Heroic leaders will not solve anything

Not only are we seduced by the right-wing rhetoric which, as Joyce McMillan says, seeks to persuade those of us on low incomes that “the unemployed” or “benefit scroungers” are to blame for our problems, but we still appear to believe in the myth of heroic leadership to get us out of trouble, notwithstanding all the evidence that many self-styled “leaders” are both arrogant and greedy.

It is timely that Professor Dennis Tourish of Royal Holloway College, London University, recently wrote a book on The Dark Side of Transformational Leadership.

He shows that our tendency to give away all our power to others to make decisions on our behalf has led to  the rise of a cadre of individuals like Andy Hornby and co, who are concerned not to give back to public life but to take from it to enrich themselves.

Some Conservative apologists have asked what the alternatives are to welfare cuts in a period of economic austerity. As Joyce McMillan points out, there are plenty of sensible alternatives, to which I would add taxing the rich fairly.

We should not be treating them as though they were our saviours by their entrepreneurship – they need the efforts of their employees to make a profit.

Even more importantly, we should have faith in our own common sense rather than hoping these self-styled “leaders” are going to solve all our problems for us.

We have the means to do that through our active participation in democratic processes, ensuring that our decision-makers do so our behalf, not theirs.

(Dr) Mary Brown

Dalvenie Road

Banchory

Whether or not you agree with the government’s  specific plans to reduce our crippling benefit bill, I don’t think that anyone would  disagree that the system needs a radical overhaul.

A case that tragically illustrates this is that of the Philpott family: a man, his wife, his live-in lover and 17 children. The idea of having 17 children is in itself questionable, but when you are unemployed and unable to support them it is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

To those who would disagree with this on the grounds of human rights or whatever, I say that this is not an ethical matter, but one of pure financial practicality. What if every man in the country fathered 17 children?

At least some of these children, given the circumstances that they have been born into, are statistically likely to fall into the same benefit- dependency trap as their father, whose situation was such that it would not have been financially advantageous to take a job, and the system feeds itself.

The question that we should be asking is whether or not our benefit system is responsible for creating the lifestyles of people like Mr Philpott.

Walter J Allan

Colinton Mains Drive

Edinburgh

John Downie’s argument (Letters, 5 April) is both unfair and illogical in his comment on Alex Massie’s article on the popularity of welfare reform (Perspective, 4 April).

On the one hand, Mr Downie recognises the need to reform the welfare system and calls for action which gives people “more control and power over their own lives”. What is that but giving people the ability to reduce their dependency on state support?

The current system has many anomalies which discourage independence by making recipients better off financially in welfare.

It is precisely to make the welfare system fairer and to enable people to have more power and control that drives the philosophy behind the reforms Iain Duncan Smith is pioneering.

On the other hand, in rather emotive language, Mr Downie describes IDS as demonstrating “bitterly flawed ideology”. Yet the philosophy of IDS and that articulated by Mr Downie are in reality very similar.

The example used by Mr Downie focuses on those currently in social housing. Yet there are large numbers of families in overcrowded accommodation who would dearly love access to the housing which is now under-occupied at the expense of the public purse.

And as Alex Massie points out, the move to make the system more fair is not lost on a large part of the population.

(Cllr) Cameron Rose

City Chambers

Edinburgh

In her criticisms of the  viability of universal benefits (Perspective, 5 April), Susan Dalgety failed to mention an important point in post-war history. Aneurin Bevan may have pioneered the  National Health Service but he resigned from the Labour Cabinet in 1951 in protest at the introduction of charges for prescriptions and other services.

That might have been a historical oversight on Susan’s part. She has less excuse for failing to mention the cost of means-testing not just prescription charges, but concessionary travel, free tuition and free personal care.

In the main it has been prudent husbandry of resources that has allowed the Scottish Government to provide these facilities from the Westminster block grant. It need make no apology for effective financial planning and using its devolved powers to best effect.

Ms Dalgety cites the remarks of auditor general Robert Black about every pound spent on bus passes for well-off older people being a pound not available for other things.

But this simply reflects the difficulty of seeing things through the eyes of an accountant rather than an economist. The impact of charging for bus passes, to take one example, would be fewer passengers, fewer buses, less choice of routes and an increase in car journeys, with all that means for social welfare and the environment.

Universality should not be dismissed as fostering a “culture of entitlement”. It can make sound economic sense. It can make political sense too. Labour supporters, if not the Labour leadership, know that its review of charging is fraught with problems, and leaves the party open to all sorts of misrepresentation at a crucial period in Scottish politics.

Bob Taylor

Shiel Court

Glenrothes