Letters

On Benefits Street Sir: Fraser Nelson asserts that people in charities do not want to talk about what life is like on poverty (‘Britain’s dirty secret’, 18 January). To those of us who have experienced poverty or supported others stuck in it, there is no secret. We didn’t need a sensationalist pseudo-documentary to know that life with no money is grinding, miserable and soul-destroying. However, few answers to the problems of the poor are offered by low-paid workforces combined with flawed markets deciding the value of essential goods and services. The real means to help people out of this poverty trap would be to reduce rents, utilities and childcare costs while creating a much more generous withdrawal rate of benefits when people start work.

Papal blessing Sir: In his excellent article on Pope Francis (‘Pope idol’, 11 January), Luke Coppen mentions the satirical rumour that the new pontiff had abolished sin. It could never be said, however, even in a spoof, that he has abolished the Devil, whom he has named and shamed on a number of occasions. What Coppen calls ‘the cockeyed lionisation of Francis’ is surely itself a trick of the Devil: so too the ‘older son problem’ — the disgruntlement of obedient Catholics at Francis’s embrace of sinful prodigal sons and daughters. Virtue is surely its own reward, and no one who has experienced grace hankers after the fleshpots of Egypt.

Pirates and Tories Sir: Daniel Hannan is himself a pirate, masquerading as a Conservative MEP (‘Here come the pirates!’, 4 January). Oddly, since he’s fighting an election against it in May, he found nothing to criticise in Ukip, while attacking the European People’s Party, who are not standing in the south-east of England. He’s certainly right that we should not lump all protest parties in Europe together, though on weak ground in suggesting there are no differences between the mainstream EU parties. What did surprise me, though, was his description of the Front National as ‘essentially constitutional’. So he’d be confident that, were the Front National to gain power in France, subsequent elections would proceed smoothly?

In defence of super-heads Sir: I would like to defend head teachers all over the country from the assertions made in Mary Dejevsky’s article (‘Super-heads will roll’, 7 December). The international Pisa studies — which proved how urgently the English education system needs to improve — show that greater autonomy for head teachers within proper accountability structures produces better results for children. That is why this government’s reforms have been designed to transfer powers to heads, away from council control. We’ve balanced this increased autonomy with sharper, stronger accountability.

A net gain Sir: Jamie Bartlett tries to balance plus and minus, and ends with zero (‘Little Brothers are watching you’, 7 December). But I wonder: why lead with the negative? Yes, data can be misused, marketers and government can misbehave (no — they will). But what are we to do? Block progress? Why don’t we write the rules instead? A billion-plus people are sharing their observations, questions, answers and lives online because they — we — find benefit in connecting with each other: offering services, gathering information and knowledge, and finding efficiencies. I engage in willing transactions with Google (though not the NSA) to deliver greater relevance with less noise. I celebrate the redistribution of power and challenge to institutions.

Climate scientists write... Sir: Lord Lawson has written in his diary (30 November) under the online summary headline ‘my secret showdown with the Royal Society on global warming’, but the reality is rather different. As he is aware, the purpose of the meeting on 19 November was not to put on a public performance, but to provide Lord Lawson with expert advice on climate science. The science summarised by the climate scientists was generally agreed to by all present. Lord Lawson charges that we ‘were very reluctant to engage on the crucial issue of climate change policy at all’ and that we had no interest in ‘the massive human and economic costs involved’ in implementing policies to mitigate the effects of climate change.

Scandal at the Co-op Sir: Martin Vander Weyer makes a good point. The Revd Paul Flowers may be a flawed individual, but he is not responsible for Co-op Bank’s woes (Any Other Business, 23 November). His appointment might be symptomatic of a complacency about ‘good’ and ‘bad’ banking that suited certain politicians, but surely now we need a full inquiry into the Lloyds takeover of HBOS and the Co-op takeover of Britannia. I would also like to see the terms compared to the Santander acquisition of Bradford & Bingley. The true scandal is the collusion of politicians, regulators and senior bankers. In the meantime, I hope Paul Flowers gets the help he needs.

No middle way Sir: Ask not whether Iran wants to negotiate with us; ask whether we want to negotiate with them (‘Diplomatic meltdown’, 16 November). Now that Syria has agreed to get rid of its chemical weapons, an opportunity has arisen to achieve a WMD-free Middle East. Iran would be the first to agree, given their bitter memories of having been at the receiving end of Saddam’s chemical weapons. Saudi Arabia should not be far behind, having consistently advocated a nuclear-free Middle East. This will require the West, in particular America, to pressure Israel into ratifying the Chemical Weapons Convention and giving up its nuclear weapons. It’s in our interest to do so.

Rod rage Sir: Like most cyclists, who also own a car and pay road tax, I enjoy a pedal along the lanes where I act with consideration for other road users, and the vast majority of them treat me likewise. Cycling in traffic is quite scary but now I know that Rod Liddle could be behind the wheel of an approaching car it becomes positively terrifying (‘Off your bike!’, 9 November). Anyone who can express such road rage on a keyboard is hardly fit to drive. How fortunate that he is part of a minority. Oh, and I wear Lycra for comfort, a helmet for safety and am 71 years old. David Mitchell Llangorse, Brecon Sir: I am indebted to Rod Liddle for his entertainingly intemperate piece on the scourge of the roads.

Counting on the country Sir: I spent many hours helping to canvas for local Conservative candidates before the last two elections (‘The countryside revolts’, 2 November). I was motivated to do so because of the Labour government’s prejudice against the rural community. The Conservative party offered a chance to redress this prejudice through repealing or amending legislation on small employers, hunting, communication, transport, fuel, immigration and the EU. But progress on these issues has been negligible. We see no action on the Hunting Act, and no action to stop the harassment of country people by vigilante pressure groups, despite managing a more robust reaction to anti-fracking campaigners.

Not fair on cops Sir: Nick Cohen (‘PCs gone mad’, 26 October) claims that the police are deliberately attacking the press and fundamental liberties because, in light of the overall reduction in crime, they are now underemployed and ‘many are surplus to requirements’. This is an inventive conspiracy theory by any standards, but lacking any link to plausibility. In 2006, as the head of the Anti-Terrorist Branch, I called a halt to the first phone-hacking investigation because we had other priorities such as the 7/7 and 21/7 attacks, and stopping the killing of several thousand people with liquid bombs on aircraft over the Atlantic. We really did have better things to do.

Ridley’s wrong Sir: In last week’s issue the former Northern Rock chairman rejoiced in the ‘good news’ that climate change would not start to damage our planet for another 57 years (‘Carry on warming’, 19 October). I am not a scientist. As a minister, I rely on the opinion of experts including the government chief scientist, the Meteorological Office and the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They do not share Lord Ridley’s views. The latest IPCC scientific analysis from 259 climate experts in 39 countries, reviewed by another 659 experts who dealt with 53,000 individual comments, is clear about the very real threat that dangerous man-made climate change poses to humankind.

A fat lot of good Sir: Max Pemberton is right that obesity is a terrible problem in western society (‘The battle of the bulge’, 12 October). But it is not helped by doctors. He seems to think that eating fat makes you fat: ‘While people back then were slimmer, they ate fattier foods.’ He then appears surprised that despite ‘eating better now’ and having access to more gyms and ‘working out more’ (which is arguable), we are not as slim as our predecessors. The plague of obesity seems to have started about 40 years ago, when scientists, funded by margarine manufacturers, came up with the brilliant wheeze that eating animal fat makes you fat and causes heart attacks.

Nursing standards Sir: I share Mary Dejevsky’s concern regarding the impact of tired, overworked nurses on the quality of patient care (‘Short shrift for long shifts’, 6 October). However, it is unwarranted to blame nurses for detrimental work cultures when the contributing factors are complex. Nurses generally do not have a choice about the length of shifts they work. Shift lengths must be determined by patient needs and safety, and 12-hour shifts can be an essential part of their job, but hours of unpaid overtime where they cannot deliver care effectively and safely leave nurses burnt out and demoralised.

Why we joined Sir: I was astonished by the assertion made by Wyn Grant (Letters, 21 September) that ‘the postwar surge in Conservative party membership was due to people rebuilding their social lives after the war’. Where did that idea come from? I grew up in south London before and during the war. I recall that social contact increased during the war and friendships made then endured when the war was over. Of course the nature of social activities gradually changed after the war, but the suggestion that most people joined the Conservative party purely for social reasons is wrong.

Tories and Italians Sir: Roger Scruton must be laughing, or more likely crying, to hear his Meaning of Conservatism described as the ‘Bible of the Tories’ (‘Italians for Maggie’, 7 September). Nothing could be further from the truth. According to Farrell, ‘Italians believe that only the state can bring freedom.’ But that’s closer to Scruton’s position than the ‘freedom’ Farrell imagines him to be defending. According to Scruton, ‘conservatism is not about freedom, but about authority, and freedom divorced from authority is of no use to anyone — not even to the one who possesses it’.

Syrian matters Sir: Though Syria (Leading article, 31 August) is certainly no laughing matter, the turmoil prevailing over a ‘punitive strike’ does bring to mind the little jingle of A.P. Herbert, during the Phony War of 1940. Some great minds were contemplating a ‘strike’ on the Soviet Union to punish it for its invasion of little Finland. Herbert’s verse was called ‘Baku, or the Map Game’, and begins: It’s jolly to look at the map, and finish the foe in a day. It’s not easy to get at the chap; these neutrals are so in the way. But what if you say ‘What would you do to fill the aggressor with gloom?’ Well, we might drop a bomb on Baku. Or what about bombs on Batum?

Reasons to try a tyrant Sir: The premise of Douglas Murray’s otherwise compelling essay (‘Dictating terms’, 25 August) is mistaken. He doubts whether the conviction of malevolent dictators by the International Criminal Court acts as a deterrent to other wicked leaders. Of course it does not. Nothing will deter a monster from iniquity. The principal objective of the ICC must therefore be simple retribution. Why create an offence if a transgression is met with impunity? Tyrants who commit crimes against humanity deserve punishment, not to deter others (even the gallows is unlikely to achieve that), but because they must suffer for their evil.