Shades of blue
What an honour for our book to be reviewed by the eminent Roger Scruton (“Postmodern Tories”). But what a disappointment his argument is based on prejudices about Tory modernisers, rather than the actual content.
It is odd to criticise modernisers for wanting to improve the perception of the Tories: the primary purpose of a political party, after all, is to get elected. But this is not the book’s only objective, despite Scruton’s accusation that we lack appreciation and conviction for Conservatism. British Conservatism derives from several philosophies. Scruton narrowly emphasises preservation: Conservatism is much richer than this. We need not solely be reactionaries.
The book actually draws on Conservative insights about the importance of markets, relationships and ownership for maintaining a free and prosperous society as social composition and norms evolve. Pity Scruton had nothing to say about these detailed policies.
Ryan ShorthouseDirector, Bright Blue
The problem for Scruton, and all “Conservatives,” is that the Tory party is primarily about money —it was hijacked by neoliberal economists in Thatcher’s day and became, de facto, a postmodern party of the City. True, there are still old (and quite a few young) fogies prancing in from the shires but, by and large, money in the Tory party trumps conserving. It is a party of monied philistines who, in the main, care only about money and for whom the environment, the arts and abroad (unless it can be exploited) do not mean a thing. John Ellis, Prospect website
Crow and Cuba Bob Crow almost had me (“If I ruled the world”). I kept nodding my head to most of his suggestions. That was until he mentioned that his model for ruling the world was my country of origin, Cuba. Even allowing for the rose-tinted glasses he must have been wearing when he sat down to write, he must have noticed the disparity between his dreams and the harsh reality. He wouldn’t be able to bring back the concept of public meetings, because public meetings not approved by the Communist Party are banned. He wouldn’t be able to restore local democracy because that word is anathema to the government that has reigned unchallenged for more than 50 years. He wouldn’t be able to cut through “the army of pundits, opinion-formers and self-appointed experts” because they are the backbone of the Cuban state and they all sing from the same hymnsheet held very firmly by the Castro brothers. Lastly, as a trade unionist in Cuba, Crow would have just one of the following choices: toe the party line and forget about the workers, grass his own comrades up in order to keep up his status or be critical of the government when necessary and face up to the consequences, including jail. Mario López-Goicoechea, London
Green challenge Sam Knight has drawn attention to a darker side to our long-term future (“The thin green line”). Climate change is the greatest threat humanity has ever faced and I am glad that Prospect has debated the options available. I must, however, take issue with your editor’s comment that, “I, for one, have more confidence than he does in people’s ability to devise technology to tackle the problem.” There is no argument that technology has greatly enhanced the fuel efficiency of cars and there are many other examples. But emissions are continuing to increase. There are two reasons: an increase in population and affluence. So technology will have to achieve far more than it has done. Can it achieve more than the population growth multiplied by the renminbis in Chinese pockets? I doubt it. Robin Sellwood, Truro
Inside Israel If Henry Siegman is an expert on the Middle East (“Last chance for a two-state solution?”), it explains a lot about the chasm of misunderstanding that exists. As a left-wing Israeli citizen who has never voted for Netanyahu and thinks that his current policy of expanding settlements is sheer folly, I still take issue with Siegman on the entire slant of his article. The biggest underlying obstacle to peace today is rooted in the generations educated to hate —just look at the textbooks and summer camps of the West Bank and Gaza. Israel in this respect has undergone a sea change and there is a majority that will accept a two-state solution. Netanyahu has been re-elected with a much reduced majority and the people’s rejection of the extremists among the settlers is very clear. My decision to write was prompted by the statement that Israel is on a “certain road to apartheid.” The term “apartheid,” like “Holocaust,” has become common currency without regard to its accuracy or meaning. I invite Siegman to visit my local mall in Mevasseret, just outside Jerusalem, where Jewish and Arab Israelis mingle in equal proportion. We shop, eat, exercise side by side; we use the same washrooms; some of the security guards are Arab Israelis from Abu Ghosh, just down the road, which is also frequented by Jewish Israelis enjoying the restaurants. (On the other hand, Jewish Israelis venturing or straying into a Palestinian area in the West Bank have to be rescued by the security forces...) The situation is far more nuanced than Siegman and other observers from the outside seem to grasp. Jill Harish, Israel
Mandela the actor It is worth remembering that Nelson Mandela’s political approach was always governed first and foremost by consummate opportunism (“Latter day saint”). He was a talented actor, able to adapt his image to suit his audience and message. In fact—and here I differ from Justice Malala—it was only during the Defiance Campaign in the 1950s that Mandela publicly expressed support for non-cooperation in the Gandhian mould, and even so he wrestled with a more racially-specific Africanist politics. In the early 1960s his pacifist tendencies were rapidly superseded with the move to armed struggle. Elleke Boehmer, professor of English, University of Oxford
Cold rationality I truly shuddered at the thought of Peter Singer, the “moral” philosopher, ruling the world (“If I ruled the world”). A world ruled by a man of such cold, specious rationality would be a dark place indeed. His advocacy of euthanasia for new-born disabled babies if their parents calculate that their lives are not worth living and his insistence that rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness are the prerequisites to be defined as a human, are chilling concepts. Still where there are losers, there are always winners. The baa-lambs and pussycats that he values so much more than the lower ranks of humanoid would have a lovely life. Simon Jarrett, Middlesex
Sepia-tinted schools It was no surprise to see Toby Young’s response to your YouGov poll on schools’ performance (“Letters”), but I’ll bet he didn’t expect to find his retrograde views so sepia-tinted by all the other articles in your March issue. The children in his school are going to live to 100, their leaders focused not on social progress but tribal politics, in a world dominated by climate change, cultural mixing and regional conflict. I would hazard a guess they will not find in-depth knowledge of 20th-century British war leaders particularly useful, and that the grounding in Latin and rote-learned hand-based calculation he offers his rows of compliant young charges will leave them at a distinct disadvantage to those with modern languages, skills in applied mathematics and a creative spark. Ben Gibbs, Ely
Cursive lettersPhilip Ball’s article on joined-up handwriting provoked a huge response. Here is a selection of letters.
The article took me back to primary schooldays, 60 years ago, when the requirement to transfer from printing to the cursive form became the bane of my youth . Until I was eight I had written, contentedly, in neat print. Then at junior school I was told I must write like a “grown-up.” Alas I could not then or now use cursive writing satisfactorily. The result was many unhappy hours both in the classroom and at home. I was forced by one teacher to write over and over again the Lord’s Prayer and the 23rd Psalm—at least I have never had trouble remembering the words! However each poor attempt brought recriminations and sometimes physical punishment. At home my father just muttered about “bad workmen blaming their tools!” This process caused more unhappiness than anything I recall from my childhood. It was a relief in my first job to be told to write as I pleased—I happily went back to a half-print mode, which I use to this day. Peter Maddox, Swansea
There’s little sadder than college graduates being unable to produce anything more with pen and paper than what appears to be the printing of a first grade student. A truly educated person should be capable of producing more than infantile block letters, which are taught to the very young so they might learn the alphabet and develop fine motor skills. Such training is not meant primarily to teach writing any more than using a keyboard teaches handwriting. Cursive writing demands that the writer take the time to produce legible characters. If one must produce a printed document in a hurry, then use a keyboard. Louis Candell, Prospect website
Children learn to read “typed” script in books. This is really a third form of writing, and there is a good argument for being fluent in print, cursive and typed. We could skip basic print, and instead teach young children to write cursive letters but not to join them (they lack the co-ordination). But we should teach cursive; people’s handwriting evolves into something that suits them, which is usually a combination of both. Elle Martini, Prospect website
I reject the notion that teaching children to write in two different forms creates unnecessary challenges. I learnt to write cursive in third grade. The fact that the letters look so much like the same letters in manuscript meant that it wasn’t difficult to pick up at all. I was frustrated that we were asked to repeat writing the same letter so many times when once or twice would have sufficed. We should not treat children like fragile dolls. They can handle a lot more than adults give them credit for. Even learning to write in two different ways. Stephanie Rojas, Prospect website
The problem for Scruton, and all “Conservatives,” is that the Tory party is primarily about money —it was hijacked by neoliberal economists in Thatcher’s day and became, de facto, a postmodern party of the City. True, there are still old (and quite a few young) fogies prancing in from the shires but, by and large, money in the Tory party trumps conserving. It is a party of monied philistines who, in the main, care only about money and for whom the environment, the arts and abroad (unless it can be exploited) do not mean a thing. John Ellis, Prospect website
Crow and Cuba Bob Crow almost had me (“If I ruled the world”). I kept nodding my head to most of his suggestions. That was until he mentioned that his model for ruling the world was my country of origin, Cuba. Even allowing for the rose-tinted glasses he must have been wearing when he sat down to write, he must have noticed the disparity between his dreams and the harsh reality. He wouldn’t be able to bring back the concept of public meetings, because public meetings not approved by the Communist Party are banned. He wouldn’t be able to restore local democracy because that word is anathema to the government that has reigned unchallenged for more than 50 years. He wouldn’t be able to cut through “the army of pundits, opinion-formers and self-appointed experts” because they are the backbone of the Cuban state and they all sing from the same hymnsheet held very firmly by the Castro brothers. Lastly, as a trade unionist in Cuba, Crow would have just one of the following choices: toe the party line and forget about the workers, grass his own comrades up in order to keep up his status or be critical of the government when necessary and face up to the consequences, including jail. Mario López-Goicoechea, London
Green challenge Sam Knight has drawn attention to a darker side to our long-term future (“The thin green line”). Climate change is the greatest threat humanity has ever faced and I am glad that Prospect has debated the options available. I must, however, take issue with your editor’s comment that, “I, for one, have more confidence than he does in people’s ability to devise technology to tackle the problem.” There is no argument that technology has greatly enhanced the fuel efficiency of cars and there are many other examples. But emissions are continuing to increase. There are two reasons: an increase in population and affluence. So technology will have to achieve far more than it has done. Can it achieve more than the population growth multiplied by the renminbis in Chinese pockets? I doubt it. Robin Sellwood, Truro
Inside Israel If Henry Siegman is an expert on the Middle East (“Last chance for a two-state solution?”), it explains a lot about the chasm of misunderstanding that exists. As a left-wing Israeli citizen who has never voted for Netanyahu and thinks that his current policy of expanding settlements is sheer folly, I still take issue with Siegman on the entire slant of his article. The biggest underlying obstacle to peace today is rooted in the generations educated to hate —just look at the textbooks and summer camps of the West Bank and Gaza. Israel in this respect has undergone a sea change and there is a majority that will accept a two-state solution. Netanyahu has been re-elected with a much reduced majority and the people’s rejection of the extremists among the settlers is very clear. My decision to write was prompted by the statement that Israel is on a “certain road to apartheid.” The term “apartheid,” like “Holocaust,” has become common currency without regard to its accuracy or meaning. I invite Siegman to visit my local mall in Mevasseret, just outside Jerusalem, where Jewish and Arab Israelis mingle in equal proportion. We shop, eat, exercise side by side; we use the same washrooms; some of the security guards are Arab Israelis from Abu Ghosh, just down the road, which is also frequented by Jewish Israelis enjoying the restaurants. (On the other hand, Jewish Israelis venturing or straying into a Palestinian area in the West Bank have to be rescued by the security forces...) The situation is far more nuanced than Siegman and other observers from the outside seem to grasp. Jill Harish, Israel
Mandela the actor It is worth remembering that Nelson Mandela’s political approach was always governed first and foremost by consummate opportunism (“Latter day saint”). He was a talented actor, able to adapt his image to suit his audience and message. In fact—and here I differ from Justice Malala—it was only during the Defiance Campaign in the 1950s that Mandela publicly expressed support for non-cooperation in the Gandhian mould, and even so he wrestled with a more racially-specific Africanist politics. In the early 1960s his pacifist tendencies were rapidly superseded with the move to armed struggle. Elleke Boehmer, professor of English, University of Oxford
Cold rationality I truly shuddered at the thought of Peter Singer, the “moral” philosopher, ruling the world (“If I ruled the world”). A world ruled by a man of such cold, specious rationality would be a dark place indeed. His advocacy of euthanasia for new-born disabled babies if their parents calculate that their lives are not worth living and his insistence that rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness are the prerequisites to be defined as a human, are chilling concepts. Still where there are losers, there are always winners. The baa-lambs and pussycats that he values so much more than the lower ranks of humanoid would have a lovely life. Simon Jarrett, Middlesex
Sepia-tinted schools It was no surprise to see Toby Young’s response to your YouGov poll on schools’ performance (“Letters”), but I’ll bet he didn’t expect to find his retrograde views so sepia-tinted by all the other articles in your March issue. The children in his school are going to live to 100, their leaders focused not on social progress but tribal politics, in a world dominated by climate change, cultural mixing and regional conflict. I would hazard a guess they will not find in-depth knowledge of 20th-century British war leaders particularly useful, and that the grounding in Latin and rote-learned hand-based calculation he offers his rows of compliant young charges will leave them at a distinct disadvantage to those with modern languages, skills in applied mathematics and a creative spark. Ben Gibbs, Ely
Cursive lettersPhilip Ball’s article on joined-up handwriting provoked a huge response. Here is a selection of letters.
The article took me back to primary schooldays, 60 years ago, when the requirement to transfer from printing to the cursive form became the bane of my youth . Until I was eight I had written, contentedly, in neat print. Then at junior school I was told I must write like a “grown-up.” Alas I could not then or now use cursive writing satisfactorily. The result was many unhappy hours both in the classroom and at home. I was forced by one teacher to write over and over again the Lord’s Prayer and the 23rd Psalm—at least I have never had trouble remembering the words! However each poor attempt brought recriminations and sometimes physical punishment. At home my father just muttered about “bad workmen blaming their tools!” This process caused more unhappiness than anything I recall from my childhood. It was a relief in my first job to be told to write as I pleased—I happily went back to a half-print mode, which I use to this day. Peter Maddox, Swansea
There’s little sadder than college graduates being unable to produce anything more with pen and paper than what appears to be the printing of a first grade student. A truly educated person should be capable of producing more than infantile block letters, which are taught to the very young so they might learn the alphabet and develop fine motor skills. Such training is not meant primarily to teach writing any more than using a keyboard teaches handwriting. Cursive writing demands that the writer take the time to produce legible characters. If one must produce a printed document in a hurry, then use a keyboard. Louis Candell, Prospect website
Children learn to read “typed” script in books. This is really a third form of writing, and there is a good argument for being fluent in print, cursive and typed. We could skip basic print, and instead teach young children to write cursive letters but not to join them (they lack the co-ordination). But we should teach cursive; people’s handwriting evolves into something that suits them, which is usually a combination of both. Elle Martini, Prospect website
I reject the notion that teaching children to write in two different forms creates unnecessary challenges. I learnt to write cursive in third grade. The fact that the letters look so much like the same letters in manuscript meant that it wasn’t difficult to pick up at all. I was frustrated that we were asked to repeat writing the same letter so many times when once or twice would have sufficed. We should not treat children like fragile dolls. They can handle a lot more than adults give them credit for. Even learning to write in two different ways. Stephanie Rojas, Prospect website
