Letters

Full speed aheadSir: William Astor (‘Signal failure’, 14 January) writes that High Speed 2 is supported only by ‘northern Labour MPs who relish the thought of the beauty of the Chilterns being destroyed’. He seems to have missed the MPs from across the House of Commons who joined forces this week to welcome the project. Links between the north and the south of our nation are of vital importance. Better connections are great for jobs across the north of England, but they are also necessary for the overdue rebalancing of our economy to which the Prime Minister is firmly committed. Lord Astor relies on the internet as proof that rail demand will decrease. The evidence suggests otherwise. The West Coast Mainline is now forecast to be completely full by 2024.

Pick your battleSir: In your leading article ‘Save the Union’ (7 January), you allude to Alex Salmond’s plan to hold a referendum on Scottish independence shortly after the 700th anniversary of the battle on Bannockburn. I suggest a referendum on the 500th anniversary of the battle of Flodden Field (September 2013) when we English comprehensively scotched the ambitions of our northern neighbour. Voting should be for Scots both north and south of the border. (If voting included the English, the Scots would certainly be bundled off.) Alan Naismith-Binder Speldhurst, Kent War elephantsSir: Patrick Allitt (‘Elephant trap’, 7 January) nicely pegs some of the difficulties that the Republican candidates face ahead of the 2012 election against President Obama.

Russian resolutionSir: Anne Applebaum (‘Russia’s new dissidents’, 31 December) welcomes the Moscow protestors’ challenge to a smug and venal elite. We can all agree with that. But she asks if they are developing into an opposition — and the simple answer is ‘no’. Alexander Navalny, the Moscow protest leader, cries out against ‘villains and thieves’. He represents genuine resentment at swindlers in power and a desire for a clean-up, but is not an opposition as such. Russia’s ‘opposition’ comprises some decidedly unpleasant trends, from recidivist communists to nationalists who make the BNP look moderate. And who’s to say the ‘middle class’ are a bastion of open democracy anyway?

Chiller appSir: Niall Ferguson (‘On being called a racist’, 17/24 December) says that ‘the freedom of the press does not extend to defamation’. This is an odd idea, but one which Ferguson shares with the governments of those countries in which journalists are routinely imprisoned for insulting the powerful. In England, defamation is a civil offence and claims of libel must be won through reasoned argument, not simply asserted. He claims that, in the London Review of Books review of Civilisation, Pankaj Mishra accuses him of racism. He says that ‘expressions of racism are now defined as criminal acts in Britain’. They are not.

Enough BrusselsSir: Owen Paterson (‘Dave’s big push’, 10 December) is absolutely right to suggest that we should use the EU summit to renegotiate our relationship with Europe. The Prime Minister’s wielding of the veto offers real scope for change. He must now be bold enough to seize the moment. This fundamental renegotiation of our relationship needs to be based on free trade, competitiveness and growth, and not on political union and dead-weight regulation. This is not some grand utopian vision — it exists today. Switzerland in particular has an excellent relationship with the EU, enjoys easy access to its markets without burdensome regulation, and prospers as a result.

All at seaSir: The Spectator’s cover article last week was entitled ‘The Sea Level Scam’. You can rest assured that no such scam exists. Most claims of the author, Nils-Axel Mörner, have never been published in peer-reviewed articles so cannot be independently verified. However, he published on his research in the Maldives in the journal Global Planetary Change in 2004. His findings about a possible sea-level fall in the region and the geological coral record, and his interpretation of satellite measurements of sea-level change have all been subsequently refuted. He is correct to point out that there is widespread geographic variability in patterns of sea-level rise.

Women for Islamic lawSir: Douglas Murray’s article (‘After spring, winter’, 26 November) was well written, but it missed a crucial point. What we are seeing in the Arab Spring is an awakening of a political Islam that is neither strictly ‘Islamist’ nor compatible with liberal ideals of freedom. The phenomenon is driven in large part by Muslim women, who want rid of secular autocracy but also believe that government should be run according to Islamic laws and principles. There are many contradictions and tensions within this emerging phenomenon. Yet it is important not to ignore it.

Economy packSir: Of your ten suggested remedies for the UK economy (‘Get it right, George!’, 19 November), not one mentions the obvious answer: recognise that communications technology is transforming every business and social model on the planet and accelerate Britain’s dozy and halfhearted commitment to invest in its communications infrastructure — broadband and mobile. Give the people the tools and they will generate the growth. Peter Krijgsman Somerset Sir: The big ideas in your last issue will have a limited immediate impact on the one million youngsters out of work; something more radical is required. I suggest that the government spends money created by quantitative easing directly on infrastructure projects, matched to the available labour.

• Not so magnifico Sir: To identify Silvio Berlusconi as Italy’s ‘best hope of cutting its astronomical sovereign debt’, as Nicholas Farrell does (‘Arrivederci il Magnifico,’ 12 November), would be laughable, if it didn’t show such deep ignorance of the damage Berlusconi’s rule has done economically, politically and morally. Mr Farrell suggests that Berlusconi is some kind of Thatcherite. Really? Could he point to any substantial reforms? Berlusconi promised to lower taxes, to reduce crime and to free up the labour market, but he did none of those things.

• Democracy in Zambia Sir: There are undoubtedly dubious countries in Africa but Daniel Kalder (‘Mr Blair goes to Kazakhstan’, 5 November) is wide of the mark in including Zambia among them. It may not be perfect but its record in terms of human rights and relative freedom from corruption is one of the best on the continent. Zambian presidents since independence have respected the will of the majority when their time was up. The recent election that led to a change of government is a shining example of the country’s political maturity, one which Mr Blair might usefully point to in his conversations with his more authoritarian clients.

• Clock watching Sir: Peter Hitchens’s cover story ‘Hour of Surrender’ (29 October) was predictable, reactionary and dangerously short-sighted. The argument for changing the clock is simple: daylight is a limited and valuable resource — to maximise the benefits afforded by daylight, we should have more of it in evenings when we are most active rather than in the mornings when we are asleep. Nowhere is this more true than on our roads, where Mr Hitchens has a particular blind spot to the evidence.

• God save the Queen Sir: Robert Hardman (‘The Queen’s manifesto’, 22 October) is right to say that we should respect the Queen for more than longevity and never putting a foot wrong. One of her great strengths is that she is so willing to take advice from those placed (or elected) to give it. There are times when she has been known to ask ‘What should the Queen do?’, much as a parent has to ask what line to take towards a child.   The Queen has invariably agreed to do as bidden by her government, for example in entertaining figures like President Ceausescu of Romania in 1978. He was a far from easy guest, digging up the floorboards at the Palace in quest of electronic bugs, yet he was extended the traditional hospitality by the monarch.

• Gone with the wind Sir: Your recent campaign against wind farms is brought, perhaps, to a conclusion by Matt Ridley’s splendid article on shale gas (‘Shale of the century’, 15 October). Yet at no time have you referred to that other blot on the domestic landscape, the solar panel. I wonder why. As with the wind farm, they are weather dependent, their installation is beyond the means of the majority, they are judged to be an eyesore, and they are subsidised by the taxpayer. That’s four similarities. But what can seriously be done about either? John Weaver Derbyshire Sir: Can anything be done to force the government to reassess the policy on wind farms?

Members only Sir: Charles Moore (Notes, 8 October) makes some apposite comments about this year’s Conservative conference. This was my 19th annual conference and I feel disinclined to continue to attend despite being a past branch, constituency and area chairman. It is no wonder the attendance by party members was down: Manchester is not one of the most attractive cities in England, to say the least, and accommodation near the centre is expensive. The venue is inadequate with few rooms being of a suitable size for meetings, and many fringe meetings were held too far from the centre. The echo in the main hall was disturbing.

Boris and the Johnsons Sir: Toby Young speaks of ‘the (Johnson) family’s roots as Turkish immigrants’ (‘Plan B’, 1 October). Though I’m always amused by what Toby writes, I have to point out that he is not always accurate. These are the facts. My paternal grandfather, Ali Kemal, was married to my grandmother, Winifred Blum. Winifred’s mother Margaret was English (née Johnson), while her father was Swiss. While Ali Kemal’s political and other commitments required him to remain behind in Constantinople, Winifred — already several months pregnant — came to England to visit her mother, and to have the baby in more tranquil surroundings. My father was born in Bournemouth on 4 September 1909.

Europe’s guilty men Sir: What exactly do Peter Oborne and Frances Weaver (‘The great euro swindle’, 24 September) think the pro-euro camp must be called to account for? Apparently for being on the losing side in a debate which they never showed much sign of winning anyway, not least because the Chancellor of the Exchequer set conditions for entry which he knew would not be met. The Financial Times and the BBC may well have lacked even-handedness in their presentation, but their influence was balanced by the solid euroscepticism of many newspapers. In truth, many Eurosceptics were their cause’s worst enemies. Nicholas Ridley’s comparison of Helmut Kohl to Adolf Hitler was unusual only in that it was made by a serving minister.

Euro bonds Sir: In your leading article, ‘A new deal with Europe’ (17 September), you argue that as Brussels will not agree to radical reform and massive deregulation, the only remaining options are to renegotiate our membership of the European Union or ‘pull out entirely’. However, we must be clear that unilateral withdrawal is out of the question. Over half the UK’s manufactured exports to the EU would face zero tariffs whether we were in or out of the EU. But if the UK left the EU without any new preferential trade agreement the remainder would face an average EU tariff of over 5 per cent, a decisive handicap in many price-sensitive markets. In particular, the vital UK car manufacturing sector would face EU tariffs of 10 per cent.

In denial about abortion Sir: Mary Wakefield (‘Who cares about abortion?’, 10 September) bravely argues that Britain needs a rational and reasoned debate about our abortion laws. Since 1967 there have been seven million abortions in Great Britain: in the past 12 months there were 189,574, with 48,348 women having had one before and, according to a parliamentary reply, some as many as eight during their lifetime. Lord Steel, the author of the 1967 Act, has rightly described this as ‘horrific’ and has said there are ‘too many’. About that, at least, we should all agree. A more profound debate would consider the status of the unborn child.

Valuable lessons Sir: The Spectator deserves great credit for having so long trumpeted and encouraged the free schools agenda, which finally came to fruition this week. British education is a mess, and we are lucky to have, in Michael Gove, an Education Secretary determined to bring about radical change. One might have doubts about the ‘free’ thinking — and, to me, The Spectator has at times seemed too eager to put its faith in the power of the market to fix all social ills. But to try is better than to fail. Free schools might not meet all the lofty ambitions placed upon them, but at least they will help loosen the stranglehold of self-serving teachers’ unions and quangos, who have taken away so much from our young.

We had no choice Sir: ‘Britain remains an expeditionary nation keen on shaping the world,’ says James Forsyth (Politics, 27 August). Come off it, James. We weren’t consulted about Libya any more than we were about Iraq (a referendum would have been nice), but if ‘the nation’ means ‘the people’ then I’m sure that if we’d been told how many hundreds of millions of pounds would be involved, we’d have been considerably keener to spend them on job creation in our own country than on killing people and trashing the infrastructure in someone else’s. We elected Dave and Nick to make prudent cuts in public spending, not to make things worse by splurging our scarce resources on regime change in foreign parts.