’s terrible pain, and keep the politicians out of it.

Katherine Scholfield
London W8

University student indebtedness rose this year by 16.6 per cent to a staggering total of some £100bn, reflecting the fact that graduate students are now paying fees up to £9,000 per year. So the average student debt now comes out at some £44,000, whereas hitherto it was £16,000.

The funding system is plainly out of control. Nevertheless, Jo Johnson, the minister for universities and science, said on 4 July, “The fact that some loans never get fully repaid is a deliberate subsidy for the lowest-earning graduates, not a symptom of a broken student finance system”. Really? At what figure has the minister in mind before he admits that remedial action of the system is called for?

And what a wonderful example of Orwellian doublespeak. When is a loan not a loan? Answer: when it is a hidden subsidy. I must try this tactic on my bank: “I am a poor man and I now call upon your intended subsidy to waive repayment of my loan on the grounds of poverty.” Collapse of Stout Manager.

David Ashton
Kent

Although I appreciate the argument in The Independent, that for many young people zero-hours contracts can lead to mental health issues, I can also see good points in the system and am concerned about Jeremy Corbyn’s intention to abolish these contracts.

My reasons are the following:

Almost five years ago the then government closed most Remploy factories. My son who has a mild learning handicap and was 46 at the time, had worked at Remploy for almost 26 years. It took a great deal of effort to find new employment. After many months he joined the WRVS as a volunteer. After 18 months he landed a zero-hours contract with Marriott Hotels as a kitchen porter, his first paid job. He really enjoys the work, but sadly only gets two days of work most weeks. The hotel industry is very competitive and these contracts suit them. I fear, if they are abolished, my son will yet again have no work at all. Now aged 51, it is highly unlikely that he would find anything else.

Christa Clemmetsen
Newcastle upon Tyne

Every time one thinks that this Government and Prime Minister can’t sink any lower they manage to find a way of doing just that.

Promising severely traumatised victims of the Grenfell disaster that their immigration status would not be taken into account if they came forward is now shown to have been a grotesquely cynical nasty party ploy.

Some apparent U-turns are merely symptoms of weakness and vacillation. Others, like this one, reveal our strong and stable Prime Minister to be either a cynical liar or pathetically weak when it comes to facing down the xenophobes she has surrounded herself with. Take your pick.

D Maughan Brown
York

Tom Peck’s article of 5 July (Survivors who seek help now risk deportation) leaves me with just one thought – THE UNBELIEVABLY NASTY PARTY!

Patrick Cleary
​Honiton