The Spectator

Leading article: From Guantanamo to Forest Gate

After the initial horror — 9/11, Madrid, 7 July The purpose of terrorism is not only to cause bloodshed, but also to spray psychological shrapnel across the societies it attacks and seeks to subvert. After the initial horror — 9/11, Madrid, 7 July — the strategic objective is to force democracies, in their rage and panic, to make mistakes, to falter, and to resort to internal squabbling. Action is supplanted by introspection. It is this that links the botched police raid in Forest Gate, east London, on 2 June with the suicide of three inmates at Guantanamo Bay, who were discovered hanged in their cells on 10 June. The next day, Colleen Graffy, a US deputy assistant secretary of state, dismissed the suicides as ‘a good PR move’.

Letters to the Editor | 10 June 2006

Schools for success From Barnaby Lenon Sir: Robert Yates rightly explains that grammar schools were the path to academic success and a good job for clever working-class children in the period 1935 to 1975 (‘Grammar schools are liberal, Mr Cameron’, 3 June). To these should be added the many direct-grant schools, independent schools that charged fees but took clever children from low-income homes on local authority grants. They were the most successful schools in Britain academically and of course had children from a wide range of social backgrounds. For example, in south London, a relatively low-income area, these included such schools as Dulwich College, Eltham College and the Whitgift Foundation schools.

Water, water, everywhere

The emergency water-rationing measures now affecting 13 million people across the south-east have rekindled memories of the last serious drought to afflict the country, in 1976. Britain in many ways is an unrecognisable country from the Britain of 30 years ago, when scraggy figures in flared trousers queued up at the standpipes. But one thing hasn’t changed. In spite of privatisation, the public water supply remains a creaking service using the same old Victorian mains pipes and the same system of demand management as it did 30 years ago: one where stuffy bureaucrats are dispatched to jolly us into public-spirited acts like bathing only every other day and leaving our geraniums unwatered.

Letters to the Editor | 3 June 2006

Two kinds of don From Joseph PalleySir: Boris Johnson laments the declining quality of British universities, with growth in student numbers outpacing funding (‘Farewell to the Young Ones’, 27 May). The problem is not just financial but cultural. It has always been assumed that university lecturers, as good teachers, will automatically be good researchers. This false assumption was less damaging 50 years ago, when only a small, self-confident number of school-leavers, better prepared for self-study, went on to university. As staff-student ratios worsen and universities concentrate on research to attract funding, the trend is towards more teaching by postgraduate students, assistant lecturers and part-timers.

A government of Neros

John Prescott has always claimed to be one of the unacknowledged founders of New Labour. It is certainly true that he took an early lead in modernising the party’s structure, championing the Private Finance Initiative and the coining of slogans: ‘traditional values in a modern setting’ came from the Prescott camp, not the restaurants of Islington. But the Deputy Prime Minister’s true significance to the Blair era has been even deeper. He has been the indispensable bridge between the Prime Minister and the Labour movement, the sidekick who has vouched for Tony Blair when he has appeared to be desecrating all that the party stands for.

Letters to the Editor | 27 May 2006

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.

Competence is nice, too

It was once enough for the Conservative party to be seen as ‘cruel but competent’ It was once enough for the Conservative party to be seen, in Maurice Saatchi’s phrase, as ‘cruel but competent’. Lord Saatchi was among the first to warn, however, that this formula has had its day. Black Wednesday robbed the Tories of their reputation for competence, while Gordon Brown’s decision to make the Bank of England independent showed that Labour had every intention of stealing that mantle. At the same time, voters expect more now from their politicians. It was George W.

Letters to the Editor | 20 May 2006

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.

Crime and Mr Cameron

Tony Blair said last week that the criminal justice system is ‘still the public service most distant from what reasonable people want’. Tony Blair said last week that the criminal justice system is ‘still the public service most distant from what reasonable people want’. After nine years in office, this was a terrible admission — not least for a Prime Minister who was swept to power on a promise to be ‘tough on crime’. It is not hard to see why ‘reasonable people’ feel so anxious. The murder of Special Constable Nisha Patel-Nasri was all the more shocking because it seemed of a piece with a growing trend towards brutal street violence.

Macspaunday time

In Competition No. 2440 you were invited to offer a poem which is a pastiche of one or all of the young left-wing poets of the early 1930s, MacNeice, Spender, Auden and Day Lewis. William Empson’s ‘Just a Smack at Auden’ is an affectionate send-up worth looking for. I have room only for one verse:What was said by Marx, boys, what did he perpend?No good being sparks, boys, waiting for the end.Treason of the clerks, boys, curtains that descend.Lights becoming darks, boys, waiting for the end. Auden tended to dominate this comp, just as he tended to dominate his contemporaries. Among the non-prizewinning entries that paid impressive tribute to him, those by Ray Kelley and James Womack stood out.

Letters to the Editor | 13 May 2006

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.

Sorry, you’re no Mrs Thatcher

One of Tony Blair’s most cunning and cynical ploys in his early years as Labour leader was to model himself explicitly upon Margaret Thatcher. One of Tony Blair’s most cunning and cynical ploys in his early years as Labour leader was to model himself explicitly upon Margaret Thatcher. In 1995 he said, ‘She was a thoroughly determined person and that is an admirable qual-ity. It is important in politics to have a clear sense of direction, to know what you want.’ It was the Iron Lady, not his Labour predecessor, Jim Callaghan, whom he invited to No. 10 in his first days as Prime Minister. He postured — and postured is the word — as her true successor: a great domestic reformer and global statesman.

Letters to the Editor | 6 May 2006

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.

System? What system?

The foreign prisoners scandal has revealed nothing less than a crisis of governance: the fundamental incapacity of what ministers feebly call ‘the system’ to respond to a series of urgent contemporary problems. This is a modern disaster in the making. It requires modern solutions. On the BBC’s Ten O’Clock News last Monday, the first three items concerned immigration and population mobility: the prisoners scandal, the immigrant protest in the United States and the migration of workers around the expanded European Union. The movement of people around the world — legal and illegal — is now prodigious and in many respects to be welcomed as an engine of economic growth.

Letters to the Editor | 29 April 2006

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.

Joined-up misgovernment

The scandal of foreign national prisoners freed from jail without being considered for deportation might have been devised by some malign genius actively seeking to damage the social fabric of this country. So much has been undermined by this devastating disclosure: public confidence in the criminal justice system, the fight against racist bigots such as the BNP, and what little respect remains for politicians and their capacity to govern us competently. Charles Clarke has been right about one thing: there is much more at issue in this case than his own political fate. The fact that more than 1,000 convicted foreign criminals including killers, rapists and paedophiles have been let loose in this way reflects more than personal incompetence, gross as that has been.

How to beat the BNP

The investigation of the battle between the BNP and Labour in the local elections by Peter Oborne in last week’s Spectator has triggered a furious controversy about the threat of the far Right. Jon Cruddas, the MP for Dagenham, told this magazine that the BNP ‘are on the verge of a major political breakthrough’; New Labour’s fixation with middle-class voters in swing constituencies had, he claimed, created an angry tribe among the white working and lower-middle classes. Margaret Hodge, the employment minister, subsequently told the Sunday Telegraph that eight out of ten of her constituents in Barking, east London, were threatening to vote BNP on 4 May.

Our own Cuban missile crisis

Iran’s leaders may be crazed and dangerous fanatics, but they are not stupid. That is why President Bush is right to show the Iranian regime that he is serious about containing its undisputed ambition to go nuclear in flagrant defiance of the international community. Nobody in their right mind — including President Bush — wants to go to war, let alone launch nuclear missile strikes, as some overexcited headlines in the American and British media have suggested over the past few days. But the White House, as well as Downing Street, would be delinquent if they were not busily reviewing all possible contingencies to deal with Iran.

Letters to the editor | 8 April 2006

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.

How about asking us?

In his 1997 manifesto Tony Blair described New Labour as ‘the political arm of none other than the British people as a whole’. Nine years on, it more closely resembles the ‘political arm’ of an Asbo family, at war with itself and indifferent to the feelings of others. Rarely has a government seemed so introspective, selfish and out of touch. ‘Social exclusion’ has come to mean the government’s exclusion of everyone else from its deliberations. Socialism has been replaced by antisocialism. Mr Blair used to make pledges about health and education; now the only pledge that consumes his colleagues is his promise to step down before the next election and — more importantly — when, precisely, he will ‘deliver’ on that promise.