Letters

Europeans made the USAFrom Ronald FletcherSir: David Mayger (Letters, 20 May) seems to be unaware that the history of his country has been written many times, and that the salient fact to emerge is that the USA was largely the creation of Europeans, among whom the British were to the fore.It is deeply regrettable that in the 20th century one European power was so determined to impose itself on the rest of the world that it waged two aggressive wars in which America was reluctantly obliged to participate; but the notion that America could stand aloof from ‘foreign entanglements’ was exploded, I should have thought, at Pearl Harbor.

Blair’s cowardly invasion From J.G. Cluff Sir: In your leading article (13 May) you list a litany of Mr Blair’s failures without mentioning the Iraq war. How can you leave out his dismal role in committing the country to that illegal, incompetent, unnecessary and cowardly excursion? I say cowardly because I am so cynical about this meretricious and mendacious politician that I now believe it was precisely because there were no weapons of mass destruction that America and Britain invaded Iraq. There is a sinister symmetry between Hans Blix’s pronouncement and the invasion. Had he established the existence of weapons of mass destruction, I doubt whether Bush and Blair would have committed anything other than hot air. J.G.

Listing page content here Mosley is no EU heroFrom David MeikleSir: In his review of Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British Fascism by Stephen Dorril (Books, 6 May), David Pryce-Jones makes the disgusting suggestion that those who support the European Union, like Kenneth Clarke MP, are somehow continuing the work of the fascist Oswald Mosley. To try to make a link between the EU (and those who support the idea) and the ugly ideology of fascism is plain ridiculous. European nations came together, after the horrors of Nazism nearly conquered and destroyed Europe, to form an organisation that would ensure we would never go to war with one another again. Instead the great Western European nations would co-operate to ensure that the peoples of Europe lived in peace and prosperity.

Prepare for coalition From William MacDougall Sir: I hope Fraser Nelson is mistaken in his talk of a ‘Lib Dem Test’ for Tory policies (‘Cameron’s secret plan’, 29 April). Of course the party should not be frightened of coalition; after all, it has been in coalition for much of its history (with Irish parties, or Liberal and Labour splinter groups). But the way to prepare is to have stronger, not weaker, policies. If we are already voting to ban parental interviews, where would we compromise on education — on banning the remaining grammar schools? No, to prepare for coalition with the Lib Dems (or Labour) we should have more extreme policies, e.g., a grammar school in every town, so that we can compromise on a grammar school in every second town.

BNP is party of the Left From Lord Tebbit Sir: Oh dear! Oh dear! How can we expect the Guardian and the BBC to get it right when the Telegraph and even The Spectator (Leading article, 22 April) fall into the trap of calling the BNP an extreme right-wing party. In my book it is left-wing, not right-wing, to oppose both capitalism and free trade, and to promote a ‘significant direction of the commanding heights of the economy’ as well as workers’ co-operatives and programmes of nationalisation including, of all things, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, all of which are part of the BNP manifesto.

Blair is no Thatcherite From Lord TebbitSir: I am not sure whether in his review of the programme Tory! Tory! Tory! (Arts, 25 March) Simon Hoggart is expressing his own view or that of Edwina Currie, that ‘by 1990, Thatcher had become the greatest obstacle to Thatcherism, which had to be rescued ... by Tony Blair’. Whoever’s view it is, it is clearly a most outrageous, patently untrue statement. The obstacles to Thatcherism were Heseltine and Howe, not Thatcher. I know of no Blair achievement of any kind which could be described as ‘Thatcherite’. She did not throw money at public services without achieving a commensurate improvement in public services.

The neocons’ Iraqi ‘vision’From Correlli BarnettSir: Surely Con Coughlin (‘A bittersweet birthday’, 18 March) is in error when he states that it was only after the fall of Saddam that Washington adopted the neocon vision whereby Iraq should be ‘a beacon of democracy that would shed its light throughout the tired autocracies of the Arab world’. Surely Bush and co. came into office in January 2001 having already bought the idea of ‘the American century’, and having already committed themselves to a mission to spread democracy round the world, starting with the Middle East, and with Iraq as the first target.

Schools aren’t clubsFrom Nicholas NelsonSir: Have you given proper thought to the reason that we have an education system (Leading article, 11 March)? Our schools have an essential list of objectives which includes ensuring that young people absorb a body of knowledge and acquire skills that match their potential, and emerge as adults with an ability to assess their world critically and communicate with their fellow human beings. The way you would do this is to hive off 25 per cent or so into exclusive clubs so that they leave school with a strong body of knowledge but no clue about how to communicate with the other 75 per cent.

What sells winsFrom Peggy HatfieldSir: How exciting and unusual to see people in the media advising sexual restraint (‘Anyone for chastity?’, 4 March)! As Piers Paul Read reminds us, our culture is up to its eyeballs in sex — in films and also on the high street. But though I’m quite sure that most normal British people could secretly do without a bonking scene in every film, or vibrators in front of children’s noses in Boots, they daren’t say so, even to their friends, for fear of appearing ‘repressed’. How have we got ourselves into this unsettling state of affairs? Read suggests that feminism and the decline of religion are to blame, but I have a slightly different answer.

Genghis was a leftieFrom Daniel Hannan, MEPSir: Paul Johnson demolishes the ludicrous expression ‘to the right of Genghis Khan’ and wonders what the Mongol leader’s true politics might have been (And another thing, 25 February). I’d have thought Genghis was a clear-cut leftie. His tactic, on conquering a tribe, was to liquidate the aristocracy and elevate the lower orders. He was a proto-Europhile, mingling his subject clans so as to prevent the development of a sense of national identity. Where modern socialists want to use the education system to cut high achievers down to size, the Khan was more literal, forcing his vassals to walk under a yoke and decapitating those who were too tall.

Jackboots of New LabourFrom Philip FreemanSir: I expected a more robust defence of our liberty from the Spectator (Leading article, 18 February). Just because a majority of the snivelling puritans who populate Parliament today voted for the smoking ban does not mean we should shrug our shoulders and accept it meekly. Individual freedom and liberty are more important than democracry, which is more like mob rule in this country. I am a committed non-smoker, but I have a quaint belief in ‘live-and-let-live’. What’s it got to do with me if somebody smokes in a pub? I’ll go elsewhere if necessary. Are we really going to tell a war veteran that he may no longer smoke in his British Legion club?

A ‘Rhineland moment’? From David Jones OwenSir: You claim you will not publish the Danish cartoons because they are ‘juvenile’ and offensive (Leading article, 11 February). Does that mean that The Spectator will no longer publish silly cartoons with religious content, as it has done so often in the past? Or could it be that it is really the reaction to the offence that is causing you concern? You seem to allude to that when you refer to the risks not only to editorial staff but also to others who would be in the firing line in such circumstances. So there we have it: liberty is precious and must be defended, but not at the cost of life.

Plight of the Poles From Martin OxleySir: Anthony Browne’s article suggests that demand from UK employers is driving mass migration of new EU nationals to Britain (‘Invasion of the New Europeans’, 28 January). The British Polish Chamber of Commerce can certainly confirm this view. Last year the Chamber organised two recruitment fairs for British companies and recruitment agencies, which attracted over 11,000 Poles interested in working in the UK. This year — because of growing demand from British employers — we shall be organising at least five recruitment fairs. Yet the points made by Andrzej Tutkaj (‘The misery of the Polish newcomers’, 28 January) are also valid.

Poles apart From Lady Belhaven and StentonSir: I understand why Mary Wakefield decided to speak to the Federation of Poles in Great Britain (‘The misery of the Polish newcomers’, 28 January), but Andrzej Tutkaj does not speak for the Polish community as a whole. She would have been better advised to have gone to the Polish Consulate, which is the organisation which looks after Poles over here and has to pick up the pieces when things go wrong. The Federation of Poles was formed during the Communist period when few Poles would have considered approaching the Consulate, and the Polish community needed an organisation which could help people in trouble who could not return to Poland in the circumstances of that time.

Too much, too young From Judith HerefordSir: I agree with Leo McKinstry (‘Hate, hypocrisy and hysteria’, 21 January). To read the newspapers, you’d think that Ruth Kelly was singlehandedly responsible for all the outbreaks of paedophilia in Britain, when in fact it’s the fault of our debased culture. But let’s not forget that as Education Secretary Kelly contributes to that culture, especially with regard to the government’s sex education policy. If school teachers talk to children as young as seven about sex, telling them anything goes, why should they worry when another adult, in another place, broaches the same subject?

Our successful railways From Adrian LyonsSir: Your leading article (7 January) suggested that railway operators are a cartel bent on exploiting their customers, but this is grossly unfair. Fares have risen, but an overall increase of 3 per cent above inflation since 1995 hardly constitutes ‘steeply rising prices’. Furthermore, a tremendous range of fares and journey options is on offer. Your leader quoted one London–Manchester rail fare without giving the bigger picture. This morning I could have bought a return for travel today for less than £60. Nor do I believe that railway operators would consider the industry to be risk-free.

More women MPs, please From Amber RuddSir: Rod Liddle’s article on women candidates in the Conservative party contains an irritating and often repeated inaccuracy. (‘Let’s not forget the weirdos and halfwits’, 17/24 December). He refers to ‘the refusal of women to put themselves forward as potential candidates’. No such refusal has taken place. Women are putting themselves forward. As one of the women on this list, I know many of the others and know them to be just as talented and capable as their male colleagues. In fact the candidates’ list, from which the target seats will be selecting next year, is currently 25 per cent women. Please do not credit us with ‘plain good sense’ and therefore no interest in active politics.

Apathy rulesPeter Oborne’s article ‘The Triumph of Tradition’ (10 December) is badly mistaken in its electoral analysis. New Labour has never had and cannot rely on the goodwill of over 40 per cent of the electorate. In Blair’s 1997 victory his 13.5 million votes comprised 30.8 per cent of the electorate. This year he was down to 21.5 per cent. It was not always like that for Labour. Clement Attlee scored 40 per cent in 1951 — and was defeated by Churchill. Nor is it true that the ‘Lib Dems were the only real movers’. Nor did they ‘steadily gain ground’ at the expense of the Conservatives and ‘towards the 2005 general election, of New Labour’. In 1983 the Alliance had 18.5 per cent support; in 1987 16.9 per cent.

Austria and the JewsIn Austria it is illegal publicly to deny the Holocaust (‘Let Irving speak’, 3 December). ‘Words are deeds,’ said Sigmund Freud, and in Austria we are aware of this connection. ‘There is no more anti-Semitic nation in Western Europe than Austria’? Neither the report on ‘Manifestations of anti-Semitism in the EU, 2002–2003’ by the EU Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, nor the recent study by the Anti-Defamation League on ‘Attitudes towards Jews in 12 European countries’ corroborates this claim. It is true and shameful that many Austrians participated in the Holocaust. Was this guilt ‘extraordinary’?