The fast track to Europe
Luke McGee (“Sorry, Rejoiners—the UK’s path back to Europe will be slow”, Prospect online, October) makes good points, but doesn’t examine the alternative. Two factors will encourage the government to go faster. First, its objectives depend on economic growth. We have just had weeks of agony over the budget raising an extra £2bn here or £4bn there—tiny figures compared to the £40bn annual loss of tax revenue attributed to Brexit, the lost trade with our main export market, and the extra costs on businesses. The second is public opinion. Tracker polls show a relentless rise in Brexit regret, driven by demographic factors and by those who voted Leave on the basis of what turned out to be false promises. When the figures climb above 60 per cent, the government will surely feel it can be more ambitious.
What can be done? The single market is simply a set of rules—the more you align, the greater the access, and Britain is still aligned with most of them. On the vexed issue of freedom of movement, most of our immigration is from outside the EU and so a matter for national regulation. Freedom of movement is itself not an unconditional right: those exercising it have to find work or be self-sufficient. Brexit has also not benefitted the EU and a British return would be a feather in its cap: they are not “sick of the sight of us”, as McGee claims, but of Brexit politicians. They would simply need reassurance against a second Brexit following a change of government, which brings us back to the debate in Britain. That is where the key to this question resides, not with procedural hoops in Brussels.
Richard Corbett, former MEP and Labour party leader in the European parliament
Post-Trump democracy
I agree with Francis Fukuyama’s assessment (“Donald the demagogue”, December) of the frightening condition of American democracy and, indeed, democracies around the world. For the last 30 to 50 years, they have been imperilled by a decrepit pro-market, anti-government ideology which has facilitated vast inequalities of wealth and opportunity.
The dissatisfaction of ever greater proportions of democratic electorates has led many to conclude that “the system” no longer works for them. Governments of all political stripes have for too long ignored the -consequences of enthusiastic implementation of, or resigned impotence towards, an economic orthodoxy driven by over- powerful vested interests.
Trump and his ilk are working together to take full advantage of the catastrophic failure of governments that have allowed themselves to be captured by corporate interests. The fight to wrest back proper control is complicated by the unfettered rise of feudal tech lords like Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Peter Thiel et al, who will quickly align themselves with the emerging tyrants to maintain their own power and wealth. They intend to oversee a shift from the nation state to the tech state in which they will control every aspect of our lives (see The Sovereign Individual by James Dale Davidson and William Rees-Mogg). Musk clearly sees Trump as a vehicle for speeding up this transition and almost certainly thinks it will be violent (see his talk of civil war during the recent riots in the UK).
Effective government is about selectively “getting in the way” to prevent the amassing of unchecked wealth and power outside some form of democratic control. If governments don’t exist to act in this way, what is the point of government? Participative democracy clearly cannot co-exist with the patently untrammelled funding of our political parties by increasingly small numbers of wealthy individuals and corporations. Corporations’ power within the system needs to be better managed, with a right to be heard as just one important stakeholder of many, not as the main or sole drivers of public policy.
I hope I am wrong, but I have a deep fear that I won’t be around to see the resurgence of properly accountable, democratic capitalism. Will governments rise to the challenge on behalf of their people?
Kevin Boardley, London
The election result is a disaster for the US and the world, but particularly for the Democratic party. After winning 81m votes in 2020, this election was Joe Biden’s to lose, and he failed in spectacular fashion. An unpopular president had no right to stand again, still less to then nominate his equally unpopular vice president. The results were predictable.
The Democrats face an uphill task and initial signs are not good. The party lost the blue-collar working class to Donald Trump, despite Trump’s many failings. For the Republican party the future is grimmer, since they have effectively been forced to morph into the Maga party, with an irrational man driving the agenda. His cabinet choices are -spectacularly -extremist and could have an immediate impact on UK politics, with potentially drastic rises in tariffs. Will Reform leader Nigel Farage continue his association with Trump if this happens?
Trevor Fisher, Stafford
Taxing questions
Even after its tax take rises to around 38 per cent of GDP in 2027–28, the UK will still be a low-tax country (“Budget 2024: evasions out, taxes up”, Prospect online, October). There needs to be more informed discussion about the need to go up to 40 per cent of GDP to match our peers in Europe, Japan and Australia—which have fairer societies with better public services and infrastructure. The Conservatives did not so much leave a black hole as starve public services and infrastructure of money. Doubtless this was in part due to Covid and Putin’s war, but it was also ideological.
The problem is how to raise tax in light of Rachel Reeves’s promise not to raise income tax, national insurance or corporation tax. Many say taxes should be raised on petrol, while the Financial Times has been saying for the last 20 years that taxing the pension contributions of higher-rate taxpayers would bring in billions and be aimed at those with the broadest shoulders.
How do other countries do it? Is this something for Prospect to look into?
Rosanne Bostock, Oxford
The trouble with women
In her article (“The women who hate feminism”, December), Sarah Manavis criticises Brett Cooper, a right-wing YouTube influencer, for celebrating the presence of US women’s rugby player Ilona Maher on the cover of Sports Illustrated. Cooper argues that Maher’s muscular physique helps to “push back against transgender ideology”.
But for me, this is a somewhat odd example of anti-feminism. Brett Cooper may be reactionary in her views on women’s rights, but the publicity given to a woman who excels in a traditionally male sport might also help break down damaging gender stereotypes.
Concern for the needs of gender-questioning people has also been exploited by some bad-faith actors. Children who do not conform to narrow, outdated gender stereotypes and/or are same-sex-attracted risk being pushed towards pharmaceutical and surgical interventions rather than acceptance. Many subsequently regret their irreversible transition. Their loss is Big Pharma’s gain. Elsewhere, women’s spaces, from changing rooms to the female prison estate, face the risk of being infiltrated by predatory biological males cynically claiming to have discovered their inner woman.
I find it sad that some women are trying to reverse the hard-won gains of generations of feminists: reproductive rights, workforce participation, etc. But it also saddens me to see some women waving through the gates a rainbow-painted Trojan horse.
Vera Lustig, Walton-on-Thames, Surrey
The trouble with men
Emily Lawford gave a powerful account of the alarming hatred young men feel towards women (“The incel trap”, November). The attitudes displayed by Alex and Dan on Reddit would alarm most people, but being rejected or having little economic traction hurts. Many men are stuck if they cannot find a female soulmate and the cycle can be self-perpetuating and damaging for those of low self-esteem.
I speak of loneliness from experience. Being shy and having an awkward social manner have largely rendered me unable to form any long-term decent relationships with women. But luckily for me (I am now 61), I did not grow up with social media present. I was able to combat my frustration by doing lots of voluntary work in sport, which kept me away from any untoward activity. It is vital young men who feel alienated are engaged in mainstream society and not looked down upon if they have a low income. Young men must be helped, otherwise the situation will get worse.
David Rimmer, Hertford Heath, Hertfordshire
A housing emergency
There is clearly a housing crisis (“Temporary accommodation nation”, December) and in particular a social housing crisis, where in parts of the country there is insufficient good quality housing at affordable rents. If we were at war, with an urgent need for land and buildings for military and civic purposes, the state would have powers of requisition.
In the present circumstances the state could urgently require developers to disclose their land banks, require local authorities to identify land with unused residential planning permissions, and search for empty dwellings and useful buildings available for occupation. Powers of requisition could be used to bring enough of those assets into immediate use for social housing development and occupation. It will be argued that requisition is really confiscation, but the tortuous process of compulsory purchase, raiding the green belt and reliance on market forces does not recognise the emergency for thousands on housing waiting lists or the homeless on streets and in temporary lodgings.
This is an emergency for children and families forced to live in temporary and often unsuitable accommodation for long periods, separated from their preferred living places and friends. It demands bold and determined measures and acceptance of unpopularity with landowners and builders alike.
Roger Jefferies, London
Animal farms
Julian Baggini rightly argues (“Off the menu”, October) for a change in western diets. “Plant forward” characterises this well. However, a common misunderstanding of the debate’s context emerges. The problem of agriculture lies not only in the diet, but the food processing industry and, crucially, the manner of farming.
My council will be showcasing the revolutionary potential of farming that keeps animals on the land, including for meat. Here, net zero is an easy passing point on the way to capturing up to 10 times more greenhouse gases than are emitted. Animals living on the land with richly diverse plant species for forage are the key catalyst. Carbons are captured in an organic ferment of soil transformation fuelled by dung and soil life. In the process, fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides are eliminated, saving huge costs and transforming nature. Biodiversity returns in abundance.
This cannot be done by cows in barns, nor without animals as part of the farm mix. Rich seed mixtures for meadow leys are easy to buy, and the nature-based techniques are established and scientifically documented. This is not a pro-meat argument; I have been a lacto-vegetarian for over 50 years. It is not ideology; the scientific research is solid. Such techniques are now part of our county’s strategy. Let us attend to the whole-system complexity of this issue.
Angus Jenkinson, councillor for regenerative agricultures and ecology, Cotswold District Council
The silence of the YBAs
I very much enjoyed your article on the White Pube (“Pubic flair”, December) and found the views of Gabrielle de la Puente and Zarina Muhammad very refreshing. Like them, I cannot stand Tracey Emin, Damien Hirst, nor any of the other Young British Artists associated with the abysmal Turner Prize.
There are artists who have acquired a myth of edginess about them, but the truth is that they are as conformist and conservative as they come. In an increasingly censorious world, where cancel-culture is running riot and trigger warnings are issued for even the most innocuous content, voices from within the arts have remained deafeningly silent. Where are those passionate exponents of free expression and free speech, the ones who once fell over themselves to try to shock and horrify us? Are they simply not bothered by censorship anymore? Have they grown apathetic to it? Are they afraid of upsetting the establishment to which they are cosied up? Or are they in agreement with the censors?
Stefan Badham, Portsmouth
To be or bot to be?
I wonder if anyone out there finished reading James Ball’s fascinating and disturbing article on AI and the internet (“Is there anyone out there?”, November) and was left with the uneasy feeling, as I was, that the article might itself had been generated by AI—and indeed that James Ball is simply a bot?
Or maybe I am…
Robert Bridge, London
