Weak political muscle
In his essay (“It’s no joke”, July), Rafael Behr deplores the political parties’ complicity in farce and fiction which “debases every British election campaign”. He is right that the 2024 general election campaign has felt like a superficial performance rather than a serious debate about the answers to the challenges facing the UK. Political leaders have been too busy setting and avoiding traps to convincingly articulate how they would shift the dial on intractable problems.
Behr argues that an election victory will provide Labour with a “rare opportunity” to confront the public with hard truths. But the question is whether any leader who wins on the terms of this election campaign can successfully switch mode in the way he suggests. Boris Johnson was lauded as a masterful electioneer, but—once in power—failed to adapt his campaigning approach to the hard graft of government.
Starmer and Sunak have both cast a “shroud over hard subjects” during the campaign. While the Labour party is happy to emphasise the failures of Conservative governments, there is little evidence either side has the appetite to tell voters they cannot now have their cake and eat it. Articulating trade-offs is a political muscle that has rarely been exercised in the decade since the Brexit referendum. Let us hope it has not withered entirely.
Hannah White, director, Institute for Government
The gift of education
Refreshing to see Glen O’Hara (“Crash course”, July) give British universities rare credit for the economic benefits they bring: an income across the UK of more than £48bn a year and £22bn a year in export earnings, mostly from international students.
O’Hara paints a bleak picture of universities on the brink of economic collapse: stagnant tuition fees against rising costs which are leading to inevitable job cuts and demoralised academic staff. Add to this the depressing reality of government policies which place ever more demands on universities and question the value of some less costly degrees—namely arts, humanities and social sciences—and O’Hara rightly concludes that we could be seeing the loss of what was once regarded as the finest higher education sector in the world.
This excellent critique of the crisis engulfing our universities, however, only touches on, in my view, another looming disaster: the loss of higher education for economically disadvantaged students.
Student fees and high living costs are a huge disincentive to able young people who do not have the backdrop of affluent parents. Many youngsters are also in poor, underfunded secondary schools, struggling to recruit first-class teachers and deliver the aspiration for higher education.
How many gifted, economically disadvantaged young people are turning away from a university experience that could change their lives and deliver personal and career fulfilment? I am among the privileged elite who went to university in the 1970s, with all fees paid. As my mother was a single parent earning very low wages as a waitress, I was also given a huge cost of living grant. I could afford to immerse myself in my studies and write for the student newspaper, which led me into an award-winning career in journalism.
I was eventually the first and only woman to edit ITV’s investigative current affairs series World in Action; I launched ITV’s This Morning and created Loose Women.
My education at Newcastle University gave a young girl living on a nondescript council estate, where money was scarce but aspiration not, a gift beyond her dreams. Would that young girl go to university today? I fear not, and that is a tragedy.
Dianne Nelmes, former television executive
Back to Brexit
I disagree that the Tories’ 2019 coalition “could have shaped Britain’s politics for decades to come” (“Brexit has fundamentally damaged the Tories”, Prospect online, June). That would have required Brexit to be perceived in the red wall (and elsewhere, but in the red wall most of all) as a success. It was an inevitable disaster. The 2019 coalition did not survive contact with reality. The Tories themselves are, at last, coming face to face with reality too.
Wiz, via the website
Oh, how I’ve tried to forget that Brexit ever happened! It seems I’m not alone. University Challenge recently featured a contest between teams of future thought-leaders from Trinity, Cambridge and the Open University. Asked to name two countries that are members of both the Commonwealth and the EU, Open suggested the UK and Malta, whereas Trinity plumped for the UK and Cyprus. Seems like the coming generation has already made the decision to rejoin!
David Watkins, Bournemouth
Poor show
This election saw many fierce debates over the NHS, schools and the economy, but too often ignored the largest elephant in the room: soaring levels of hunger, hardship and debt that are decimating communities across the UK (“The scandal that isn’t: poverty and this election campaign”, Prospect online, June).
Food banks are at breaking point, struggling to carry the weight of failures in the systems that are supposed to protect all of us when times are tough. Most glaringly, the social security system is failing to ensure that everyone can afford essentials like food, rent or the bus fare to hospital. Yet, this has not been a central feature of any campaign.
No future government will succeed in kickstarting economic growth, reducing pressure on health services or giving children an education that equips them for the future unless it truly gets to grips with this issue.
There is no shortage of policies on offer to help them achieve this—the Trussell Trust has suggested 10 that would dramatically reduce the need for foodbanks, including social security payments linked to the cost of essentials, more social housing, more secure and flexible jobs and properly resourced local crisis support. We need government to show the political will to face up to the problem and determination to fix it.
Helen Barnard, director of policy, research and impact, Trussell Trust
Hooray for telling it like it is. If Labour doesn’t do anything about this once they have the opportunity, they will be devoid of any moral authority and not worthy of support.
Garth, via the website
House and home
The issue not mentioned by any of the commentators (“Our election panel: What we aren’t talking about”, July), nor, as far as I’ve seen by any of the parties to any great extent, is the housing crisis. In many ways it is a double crisis: first a shortage of homes, and second, very high prices for them. While there are some ideas of how more houses may be built and how prices might be brought down, will they work? And what sort of price reduction is required to make houses readily affordable for all? A third? A half? More? And what might the effect be? (This might be why no one’s talking about it…)
Jeremy GH, via the website
Some lefties!
I am a 90-year-old Jew and a leftist all my adult life. I read Rachel Shabi’s article (“Fractured minority”, July) and, whatever the accuracy of her comments about antisemitism in today’s society, I found her emotive, partial and historically inaccurate analysis of Arab/Israeli conflict contentious to the point of being worthless.
She states she attended demonstrations. I have two principal questions of her and her fellow demonstrators.
First, if they are so concerned about peace and repelled by violence, why were they not marching on 8th October? Or perhaps they marched against the victims as so many did—to their shame. Jewish life does not merit the same compassion, apparently.
Secondly, how can anyone who regards themselves as left wing not demonstrate against those who enter a kibbutz, of all places, to destroy it and its members. Some lefties!
Michael King, London
No more nukes
Malcolm Chalmers’s endorsement of the nuclear deterrent (A balance of fear, July) implicitly recognises that such a strategy always entails risks. What he fails to discuss is the magnitude of the stakes involved. As a nuclear war is the worst possible outcome for humanity and the entire ecosystem, this should not be glossed over so lightly. What gives us, one of only nine nations with nuclear weapons, the right to gamble with everyone’s future in this way? It is simply not good enough to say that nuclear deterrence is now the best we can hope for. Multilateral nuclear disarmament is not a dead duck— indeed, the 2017 UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, already signed by 93 states (70 of whom have ratified it), offers a credible way forward. In our increasingly multipolar world, the calls for the nuclear “club” to stop playing their games will only get louder.
Martin Tiller, Rugby
A world destabilised
What an interesting and different way to look at anxiety (Philosopher-at-large, June). There is a great deal to be anxious about in today’s world. Growing up during the Cold War was an anxious time, but now, 60-odd years later, there is much to have greater fears about—while at the same time having very little faith in the ability of today’s political class to deal with the challenges this world faces.
What frightens me greatly is the possibility of a certain gentleman being elected to the presidency of the United States. As if we do not have enough lunatics in power in various parts of the world.
Bill Watt, via the website
Education, education, education
Margaret Hodge (Diary, July) is modest about her achievements. One for which she deserves great credit, as higher education minister, was in demanding that universities should train their staff in how to teach. She was tenacious and successful in the face of opposition from most of my fellow vice chancellors. Generations of students have benefitted.
Roderick Floud, president, Universities UK, 2001 to 2003
Shiver me timbers
As Gavin Stamp’s widow and editor of his last book, I was delighted to read David McAllister’s sparky and insightful review (“Building backwards”, July). I was also gripped by the illustration of the Oxted Plaza Cinema. Not only is the cinema a fine example of mock Tudor architecture, it happens to be the one I went to throughout my childhood and teenage years. I grew up in Oxted surrounded by a bewilderment of half timbering. Only when I got to know Gavin did I begin to understand what it signified or how it had happened.
Rosemary Hill, writer and historian
Restricted rights
Sasha Mudd is right to address the complexities of freedom of expression and the difficulty of deciding when “sincere political speech becomes unacceptably hateful” (Philosopher-at-large, July).
She mentions the US First Amendment but, like so many commentators, ignores the much more substantial and internationally agreed statements on expression rights in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
These specify that expression rights may be restricted by law in certain circumstances: the protection of national security, public order, “public health or morals”, crime prevention and—importantly, because this clearly addresses hate speech as well as conflicts with other human rights such as privacy and fair trial—respect for the protection of “the rights or reputations of others.”
Imprecise and open to interpretation, yes, but these international agreements are reinforced by decades of interpretation through the UN and European human rights systems, in particular defining the narrow circumstances that legitimise restrictions, not least proportionality. They’re far more substantial and should receive much more attention than six words from the US Bill of Rights.
David Souter, Chislehurst
Precious time
I would like to tell Sarah Collins not to panic (Mindful life, June). Unfortunately, I can’t.
I have always thought that growing old is nothing but miserable, and that only the naive, the deluded and the stupid could think otherwise. I can find nothing positive in the likely possibility of my physical and mental degeneration. So I can fully empathise and sympathise with Collins’s predicament.
The last thing people with my outlook on life ever needed was enforced lockdowns. They were an affront to an individual’s right to live their life, and history will not treat them or their instigators kindly. If Collins feels that her perception of time running out has been made worse by them, then that is completely understandable.
That we are now able to get on with our lives is testament to the determination and resourcefulness of the human individual, not a sign that lockdowns were not as bad as many of us thought they were.
Stefan Badham, Portsmouth
