Letters: the real problem with a Labour super-majority

Good trade-off

Sir: I applaud your excellent editorial (‘Trading in Falsehoods’, 6 April) – a succinct and insightful essay on the role of Great Britain in the abolition of slavery and the slave trade. All are agreed that slavery in any form was and is reprehensible. As a white and proud Barbadian, initially educated there, I contend that some of my ancestors, who were probably slave owners, did not believe that they were involved in anything immoral or sinful, but were serving the economic interests of the Empire as they saw it at the time. You rightly point out that the huge cost in treasure and lives incurred by Britain and the Royal Navy in ending the slave trade is largely ignored.

The current clamour for reparations -– particularly from the Prime Minister of Barbados – is ironic, considering that the island is one of the most highly developed and successful economies in the western world with a very high GDP per capita, one of the best literacy and education systems, a stable democracy, respected judiciary, free press and a Christian ethos. This did not happen by accident and I would suggest that any ‘debt’ to Barbados has long been repaid, with interest.

Roger Laing

Iver, Bucks

Majority rule

Sir: Your analysis of Keir Starmer’s potentially bloated majority (‘The Starmer supremacy’, 6 April) omits one simple factor. There would be too many Labour MPs to be bribed and sedated by the prospect of office or other favours. Those elected for unexpected constituencies will soon discover that they have little power to make life better for them. They will then have a strong motive to rebel on any issue which is important to them. This could gain them a reputation as an independent local champion and thereby provide a better chance of retaining their seats at the following election than loyally parroting the propaganda of the Starmer government.