Letters

Full steam ahead Sir: Your cover story (‘A U-turn to celebrate’, 16 June) claimed that the government has ditched High Speed 2: we absolutely have not. The article was built on three assertions, none of which stand up to scrutiny. Firstly, HS2 legislation has always been planned for the 2013–2014 session of Parliament, as set out in my department’s business plan of over a year ago, and never earlier as alleged in the story. There is no delay, no rethink. Secondly, as the article points out, I do listen to the concerns of those opposed to the project because I recognise the impact HS2 will have and I care about how I deal with the local communities affected. But no one should think that means I no longer support the scheme.

Another country Sir: Congratulations to Melissa Kite for her article ‘Paving paradise’ (2/9 June). She has perfectly expressed the view that we ‘country bumpkins’ have of the invidious invasion of the countryside by Fulham farmers in their Chelsea tractors. Unfortunately, anyone with the wit to read her article will be nodding their head in agreement, whilst those she criticises will be turning the page in search of Armani and Ralph Lauren adverts. Or if they did actually manage to read it, they would probably not understand her point and certainly would not recognise themselves in her descriptions.

Faith and addictionSir: How right Damian Thompson is (‘Addict nation’, 26 May), and how shrewd of The Spectator to put the growing human disaster of addiction on its cover. We seem all too obsessed with euro crises and media intrigue to notice the even more ominous changes in our world. We are addicted to satisfying our impulses instantly. Mr Thompson steers clear of the language of religion, perhaps for sensible reasons. But it should be acknowledged that, while our moral collapse is facilitated by technology, the problem is spiritual at root. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and other religions teach self-restraint. Modern life does the opposite. Charles Taylor London SW15 Sir: Damian Thompson’s article rang true to me.

Private passionsSir: I was a pupil at St Paul’s School from 1952 to 1957. I remember seeing the bill for a term: £30 tuition, plus £15 ‘extras’ (lunches, books...). I was a scholar, so the £30 was deleted. It was no great distinction to be a scholar, as there were 153 scholars among the 650 pupils. My group of friends all got Oxbridge scholarships. As a student in 1960, I had a holiday job as a milkman. I only earned £12 a week, but some milkmen earned enough commission to bring their weekly wage packet up to £20. In the 1950s, the average milkman could afford to send his son to St Paul’s. The fees now are little under £7,000 a term.

Staying home for marriageSir: ‘Find me a person who stopped voting Conservative last week because of David Cameron’s vague, half-arsed, lacklustre stance on gay marriage. Go on. I dare you… I’ll settle for just one of them instead…Anyone?’ (Hugo Rifkind, 12 May). Well, there’s me for a start: for the first time ever (I have voted at every election since I was old enough, and I am now over 70) I spoiled my ballot paper for this reason; and I’m not the only one who thinks that the preservation of marriage as normally understood (one man and one woman) is of fundamental importance to our society. The Coalition for Marriage petition now has over half a million signatures, making it one of the largest-ever online petitions.

PollygarchySir: It was with a rising sense of disbelief that I read Polly Toynbee’s review of Ferdinand Mount’s The New Few (Books, 5 May). There’s an oligarchy in this country all right, but what Ms Toynbee fails to realise is that she is a member. For every overpaid plutocrat, there are any number of privileged people like herself who find lucrative employment ‘representing the disadvantaged’. They remind me of nothing so much as the old squirearchy, who used to visit their cottagers to do good works. I would not like to suggest that it is actually in the interest of the socialist elite to keep the masses in their place, though one does wonder why, if they truly care about the working class, they support benefits culture and uncontrolled immigration.

Murdoch’s responsibilitySir: Having examined Rupert Murdoch’s dealings with successive governments, Tom Bower (‘Dangerous liaisons’, 28 April) wearily concludes: ‘Blaming the businessman for exploiting politicians’ follies is akin to blaming whales for eating sardines.’ Does the conservative doctrine of personal responsibility extend to media moguls? Or is that, as Leona Helmsley said of paying taxes, just for the little people? Robin Peters Nottingham Unrest in BahrainSir: Taki describes Bahrain as ‘a hellhole’ (High life, 28 April) and characterises the unrest there as being, essentially, the inevitable result of the deprivation of the Shia majority.

Time-honoured paradoxSir: Tristram Hunt’s argument (‘Gove’s Paradox’, 21 April) seems convincing. At first glance, economic liberalism does appear at odds with social conservatism. However, one cannot exist without the other, as Thomas Hobbes realised over 300 years ago. Without a social contract based upon shared values and common interests, anarchy would ensue, making it impossible to trade freely and conduct economic affairs. Nothing suppresses freedom as much as chaos, fear and poverty. Social conservatism and economic liberalism are therefore, and paradoxically, two sides of the same coin. Hunt conveniently ignores Labour’s more profound, irreconcilable contradiction borne out of its revolutionary zeal.

Capital lettersSir: As Neil O’Brien (‘Planet London’, 14 April) rightly says, London is New York, Washington and LA rolled into one, which is unhealthy for our national politics. So I have a serious suggestion. If the House of Lords is going to be reformed in the next year, part of the reform should be to move it out of London to a city in the Midlands or the North, perhaps next to the relocated BBC in MediaCity in Salford Quays. Half our national politicians would then assemble well away from ‘Planet London.’ The public purse would make a net saving by selling the vast and expensive property portfolio the Lords has been acquiring to house its 850 members along Millbank and the surrounding streets.

Threatened ChristiansSir: Douglas Davis’s article on the plight of Arab Christians (‘Out of the east’, 7 April) raised a very important issue. What a shame he cynically exploited their misery to perform a clumsy character assassination on Muslims generally. Conjuring sensational phrases like ‘judenrein’ to raise the spectre of 1930s German fascism, was not only utterly irrelevant; it reminded the reader of Mr Davis’s highly partial agenda. He doesn’t mention, for instance, that the Syrian Christian community’s plight is bound up with their perceived tactical support for the repressive Assad regime. It’s indisputably tragic, but it is not black and white.

Generation warsSir: Viva Carol Sarler (‘Battle of the generations’, 31 March)! I don’t think I’ve ever read anything as ridiculous as Daniel Knowles’s babblings, which merit a strong riposte. It is galling to read a 24-year-old simplistically categorise all of we ‘baby-boomers’ (I was born in 1946) as the people responsible for today’s economic woes. Yes, a minuscule number of my generation are indeed responsible for much of the greed and selfishness which manifested itself in banking and government, but I am tired of the lame drivel which lays wholesale blame for our troubles at the doors of everyone in their middle sixties.

Inside the dragonSir: How refreshing to read some sharp insight on ‘The Chinese question’ (24 March). We have all had enough of handsome Niall Ferguson on our television screens, one moment telling us that China is running the world, then abruptly changing tack and saying that the People’s Republic is collapsing. Jonathan Fenby offers something different — a measured interpretation of an impossibly complicated story. But it’s a shame that even he can’t shed more light on the scandal surrounding Bo Xilai. For all the microbloggers in China, we westerners still cannot fully understand the mystery of the rising east.

Unmentionable questionSir: Peter Hitchens is no doubt right that the collapse of marriage among heterosexuals is a more serious matter than extending marriage to same-sex couples (‘The gay marriage trap’, 17 March). The damage to the family started with the removal of stigma from having children out of wedlock and divorce on demand; and the redefinition came with same-sex adoption, which in human terms was more radical than same-sex marriage, because there were no long-term studies of what the psychological effect on the adopted children would be. Beyond the issue of the effect on society of the extension of gay rights, however, is the question as to whether conjugal sex and gay sex are morally equivalent.

Israel’s dilemmaSir: Jeffrey Goldberg (‘Israel isn’t bluffing’, 10 March) is probably right, but if Israel does attack Iran, they are in a no-win situation. Iran is a large country some distance away. One or two bombing missions will have little effect — look at the weeks it took for Nato to degrade Libya’s defences. Either Israel fails, in which case that leaves it in a weak position, or else it succeeds in bombing Iran into submission, in which case Russia will have to upgrade Iran’s defences, probably helped by China, because an Israel so strong it could dominate the entire region would be unacceptable.

BlowbackSir: Matt Ridley’s article ‘The Winds of Change’ (3 March) says that the government has finally seen through the wind energy scam. If this is the case, it is most welcome news to those who have been fighting on all fronts to keep Britain’s countryside clear of unwelcome, unnecessary and inappropriate wind farms. In Mr Ridley’s own county, Northumberland, the amount of wind farm capacity planned and already with planning permission exceeds that in any other English county by several times.

Pension schemingSir: As a pensions professional who has witnessed his once-mighty industry’s sustaining of blow after blow, I was heartened to read The Spectator’s call for Conservatives to resist the temptation to make ‘yet another raid on pension funds’ (Leading article, 25 February). The government’s lack of understanding of pensions tax relief was revealed in the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s reported comment on how much ‘we spend’ on higher-rate relief on pension contributions. The government is not ‘spending’ at all; the contributor is simply being allowed to retain more of his own money, as a reward for putting some away for exposure to future taxation.

Forfeiting the VCSir: Although Charles Moore (Notes, 18 February) is correct to say (quoting Colonel Tim Collins) that a holder of the Victoria Cross cannot be stripped of it whatever subsequent disgrace he suffers, he could have added that this is so only thanks to royal intervention. Early in the last century, some functionary proposed, in a characteristic display of official spite, that VCs should lose the decoration if they were convicted of a serious offence. This came to the attention of King George V, whose sense of decency, just as characteristically, was outraged. As he protested, the VC was awarded for supreme gallantry, which nothing could subsequently efface.

America the saviourSir: Andrew Alexander’s book America and the Imperialism of Ignorance (Books, 11 February) alleges that since 1945 ‘the world is a much more dangerous place, as a result of America’s determination to save it’. With respect to Mr Alexander, a distinguished journalist who has often been right, this analysis is very wrong. First of all, we would never have achieved victory over fascism in 1945 without the sacrifice of American troops, many thousands of whom lie in cemeteries across the world. Secondly, the idea that the USSR, a brutal occupier of whatever lands it controlled, wished to be a benign postwar force in Europe, or anywhere else, is, to put it mildly, ahistorical.

China’s foreign policySir: As Hillary Clinton just stated, China and Russia ‘neutered’ the UN by vetoing the sanctions on Syria. Russia did it because Syria is an ally with which it does business. China vetoed because it wants no judgments on how it has mauled its own population since ‘Liberation’ in 1949. Beginning with the slaughter of millions of landlords in the early Fifties, through the persecutions of the Great Leap, the Cultural Revolution, and Tiananmen, not to mention the suppression of Uighurs and Tibetans, Beijing never shrinks from internal violence. It is to Foreign Secretary Hague’s credit that, like Secretary Clinton, he condemned China’s veto. This is almost unheard of in Chinese affairs.

A woman’s workSir: I enjoyed Andrew M. Brown’s article on the rise of the ‘Dalis’ (28 January). As the working wife of a man who earns more than I do, I drew comfort from the fact that more and more women are becoming the main breadwinners. At the same time, it is irritating to think of all those useless men sitting about dreaming while their wives slave away from home. Perhaps we will all eventually reach the same conclusion as our more militant sisters — we don’t really need men at all.