The Spectator

Thursday

The Spectator

Spectator letters: The modern equivalents of Unity Mitford

From our UK edition

Unity’s modern equivalents Sir: I don’t understand why David Pryce-Jones is still banging on about the Mitfords (‘You are always close to me’, 28 March). Of course my great-aunt Unity was misguided and wrong to adore Adolf Hitler. She was not alone, though. In the 1930s millions of Germans and many non-Germans were equally in thrall to the new National Socialist government. A lot of people were taken in by the propaganda. Perhaps Mr Pryce-Jones could more usefully get his few hundred quid fee from The Spectator by writing an article about Unity’s modern equivalents — the idiotic British girls who are travelling to Syria to help Isis, the Nazis of our own era.

The Spectator

Could you afford to take a job with the royal family?

From our UK edition

Royally paid Staff at Windsor Castle were balloted in strike action over pay. What can you earn in the royal household, according to adverts on the British Monarchy website? — Housekeeping assistant: £14,500 pa. Duties include ‘preparing rooms and cleaning upholstery’. Meals are provided, as is accommodation ‘for which there is a straight salary adjustment’. — Telephone operator in Privy Purse and Treasurer’s Office: £20,500. 38 hours per week. Includes some bank holiday and weekend working. — Ticket sales and information assistant for the summer opening of the Royal Collection: £8.80 per hour. Contract includes a minimum of 300 hours between June and September.

The Spectator

Portrait of the week | 2 April 2015

From our UK edition

Home The nation greeted with well disguised enthusiasm the beginning of the general election campaign after the dissolution of parliament. David Cameron, the Prime Minister, stood at a little plywood lectern in Downing Street and said: ‘In 38 days you face a stark choice’ — between him and Ed Miliband, the leader of the Labour party. The Conservatives said they would create two million jobs in the next parliament. Their claims that Labour’s plans would cost each household £3,028 extra in taxes were met with baffled scepticism by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Some business leaders indignantly rejected Labour’s claims on a poster that they supported the party’s opposition to a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU.

The Spectator

Why aren’t the Tories winning?

From our UK edition

When launching the Conservatives’ campaign this week, David Cameron told party activists that the general election was ‘on a knife edge’. He is right. His chances are little better than 50/50, which is terrifying given the calibre of his opponent. The Prime Minister is entering this election with a list of achievements matched by almost no other leader in Europe. Yet he’s struggling to beat one of the least popular opposition leaders in modern times. What has gone wrong? It’s not the economy. Employment stands at a record high, and most voters will never have lived through such low inflation as we have today. The price of food is actually falling, as is the price of petrol; it costs £18 less to fill up an average car than it did 18 months ago.

The Spectator

The Spectator at war: Eton mess

From our UK edition

From 'News of the Week', The Spectator, 3 April 1915: Some remarks made by Dr. Lyttelton, the Head-Master of Eton, in a sermon at St. Margaret's, Westminster, on Thursday week have caused a storm in a tea-cup. Dr. Lyttelton argued that the Germans must be saved from the results of their own appalling venom by being made to feel that they were not excluded from the comity of nations. He used as an illustration of the kind of guarantee of goodwill which might be offered by Britain to somebody's suggestion that if the Kiel Canal were internationalized Gibraltar should also be internationalized. We think that the suggestion is utterly futile, and if it were ever seriously proposed we would leave no stone unturned to defeat it.

The Spectator

Sober into battle

From our UK edition

From ‘News of the Week’, The Spectator, 3 April 1915: The chief obstacle to prohibition, as we point out elsewhere, is not the temporary interference with individual liberty. It is the difficulty of how to deal with the great trade and industry which will be rendered partially or temporarily derelict by prohibition. But here ‘boldness, boldness, and again boldness’ is the only possible solution… We must never forget that the cutting off of expenditure upon liquor will very soon greatly increase our financial resources, not merely from indirect saving, but from the greater all-round efficiency which will come from an undrugged nation.