Heathrow expansion is good for business – but not for most of us | Brief letters

Heathrow expansion is good for business – but not for most of us | Brief letters
Benefit cuts | Third runway | Landlines | Charity shops | Football numbers

Both Aditya Chakrabortty (Opinion, 26 October) and Ken Loach in his film I, Daniel Blake highlight the horrors created by the destruction of social security by austerity and bureaucracy. However, they are in danger of recreating the pernicious distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor. Homelessness, unemployment, ill-health, sanctions and the denial of benefits make some people angry, uncooperative and even violent. Our outrage should not just be on behalf of the nice people.
Ruth Eversley
Paulton, Somerset

• I am told yet again that the decision (Heathrow expansion) is “good for business” (Report, 26 October). We have seen big business drive this country’s economy into one of low wages, low skills, and low productivity. Add in rubbish roads, stuffed trains and minimal housebuilding, plus massive financial misconduct and the trashing of people’s pensions, and it may be “good for business” – but it’s not good for most of us.
Ray Chalker
London

Continue reading…

Source: Guardian Transport

<a href="Heathrow expansion is good for business – but not for most of us | Brief letters” target=”_blank”>Heathrow expansion is good for business – but not for most of us | Brief letters