Letters: Brown's succession

Brown's succession to power brings us a step nearer dictatorship

Sir: It is bad news that the Labour Party national executive has decided that Gordon Brown will not need to face a ballot if he is unchallenged as party leader.

Related articles

• Marriage and Children: Brown puts children first in tax-break battle with Tories
• The Sketch: He spoke about us, but it was clearly all about himself
• Green Homes: Low-carbon houses given tax breaks
• Property Taxation: Commercial property industry condemns 'stealth taxes'
• A chancellor whose record has divided the economists
• Tony Juniper: We need a coherent strategy to tackle climate change
• Pension Funds: More help for failed schemes dismissed as 'not enough'
• Research and Development: Value of R&D tax credits for companies to increase in 2008
• Business: Bag of 'mixed blessings' leaves City unimpressed
• Lib-Dem Reaction: Tax cut subsidises rich and hits poor, says Campbell
• Jeremy Warner: Now for the Chancellor's final conjuring trick: the famous disappearing tax cut
• Whitehall Costs: Mandarins face £1bn cut in departments' spending
• Betting: Gambling duty 'will keep firms offshore'
• Excise Duties: Chancellor's tax double-whammy to persuade smokers to give up
• Health: Torrid times loom for NHS in wake of final cash increase
• Deborah Orr: A missed chance to tackle the iniquities of the housing market
• Schools & Colleges: Big boost for education spending to improve training for teenagers
• Michael Brown: Now the Tories know they won't have an easy time
• Steve Richards: Gordon Brown goes out with a surprise - just as he began his time at the Treasury
• Rainforest Protection: New fund to conserve Congo Basin
• Energy: A technology competition that could save the planet
• Stephen King: With taxation at historically high levels, the Chancellor has a patchy record to defend
• Conservative Reaction: Cameron: NHS failure is 'hole in the heart of Budget'
• Childcare Provision: More nursery care for under-5s
• Asset Disposals: Plan to raise £36bn from sale of state holdings
• Defence Spending: Security agencies win £86m for terror fight
• Hamish McRae: Budget that fails to confront difficult days that lie ahead
• Pensions: Most pensioners will feel the benefit
• Public Expenditure: Borrowing estimate up again despite tight squeeze on spending
• Brown opens way for early election with unexpected cut in income tax
• Small Business: Screw tightens on tax avoidance schemes by firms and individuals
• Transport: Green lobby attacks 'faint-hearted' 4x4 levy
• Winner or loser? What it all means for you
• Business Reaction: Savings for business are 'a good first step', says CBI chief
• John Rentoul: Heard the one about the understudy who wowed the Westminster crowd?
• Simon Carr: After a decade in office, the striking thing is how little Brown has changed
• Economic Forecast: 'Rosy' outlook sees Brown gamble all on defying slowdowns
• Family Income: Vast majority just £35-a-year better off after income tax cut
• Leading article: A Chancellor who will cast a very long shadow
• Search the news archive for more stories

Unlike many other countries in Europe, Britain has never (officially, at any rate) been under the yoke of a dictator or been in danger of becoming a dictatorship. As a result, it never seems to be understood in this country that it should be possible for people to vote against a sole candidate or even to abstain; if the candidate gains, say, less than 50 per cent of the vote, a contest should then be mandatory.

We already have an elective dictatorship, in which the Prime Minister can impose his will on the party and ignore all criticism. If Gordon Brown is allowed to step unopposed into the office of Prime Minister, we shall be a step nearer to a true dictatorship. Criticisms of Brown by Lord Turnbull and other civil servants who have had experience of trying to work with him suggest that he will be at least as dictatorial as Tony Blair, if not more so.

NICK CHADWICK

OXFORD

Sir: Although our great Labour government shares some characteristics with various fascist and communist regimes which have graced our planet over the years, I feel that the recent comparison between Gordon Brown and Stalin is somewhat unfair. Stalin is believed to be responsible for the deaths of around 13 million people. Gordon Brown is known to be responsible for raising taxes. The two hardly compare.

Despite this the media has leapt on the story with glee. ITV's 10.30 news programme featured a report done in a "jokey" style featuring old Soviet posters with Brown's head grafted on to them. The BBC went even further - a picture of Brown actually morphed into the beaming despot (no, not Tony Blair, we're still talking about Stalin). Whilst ITV's treatment didn't come as a huge shock to me as they've always had a conservative bias, it still seems to be in bad taste. If someone had been compared to Hitler would they be playing the Horst Wessel song?

The BBC on the other hand has no excuse. To quote their charter: "The BBC exists to serve the public interest." Surely serving the public interest means providing fair and unbiased coverage of the news, not using visual association to liken the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the perpetrator of one of the worst genocides in history.

OLIVER WAKEFIELD

STAFFORD

A proud European denounces Brussels

Sir: When first I read your front page of 21 March I thought it might have been written tongue in cheek. I could set about refuting all 50 of the "reasons to love the EU", but some are more outrageous than others and deserve prominence.

The European Union has not ended wars in Europe. There had been 12 years of peace by the date of the Treaty of Rome, and democracy was well established by then in most of Europe's non-Communist states. The only European war since then, in the former Yugoslavia, was brought to an end by Nato, not the EU.

Peace, and the defeat of of totalitarianism is the product of the military might of the USA and the determination of the likes of President Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, not Delors or Prodi.

The Common Agricultural policy has been disastrous for farming, particularly in Britain, and the fisheries policy has brought a great industry, employing tens of thousands, to its knees, to say nothing of its effect on the marine environment.

You even have the nerve to claim that our taste for foreign food is promoted by the European Union; Elizabeth David and others started that enthusiasm long before 1957, and our taste for Asian and Latin American cuisine owes nothing to Brussels.

Finally, your greatest sin is to confuse Europe with the EU. Continental Europe is a wonderful place, which we should visit, learn from and co-operate with on all possible occasions. We can do all of that without being a part of a European super-state. I am proud to be European, but I do not wish to be a subject of the EU.

CHRIS MIDDLETON

ROTHERHAM SOUTH YORKSHIRE

Sir: Noting that the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome followed one day after the fourth anniversary of the Iraq war brings us to a fine example of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

The Eurosceptics have gone quiet lately. Their position always rested heavily on the proposition that the Atlantic alliance alone was the right basket into which to put all Britain's foreign policy eggs.

But there is now widespread recognition that the Iraq war is a disaster which the major Europeans warned us against. Suddenly the American connection has lost its appeal. Tony Blair promised to put us at the heart of Europe: the Iraq war may yet do the trick.

Americans counting the cost of the Bush presidency - a process which may take some time - should include the fact that Bush has lost them the leadership of the free world. We will, of course, co-operate with the Americans in the future. But it will be many years before we next agree to be led by them.

PETER GROSE

LONDON W8

Long, hard climb up the property ladder

Sir: What on earth has Katy Guest got against the over 55s? ("On the wrong side of the generation gap", 20 March) My husband recently retired at 65, having left school at 15, thus working and paying National Insurance and income tax for 50 years.

My husband had been working for 13 years before we were able to buy our one-bedroom flat (equivalent to today's generation being in their mid- to late 30s by the time they get on the property ladder).

In 1968 when we got married, no mortgage company would take a wife's salary into account when calculating a loan. We had no kindly grandmother around to help us and we were still in the flat when our first child was a year old.

By the time the 80s came around, interest rates had climbed to 15 per cent - pretty scary with both of us already working flat out. Unlike today's generation we had no cheap foreign holidays to look forward to either, so life was certainly not the bed of roses she seems to think it was.

Only once we'd finished supporting our children through university and helping them on to the property ladder themselves, were we able to start thinking about our own paltry pensions. With shares plummeting and pension schemes going bust we decided to put our savings into bricks and mortar in the form of "buy-to-let", for which we are now being heavily criticised.

I do hope Katy Guest will cheer up now she's on that elusive property ladder.

DIANA RANDELL

SANDERSTEAD, SURREY

Sir: Renting a flat - yes, with strangers if necessary - was a rite of passage for my generation in the years after graduating and while establishing a career and working out where one wanted to live. It was just part of growing up. Now, a few weeks away from 35, I am bemused to find that people expect to skip that stage and move straight from the parental home to owner-occupier status.

There are advantages to renting while you're young - meeting a wider range of people, having more disposable income, leaving boring domestic problems to the landlord. But even if there weren't, a "room of one's own" in a desirable area in one's 20s is something to aspire to and work for, not an inalienable right.

CATRIONA MOORE

LONDON SE15

Biofuel is no threat to Amazon forests

Sir: There is absolutely no relation between the production of ethanol and the deforestation of the Amazon region ("The big green fuel lie", 5 March). Sugar cane is not produced in the Amazon region, whose soil and climate are incompatible with this culture.

More than 83 per cent of Brazil's sugar cane plantations are in the Centre-South region. The North, where the Amazon forest is located, accounts for only 0.35 per cent of the cane plantation, most of which is used for domestic consumption. There are no ethanol processing plants in the North.

Another myth is that the adoption of biofuels can only come at the expense of food production and will encourage more land occupation and deforestation. There are still 90 million hectares of land that can be used for agriculture in Brazil without the need to cut down a single tree. For example there are 200 million cattle spread over 220 million hectares. The mere use of this land in a more productive manner, with the recovery of degraded areas for agriculture, would add some 50 million hectares to production. This is more than enough to triple the output of ethanol using today's technology (expected advances not considered) and to enhance food production to meet domestic and international demand.

From 1990/1991 to 2006/2007, the production of grains grew 108.29 per cent in Brazil, while the cultivated area expanded only 20.58 per cent. This shows that the use of technology and other productivity enhancements explain Brazil's excellence in agriculture, not simply territorial expansion.

ISMAR CARDONA

SOCIAL COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATOR, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, LIVESTOCK AND SUPPLY, BRASILIA

'Gay' has changed its meaning again

Sir: While agreeing entirely with Philip Hensher's article "I don't want my licence fee going to homophobes"(20 March), I hate to break it to him that the word "gay" is already lost to his cause.

The meaning of "gay" among younger people today has nothing to do with homosexuality. Now it denotes irritation or minor annoyance, as in (quoting my daughter): "Oh it was so gay, we couldn't do hockey today because of the snow." Is my daughter to be accused of homophobia? No.

While this new meaning may have had sinister beginnings, with the likes of Chris Moyles popularising it as an insult, now, to my daughter, its meaning is the new one, not the old.

"Gay" has changed meanings not once but twice in our lifetime. My mother still bemoans the passing of its original meaning of happy, jolly, light-spirited, and the resultant ruination of the lovely "Monday's child is fair of face" nursery rhyme.

Homosexual people may have wanted to appropriate the word for themselves because they approved of it, but they cannot, Canute-like, hold back the tide of our ever-changing language.

JULIE FFRENCH

HAWKHURST KENT

Israel wants to meet Arabs in sport

Sir: Jack Downey in his letter (15 March) chides Israel for not joining its enemies on the sports pitch. Israel has always been willing to play against Arab nations; the problem comes from the other side. Arab states will not permit their teams to compete against Israel.

Since Israel has not been permitted by other Middle Eastern teams to play against them, it competes instead in the European arena, whether in music and song, in sports, or even in trade and industry. When the Arab Middle Eastern nations accept Israel's existence in their midst Israel would be only too happy to compete near home.

ANNE KLAUSNER

PETACH TIKVA, ISRAEL

Hunting: we've had the debate

Sir: Tim Bonner of the Countryside Alliance objects to the imposition of morality on those who wish to continue hunting. He calls for an honest debate (Letters, 20 March). But the debate is over. Parliament made hunting illegal. It's over when it's over.

KIT DAVIDSON

ANIMAL AID, TONBRIDGE, KENT

Sir: Tim Bonner describes the Hunting Act as "imposing morality on people". Disgraceful. Next thing, the enemies of liberty will be stopping badger baiting and banning people from advertising for white staff.

CHRISTOPHER CLAYTON

WAVERTON, CHESHIRE

Apocalyptic fears

Sir: Mr Weaver ("We will need Trident one day", Letters, 20 March) paints a vivid picture of future conflicts over increasingly scarce resources. If the predictions he cites are to be proved accurate, perhaps there is a better way to spend £25bn than on adding nuclear war to the list of calamities we may face.

GILES BARRETT

LONDON E14

Ruling class

Sir: "There is nothing undemocratic about appointments [to the House of Lords] provided they are made by an independent panel on criteria laid down by Parliament." (Letters, 21 March.) This naively signs up to the "They know what's best for us" style of government. Who else but the already powerful and influential would select the "independent panel", which would inevitably be constituted from the already powerful and influential? We have got to grow up and refuse to be ruled by "our betters". Democracy is the worst system of government, apart from all the rest.

EDDIE DOUGALL

WALSHAM LE WILLOWS, SUFFOLK

Home Office logic

Sir: Once again, the Home Office parades its own failures as justification for awarding itself more powers ("Terrorists among 10,000 a year who obtain passports by fraud", 21 March). This twisted logic rewards bad management, and seizes on evidence of incompetence merely as another legislative opportunity.

DAMIEN BOVE

BARNET, HERTFORDSHIRE

Biased in favour of boys

Sir: Many years ago when I took the 11-plus, we later found out that "they" were using a pass mark of 50 per cent for boys and 60 per cent for girls, so as to ensure 50-50 boys and girls passed the exam. Now we have a level playing field, I read that "they" plan to give boys extra tuition, so they can catch up with the girls. It is fashionable to enable brighter children to do better than their peers - through City Colleges and faith schools - but not if they are girls, evidently. So much for "post-feminism".

HENRIETTA CUBITT

CAMBRIDGE

Handbagged

Sir: Hot on the heels of the ten best T-shirts -cheapest £85 - come the ten best handbags (21 March), half of which cost between £589 and £840. With my wife's birthday fast approaching, I've had to quickly bin The Independent in case she takes a fancy to one of them. Give your male readers a break will you?

ROGER HEWELL

BATH