MICHAEL Fry states that Darren McGarvey’s book “vividly depicts the underclass of Glasgow” (Loki’s libertarian instinct is correct – there will be no Scottish revolution, July 3). “The underclass of Glasgow” – how glibly pejorative, Mr Fry, If not Victorian sounding!

For me, the term “underclass” – which is also used in the title of said book – is a loathsome, dehumanising term that stigmatises people who are, essentially, marginalised – not “under” anything or anyone, but living on the edge. Based on what I’ve read or seen of Darren McGarvey (brilliant on Question Time a few weeks ago), I doubt he meant it in this stigmatising way, but unfortunately it’s such a loaded term, one that often reflects and panders to prejudice, in my view.

It’s true that among those people who are marginalised and living in poverty, some may have particularly complex issues which significantly add to their difficulties and exacerbate their poverty, not to mention cause problems for others living with or beside them. In this respect, I agree that people can be encouraged and supported to take responsibility for things that are within their power to change.

As part of this, it’s important to acknowledge that some people behave in certain ways as a reaction to their impoverished circumstances or the circumstances in which they grew up. But above all, let’s not pander to the right-wing ideology that says individuals are responsible for being poor and marginalised, and if only they tackle their addiction or other personal issues, they too can escape poverty and walk into the sunset – you know, the kind of twaddle churned out by Iain Duncan Smith’s so-called Centre for Social Justice.

If we really want to talk about agency, let’s keep shining a light on the particular responsibility of successive Westminster governments and their policies, which have added to the impoverishment and immiseration of millions of unemployed, chronically sick and disabled people, among others, while adding to the wealth of the better-off and the rich. Let’s not lose sight of the role played by structural aspects of the UK economy, such as structural unemployment and under-employment, the record levels of low pay and precarious employment of one kind or another, the engineered housing crisis, etc - all of which presumably suit the powers-that-be just fine! Something like the bedroom tax is a classic example of individuals being held responsible and cruelly punished for a housing crisis created by powerful interests.

The above is really just something of my reaction to Michael Fry’s reading of Darren’s book – I haven’t read it myself. As someone experiencing poverty, I can’t currently afford it. Perhaps if my local library remains open, I can borrow it from there at some point. In the meantime, I observe with interest as Darren is gleefully embraced by the establishment...

Mo Maclean
Glasgow

I ENJOYED reading Michael Fry’s reactions to the truly radical thoughts of Darren McGarvey, or Loki as he is known in the world of rap. Loki’s impact as a speaker was clearly profound, particularly given the type of right-wing dinner audience I presume he was addressing. We can only hope that he forced some of them think anew about poverty and how individuals can escape it.

One problem, however, is that he may have been addressing the wrong audience, for the people Loki needs to change are not all on the right wing. As we can see from Michael’s comments, he is himself perhaps not so very far from McGarvey in terms of the kind of society they aspire to create. In particular, both recognise the need for individuals to be able to hope and to fight for an escape from the handicaps that have trapped them in a social underclass. How different and hugely encouraging it was to read their views, especially when contrasted with the latest bleating negativity of Gordon Brown. He, rather pathetically now, is still thirled immutably to the Labour Party’s traditional begging-bowl policy, always seeking hand-outs from neighbours rather than confronting the hard task of getting on with national self improvement. Generations of rattling that begging-bowl has helped to create our underclass, with all its misery and frustration. But let us never forget that this policy had a purpose. It gave the Labour Party a death grip on our nation and for so very long it also gave them a captive pool of disillusioned voters who could aspire to little else.

Thank you Darren McGarvey, and thank you Michael Fry, for illuminating the way ahead so brilliantly, even with all its pitfalls.

Peter Craigie
Edinburgh