A charted course Sir: Charles Moore has lost his bearings and entered ‘terra incognita’ in his recent exploration of the Royal Geographical Society’s remit and work in the 21st century (The Spectator’s Notes, 9 May). To be clear, the society stays true, today as over its 170-year history, to its founding charter to ‘advance geographical
Taxing questions Sir: Fraser Nelson writes (‘A tale of two Gordons’, 2 May) that internal Treasury documents justify the 50p tax rate on the basis that ‘Karl Marx’s progressive tax structure was designed so that the tax burden was heaviest on those who were most able to contribute’. Certainly, Labour spokespersons daily repeat this cosy
Broken pledges Sir: Labour has lost all credibility, having broken a clear manifesto pledge not to raise taxes but then doing so. It is the second pledge that it has failed to honour, the first being its failure to hold a referendum on the EU constitution. If directors of a company break clear pledges made
The beat goes on Sir: I read with growing rage James Delingpole’s column (You know it makes sense, 18 April). After castigating the policing of the G20 demonstrations, he takes the opportunity to list a number of actions the police have taken in recent times that he objects to. But some context is required. I
Liddle’s Lent Sir: As someone who is employed by and works within the Church of England I have been waiting 20 years to see an article like Rod Liddle’s (‘The C of E has forgotten its purpose’, 11 April) appearing in a major British publication. He is accurate in nearly everything he says. The current
Listen and learn Sir: We’re going to have to get used to cuts, says Kate Chisholm (Arts, 28 March), while criticising the axing of the last children’s programme on the BBC’s mainstream networks as a cut too far. Last year a meagre £1.6 million of the £460 million the BBC spent on its radio services
Bloody rude Sir: Michael Portillo (‘The view from Basra’, 28 March) accuses the British army of arrogance and, effectively, of incompetence. He says we’ve been humiliated. This may accord with his new television persona, but it is still disingenuous, apart from being bloody rude. It is his own political class that has been shown up
No progressive Sir: David Cameron’s article last week (‘It is not enough for Labour to lose this election’) mentioned the post-bureaucratic age ten times. Mr Cameron loves this phrase because it was coined by a progressive — Al Gore’s former speechwriter Andrei Cherney. And as the April date for Mr Cameron’s proposed £5 billion cuts to
Art for money’s sake Sir: It is hardly surprising that Olivia Cole (‘How to put children off art’, 14 March) found so many schoolchildren in the National Gallery and that they seemed to be learning little about art from their visits. The Gallery, like other public bodies, has a funding agreement with its sponsor department,
No axis of evil Sir: Melanie Phillips’s article (‘Beware the new axis of evangelicals and Islamists’, 7 March) contains untruthful statements about me. I have never said that I wish Israel, in her words, ‘to be destroyed’ or to ‘disappear just as did the apartheid regime in South Africa’. I have never believed this and
Don’t go Dutch Sir: The Dutch postal service was privatised, you say, ‘with no perceived damage to the services they offer’ (Leading article, 28 February). You would not say that if you lived here. Firstly, deliveries: there is one a day, which arrives at absolutely random times but is usually around 3 p.m. — even here
Bonus issue Sir: Ross Clark (‘Big bonuses in the public sector’, 21 February) summed up the challenge we face. The Institute of Fiscal Studies figure Clark quotes of a 12 per cent premium on public compared to private sector pay should be drilled into all taxpayers’ heads the way Mrs Thatcher used to hit Neil
Hidden behind Smith Sir: Matthew Parris (Another Voice, 14 February) correctly emphasised the cyclical pattern of economic markets in an optimistic tone that heralded a future recovery. As is almost always the case, writers from Adam Smith onwards are given the credit for the exposition of market theory. However, it was Josiah Tucker (1713-1799), an
Solidarity with the strikers Sir: As a member of the English working class I write to express my approval of and agreement with Rod Liddle’s article (‘Would the working class vote Labour now?, 7 February). I would compare the action of the strikers with those of the shipyard workers of Gdansk in 1980 whose actions
A failure of fairness Sir: Rod Liddle’s defence of the BBC (Liddle Britain, 31 January) does not stack up. Of course people with close connections to Palestinians, those fully aware of their sufferings and traumas, were in the forefront of calling for the BBC to air the charity’s appeal. How could it be otherwise? Yet
Israel fuels anti-Semitism Sir: I am a member of Jews for Justice for Palestinians and have participated in every one of the national demonstrations against Israel’s brutal onslaught against Gaza. I have never heard the slogans ‘Hamas, Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the Gas’ and ‘Death to the Jews’ that Douglas Davis (‘The terrible warning of
Islam and the Nazis Sir: Charles Moore touches on an important point when he ascribes a Nazi–Hamas continuum of interests (The Spectator’s Notes, 17 January). While helping Europe Minister Denis MacShane write his recently published book, Globalising Hatred — The New Anti-Semitism, I was numbed by the depths of the relationship between radical Islam and
Selective facts Sir: Matt Ridley’s article on Darwin’s vision (‘Natural selection explains everything’, 10 January) omits one simple but very important fact, namely that Darwin did not originate natural selection. How do we know? Simple — both he and Alfred Russel Wallace gave the credit to Patrick Matthew and Charles Wells. Darwin even described Matthew’s
A coherent story Sir: Douglas Murray says (‘Studying Islam made me an atheist’, 3 January) that what killed the Bible was not Darwin but ‘German biblical criticism… the scholarship on lost texts, discoveries of added-to texts and edited texts’. It’s a pity he didn’t pursue his investigation further and discover that those dated theories proposed
Labour’s carrot and stick Sir: The Spectator is right (Leading article, 13 December) to call not just for ‘benefit claimants actually to do something for their handouts’, but for a significant increase in the income tax threshold. There is little sense — or fairness — in trying to push people off benefits and into work