Letters

Studying grammars Sir: Isabel Hardman (Politics, 1 October) states that no reputable research backs up the belief that grammar schools promote social justice. I am not sure she is correct. For instance, Lord Franks’s 1966 report on Oxford University recorded an accelerating rise in the share of places taken by state school pupils at that university in the 1939–1966 period. This increased from 19 per cent to 34 per cent, excluding the semi-private direct grant schools. Include the direct grants and the figure rises from 32 per cent in 1939 to 51 per cent in 1965. This change, reversed in the comprehensive years after 1965, coincided with the introduction of a national system of academic selection throughout the United Kingdom.

Golden age problems Sir: Johan Norberg’s ‘Our golden age’ (20 August) is absolutely right — we do live in a golden age; antibiotics still work, we have less starvation, the world is open for trade, with all its benefits. But there is a fly in the ointment: human overpopulation. Global warming (if you believe in it), degradation of the environment, extinction of species, all are consequences of it. It is a result, in fact, of our success. The only country to have grasped the nettle — China — is now having second thoughts. Perhaps wind and solar power can provide for our needs when we are 70 million in these islands; but what when we are 80 million, 90, 100? And for the rest of the world? W.G.

The hate is real Sir: It is clearly an exaggeration to call Britain a bigoted country (‘We are not a hateful nation’, 6 August), but downplaying the recent wave of xenophobic and racist incidents across the UK as ‘somebody shouting something nasty on a bus’ is equally wrong. Verbal abuse in itself is worthy of condemnation, yet the character of recorded harassment is actually much more serious. In the past few weeks, Poles in this country were shocked by vulgar graffiti (West London; Hertfordshire; Portsmouth) and hurtful leaflets (Cambridgeshire) urging them to ‘go home’ in most offensive ways possible, while a family in Plymouth fell victim to an arson attack.

Better Europeans Sir: There are many reasons why a majority of people in the UK voted to leave the European Union. Among them was certainly not a wish to be inhospitable and uncooperative with our fellow Europeans (Leading article, 23 July). Now it is even more important that EU nationals in Britain should have their status respected and not be used as a bargaining point in future relations with Brussels. Nor should we forget the considerable contribution that so many of them make to our national wellbeing. Furthermore, what about the two million or so UK nationals living and settled in many parts of Europe? Are they to be ignored and their security put at risk for no valid purpose?

Lurid about Leavers Sir: Matthew Parris has spent much of the past few months denigrating those of us who want to leave the EU, but his latest article (‘For the first time, I feel ashamed to be British’, 9 July) really does go too far. It is simply untrue to claim that the leaders of the Leave campaign relied on hatred of immigration, and that this won it for Leave. As Brendan O’Neill pointed out (‘Not thick or racist: just poor’, 2 July), a majority of Leave voters (including me, for what it is worth) rejected the EU primarily for sovereignty reasons. But whatever Mr Parris may feel, there is nothing immoral about wanting to control (not stop) the number of immigrants who enter one’s country.

Junior elitists Sir: In response to Andrew Peters’s reminder that in many cultures it is the older and more experienced whose views are respected, I am stunned by the social media tsunami of self-regard shown by so many apparently well-educated young people in the wake of what they see as an adverse referendum result (Letters, 2 July). I have heard many of them vehemently expressing a sense of betrayal by their elders and, not a few times, by those less educated than themselves. Do they not realise that they are already sounding like junior members of the self-serving, self-appointed elite, the very people whose blinkered arrogance led directly to Brexit’s triumph?

A rational vote Sir: There has been a lot of bile poured out about those who voted Leave by the Remainers. Their intelligence, their racial tolerance and their general moral standing has been called into question. I was a Remain voter, but live in an area that was 69 per cent Leave, and work with people who were strongly anti-remaining. To take one example, being anti-free migration is being referred to as racism. For many people migration is not anything to do with race or even nationality: 1,000 people from the next town would create the same degree of concern as 1,000 Poles. When jobs, houses, school places and so on are limited, it is the amount of competition faced that creates the problem, not where the competition comes from.

The population problem Sir: Matthew Parris (11 June) dismisses worries over immigration as being based on race. This is a touch unfair. Although it would be misleading to deny that Brexiteers are concerned about cultural issues, especially when countries such as Albania are on the pathway to EU entry, there is also cause for concern over population density. England is already one of the most densely populated countries in the world, and the government’s own estimates (always an underestimate) show that the UK’s population increase (of which immigration would be a great part) will be half a million a year, equivalent to a city such as Leicester. This puts unsustainable pressure on traffic, schools, doctors, and housing.