For richer, for poorer
Sir: Ferdinand Mount’s article (‘David Cameron should honour his marriage vow’, 23 January) is not entirely accurate. After noting that Geoffrey Howe was unable to persuade Margaret Thatcher to agree to the introduction of transferable tax allowances between married couples, he writes: ‘Nigel Lawson after him argued the same, with no better luck.’ In fact, I announced the introduction of transferable allowances in my 1988 Budget, and it was duly implemented in 1990. The full story may be found on pages 881 to 887 of my memoirs, The View from No. 11.
Nigel Lawson
London SW1
Sir: Well done to Ferdinand Mount and The Spectator for standing up for marriage. Mount does not mention, however, the most interesting statistic I have seen in favour of legally and fiscally protecting marital unions: that, according to a recent study by Opinion Research Business, 90 per cent of young people want to get married. If the young are up for it, why not encourage them?
Beth Sealey
Reading
Shouldering the cost
Sir: Brian Sewell (Diary, 23 January) is sadly mistaken if he thinks that the shoulder of lamb he used to purchase in 1958 for a mere 3/6 (from his weekly salary of £8) was a great bargain, for he states it was equivalent to ‘171/2’ pence — a conversion valid only at the time of decimalisation in 1971. An all too common error, alas. Using average earnings, 3/6 was the equivalent of almost £8 in present-day values. That’s probably the price his butcher will be asking now, even in London.
Ian Olson
Aberdeen
In our defence
Sir: I refer to Sir Max Hastings (‘The military’s last stand’, 16 January). Only the most biased would argue against a general as Chief of Defence staff at this time. If Cameron wins, the sensible solution would be to recall General Sir Richard Dannatt from retirement for a term as CDS of two to two-and-a-half years.
There is a precedent for bringing senior officers out of retirement and restoring them to the active list. Admirals Sir James Somerville and Sir Bertram Ramsay were thus honoured and both served with great distinction throughout the second world war.
It would be a mistake to give any senior officer a political role, since they have been trained from the very beginning to mean what they actually say and do whatever has to be done without prejudice.
Gordon Peters
Commander, Royal Navy (Retd)
Sir: In reference to Max Hastings’s article on future defence policy, there is indeed much to be said for having lots of foot soldiers while we are in Afghanistan. However, in supporting General Sir David Richards’s argument for sustaining a ‘serious army’ at the expense of the navy and air force, Hastings is in essence arguing for unbalanced forces. We have been here before.
Surely the sensible way to deal with very lean times is to cut back to, but not beyond, a level that would allow the three military services to maintain sufficient capability — and centres of excellence — to facilitate any expansion that might be needed to meet future threats. There really are ‘unknown unknowns’ and it is a forlorn exercise to attempt to assess what may hit us next.
And by the way, I do not know Jock Stirrup. I belong to a different generation. However, I do know that competition within the RAF for the top rank is and always has been intense. Hastings does himself no credit by writing contemptuously of a man who had what it takes to make it to the very top.
G.A. White
Air Vice-Marshal (Retd)
Unwanted posters
Sir: I’m sorry Charles Moore published the repellent comment from ‘William Bapthorpe’ in his column (The Spectator’s Notes, 16 January) since it was removed from the Guardian’s Comment is Free site as soon as our moderators were made aware of it, seven minutes after it was posted. We do not tolerate comments like this and our site-wide moderation approach should mean that anyone posting them is placed in quarantine pending a review of the individual comment as well as their posting record, which can lead to a permanent ban.
Regrettably (and unusually) in this case, because ‘Bapthorpe’ was a poster with no history of breaching our talk policy (he is in fact a regular contributor to other news websites including the Daily Telegraph’s, where he can be found posting on Charles Moore’s articles), he was not quarantined as quickly as he should have been. We’re currently reviewing procedures.
Chris Elliott
Managing editor, Guardian News & Media, London
Family show
Sir: The Simpsons are not just a ‘loving, close and functioning family’ (Arts, 16 January), they are the embodiment of Ferdinand Mount’s book The Subversive Family in the way they fend off meddling school principals, psychologists, clergymen, politicians, etc as they make their high-spirited and imaginative skips through American society.
Bill Whelan
Port Washington, New York
Trust us
Sir: Dennis Sewell (‘Gove vs The Blob’, 16 January) wrongly suggests that the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust has been ‘captured’ by opponents of school independence and the teaching of knowledge. In fact, our specialist school members have with our help been actively restoring subjects like physics, chemistry and modern languages to the curriculum. We have also been keen advocates of school independence, through our work with academies, foundation and trust schools.
Elizabeth Reid
Chief Executive, Specialist Schools and Academies Trust, London SW1
Comments