Why did Gatland resign?
Sir: The uproar over the strange case of Maria Gatland McGuire seems almost incomprehensible from a Belfast perspective. At the beginning of December she was compelled to resign as the cabinet member for education on Croydon council when it was revealed that she was also Maria McGuire, who famously was involved with the IRA leadership in 1971–72. Maria McGuire is the author of an interesting book, To Take Arms — A Year in the Provisional IRA, published in 1973. The book makes clear that she has made a radical break with the IRA’s violent campaign. It seems that the final straw came on 21 July 1972, Bloody Friday, when at least 22 car bombs were detonated in Belfast, killing 11 people and injuring 130.
Why, given her clear rejection of terrorism, sustained over many decades, has Maria Gatland had to resign her position? After all, Martin McGuinness was deemed to be a fit person to be Minister for Education in Northern Ireland as long ago as November 1999 and, indeed, he is today one half of the collective political First Citizen of Northern Ireland. What is the difference between the two cases, except that Maria Gatland’s rejection of terrorism has been of much longer standing and is arguably more profound?
Paul Bew
House of Lords, London SW1
A British Napoleon
Sir: Never mind Napoleon’s piles at Waterloo, which Matthew Parris wrote about the other week (Another Voice, 6 December); as a very young man Napoleon — who even then had a thrusting military ambition — sought service with the greatest fighting force of the age and wrote accordingly to the Admiralty in London. His approach was ignored.
But what if it had been accepted? There would be no ‘Trafalgar’ Square or ‘Waterloo’ Station; Arthur Wellesley wouldn’t have been more than a sepoy general, never mind prime minister, and Horatio Nelson would have retired as a captain having served much of his career on half-pay. But Europe would have been spared much death and destruction, and its 19th-century history would have been a lot different. The then Lords of the Admiralty have a lot to answer for.
C.E. Johnson
Bath
Hitler in 1938
Sir: It is easy for Andrew Gimson (Letters, 29 November) to call the German generals cowards for not getting rid of Hitler in 1938, but he shows a very poor grasp of the historic situation. Actually, there was a plot in 1938 to overthrow Hitler’s government; the main reason that made the generals hesitate was the moral dilemma of what the consequences of a putsch might be.
In 1938 Hitler appeared a very successful dictator, celebrated and adored by many Germans and respected by many foreigners, including their governments. What would happen if the army removed him by force: civil war, a counter-putsch by the SS, a take-over by Himmler and his allies?
It would have been very hard to convince the Germans — and the world — that any of those consequences would have been preferable. After the fact, we all are so much wiser.
Franz Metzger
Nuremberg, Germany
Nancynomics
Sir: Nancy Dell’Olio’s article about Keynes (‘I will always defend a big spender like J.M. Keyes’, 29 November) gave an amusing take on why some support Keynes’s ideas. But she fell into a trap that has recently ensnared many, including Messrs Darling and Osborne. They all seem to believe that Keynes’s remedies were only aimed at healing recessions, primarily by infrastructure spending.
In reality, Keynesian policies, from the first peace-time Keynesian Budget in November 1947 until 1979, were aimed chiefly at countering inflation, a besetting problem of the UK economy while Keynesian policies ruled.
The UK was only in recession for a very short spell during the whole period, though it hovered on the edge once or twice. Nor did we experience a banking crisis on the present scale. So we do not know how Keynesian policies, if that is what we are going to have, will deal with a recession of any length.
In tackling our present problems, it will be a good while before we know whether Keynesian solutions are a saviour, a chimera or a zombie.
Dr Craig Pickering
(Formerly of HM Treasury)
London W4
Sir: Miss Dell’Olio is mistaken to defend J.M. Keynes. Capital investment may stimulate spending, but it simply staves off recession rather than solving it. Any government project designed to create jobs is almost inevitably inefficient because it does not respond to people’s market activity.
Indeed, one can only stave off recession if one constantly prevents the market from correcting itself. Unless we return to the dark days of economic regulation from the 1970s, this will obviously not work. Miss Dell’Olio has failed to appreciate the implications of Keynes’s ideas, or that his ideas are historically bound to the cultural and economic assumptions of the first half of the 20th century.
But even if we take Miss Dell’Olio’s assertions at face value, those who accepted Keynes tended to believe that his spending plans could only work if one had saved during the good times. Current spending plans may stave off recession, but only in the short term, and the borrowing will have to be paid back.
A simplistic understanding of Keynes is not only preventing a market correction, but future growth too.
James Sharpe
Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge
Who the f— are you?
Sir: Dot Wordsworth opines in her column (Mind your language, 6 December) that ‘no one has ever been called C*** or F***.’ However, she states that she would welcome evidence to the contrary. Whilst I am not in a position to advise on the former name, I would direct her to this website — http://www.unb.br/ig/prof/ReinhardtAdolfoFuck.htm — in relation to the latter. This is the page of a staff member at the University of Brazil; the member of staff in question, Professor Reinhardt Adolfo F**k, is apparently a very well-regarded lecturer in geology. Whilst a Google search of his name will produce many puerile (if entertaining) ‘most unfortunately named individual’ type sites, there are also, hidden amongst the results, a number of academic journals in which Professor F**k is cited or quoted.
Karen Ashe
Belfast
Fight by law, not war
Sir: Spending the last weeks in Geneva (which is not that city’s name in any of the languages of Switzerland) I have been untroubled by mumbled Mumbais. Bombay is there still known by its correct name in European tongues, which also seems favoured by most of those, like Rani Singh (Diary, 6 December), who come from there. The Spectator might ask itself why it treats Indians, and their cities, differently to the Swiss. Few are so racially discriminatory as the anti-racists themselves.
Geneva was the riparian scene of a previous murderous terrorist publicity stunt, the assassination of Empress Elisabeth of Austria in the 1890s. Then terrorists professed anarchy, since it has been Socialism, now it may be Islam. The supposed creed changes, the part-educated juveniles involved do not.
You fight the eternal terrorist by due process of law, not undue practice of war. And there Islam may be our ally, as Aidan Hartley (‘What the Somali pirates told me’, 6 December) but never Stephen Schwartz (‘Mumbai and us’, 6 December) reminds your readers. Bombing women and children — along with the occasional terrorist — in the Afghan–Pakistani border area in no way demonstrates the superiority of Western culture, and neither does it stem the flow of would-be terrorists.
Even the terrorists will mostly grow up and repent, as the case of Maria Gatland demonstrates, and as did the imprisoned Geneva assassin.
P.G. Urben
Via email
No free lunch
Sir: Charles Moore will not pay the television licence fee (The Spectator’s Notes, November 29) but is more than happy to have lunch with the Director-General in the DG’s office. Who is paying for this lunch? Could it be the people who do pay the licence fee each year? Let’s hope cake is on the menu, as it seems that in Mr Moore’s case, you can have your cake and eat it too.
Roy Beagley
Danbury, Connecticut
Really thick
Sir: The crime perpetrated by Karen Matthews and Michael Donovan, though utterly despicable, must be among the most ill conceived and poorly executed in history, even more stupid than the canoeist scam. It would not surprise me if the accused pre-ordered the ‘Find Shannon’ T-shirts before abducting the girl.
Rosemary Lacock
London W1
Wrong about Shakespeare
Sir: In Lloyd Evans’s review of Soul of the Age by Jonathan Bate (Arts, 1 November) he declares that ‘all dons’ are potentially bores because they ‘know too much about too little’. In other words, there is ‘too little’ of interest in the life of the actor from Stratford-on-Avon and anything one says about him is ‘too much’. I have just finished reading Brenda James’s The Truth Will Out (written with William D. Rubinstein and published in 2005) and her newly published Henry Neville and the Shakespeare Code and I am surprised that academics are still wasting their time on William Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon when there is so much to find out about Henry Neville of Billingbeare, whom Brenda James proved in 2005 to be the true poet.
This is not just another ‘conspiracy theory’. James decoded the dedication to the sonnets and found the words ‘the wise thorp hid thy poet’ and ‘Henry Nevell writer’. Having never heard of Henry Nevell, she went on to research the name and found a man whose birth and death dates were almost identical to Shakespeare’s, and clear documentary evidence to show that Henry Neville’s life experiences, political views and character fit very closely those of the man who wrote the plays and poetry. The source of Shakespeare’s erudition has always been a mystery, but Neville was well known at Oxford university for being a brilliant scholar. His knowledge of European languages, three years spent touring Europe and stint as ambassador to France would offer a reason why the plays display such a detailed knowledge of European literature, towns and politics.
Perhaps most telling of all, he was imprisoned, together with the Earl of Southampton, for two years in the Tower of London, which explains many of the sonnets and why after 1601 ‘Shakespeare’ suddenly started writing tragedies.
M. Lewis
Sydney, Australia
Carols by candlelight
Sir: I have recalled Charles Moore’s horror that his church was to be floodlit (The Spectator’s Notes, 13 September). How terribly sad that will be for all concerned, and especially at Christmas. I just thought I’d write to say that my church in Woolbeding is lit by candlelight, as the communicants have ruled against electricity. Woolbeding is in West Sussex, not too far from Mr Moore’s home, I believe. If things are unbearable, perhaps he can come here. Our candlelight carol service is a real treat.
Edna Clements
Woolbeding, West Sussex
Where is baby Jesus?
Sir: I would like to ask Spectator readers for their help — has anyone seen a nativity scene in London this Christmas? I don’t doubt that there are several in the country, but any sightings in our secular megalopolis would cheer me up no end. I regularly cycle around the city, keeping my eyes peeled for baby Jesus, and so far have only spotted one, in a funeral director’s shop window on Lambs Conduit Street.
Mary Wakefield
London WC1
Comments