Inside the Guardian ghetto

In writing on the occasion of a William Beveridge anniversary, Liam Byrne isn't out to present a scholarly summary of the famous Beveridge White Paper, he's testing how a few new welfare themes might be received in today's political climate.

The Guardian has picked a few readers' letters commenting on his article. Their choice tells you how extreme is The Guardian's ethos, how far adrift of current political reality.

Lead letter writer Professor David Byrne is presumably no relation to Liam. The Prof has certainly decided to use personal rudeness to make his point. For instance

... his article is an insult to the memory of Beveridge and to those who today have no work because the capitalist economy has failed them. Mass unemployment is, as Beveridge put it in his first book in 1909, primarily a problem of industry, of the system, rather than a result of the deficiencies of the unemployed.

Oh yes, excellent practical politics. The next prof wants everyone to have "a basic universal income, so that people do not feel compelled to avoid unpaid occupations". This would be financed by a wealth tax. Hm. Suppose everyone opted for unpaid occupations then?

After the two leftie profs, the next writer says the "mass unemployment that threatens this country" is (will be?) caused by "a capitalist system gone feral". Her solution?

We have to share around the products of a wealthy society and ensure the gap between rich and poor is viewed as a problem to be solved, not the normal consequence of capitalism.

State enforced equality for everyone, then?

The next prof is warning us that soon people "will find that they must pay for their healthcare, as the private corporations involved in clinical commissioning groups decide what they will and will not offer". Hm. His Labour government must have been spending all that money on something. What, then?

The next writer challenges Liam Byrne to come up with a new housing policy, and seems to want rent control, comparing policy on housing in the different society of the late 1940s with policies today. The current housing minister, Grant Shapps, has his faults (he is a Friend of the Earth), but he is making useful reforms to housing policy which eluded his predecessors.

Eyelids drooping? We'll look at just one more letter, where the writer has hit on the simple solution:

Were pensioners paid a decent pension and were employees paid a decent wage, there would be no need for these subsidies and our welfare benefit budget would fall dramatically.

And who's going to pay for that?

The Guardian has chosen for publication letters pushing points I've outlined above - far outside any mainline political discourse.

Are these kneejerks what passes for thinking in the Guardian ghetto?