The Spectator

Let Libya split Sir: Back in the days of Good King Idris, I did archaeological fieldwork in Cyrenaica in which I traced the main water supply of ancient Ptolemais from its source to the city’s cisterns. I came to know my patch pretty well and I feel that Peter Jones (‘The two Libyas’, 26 March) has got it right. The most sensible course would be to return to the original frontier between Cyrenaica and the rest of the country, as the present state of Libya was a botched affair thrown together in the wake of the Italian defeat in the second world war. The immediate problem as we all know is to stop the Barbary pirate of Tripoli from exacting his revenge on the people of Cyrenaica, and that is very much a European problem — unlike Iraq.

Here is a selection of articles made at Spectator.co.uk over the past week. Fraser Nelson says we need a rational debate about climate change. James Forsyth reveals that the coalition is straining under the pressure of AV, and comments on Boris’ ability to infuriate Labour. Peter Hoskin introduces another Libyan question, and has a memo for Johann Hari. David Blackburn notes that the government is finally taking steps to reform council funding, and illustrates that the Cameron government has been just as gullible as New Labour about Gaddafi. Daniel Korski has been in Libya. Martin Bright explains why criticism is good for the Arts Council. Nick Cohen reveals the identity of the Tory party’s secret weapon.

All in the delivery Sir: Toby Young’s opinions about Cardinal Vaughan school (Status anxiety, 19 March) are subjective and misguided. When seeking a new headteacher, our governing body will be looking for the best person to fill that role and that is all. Cardinal Vaughan is rated ‘outstanding’ and there is every commitment, from the Archbishop of Westminster downwards, to ensure that rating is maintained. On the question of sharing expertise, I would remind the Spectator that at its own recent conference on education, the Secretary of State, Michael Gove, talked about the need for partnership among schools.

Welcome to the latest CoffeeHousers' Wall. For those who haven't come across the Wall before, it's a post we put up each Monday, on which – providing your writing isn't libellous, crammed with swearing, or offensive to common decency – you'll be able to say whatever you like in the comments section. There is no topic, so there's no need to stay 'on topic' – which means you'll be able to debate with each other more freely and extensively. There's also no constraint on the length of what you write – so, in effect, you can become Coffee House bloggers. Anything's fair game – from political stories in your local paper, to chat about the latest football results.

On suffrage Sir: In his article ‘Failure of the Feminists’ (12 March), Paul Johnson asserts that some women would have got the vote in Britain well before 1914 if ‘feminists’ had been willing to accept property qualifications. In fact the stated aim of the major suffrage societies was to achieve the vote on the same terms as men, which before 1918 meant with a property qualification. They had been quite happy in the 1890s to accept the municipal vote on these terms. It was the Liberal leadership (and, initially, the Labour party) that opposed women’s suffrage on the grounds that the class of women who would get the vote under equal franchise would be likely to vote Conservative.