RSS

Contact us

Saturday 22 November 2008

Letters to the Editor

Letters

Spectator readers respond to recent articles

Sir: On what evidence does Stephen Pollard (Politics, 20 October) base his contention that the ‘only possible reading of the past three decades’ is that the voters ‘turn to the Conservatives only when the Labour party presents itself as unelectable’?
Since 1977, the Tories have been in power for 18 years (60 per cent of the time) and Labour for 12 years (40 per cent). Apparently, then, Labour spend most of the time being unelectable. Even in 1997, opinion polls were showing that on all manner of economic and social issues, the voters consistently preferred Tory policies, albeit they had become sick of Tory politicians. Tony Blair, of all people, understood that.
As for the supposed unpopularity of the Tories at recent elections, Pollard states that if they had been ‘led by a combination of Solomon, Aristotle, Churchill and Bobby Moore, the party would still have been crushed.’ Well yes, they would, but only because the electoral system is so grotesquely biased in Labour’s favour. After all, in 2005 the Tories registered more votes in England — by far the largest nation in the United Kingdom — than did Labour, yet won just 193 seats to Labour’s 285. That’s not so much ‘crushed’ as ‘ripped off’.

David Thomas
West Sussex

Inherited virtue

Sir: Irwin Stelzer (‘Listen to Adam Smith: inheritance tax is good’, 20 October) suggests that inheritance tax is a good thing economically because the absence of inheritance encourages people to work and makes them less likely to retire. I find this a surprising proposition from a supposedly conservative journal. The great benefit of inheritance is that it creates a class who are independent and do not have to ‘stay in line’ to support themselves and their families. Before the war there were a large number of MPs who were financially independent by reason of inheritance and thus MPs were far more ready to speak up for the public interest than the present salariat dependent upon keeping in with the Whips to pay their mortgages.
Adrian J.G. Pellman
by email

Islam and truth

Sir: Piers Paul Read (‘The Muslims’ letter to the Pope is not all it seems’, 20 October) raises many good points but asserts that Islam enjoins truth. At the risk of attracting the Thought Police, may I draw attention to the following authoritative scholar?
Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (died 1368 AD) in his manual of sacred Islamic law entitled The Reliance of the Traveller says: ‘Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish it through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible ... and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory’ (my emphasis). The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by Nuh Ha Min Keller, Amana Publications 1997.

Edward Spalton
Derby

History retouched

More articles from: | this section

Print this article  |  Email to a friend  |  Permalink  |   Comment

Post this entry to:   del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Advertisement

Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine

Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms

Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP

All Articles and Content Copyright ©2008 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved