Letters

The Afghan toll Sir: Jonathan Foreman’s article (‘Britain’s forgotten casualties’, 22 August) highlights how the focus on the death toll in Afghanistan eclipses a much wider human and economic cost arising from those many seriously injured soldiers who will require help for the rest of their lives. If you include those who are subsequently affected, often long after their service, by mental health problems arising from what they have endured, the human and economic costs are even greater. However, while it is clear that the government needs to ensure that it responds effectively to this legacy arising from the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, it should not be assumed that those soldiers are abandoned at the point where state provision ends.

Conservative progress Sir: So the notion of ‘progressive’ conservatism is roiling British politics these days (Politics, 15 August). Well, come on over to the colonies, mate, and get educated! We in Canada have had ‘progressive conservative’ political parties, at both the provincial and federal levels of government, for decades — they’re even officially named Progressive Conservatives. Sadly, though, our ‘progressive’ conservatives tend, over time, to become indistinguishable from big-government nanny-state lefties. That’s why we in Canada have a derogatory term for ‘progressive conservatives’: we call them Red Tories, and we were doing so long before anyone in your Labour party imagined that they had coined a new slur.

Primary colours Sir: As a former chairman of a Conservative association, I read with interest your suggestion that the open primary held by the Tories in Totnes was a success (Leading article, 8 August). The association I chaired was constantly under pressure to increase membership. When we attempted to do so, prospective members quite reasonably asked what they would receive for their £25 per annum. In all honesty, the answer was not very much. The trump card was, however, that members have a chance to have a direct say — a vote — in the selection of local and parliamentary candidates and also to vote for a leader of the party. It seems that now even this small benefit is under threat.

See better, Sugar Sir: We the undersigned wish to condemn Baron Sugar of Clapton’s threatened legal action against our colleague Quentin Letts for calling him a ‘telly peer’ who ‘doesn’t seem to have an enormous intellect’ on LBC on 20 July. According to a letter Mr Letts received from Herbert Smith, Lord Sugar will issue a writ against Mr Letts for libel unless he pays his legal costs to date, donates an undisclosed sum to a charity and gives a written undertaking never to criticise him again. When journalists have been sued by public figures in the past — particularly by Members of Parliament — the convention has been to sue the newspaper or broadcaster that provided them with a platform, not to pursue the journalist personally.

Not every illness is swine flu Sir: Congratulations to Sarah Standing (‘The national swine flu sickie’, 25 July). It seems incredible that so much money is being spent so recklessly when we have such an enormous debt on our national books. In these days of ‘patient-led’ medicine the public decides what it is suffering from and certificates are often available for the asking; no doubt the flu itself will be followed by epidemic ‘post-viral fatigue’. GPs seem suddenly to have abandoned the god of ‘evidence-based’ medicine in favour of self-protection. I can say this because I am a GP of a certain vintage who rarely caught any disease from a patient.

Wagner wallows Sir: Michael Henderson states (Arts, 18 July) that Wagner’s music reveals the aspects of the human personality that we try hardest to suppress. Certainly many deep ideas and emotions are revealed. But instead of purging the emotions with pity and fear, and achieving a catharsis, Wagner wallows in them, exalting primitive values, ignoring or despising detachment and reason. A genius of the first rank, but highly undesirable.

A heated debate Sir: One reason why we continue to live in an unsustainable way is that not enough people accept the reality and implications of climate change (‘The great climate change con trick’, 11 July). Green issues may be higher up the agenda than before but Professor Plimer needn’t fret: procrastinating politicians continue to encourage business-as-usual consumption and unsustainable growth. Sadly, Professor Plimer is not alone in his climate-sceptic views, as sales of his new book indicate. So he has, it would seem, every reason to be cheerful. Nick Reeves Executive Director, Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management London WC1 Sir: It is sad to see the desperate wishful thinking that The Spectator is now engaged in over the climate crisis.

Moore’s TV dinner Sir: While I have been generally supportive of Charles Moore’s quest to impose a degree of financial proportionality on what the BBC pays Jonathan Ross, and of his ‘scheme’ to withhold payment for his TV licence until the matter is satisfactorily addressed, I am dismayed to read that he is doing so at my expense (The Spectator’s Notes, 4 July). If he wishes to dine with the corporation’s director-general in order to discuss his ‘project’, could he not do so at his own expense instead of that of the taxpayer? Or should I now withhold payment of my TV licence until such gorging ceases? Adrian Hilton Farnham Common, Buckinghamshire James on James Sir: James Walton (Arts, 4 July) may be doing Clive James a disservice.

On the Iraq inquiries Sir: Lest myths become accepted as facts, may I correct two aspects of John Kampfner’s article (‘The secret Iraq deal’, 27 June) about the Iraq Intelligence Review, which I chaired. First, a myth has grown up that the Review’s criticisms of the government were originally more trenchant but were watered down following government pressure. The facts are that, as fair procedure required, we gave those affected by our criticisms an opportunity to respond and make some verbal amendments in response to their representations. But I do not recall any instances in which these affected the substance of the criticisms.

A nuclear Iran Sir: Should there be any doubt, following James Forsyth’s article (‘What to do about Iran and the bomb’, 20 June), that the Iranian government intends to build atomic weapons, it is answered by the forest of anti-aircraft weapons protecting their uranium enrichment plant at Nantaz. When in the area two weeks ago I saw battery after battery of anti-aircraft weapons, manned, every kilometre in from 25 kilometres from the plant along the route they have assumed a foreign air strike would come, and more on the exit. The plant itself is protected by an impressive paraphernalia of watch-towers, wire and berms. Peaceful atomic work does not require such protection. Nantaz symbolises the current Iranian tragedy.

Built on a lie Sir: J. Alan Smith (Letters, 13 June) points out that Churchill from 1940-45 was, like Gordon Brown today, ‘a prime minister who was “unelected”’ — as though that should allay concerns about the democratic legitimacy of Mr Brown’s premiership. But the main concern about Mr Brown’s democratic legitimacy is not so much that he is ‘unelected’ as prime minister, but that at the last general election the then Labour leader, Tony Blair, promised expressly on 30 September 2004 that he, Mr Blair, would serve as prime minister for the full parliamentary term Logically, of course, that entailed a promise that no one else, and therefore not Mr Brown, would be prime minister during the term.

Back to Black Sir: Taki (High Life, 16 May) exaggerated the ineptitude of my counsel in Chicago, and in this I am happy to agree with Tom Bower (Letters, 23 May), but they were not my counsel of choice, whom I was prevented from retaining by an asset seizure that was subsequently judged by the jury to be improper. Nor is this a tough prison. It is low security, not divided into cells, and without violence, but Taki is correct that the judge and probation officer recommended minimal security, for which I am technically not eligible as a non-American. Bower is completely mistaken in everything else he wrote in his letter. There has never been any amount remotely approaching $50 million of mortgages on my Toronto and Palm Beach houses and certainly is not now.

Racism isn’t right Sir: Reference is made in the headlines of Fraser Nelson’s article on the BNP (‘The rise of British racism may be horribly close’, 30 May) to ‘far Right politicians’. Surely Mr Nelson does not imagine that there is anything right-wing about the BNP? As its 2005 general election manifesto shows, it is a hard-left Old Labour-style party which supports nationalisation and trade union power, and opposes free trade. And surely he cannot think of racism as right-wing. As with nationalism, racism’s greatest supporters — Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin — were hard leftists, as is Mugabe today. And Hitler was the leader of the National Socialist German Workers party.

Time to talk it out Sir: The EU is certainly one important cause of parliament’s loss of self-respect, but you fail to mention (Leading article, 23 May) what is now the main cause of the malaise: in 1997 the Blair government introduced the routine timetabling of primary legislation, and did so with the connivance of a then supine official Conservative opposition. Several people, including myself — I was clerk of the bills between 1995 and 1999 — warned the shadow Cabinet that this spelt the end of effective parliamentary government, but we were ignored.

Black as he is painted Sir: Taki is a wonderful man but his lament about Conrad Black (High Life, 16 May) cannot pass uncorrected. Conrad Black’s defence did not suffer because he was forced to rely on ‘friendly Canadian lawyers’. One lawyer, Eddie Greenspan, is Toronto’s top fraud defendant, while the second lawyer, Ed Genson, ranks among Chicago’s very best criminal defenders and would be offended to be called Canadian. In the event, both performed remarkably well, demolishing several key prosecution witnesses. Black pleads that he did not have sufficient money to hire better lawyers, but his filings with a Canadian court show that he still possesses a fortune, not least to sustain the $50 million mortgages on his mansions in Florida and Toronto.

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 science’. The suggestion that the society is not fulfilling its charter is a misinterpretation and makes a travesty of the society’s work with schools and universities, with the public and policy-makers — and not least to the hundreds of professional researchers that the society currently supports to advance new understanding of all aspects of our world.

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 doctrine about the taxation of the rich, in exactly these words. But where is Marx supposed to have said it? For Marx, the demand for progressive taxation was purely part of his revolutionary programme to destroy existing social institutions, not to make them fairer. In his time, the most that reformers were demanding was that all rich people should pay the same amount in tax as everybody else.

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 in a prospectus, then they face prosecution under the Companies Act and possible fines or imprisonment. But Labour seems to regards its manifesto commitments as an exam paper: only keeping three commitments need be attempted. Why should we be surprised that the reputation of our politicians has fallen so low and that so many people will not bother to vote at the next election?

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 have worked for nearly 20 years in a large metropolitan police force which deals with nearly 2,000 incidents a day on average. We arrest hundreds of people, and respond to thousands of calls for help and assistance. Nearly 4,000 of us do this — regular police officers, special constables (and sorry, James — they do have full police powers and those you accused of not saving a drowning boy were not special constables), community support officers and police staff.

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 church is sadly lacking in leaders of any serious Christian commitment, passion or confidence in the gospel. It is as if they prefer any religion to the Christian one, which they have pledged to ‘defend and stand for’ in their ordination vows. Bring back Bishop Nazir-Ali and sack the liberal self-loathing secularised bishops!