Letter: Workers will again shoulder the burden

Well it’s now official – Mr Philip Hammond the new Chancellor admitted the Government in the Autumn Statement has failed to keep their promise to balance the books by 2020 as borrowing will increase, after six years of George Osborne’s brutal policies.

The Treasury independent advisors said leaving the EU will trigger lower growth, higher inflation, less investment in 2017/8, economic growth will be revised from 2.2 per cent to 1.4 per cent, inflation increasing from 0.7 per cent to 2.3 per cent.

This loss of income to the Treasury will force Mr Hammond to borrow more.

Working people will once again shoulder the burden; they will be £1,000 a year poorer. But what of those Brexit dear leaders who won and lost the referendum, will they suffer the same sacrifice? Of course not.

Nigel Farage, ex-city banker, who’s convening the USA and doing some American out of a job. David Cameron who will be known as the PM who took us out of the EU, but he’s doing very nicely since his moonlight flit picking up £120,000 an hour for political speeches in America. Wonder what’s in his speeches, how to con the British people?

Then there’s George Osborne the master of them all, the former Chancellor’s reputation was crushed under a mountain of debt and missed every economic target since 2010, and yes you guessed it, he’s going round America. He’s made £320,000 in the past three months.

Because of these economic migrants and self-serving decisions, Britons will face lower growth, higher inflation and less investment.

Ron Jowett, Shifnal

Send us your letters for publication:

Email us at starmail@shropshirestar.co.uk or write to: Readers’ Letters, Shropshire Star, Ketley, Telford, TF1 5HU. Letters MUST include the writer’s name, address and telephone number. Letters will only be published anonymously in exceptional circumstances. The editor reserves the right to condense or amend letters.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Comments for: "Letter: Workers will again shoulder the burden"


Here we go again. Another new year and still the same comments. This one is the same too - now you realise where the 'con' applies to conservative. As awful as the majority may think of him, and he appals and terrifies me, maybe we need a Donald Trump in this country. Like it or not, he is honest enough and frightening enough to say where it's at and with what he says certainly makes one sit back and think.


Trump is every bit as much the conman as the Tories are. Rather than blame the greed and lack of morality of unfettered market capitalism for the woes of America's working class, he too has chosen to pretend that immigrants are to blame.

As dodgy billionaire, you wouldn't expect anything else of him, but the under-educated voters of America have fallen for his lies in large numbers, just as they fell for the lies of Brexit here.


ps: What d'yu reckon Guitar George? Happy 2017


What a welcome message we had from Theresa May in the autumn, that she’s sick of the elite. The Cabinet all applauded, as you’d expect; although 27 of them are millionaires, that doesn’t make them elite – they all got their money by winning it on scratch cards.

The PM was only abiding by a change to international law that states everyone who makes a public speech now has to insist they can’t stand the “elite”. Donald Trump – a man whose background is so modest that, in one of his castles, he has to go outside to use the moat – hates the elite. Iain Duncan Smith with his modest 15-up 15-down Tudor mansion is fed up with the elite, too. Boris Johnson stands up against the elite, because his background was so humble that one of the kids at his primary school had an imaginary friend who didn’t have his own valet.


The problem is that people both here and in the US were fed up of seeing a proliferation of low-paid jobs, zero hour contracts, loss of longstanding workplace benefits such as pensions, lack of affordable housing etc.

As a result, they felt the need to protest. In the past they would have been able to via their strong trade unions, which did so much historically to provide the NHS, to ensure that workplace pensions were provided and to ensure that pay was sufficient to live on. None of the wealth that allowed that to happen has left this country - it's simply been taken away from ordinary people and been put into the pockets of the wealthy. Today, the 4th of January, marks the day in the year when the wealthiest CEOs in the country will have been paid already as much as their average paid workers - that is simply immoral.

You might expect that people would have protested against those responsible for this uneven distribution of wealth - but instead, led by the nose by tabloid newspapers, they have put in place both here and in the US regimes which will continue to attack the poorest workers, removing more of their rights, attacking further what remains of their trade unions and continuing to pretend that various scapegoats (immigrants, the working poor, the disabled, etc.) are to blame, rather than the unrestrained greed of the privileged and wealthy.

I'm sorry to say that we are in an age where stupidity, and the willingness to accept lies in the same way as facts (for example the lie of the supposed £350m per week for the NHS) are seen as virtues. This can only lead to huge social unrest - anyone who thinks that our exit from the EU here, or the election of Trump in the US will help ordinary people is in deep denial. We have a bleak period ahead, until such a time as people come to their senses and realise that the politics of the right and the far right always, without exception, lead to disaster.


Yes I'm sure all those Ford workers in the US are really disappointed their President elect prioritizes their employment above that of cheap Mexican labour. The stupidity and willingness to accept socialist ideology above sensible domestic policy is always staggering. Any more lunatic protestations please keep on spitting them out. I cannot wait for the Conservative manifesto pledge in the next general election to have £350 million per week for NHS investment, your sad sorry rhetoric shall be a polemical.



George Osborne should be aware of his achievements, because he must be one of the first people to be warned he was being too mean to the poor by a body made up of the aristocracy, people dressed in ermine and bishops.

This proved his leadership potential, similar to a burglar being so determined he’s told by his colleagues: “Hang on, George, leave them the Sugar Puffs. We can’t take everything off the poor sods.” But instead of taking credit, he’s humble enough to explain the main issue of this uneasiness about cutting the income of the poorest people, which is that it creates a “constitutional crisis”.

That’s the real pain felt by the families who lose £1,300 a year. When children ask: “Why have we got to go without breakfast from now on, Mummy?” they’ll be told: “Because if we’re allowed to keep getting tax credits it would disturb an unspecified constitutional legislative protocol that may or may not have been established in 1910. Do you want to ruin that just for a boiled egg? Now remember, if you faint at school, chew on a finger.”


If the trade unions are being attacked by anyone then it has largely been brought upon themselves. Let's look at a current item of industrial action. I assume that your 'stupidity and willingness to accept lies' relates to the RMT's current strike action on Southern Trains.

a) the 'stupidity;' of the union leadership in stating that this action has got anything to do with safety when everyone knows otherwise and,

b) 'the willingness to accept lies' in that the RMT membership apparently believes any of this nonsense.


The Southern Rail dispute is to do with the introduction of a policy leading to trains being operated by a driver alone, unsupported by a guard.

There are implications here for passenger safety. Guards are able to survey the platform at stations and close the doors of the train safely. Under the new policy, a driver will have to do this from the cab, without the same viewing point. Incidents on board trains, such as assaults, are far more likely to occur when there are no train staff. Alerting the driver using alarms means distracting him from his task of controlling a train at over 100mph.

Surely you can't actually believe that Southern's proposals aren't bad news for passenger safety - or would you say the sky is yellow if a trade union said it was blue?


Government ministers such as Chris Grayling and Anna Soubry have been furious this week about the railway strikes, saying: “These strikes INCONVENIENCE people.”

Their point seems to be that we all agree, in a fair society, everyone should be allowed to join a union, but we mustn’t let unions abuse that privilege by making any difference to anything.

Grayling suggested we could ban transport strikes, which would be fair as the workforce could still protest, by doing a nice drawing. Maybe they could agree a designated time once a year when anyone who paid their union fees was allowed to pull a funny face.

Colin S

In my short time on this planet of 67 years I can't recall any Government that we have had not expecting the workers to carry the national debt. At best some have sprinkled us a few crumbs from the table.

Don't forget we are expendable when we pop our clogs another poor grunt will be there to fill our boots.

Mr Majestic

OH for godsake oh poor me!!!! Somebody always has to pay, sounds good when you start throwing out good figures like 1k most will not even be noticed by joe public .

In real life you have those who will benefit and those who will not ,but they benefit in other ways , it is not all about money .

You have rich, middle, poor always been the case always will be it only works that way go down road of communism you have far worse scenarios .

You work hard, don't even need super qualifications , you are either a go getter or just a guy who sits back and relies on another to provide the job , the work, etc or you go get it yourself both have benefits.

The living wage will be upon us soon it is not going to get better than that ,folks need to build on that.


Theresa May specifically singled out the “Liberal Metropolitan Elite,” for ruining our lives. You can understand why, because these are the very people who have spoilt everything with their liberal ways. There’s Topshop’s Philip Green, who wasted millions so he could complete a course as a human rights lawyer and get his hipster beard trimmed. Mike Ashley, condemned for his treatment of staff at Sports Direct, has “homeopath” written all over him.


The so-called 'National Living Wage' should not be confused with a real living wage, as determined by the Living Wage Foundation. Of course the Tories wanted people to confuse the two when they renamed the Minimum Wage to 'The National Living Wage'.

The fact is the even under the proposed increases this does not represent an amount people can live on in most areas of the country, and poor quality employers will continue to receive subsidies from taxpayers whilst they line their pockets from the labour of their employees.


You still haven't learned anything price and pay controls cannot work, all they have ever achieved is lower pay higher prices and uncontrolled inflation. We had all this nonsense back in the day with the National board for Incomes and Prices but hey they keep on at it equal pay, minimum wage being maximum wage so with every new investment across all industries and sectors this is factored as the median pay level irrespective of the work and its conditions.

Who got rid of more miners? Wilson or Thatcher? Which paid the best redundancies? Who got rid of the most manufacturing Thatcher or Blair? Wonder why those northern towns are about to sack those Labour M.P.'s eh? At least George Osborne championed the case for a northern power house Labour had just fed platitudes and did sweet nothing for the northern economy, apart from open doors for unskilled workers to grab whatever miserable job there was that nobody with dignity would want or care to do.



Yes, for 35 years British life has been relentlessly liberal. It started with Margaret Thatcher, who shut down the mines so they could be replaced by documentaries on BBC4 about Tibetan dance. And she brought in the Poll Tax, but only because she was convinced this would lead to wider ownership of African wood carvings bought from antique shops in Notting Hill.

guitar george he knows all the chords

Is there any reason why our country’s ex-leaders shouldn’t earn good money now? They shouldered pressure that would make a grown man crawl into a corner and cry. How many people commenting here could deal with the pressure and scrutiny they faced every day, or have the confidence and self-belief to do what they did. Regardless of their politics, Cameron and Osbourne are without doubt unique and talented individuals, as is anyone who puts themselves into that arena

I don’t understand why we Brits bash people for earning money, would the letter writer be happier if they lived on state benefits?? We should be bashing our permanently idle benefit scroungers instead rather than our high-achievers (and no Veritycross, not those people on low salaries who we support, but those who refuse to get out of their beds and go to work).


Absolutely, anyone with compassion must feel immensely sorry for David Cameron. He claimed that he had not benefited from any money that his father may have saved through offshore tax accounts. No inheritance for the young David? His dad must have been a right so-and-so. Perhaps Ian Cameron – who amassed his fortune of £10m, some of it through placing his money in the Bahamas to reduce his tax bill – didn’t spend a penny on his son. The Prime Minister must have put himself through Eton on a really big paper round.

It’s no wonder that he insisted the country must be careful with money, after he spent his youth pleading, “Dad, can I have 80 pence for my bus fare to the Bullingdon Club ball where we throw rotting vegetables at the poor?” and was told “No you can’t. If you want your own money, set up a trust in the Virgin Isles.”

You can tell how embarrassed Cameron was about his dad’s behaviour, because he said his dad’s finances were a “private matter”. After all, his dad was a private man; so private, that is, he even kept his finances private from the British tax office.

guitar george he knows all the chords

Yep, let's bash the achievers. Terrible thing, jealousy


Yes, it was touching to see Cameron defend his father, even after admitting he had, in fact, benefited from his income. Hopefully if he's asked about him, Cameron will reply: “I’ll tell you what my father would have said – ‘do your tie up, sing the National Anthem, and spirit millions of quid away in the Bahamas so none of it gets taken and used for frivolities like treating cancer’.”

Cunning Linguist

Except they aren't earning it. Researchers from Lancaster University’s management school found that returns on investment from major companies amounted to just one per cent in a decade despite senior executives enjoying pay rises of more than 80 per cent over the same period.



I cannot be bothered to read all the replies but to the original poster I ask the simple question; why are you so blinkered that you do not ask the same question of the Blair Brown years. Either they never happened, or you must have the most selective information on which you based your letter.

The billions of tax payers money they wasted beggars belief, and the millions Blair has made since, is totally immoral.

So please, don't waste people's time with your stupid letters.