Lord Mandelson is wrong in his criticism of Ed Miliband's energy plan (Report, 26 September), yet was also wrong when he was business secretary. In 2009 his lordship recognised after meeting French business leaders that France was better at setting strategic goals, citing examples such as nuclear energy, high-speed rail and aerospace, then claiming that: "We have something to learn from continental practice [but] we are not talking about public ownership."
Yet public ownership was central to the success of France in these sectors. It was crucial to its state-owned Électricité de France achieving the target of gaining four fifths of national energy through nuclear power, without a Three Mile Island meltdown. It was through the state-owned SNCF that it gained its TGV national rail system, now in its second generation. Without long-term public finance in sustaining Concorde, despite it never covering its development costs, France would not have retained the advanced engineering capacity in aircraft that made Airbus possible.
Also, while praising French industrial strategy in 2009, Mandelson was proposing to privatise the Post Office, apparently oblivious that France's publicly owned Caisse des Depôts et Consignations is investment manager for both savings banks (Caisses d'épargne) and the French Post Office. It is through these public institutions that France for decades has assured a long-term supply of savings for productive investments in both its public and private sectors.
Further, while denigrating allegedly Old Labour, and the risk of returning to it, Labour's industrial strategy of the 1970s was modelled on French planning agreements which made the long-term investments by Électricité de France, SNCF and Concorde-Airbus possible. This was both better informed and more up to date then than his lordship is now.
Stuart Holland
Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra, Portugal
• The idea that this is a backward step in Labour's industrial policy reveals only the extent to which Mandelson, the architect of Blairism, continues to cling on to the bankrupt policy of cosying up to big business which precipitated the banking crisis with disastrous effect.
Let us not forget that Mandelson, while a minister, was obliged to resign under a cloud, not once but twice. Remember too that he publicly declared himself relaxed about people "getting filthy rich" under New Labour and has counted among his contacts Russian oligarchs and owners of luxury yachts who have entertained him alongside, not so ironically, George Osborne.
That Ed Miliband has the courage to stand up to the energy companies that have blatantly ratcheted up prices by eye-watering margins under the current administration is admirable. It is to be hoped that as a result of this policy, come 2015, a UK government will no longer turn a blind eye to the obscenity of the preventable deaths each year of those who cannot afford to pay for the unreasonable profits of energy company executives and their shareholders.
Barbara Cairns
Leicester
• Lord Mandelson presumably still supports the principle of a minimum wage. In a monopsonistic labour market, paradoxically the demand for labour goes up when employers are forced to pay a minimum wage, assuming that the level is set correctly. That is the way of profit maximisation under the minimum wage constraint. In a market where employers have to compete with each other for labour, this paradox may not obtain, and the argument for a minimum wage is one of fairness.
If Mandelson accepts these arguments, he cannot criticise the mirror image argument for a price ceiling in a monopolistic energy industry. Such a ceiling may, paradoxically, even lead to higher production of energy by the logic of profit maximisation in that industry.
SP Chakravarty
Bangor
• What a pity that Peter Mandelson can't use his analytical abilities to help Labour craft a more responsible form of capitalism in the way that Lord Sainsbury has attempted, rather than simply seeking to defend his own "legacy" as business secretary. His accusation that Ed Miliband's planned energy price freeze is taking Labour policy backwards smacks of someone who just doesn't "get it" – that voters feel that unfettered markets do little to protect the consumer from being ripped off.
The challenge for Labour is to devise mechanisms to ensure that the markets for energy, water and rail deliver the investment that any decent long-term strategy shows we need, while protecting the consumer from companies such as Centrica, which plead poverty one day and then find plenty of cash to reward shareholders the next. Perhaps Lord Mandelson could apply his skills to this challenge, rather than uncritically supporting the current energy market framework.
John Rigby
Exeter
• Critics accuse Ed Miliband of a lurch to the left and say his energy price freeze is unworkable. Up pops Mandelson to agree that the proposals are a step backwards and won't work. Instantly, fears and doubts are swept away. It's a brilliant stroke by Mandelson to ensure that the public supports Labour's energy policy.
Martin Freedman
London
• Curious to know how Mandelson, Milburn and assorted other New Labour types think their incessant chorus of public criticism of their leader helps the party? Why should people join and work locally for the party if national figures constantly weigh in with comments that undermine progress at this critical time? What's wrong with a discreet call, an email or a face-to-face meeting if they want to log concerns with the leadership? And don't tell me Labour is "a broad church". This is tribal, egocentric nonsense.
Richard Clifford
Huddersfield
• Perhaps Mandelson's cry of anguish expresses his fear that if Miliband is right on this then New Labour's backside-licking of big corporations might eventually come to be viewed as most people now view its insistence that Britain be involved in Iraq – a moral outrage and a gross disservice to the British people that New Labour were elected to serve.
Peter Freeman
Chislehurst, Kent
• The acutely perceptive Baron Mandelson has noticed that the Labour leader's speech was driven by politics. Surprise, surprise! Whatever next?
Chris Birch
London