Letters: March 2025

How democracy can win

Cas Mudde calls for a positive fight for liberal democracy to beat the far right (“Doom Spiral”, Winter Special), but this will fail unless we also prioritise global justice to tackle the root causes of immigration and economic instability. An overlooked parallel for our current crisis is the creation of apartheid in South Africa, when white voters used their political power to protect themselves from economic competition with the black, Indian and coloured majority. Western powers also used rules of trade to discriminate against the Majority World, on the basis of national identity rather than race. From the 1980s this regime was stripped away by economic deregulation. At first people benefitted from cheap imports, then discontent rose as jobs and income were moved to low-waged countries. Meanwhile, a lack of economic opportunities, social protection and conflict prevention in the Global South creates enormous pressures for people to seek better lives in the still prosperous west.

The countries of the Global South are mobilising economically and politically to redress the balance of international power through the Brics, the G20 and the UN General Assembly’s overwhelming vote to overhaul the global tax regime.

Shamefully, our Labour government was one of only nine governments opposed. Unless we apply the principles of liberal democracy to create more equitable, accountable and effective global governance, economic pressures will continue to fuel the rise of nativist far-right politicians.

Titus Alexander, author of “Unravelling Global Apartheid: An Overview of World Politics”

Make the people decide

Whenever I read articles such as that by Cas Mudde in your magazine (“Doom spiral”, Winter Special), I am reminded of why I am grateful to live in a country where enrolling for, and voting at, elections is compulsory; where you are required for a valid vote to express an order of preference for all candidates, and where the whole electoral process is conducted by an independent electoral commission. Australians are not always best served by those they have elected, but those elected and those who voted all know that everyone had a part to play in their election, and therefore stand responsible for what is decided.

I should be interested to see an article analysing, albeit hypothetically, what election results would be like in Europe and the US if voters were required to emulate the experience of Australian citizens.

Philip Raymont, York, Western Australia

I fail to recognise the impending political and social apocalypse that Cas Mudde appears to believe will be triggered by recent election results. Reading his alarmist account, you might think millions of the world’s citizens had been frogmarched to polling stations and made to vote for particular candidates—which Mudde lazily describes as far right. It would appear that “far right” is now the new term for conservatism.

Most, or all, of these leaders might have been elected because, for example, they unequivocally agree with that portion of their nation’s electorate that wants to see more control of their borders and who want a reduction in immigration. Would Mudde also brand those voters as far right? Does he think the current Labour government is far right because it wants to end illegal Channel crossings?

Perceptions of democracy are primarily subjective: the right will always see only doom under a left-wing leadership, and vice versa. Nothing will change unless politicians and voters learn that compromise doesn’t necessarily mean conceding defeat.

Stefan Badham, Portsmouth

Write and wrong

I am writing as a fellow of the Royal Society of Literature (RSL) appointed in 2024, regarding Patrick Marnham’s article (“Losing the Plot,” Winter Special). While I respect the importance of open debate, I found it unbalanced, speculative, and lacking broader perspectives on the issues raised.

The piece addresses complex and multifaceted issues, including the alleged transformation of the RSL by a “dominant group” and the supposed dismantling of fellow selection criteria, but presents them through a singular lens, giving little voice to alternative viewpoints or the rationale of the RSL’s leadership.

For example, Marnham mentions a £1m donation, asserting that staff numbers increased and spending rose under the chairmanship of Daljit Nagra. As someone with 25 years’ experience in the charity sector, I find this criticism ill-informed. Charities are obligated to spend funds in line with their strategic goals and grant terms; they cannot “sit” on donations. They must be used for public benefit. It stands to reason that if there was a large donation, expenditure would increase. It is speculative to describe these expenditures as “expensive” without knowledge of the trustees’ plans or the strategic framework underpinning their decisions.

Equally troubling is the suggestion that the RSL has never been a “closed shop for the white middle-classes”, implying it was uniquely immune to the societal norms of its time. Such a claim merits a more nuanced examination of historical contexts rather than an assumption of exceptionalism.

Jacqueline Crooks, director, Sharp Raiser

Without a Hitch

I read and admired War on the West, but Douglas Murray (“Saving the West, one polemic at a time”, Winter Special) is to Christopher Hitchens what the egret is to the elephant it’s perched on, or the flea in the bird’s tailfeathers. James Bloodworth did his homework, and the Hitchens context is I suppose inevitable, but since I’m no journalist I need not be as kind as he is to Murray. Murray is the guy in high school we used to call the bomb thrower, tossing grenades into empty rooms until he finds somebody big enough to hide behind. Murray is an influencer. Hitchens was of an older school of writers who went on TV mainly to sell their books.

Hitchens’ motives for supporting the second Gulf War were terribly flawed and, I say as an American, thoroughly wrongheaded when it came to our history, but to his limited credit he admitted they were of a personal nature and related to friendships. He could be supportive without being sycophantic (Hitchens characterised George W Bush as “incurious” and was never a fanboy); and some of his journalism is probably permanent. He could write about Jefferson and Paine and Mother Teresa without ever quite sounding like a complete ass or an amateur iconoclast. You could disagree with his opinion and still love his writing. Nobody can persuade me that the same is true of Murray.

JT Barbarese, via the website

ITV’s lost journalistic legacy

In his review of Ros Franey and Grant McKee’s Time Bomb, Nick Davies (“A sort of justice”, Winter Special) presents a stark depiction of a shocking period in British justice when elite police squads resorted to menace, violence, fabrication and perjury against innocent men and women to secure verdicts after IRA terrorist attacks, while enabling the real perpetrators to continue bombings across the UK.

Davies’s analysis of the shocking behaviour of Surrey Police, senior officers in Scotland Yard’s Bomb Squad and a leading prosecutor also shines a light on true investigative journalism. Yorkshire Television’s Franey and McKee spent years unravelling much of the truth behind the Guildford Four with meticulously researched programmes on First Tuesday, Yorkshire TV’s powerful investigative series. They were also generous with their expertise when in 1985 I drove across the Pennines from Granada Television in Manchester to pick their brains, in the early days of World in Action investigating the Birmingham pub bombings.

World in Action provided the journalistic heft and money to support MP Chris Mullin’s quest to clear the Birmingham Six, thanks to its executive producer, the late Ray Fitzwalter. I was the producer who, with Mullin and researchers Charles Tremayne and Eamon O’Connor, spent six years delivering programmes on the case: the woeful shortcomings of the prosecution, the lies and violence of West Midlands police officers, and the truth of the IRA terrorists who did plant those bombs.

All this demanded nerves of steel from the bosses at Granada and Yorkshire Television in the face of scathing criticism from newspapers, senior politicians and august judges. Not to mention the millions of pounds the programmes cost.

Seven months after the Birmingham Six were released, franchise auctions turned ITV upside down. Shortly after, a senior executive of Thames TV’s usurper, Carlton TV, offered the new ethos in a network meeting. “It’s not our job to get people out of prison,” he volunteered.

Davies tells us that when systems collapse and powerful people collude, it takes mavericks to set things right. Today, with the Criminal Cases Review Commission in some disrepair, mavericks need all the support they can find. First Tuesday, This Week, World in Action; Yorkshire TV, Granada, Thames—all long gone. Without that campaigning journalism, the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six would all have died in prison.

Ian McBride, producer and deputy editor of World in Action

Regulating PAs

Dr Rachel Clarke’s article (“Why Britain’s doctors are in revolt”, Prospect online, December) about physician associates (PAs) is likely to mislead readers. While the General Medical Council (GMC) is now responsible for regulation of PAs, it had no role in their introduction to the health service 20 years ago, and nor does it have any involvement in their deployment across the NHS today.

Dr Clarke’s assertion that the GMC is an “NHS body” betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of our role and statutory responsibilities. The GMC is an independent professional regulator, and our statutory duties are set out in legislation. Our responsibilities are to set requirements for education and training and entry to our register, to set standards for patient care and professional behaviours, and to take action where there are significant breaches of those standards.

The introduction of professional regulation for PAs in December last year was an important milestone, as PAs will now be subject to the same form of robust regulation as doctors. Of course, there are outstanding issues and concerns about the deployment of PAs (and anaesthesia associates), but these lie beyond the scope of the professional regulator.

These should be addressed as part of the independent review established by the health secretary and led by Professor Gillian Leng. We hope this review will bring greater clarity for all parties, not least for the patients and public whose health, wellbeing and safety must remain everybody’s primary focus.

Una Lane, director of registration and revalidation, General Medical Council

Painting the peep show

A great piece by Rachel Johnson (“A mother’s work”, Winter Special) about her mother Charlotte’s little-known paintings now on show in London. I met Charlotte in 1993, when I was making one of five films in an indie series for BBC Two, Architecture of the Imagination—half-hour films that explored the rich symbolism of doorways, windows, staircases and bridges, and made copious use of extracts from classic movies, the work of painters, and others.

A mutual friend had told me that Charlotte had created a remarkable painting while in New York City with her second husband, Nicholas Wahl. She had lived in Washington Square, on the edge of Greenwich Village, and from her kitchen had a perfect view of the Washington Square Hotel, which, in those days, was a hôtel de passe, a louche establishment where you could rent rooms by the hour, to have sex.

The punters mostly left the curtains open, and there was a constant display, of various positions and myriad acrobatics. Charlotte was fascinated by the antics across the street. The painting is wonderful. You can see the blue glimmer of the TV in many of the rooms and naked bodies. In the film Charlotte spoke with self-effacing intelligence, humour and a certain mischievousness, about her taste for voyeurism. “Watching and being watched,” as she put it. And the “thrill of the chase”.

Mark Kidel, writer and filmmaker

Weighty matters

Thank you Alice Goodman (Clerical life, December) for sharing your weightlifting experience. I was suffering a great deal of knee pain and my GP confirmed I had osteoarthritis, saying it would have to get a lot worse before I could be referred for a knee replacement. On holiday in Porthleven, my youngest son persuaded me to join the local Fitness Collective. The owner Becky gently introduced me to lifting weights and recommended that I get a personal trainer. She was certain that with a regular weights programme the pain would go. I wasn’t so sure.

After I returned home, I made an appointment with Zoe at Dave’s Gym. That was about 18 months ago. I have trained pretty much weekly with Zoe, and increasingly on my own. The gym is filled with local people of all ages and it is one of the joys of my life to feel that I belong there. I am 65 years old and will retire early in 2025, so I will get to go more often and am looking forward to it. I deadlift 58 kilos, so I have my sights set on matching Alice’s 65 kilos! Oh, and the pain? My knee still doesn’t bend as it did, but it is gone most of the time. If it is there, a session at the gym usually sorts it out. Without Becky in Porthleven I would never have met Zoe and I would still be in pain. Maybe something for Wes Streeting to reflect on.

Angela Gascoigne, Cardiff