Letters

Back to blue Sir: What a pity your leading article (‘The valley of death’, 25 May) did not reach Downing Street in time. It might have dissuaded the Prime Minister from ruining a good suit, rushing off to Belfast to associate himself with Titanic and allowing himself to be photographed on an aeroplane under a sign proclaiming ‘Exit’. The coming Labour landslide does, however, present an opportunity for the Conservatives, if they are willing to use the wilderness years wisely. The years in opposition before 1979 enabled Margaret Thatcher to devise and refine a programme of radical right-wing policies.

Free the C of E Sir: Patrick Kidd’s article on the shortcomings of today’s Church of England maintains the importance of the ‘volunteers in the pews’ who bind the church together (‘Miracle workers’, 18 May). He warns that these people ‘can so easily run away’. This is exactly what happened to the Church of Scotland in 1843 when the hierarchy got things badly wrong. The Great Disruption was caused by a disagreement over patronage: should a patron be the sole arbiter in hiring and firing ministers or did this undermine the spiritual independence of the congregation? The exit of more than 400 ministers from the Kirk’s General Assembly and the formation of the Free Church of Scotland (the Wee Frees) was the answer.

Soft left Sir: I read with a certain wry amusement in Yascha Mounk’s piece that ‘activists’ occupying Columbia were demanding the university administrators should supply them with food and water (‘Preach first’, 11 May). How times have changed. In winter 1976 I was the president of the student body at Edinburgh University. A group of ultra-left activists occupied a building of the social science faculty. The administration sent two members of staff to speak to me in the hope that I might be able to dislodge them. I explained very patiently to them that given my own unashamed Conservatism, there was unlikely to be any meeting of minds on this matter.

Right is wrong Sir: Katy Balls’s article ‘Survival Plan’ (4 May) starts from a false premise. The problem is not Rishi Sunak, but the current Conservative party’s underlying ethos. With Brexit, the lunatics took over the asylum. The ‘Get Brexit Done’ single-issue election resulted in a Conservative party, cabinet and parliamentary majority sharing populist right-wing views and convinced that the country supported them in all their beliefs. Although Brexit has clearly failed and Boris Johnson has been disposed of, many of the underlying convictions associated with the Brexit philosophy remain. The obvious demonstration of this was the disastrous election of Liz Truss as leader despite the common sense warnings of Sunak at the time.

The state of our defence Sir: Your article on the etiolated state of European, including Britain’s, defence, is spot on (‘The price of peace’, 27 April). Rishi Sunak’s belated conversion to increasing defence expenditure is welcome but is, frankly, too little, too late. What it most definitively does not do is place the UK on a ‘war-footing’. By contrast, Russia is already in that state. It spends between 6 and 8 per cent of its GDP on defence. It has established strategic alliances with China, Iran and North Korea, and now much of West Africa too. We need a severe dose of realism. To begin, we must stop pretending that Ukraine has any hope of pushing Russia back to the 2014 borders.

The bravery of Ukraine Sir: Few articles could resonate as strongly as that of Svitlana Morenets (‘Scrambled logic’, 20 April). She brings the agony of her brave countrymen and women home to us, and the effect of dithering and equivocation by the West. As a volunteer with a refugee charity, I weekly admire the character of our Ukrainian clients, mainly older ladies who spend their time bringing us delicious homemade cakes, volunteering in charity shops and signing up to English classes at the local college.

Question time Sir: Your leading article ‘Sense prevails’ (13 April) is a valuable précis of the Cass Review into NHS gender treatment. However, it also raises several questions. How are the actions of these individuals, groups and organisations different from those of others who have been found to have acted unprofessionally, causing harm to patients who were entitled to place trust for their health in them? Where was the ethical and executive management oversight within the NHS? What other unproven ‘treatments’ are being carried out under the ever-growing demands for more money to be allocated to the NHS? Finally, what sanctions are to be meted out – or will we be fobbed off with the perpetrators’ handbook: ‘Lessons have been learned’?

Good trade-off Sir: I applaud your excellent editorial (‘Trading in Falsehoods’, 6 April) – a succinct and insightful essay on the role of Great Britain in the abolition of slavery and the slave trade. All are agreed that slavery in any form was and is reprehensible. As a white and proud Barbadian, initially educated there, I contend that some of my ancestors, who were probably slave owners, did not believe that they were involved in anything immoral or sinful, but were serving the economic interests of the Empire as they saw it at the time. You rightly point out that the huge cost in treasure and lives incurred by Britain and the Royal Navy in ending the slave trade is largely ignored.

Screen tests Sir: As somebody whose teaching career coincided with the digital revolution, I must take issue with Sophie Winkleman’s well-meaning but blinkered views on screens in schools (Actress’s Notebook, 30 March). I shall ignore the several familiar yet unsubstantiated opinions presented as facts, but I cannot let ‘straight back to books, paper and pens’ go unchallenged. Adults involved in education have often, lamentably, seen it as their job to prepare children for the world they themselves grew up in, rather than the one that awaits the next generation. The comment, ‘Well it worked for me!’ boils my blood.

Copping out Sir: Both the Police and Crime Commissioner Dr Andrew Billings and your recent correspondent John Pritchard are partly right (Letters, 16 and 23 March). Policing has gone wrong for two reasons. First, the massive cuts in staff instigated by Theresa May as home secretary resulted in a large number of the most experienced officers leaving. Even the replacement of these officers under Boris Johnson took time and could not make up for the loss of experience. Secondly, the inspection regime under the Inspectorate of Constabulary fails to address the crimes that matter to the public. During the years I was PCC for the Thames Valley, I made household burglary, theft, violence on the streets and rural crime our priorities. That was what the vast majority of the public wanted.

A doctor writes Sir: I have seen a lot of dying in my career as a doctor. Your leading article (‘Licence to kill’, 16 March) shows astonishing naivety about the state of dying pain-free and with dignity in the UK. Outside of a hospice, where only 5 per cent die (well-supported), there is much terrible suffering. Until 2000, GPs and hospitals used opioids in many forms, from syringe drivers to Brompton’s cocktail, to ease death. However, since Harold Shipman the rules have changed and doctors outside of specialist services for the dying are terrified of prescribing the slightest hastening dose. My mother-in-law had an agonising death with terminal cancer in a care home, while a doctor tried and failed for hours to find any relief as he was unable to carry morphine at all.

No improvement Sir: Your leading article (‘All the poorer’, 9 March) asks: ‘What do voters have to thank the government for?’ The short answer from this once loyal supporter is sadly ‘nothing’. It is hard to think of one single aspect of British life, apart from state education, that has improved in the 14 years since they came to power. They have failed to secure Britain’s defences, to control legal and illegal immigration, to bring government expenditure under control, to restore the doctor/patient relationship, to control our streets, to resolve the Post Office scandal, to manage HS2, to end the mania in institutions over sexual identity, diversity, equity and inclusion.

What’s the point? Sir: Your editorial (‘Net loss’, 2 March) sets out how the decarbonisation industry is a net drain on the British economy. While you mention that the UK has already decarbonised faster than any other European country, the fact that the UK produces less than 1 per cent of global carbon emissions to start with means that even if we became carbon neutral overnight, it would have precisely no impact on global climate change. So the 765,000 people working in that sector are not only taking skilled labour away from sectors that are actually economically productive, but they are on a hiding to virtue-signalling nothing. They might as well be digging holes and filling them in again.

Work to do Sir: I agree with Kate Andrews’s diagnosis: the nation’s mental health is appalling and a major barrier to our economic prosperity (‘Sick list’, 24 February). I agree with her criticism of the treatment offered by the health service: we are failing to restore people to working health. Antidepressants are handed out like sweets while provision of talking therapy falls woefully short. What is missing from her otherwise excellent analysis is a consideration of aetiology. The pandemic unmasked, so to speak, but did not itself cause, a dearth of interpersonal connection in our society. We must all take responsibility for landing ourselves in this mess, and for finding a way out of it.

Navy to the fore Sir: In Eliot Wilson’s stimulating article highlighting the lack of capability within our armed forces (‘Losing battle’, 17 February), he comments on the reduced size of the army and the fact that it would be pressed to contribute a brigade to any conflict in the near future. This reminded me of the strategic debate before the first world war and Professor Julian Corbett’s well-argued view that, as an island nation dependent ultimately on the sea lanes, the British role in a European conflict should be to keep maritime supply lines open for the Allies. British resources should therefore focus on the navy. The land battle should be left to the armies of our more numerous continental allies.

The many not the few Sir: Your leading article (‘The people problem’, 3 February) fails to get to the heart of this issue. Yes, more needs to be done to reform welfare to encourage people back to work. But nowhere do you mention the need for employers to be more open-minded in their recruitment. There is a large pool of ‘underemployed’ – particularly among the over-fifties – who find it very difficult to get any job at all, many of whom are perfectly familiar with the discipline of regular employment. Polling suggests that more than 60 per cent of nearly all ages, social classes and regions think the country is already overcrowded. A greater percentage think the government should consider how to address the resulting challenges.

Too many not too few Sir: I have to disagree with your article ‘The people problem’ (3 February). There is a ‘people problem’ in the world but it is – globally – not too few, but too many people. In my own lifetime the world’s population has approximately tripled. This rate of increase is manifestly unsustainable. It has only been sustained to date because of the globalised and technologically sophisticated world order we have developed, an order which cannot necessarily be counted on. Yes, population levels are in gradual decline in some relatively affluent countries. So what? Perhaps there may be too few young people, but your piece ignores one important piece of the jigsaw: technological change.

Scot free Sir: In last week’s piece on the SNP, Fraser Nelson was critical of the Covid scenario in which ‘civil servants were enlisted in the SNP secret state’ (‘The Covid clan’, 27 January). Fraser makes comparisons with Whitehall but fails to ask the obvious question: is the Scottish model preferable, where the civil service and state media join a ‘mafia’ run by elected politicians? Or is Westminster governance since 2010 better, where the elected government pontificates and the civil service, quangocracy and state media continue to do what they like? Now Nicola Sturgeon has time on her hands, perhaps she can hire herself out as a consultant to Rishi Sunak on the subject of Taking Back Control.

Benefits of abstinence Sir: In last week’s Spectator, I turned to the cover piece ‘Dry Britain’ first because I stopped drinking alcohol last January. However, contrary to the demographic expectations of your article, I am a not-young 58-year-old. My abstinence is not based on a moral position, nor fear of an appearance on TikTok, but on the fact that three people I knew of my age and younger sadly passed away in the past year. One was directly due to the effects of alcohol, and in the other two cases alcohol was a likely factor. A year ago I was relatively fit, healthy and slim in comparison to the majority of my peers but still, as I peered at the horizon, I could make out a grim-looking gent with a scythe.

Delaying justice Sir: Charles Moore argued (Notes, 13 January) that sub-postmasters in the Post Office/Horizon scandal should not be pardoned ‘en masse’, but rather that each case should be treated individually. He gives two reasons: the possible future risks associated with precedent and because each claim, being different, merits separate consideration. Theoretically, he may well be correct, but this would inevitably add many more wasted years to the endlessly protracted legal process. It would serve only to delay further the justice and the compensation to which the victims are entitled. The only real beneficiaries would, of course, be the lawyers.