Burchill on Diana
11th November 2009 There are not many magazines that contain intelligent articles about things that matter. There are lots of magazines providing lengthy coverage of things like the antics of minor royals and their aristocratic relatives, or what one celebrity author thinks about another. Julie Burchill’s piece on Diana (November) seems to belong in that category: Burchill doesn’t much like Charles Spencer, but sees the late Princess of Wales as a “bright, searching cityscape of progress and compassion.” What’s the evidence for this? Is it possible that this “mercurial, volatile body of light” was in fact a well-meaning, psychologically damaged airhead of no long-term significance to this country or its politics? And if this is the case, what place does she have in Britain’s intelligent conversation?
Arthur Snell London SW8
The rights of babies
3rd December 2009 In her discussion of maternity rights, Catherine Hakim (December) throws the baby out with the bathwater, an unfortunate short-sightedness given that maternity rights exist not just for the sake of mothers, but for children. The psychological health of both an infant and a mother —and by extension the health of our society—depends on maternity rights. As the think tank Rand recently reported, the highest return on investment occurs in the first years of life, and then falls almost exponentially as the child grows.
Maternity rights, then, are a social investment for our future. The professional adult world needs to accept this fact and reorganise to accommodate it. What too often gets forgotten in Britain is that sometimes maximising productivity and winning the top job is not necessarily good for one’s health, nor especially for the health of one’s baby and new family.
Jonathan Delafield-Butt University of Edinburgh
Must we bribe?
23rd November 2009 Alex de Waal’s account of the tough realities of Afghan politics (December) should be welcomed. Yes, the government of Afghanistan is corrupt. So whoever is governing the country—whether President Karzai or anyone else—has no choice but to rule through a diverse and disparate coalition. Out of necessity, this coalition uses public funds to finance and hold together a complex system of patronage. A look at 18th-century British politics provides some clues as to how this works—though Afghanistan’s problems are far more challenging than the Britain of Walpole and George I. What was surprising about the last Afghan election was not the vote-rigging itself, but the shock expressed by observers and commentators. What did they expect?
Perhaps instead of railing about corruption, commentators should explore how we can help the Afghan government do better. There may be lessons here from Pitt the Younger, who used the corrupt political system he disliked to pursue the foreign and domestic policies he regarded as essential. He knew that if he simply railed against (or fought) a chronically corrupt system, it would have rejected him and his policies. Nevertheless, his time in office did lay some of the foundations for the more transparent and “cleaner” political system that developed in subsequent decades. Of course, we should not simply accept or turn a blind eye to corruption. But we do need to be more sophisticated in our response to it.
Phil Vernon Via the Prospect website
The human time bomb
30th October 2009 Alex Renton (November) is right to ask why population isn’t a top priority at Copenhagen. If you scratch the surface of almost any environmental problem, population and consumption are the root cause. It’s a straightforward equation: population times consumption equals impact. Yet this problem isn’t on the agenda at the Copenhagen summit, which means that the summit is undermined from the outset.
Our political leaders like the idea of big populations: they guarantee a place at the top table of the world’s nations. Yet this is based on a crude and outmoded numbers game. We are already in breach of the planet’s capacity, and green technologies are not being developed quickly enough to support a global population of 6bn, set to rise to 9.5bn in very short order.
As a recent LSE report demonstrates, smaller and more stable populations have beneficial effects: female empowerment, better health and education and less poverty. And, most importantly, family planning is a cheaper way to reduce emissions than most green technologies. In our efforts to tackle climate change, it is surely bonkers not to address unsustainable population growth. If we cannot control our own fertility, how can we possibly claim to be responsible stewards of the planet?
Nick Reeves Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
Stieg Larsson 1
24th November 2009 In his review of Swedish crime fiction, Andrew Brown (December) makes an astonishing statement: “Stieg Larsson has clearly established a Scandinavia of the mind which is no more anchored to geography than Bohemia.”
Of course, Bohemia is not only anchored in geography (one of the most important spaces of central Europe, the land between the Elbe and the Danube) but it occupied a central part in European history: its kings were electors of holy Roman emperors. After all, it was only as kings of Bohemia that the Hapsburgs had any place in the Empire. Is Brown mistaking Bohemia for Ruritania?
Dr Gautam Pingle Hyderabad, India
Stieg Larsson 2
30th November 2009 Andrew Brown misses an important reason for the success of Stieg Larsson’s trilogy. Larsson was an investigative reporter driven by his passion for justice. Yes, each of the books end with a revenge fantasy. But is that a criticism?
Far more important is his engagement with real issues: the exploitation of women, the corruptions of power and the corruptibility of policemen, professionals and journalists. Engagement with subjects like these is unusual in thrillers, and Larsson writes about them with an intelligence and knowledge that came from his experience in the field. I suspect that a significant proportion of his readership are more compelled, as I was, by his blazing passion for justice than by his farewell to the socialist ideal or by the mechanical excitements of the genre.
Ironically, the fate of his companion of many years would be a fitting subject for one of his own books. Larsson died intestate at the age of 50 and his father and brother—neither of them close to him—inherited the great wealth from his books. Thanks to the workings of Swedish law, Eva Gabrielsson, who lived with him for 30 years, got nothing.
Joe Roeber London NW8
11th November 2009 There are not many magazines that contain intelligent articles about things that matter. There are lots of magazines providing lengthy coverage of things like the antics of minor royals and their aristocratic relatives, or what one celebrity author thinks about another. Julie Burchill’s piece on Diana (November) seems to belong in that category: Burchill doesn’t much like Charles Spencer, but sees the late Princess of Wales as a “bright, searching cityscape of progress and compassion.” What’s the evidence for this? Is it possible that this “mercurial, volatile body of light” was in fact a well-meaning, psychologically damaged airhead of no long-term significance to this country or its politics? And if this is the case, what place does she have in Britain’s intelligent conversation?
Arthur Snell London SW8
The rights of babies
3rd December 2009 In her discussion of maternity rights, Catherine Hakim (December) throws the baby out with the bathwater, an unfortunate short-sightedness given that maternity rights exist not just for the sake of mothers, but for children. The psychological health of both an infant and a mother —and by extension the health of our society—depends on maternity rights. As the think tank Rand recently reported, the highest return on investment occurs in the first years of life, and then falls almost exponentially as the child grows.
Maternity rights, then, are a social investment for our future. The professional adult world needs to accept this fact and reorganise to accommodate it. What too often gets forgotten in Britain is that sometimes maximising productivity and winning the top job is not necessarily good for one’s health, nor especially for the health of one’s baby and new family.
Jonathan Delafield-Butt University of Edinburgh
Must we bribe?
23rd November 2009 Alex de Waal’s account of the tough realities of Afghan politics (December) should be welcomed. Yes, the government of Afghanistan is corrupt. So whoever is governing the country—whether President Karzai or anyone else—has no choice but to rule through a diverse and disparate coalition. Out of necessity, this coalition uses public funds to finance and hold together a complex system of patronage. A look at 18th-century British politics provides some clues as to how this works—though Afghanistan’s problems are far more challenging than the Britain of Walpole and George I. What was surprising about the last Afghan election was not the vote-rigging itself, but the shock expressed by observers and commentators. What did they expect?
Perhaps instead of railing about corruption, commentators should explore how we can help the Afghan government do better. There may be lessons here from Pitt the Younger, who used the corrupt political system he disliked to pursue the foreign and domestic policies he regarded as essential. He knew that if he simply railed against (or fought) a chronically corrupt system, it would have rejected him and his policies. Nevertheless, his time in office did lay some of the foundations for the more transparent and “cleaner” political system that developed in subsequent decades. Of course, we should not simply accept or turn a blind eye to corruption. But we do need to be more sophisticated in our response to it.
Phil Vernon Via the Prospect website
The human time bomb
30th October 2009 Alex Renton (November) is right to ask why population isn’t a top priority at Copenhagen. If you scratch the surface of almost any environmental problem, population and consumption are the root cause. It’s a straightforward equation: population times consumption equals impact. Yet this problem isn’t on the agenda at the Copenhagen summit, which means that the summit is undermined from the outset.
Our political leaders like the idea of big populations: they guarantee a place at the top table of the world’s nations. Yet this is based on a crude and outmoded numbers game. We are already in breach of the planet’s capacity, and green technologies are not being developed quickly enough to support a global population of 6bn, set to rise to 9.5bn in very short order.
As a recent LSE report demonstrates, smaller and more stable populations have beneficial effects: female empowerment, better health and education and less poverty. And, most importantly, family planning is a cheaper way to reduce emissions than most green technologies. In our efforts to tackle climate change, it is surely bonkers not to address unsustainable population growth. If we cannot control our own fertility, how can we possibly claim to be responsible stewards of the planet?
Nick Reeves Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
Stieg Larsson 1
24th November 2009 In his review of Swedish crime fiction, Andrew Brown (December) makes an astonishing statement: “Stieg Larsson has clearly established a Scandinavia of the mind which is no more anchored to geography than Bohemia.”
Of course, Bohemia is not only anchored in geography (one of the most important spaces of central Europe, the land between the Elbe and the Danube) but it occupied a central part in European history: its kings were electors of holy Roman emperors. After all, it was only as kings of Bohemia that the Hapsburgs had any place in the Empire. Is Brown mistaking Bohemia for Ruritania?
Dr Gautam Pingle Hyderabad, India
Stieg Larsson 2
30th November 2009 Andrew Brown misses an important reason for the success of Stieg Larsson’s trilogy. Larsson was an investigative reporter driven by his passion for justice. Yes, each of the books end with a revenge fantasy. But is that a criticism?
Far more important is his engagement with real issues: the exploitation of women, the corruptions of power and the corruptibility of policemen, professionals and journalists. Engagement with subjects like these is unusual in thrillers, and Larsson writes about them with an intelligence and knowledge that came from his experience in the field. I suspect that a significant proportion of his readership are more compelled, as I was, by his blazing passion for justice than by his farewell to the socialist ideal or by the mechanical excitements of the genre.
Ironically, the fate of his companion of many years would be a fitting subject for one of his own books. Larsson died intestate at the age of 50 and his father and brother—neither of them close to him—inherited the great wealth from his books. Thanks to the workings of Swedish law, Eva Gabrielsson, who lived with him for 30 years, got nothing.
Joe Roeber London NW8
