Primary colours
Sir: As a former chairman of a Conservative association, I read with interest your suggestion that the open primary held by the Tories in Totnes was a success (Leading article, 8 August).
The association I chaired was constantly under pressure to increase membership. When we attempted to do so, prospective members quite reasonably asked what they would receive for their £25 per annum. In all honesty, the answer was not very much. The trump card was, however, that members have a chance to have a direct say — a vote — in the selection of local and parliamentary candidates and also to vote for a leader of the party. It seems that now even this small benefit is under threat.
You hail the selection of Sarah Wollaston, ‘a doctor with little political experience’, who in Totnes defeated candidates with a long history of involvement with the Conservative party. Well, congratulations to Dr Wollaston. I suppose she will expect a full local party machine to be in place to assist her when she finally decides to get round to some activism. Indeed I have no doubt that the two defeated candidates, who both seem to have committed the crime of having a long history of involvement with Conservative politics, will be out there in all weathers pounding the streets for her; their only fault seeming to be that they, along with others who through the bad times since 1997 have had the temerity to join and support the party, hoped to be selected by the clique of others who share their views i.e. fellow Tories. No; how much better it is that we shall now be represented by the half-interested selected by the clique who could not think of anything better to do that night than pop out to the primary.
You look forward to the day when a party is bold enough to select its leader through an open primary. I doubt that will be long in coming in the Conservative party as there will be no members left to cast a vote.
Peter Glover
Via email
Scottish perspective
Sir: In his rather woeful assessment of the state of the Union (‘We must fight to save the Union’, 8 August), Alan Cochrane confesses to some bewilderment as to what is meant by a ‘Scottish perspective’ on TV news programmes.
Let me reassure Mr Cochrane and others that this is not an attempt to look at the world through a sentimental tartan prism. It is simply that as Scotland now has its own education, health and justice systems it would be nice if news bulletins transmitted in or to Scotland were relevant to our situation rather than that south of the border.
I am sure that if the situation were to be reversed, so that London viewers received a daily diet of issues of concern only in Scotland, then they would very soon be demanding news coverage with an ‘English perspective’.
Ian McKee, MSP
Edinburgh
Discerning dustmen
Sir: I happened to be watching from my window when our dustmen (or whatever they are now called) arrived to collect my recyclables bin. After routine inspection to ensure that the contents complied, one of them removed a copy of The Spectator and tucked it into his pocket.
Does this mean that The Spectator is now appealing to a wider readership or do we just have more discerning dustmen in Hampshire?
James Freeland
Nether Wallop, Hampshire
A risk director writes
Sir: I normally find myself nodding in quiet agreement with the tenor of your editorials but I must take issue with your criticism of my former employer (‘Don’t bank on a bonus, 8 August). As a risk director of Barclays Bank I had some input into the development and implementation of the bank’s risk management systems in the 1990s which, in light of the bank’s profitable trading to date through the recession, appear to be still in good working order.
John Varley is right to point out that Barclays has avoided the self-inflicted government intervention suffered by other banks. He might also have drawn attention to the contribution of governments to the near systemic collapse of the financial markets: lending to the subprime mortgage market in America was forced on the banks by the Clinton administration; the imposition of ‘mark to market’ accounting by the Bush administration was, in Anatole Kaletsky’s words, ‘a suicidal policy’ in a falling market; and the insistence of the Blair/Brown government on a ‘light hand on the tiller’ surely encouraged the FSA to overlook the glaring governance, strategic, and risk management systems in the UK banking sector.
Nor is it fair to imply that increases in investment banking profitability is ‘per se’ a sign of ‘a return to recklessness’, nor, as the sainted Vince Cable would have it, ‘casino banking’.
David M. Hadden
Ardingly, West Sussex
Spectator and plinth
Sir: Has Charles Moore (The Spectator’s Notes, 8 August) considered booking the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square for an hour and taking up an unlicensed TV to watch, perhaps in his hunting togs? I’m guessing he doesn’t smoke.
William Reynolds
Via email
Needless waste
Sir: I fear that your recent Leading article (‘No exceptions’, 1 August) was inaccurate. ‘All politicians, of whatever stripe,’ you wrote, ‘pledge to cut “waste”.’ Edward Heath, in the campaign for the 1970 general election (as in so many matters), could not quite summon up the conviction for such a bold stand. His clarion call was for cutting only ‘needless waste’. Many of us at the time wondered what the essential waste was. Perhaps, it was Heath himself.
Richard S. Henderson
Bangkok, Thailand
Comments