Letters

Uncertain times Sir: Kate Andrews’s article on the era of economic certainty (‘Crash test’, 18 March) is not the first article I have read – especially in the financial press – telling us that we live in uncertain times, as though at some stage in the past everyone knew exactly what was going to happen. I am unable to recall such a time. I would argue that what we really should worry about is certainty. When people start talking about the end of history, claiming that there is a certain fortune to be made in buying cryptocurrencies or when ‘everybody’ knows the most important thing is to achieve net zero, that is the time to be worried. ‘Why did we not see it coming?’ the late Queen is reported to have asked about the 2008 banking crisis.

Channel anger Sir: I fear that in your leading article (‘Our duty to refugees’, 11 March) you find yourself in the same bind as the Labour party and at odds with majority opinion in the country. While people in the UK are vexed by the Channel crossers, this is only because it is the most obvious example of the failure of the political class to control immigration as a whole. The population of the UK is increasing fast: this is almost wholly as a result of immigration. Despite government propaganda about the necessity of migration to ensure an adequate supply of labour to support an ageing population, it remains very unpopular. Migrants are going to get old too: are we to expand our population endlessly?

Friends like these... Sir: I much admire Peter Frankopan as a historian but his article ‘Is Putin winning?’ (4 March) is misleading and plain wrong. He argues that the vote at the UN on Ukraine on 23 February demonstrated that Russia’s strategy is winning new friends in Africa, Central and South America, and Asia; friends who are refusing to vote with the US and the West, and are supporting Russia. An inspection of the actual figures at the UN vote shows this claim to be foolish: 24 African states condemned Putin’s Russia. Only two, Eritrea and Mali, supported Putin. In South and Central America, 16 states condemned Putin. Only Nicaragua supported him. In Asia, 31 states condemned Russia. Only North Korea and Syria supported Putin.

Beyond belief Sir: Tim Farron (‘Church and state’, 25 February) repeats many of the common errors made by those of faith. He starts by equating secularists with atheists, yet they are quite distinct. To be an atheist is simply not to believe in the existence of a God. That’s it. You can be an atheist and almost anything; communist, fascist, socialist, liberal, conservative. A secularist believes in the separation of church and state, as many people of faith do as well as atheists. This separation is enshrined in the secular US Constitution, in one of the more religious countries in the West. Secularism is actually the only possible guarantor of religious freedom, something Farron says he’s in favour of.

Delusion of Sturgeon Sir: Nicola Sturgeon’s resignation speech was the longest and most delusional in living memory (‘After Sturgeon’, 18 February). There were reportedly more than 150 ‘me’, ‘my’ and ‘I’s spoken, as she congratulated herself at length, despite the government’s deplorable record since the SNP came to power. She referred to Scotland just 11 times. That tells the electorate where her government’s priorities have been all this time. Their focus was never us Scots; it was how to separate from the rest of the UK. If she wasn’t going to persuade the majority to vote ‘yes’ then, like her predecessor, she would be so irritating and divisive that she hoped Westminster would want to see the back of us and grant Scotland another referendum.

Schools out Sir: Toby Young is absolutely spot-on in his assessment of the impact of Labour’s plans to put VAT on independent schools (‘Class conflict’, 11 February). Not only will it cost the government money, but it will destroy a sector that is one of the UK’s great success stories. The naive and childish perception on the left is that all independent schools are, like Eton or Harrow, backed by wealthy parents with very deep pockets. The reality is very different. A significant number of independent schools are really struggling, and several have closed recently. Many schools operate on the margins of profitability or run at a loss. The majority of parents in the sector struggle to find the fees, and an extra 20 per cent will make it unaffordable for most.

A negotiated end Sir: Owen Matthews’s piece hinted at the likely outcome of the Ukraine conflict, but his conclusion was too pessimistic (‘Spring loaded’, 4 February). It seems probable that the war in Ukraine will drag on without a decisive conclusion and that there will not only be disagreement among Nato members about supplying further arms, but that other governments will get tired of it. The only way to stop it will, therefore, be by negotiation. Given that the most successful negotiated settlements end with all sides being reasonably satisfied with the outcome, Russia, Ukraine, Nato and the EU will have to make compromises. Ukraine will have to agree to cede Crimea, and the Donbas too.

It’s not cynicism Sir: I was amazed to have suffered the projection of so much cynicism in return for my plea that no one should suffer hate for their identity (‘The cynicism of Steve Baker’, Toby Young, 21 January).  The simple truth is that one of my staff is out as a trans man. Another is a proud gay man with a non-binary partner. I like and admire them, and I have heard what they put up with. I am glad to be their ally. My staff still suffer abuse because of their sexual and gender identities, and I wish for them to live their lives without that abuse. This ought not to be controversial.  My team and I have genuinely been shocked that a benign tweet about supporting the LGBT+ community could spark such an aggressive backlash.

Scottish muddle Sir: The Scottish Sentencing Council guidelines, introduced last year, affirm research as showing that young people, defined in the guidelines as those up to 25 years of age, ‘are not fully developed and may not have attained full maturity’ (‘Gender wars’, 21 January). As a result they are seen as less able to exercise good judgment; are more vulnerable to external influences; may be less able to assess the implications of their decisions; and may take more risks. However, Scottish people nine years younger than that, faced with the complex experience of perceiving their bodily habitus to be at odds with their sense of their gender, are judged fully ready to make permanent, legally binding, life-altering decisions independent of any external advice or assessment.

Back to work Sir: I read with interest Martin Vander Weyer’s clarion call to ‘Mr and Mrs Early-Retired Spectator Reader’ to return to work (Any other business, 14 January). The successful realisation of this aim is likely to require both a nudge from government, possibly through the tax system, and employers to show greater creativity. This pressing economic need will not be met if ‘grey returners’ are treated to the same expectations and orthodoxy as thrusting 35-year-olds. What is required, as Martin rightly notes, is flexibility. Flexible hours, flexible work practices and a flexible attitude to those who, having ‘seen and done it’ several times over, are confident in challenging, and demonstrating candour in, the workplace.

Oxford’s Big Brother Sir: Your Oxfordshire council correspondent (Letters, 7 January), who refers to himself as the corporate director of environment and place, refutes Rod Liddle’s description of councillors as ‘dictators’ and his criticism of the way Oxford will be divided into zones to reduce traffic. Bill Cotton’s letter put me in mind of Nineteen Eighty-Four. The sectors, the checkpoints, the control of access, the difficulties in just trying to go about your business, the paperwork. Ah, the paperwork! Cotton’s letter mentions residents’ applications for permits – at cost – to drive through the ‘filters’ for 100 days or 25 times a year for county visitors. How will people keep track of these?

Three kings Sir: In his analysis of British politics over the past 12 months (‘A year is a long time in politics’, 17 December), James Forsyth named 2022 as ‘the year of the three British prime ministers’. Some interesting comparisons were drawn with Prussia’s year of the three emperors in 1888. Two alternative choices slightly closer to home could have been illustrated through the dramatic consequences of the two years when England saw three kings. In both 1066 and 1483 the monarchy changed three times, ushering in profound political upheaval with lengthy repercussions. Perhaps in the long view, and contrary to Whig interpretations of history, 2022 was not so exceptional after all.

Divided we stand Sir: I was pleased to see that Jenny McCartney picked up on the recent poll from the Irish Times which took a lot of air out of the Irish Unity hot air balloon (‘A bridge too far’, 10 December). British citizens in Northern Ireland have been told for years that a united Ireland is inevitable and indeed is just around the corner. I am now 52 years old and all throughout my childhood (which coincided with the euphemistically titled ‘Troubles’) sympathetic commentators and republican politicians said we should all prepare for such a time. By 2016 we would be in an all-Ireland state to coincide with the centenary of the violent Easter Rising. That didn’t happen. Now we are told by Irish republican lobby groups that it is coming in a decade. It’s not.

When the wind blows Sir: Matt Ridley’s article ‘Blown apart’ (3 December) highlighting the wind-farm delusion touches only lightly on the planning process. Where he does focus on planning in England, he states that there is no ‘ban’ on onshore wind farms, only the standard planning requirements that they are confined to areas designated for that purpose, with community support a vital component. In Scotland decisions on wind-farm developments under 50 megawatts are taken by the local planning authority. Major developments over 50 megawatts are determined by Scottish ministers.  Assessment of both scales are based on interpretation of planning regulations, which is a subjective matter. Two planning officers looking at the same document can reach opposite conclusions.

Write and wrong Sir: As a former member of the Society of Authors I read with interest Julie Bindel’s article about its failure to defend J.K. Rowling when she received death threats (‘Write-off’, 26 November). I asked on the society’s ‘Children’s Writers and Illustrators’ Facebook page why they had not spoken out in support of a fellow children’s author and the administrator replied that Rowling ‘has not requested an intervention’. I hadn’t realised that the defence of freedom of speech was something which had to be specifically requested. The other responses I got ranged from blandly negative to downright vitriolic and it wasn’t long before the administrator closed the discussion.

More turmoil Sir: The comparisons made by Kate Andrews between the post-2008 settlement and the ‘Austerity 2.0’ Budget last week seem accurate and this is likely to have wider consequences (‘The squeeze’, 19 November). The failure of growth and perceived lack of care for many in society post-2008 undoubtedly contributed to Brexit and the increased bifurcation of the electorate. Jeremy Hunt now appears to wish to add to intergenerational inequality by keeping the triple lock. Trussism clearly failed at the point of prosecution, but at least it represented a new approach. The Sunak/Hunt answer, which makes no acknowledgement of the sacrifices made by the young during Covid, will produce more of the political turmoil we have experienced in the last decade.

Zero sense Sir: Ross Clark’s article (‘Hot air’, 12 November) neatly sums up some of the fallacies of the net zero target. Electricity generation currently fulfils about 20 per cent of the UK’s total energy demand – of which at best 40 per cent is covered by wind, solar, and hydro: i.e. 8 per cent of total energy demand is fulfilled from renewable sources. Are we really expected to believe that in the next 27 years electricity generation from renewables will grow 12.5 times – or from any source five times – and that the infrastructure will be put in place to deliver it? James Fairbairn Oxford Thank you, Jeremy Sir: I lunched today with friends, one fighting the unwinnable battle against Motor Neurone Disease.

Running the asylum Sir: The interview with Robert Buckland must be the most depressing article I have read for a long time (‘Let them contribute’, 5 November). He notes that the many months of lockdown when no one came into the country presented the perfect opportunity to cut the asylum backlog. Instead it got bigger. He suggests reforming the system so that all information material to a case must be presented upfront, instead of cases being subject to endless appeals. (There’s also the fact that many asylum claimants have confused matters by tossing their passports in the sea during their transit.) One wonders how the Tories allowed this mess to develop, and why they can’t take commonsense steps (including his own suggestions) to resolve it.

Catalogue of disasters Sir: Matthew Parris, in his article ‘The real cause of all the chaos’ (29 October), asks of our last three prime ministers: ‘What big thing did any of these unfortunate souls do wrong?’ In a spirit of helpfulness: Mrs May: net zero by 2050, derisory defence spending. Mr Johnson: hospital clearances, lockdown, vaccine mandates, derisory defence spending. Ms Truss: tax cuts without public sector spending cuts. As a consequence of these three, Britain is not so far away from having to go cap in hand to the IMF once more, and is again confronted by war in Europe as a result of the failure of conventional deterrence.

Sculpting a solution Sir: Noel Malcolm’s article ‘Relief fund’ (22 October) rightly suggests that legislators should consider the issue of the Parthenon sculptures seriously. Yet the article does little in the way of advancing a meaningful solution. What makes The Parthenon Project unique and not just ‘the latest in a sequence’ is that it offers a real, viable way of breaking the impasse on a centuries-old debate. Its proposal of a win-win solution involving the return of the sculptures to Athens and the establishment of a rotating exhibition of Greek artefacts in London is new but already changing minds – including my own.