Major error
Sir: Even as a former Tory voter, I acknowledge that the predicted scale of the Conservative electoral defeat would be a national tragedy. Starmer’s government needs to be kept in check by a robust opposition. There are many explanations for the Tory decline, but George Osborne’s Diary (15 June) gives some clues: his celebration of a ‘Middle England’ country fête having a tombola for Gaza rather than a worthy local cause, for instance.
More tellingly, Osborne also celebrates John Major’s advice that the Conservatives ‘will never win while we remain in thrall to the hard right of our party’. The practical interpretation of this involves moving the Tories to the left, while leaving voters to choose Labour’s ‘real thing’. Understanding Major’s definition of the Tory ‘hard right’ is also crucial, as they are most likely to have been Eurosceptic Tory MPs. Dismissing this group and their views on general policy is the Tories’ fatal flaw, demonstrated by the 2016 referendum result, the 2019 ‘Get Brexit done’ general election and the likely Tory defeat in 2024: all electoral outcomes that satisfy Major’s so-called ‘hard right’.
Charles Jenkins
High Wycombe, Bucks
Misremembered
Sir: In his Diary, George Osborne states: ‘I was the first Conservative to visit the opposition offices in the Commons after almost two decades in government.’ This is not true. John Major, as leader of the opposition for six weeks following the 1997 election, occupied the small office on the ground floor of the leader of the opposition’s suite of offices that had been used by Tony Blair. Michael Heseltine took possession of the enormous office previously used by John Prescott.
The day George is thinking about is the day William Hague won the final round of the 1997 leadership contest. That day George, me and our colleague Alexandra Channer were sent to take possession of the opposition leaders’ offices. Mr Major was leaving and spotted George and they did indeed have a conversation. As it happened, Mr Major had the latest issue of The Spectator rolled up in his hand as he walked to his car.
Mark Fox
London SE11
Future demigods
Sir: Louise Perry was right to warn of the dangers of humanity dividing along the haves and have-nots of genetic tailoring (‘The new eugenics’, 15 June). However I fear her warning doesn’t go far enough.
It is not inconceivable that within a century the offspring of global elites will, by the design of their parents, be taller, faster, stronger, more attractive, less prone to illness and injury, faster to heal, more charismatic, longer-lived, and with greater cognitive function. In ancient times we would have called such beings demigods. Are Silicon Valley and Davos to become to new Olympus and Asgard?
Lee Jenkins
Bolton, Lancashire
Faith in the membership
Sir: While I agree with Tim Holman (Letters, 1 June) on the constitutional principle that MPs should select their leader in the House of Commons, party members will be understandably reluctant to let this right go. If MPs should regain the absolute right to select their leader in the House, then the party members (like me) should gain the right to freely select their local parliamentary candidates. The current gerrymandering of candidate selections too often limits party members to choosing from HQ-promoted grey suits. Being able to freely choose neither parliamentary candidates nor party leader would be untenable in a membership organisation. Parties need to show confidence in their membership as a first step in reconnecting Westminster to the country.
Andrew Bacon
Northleach, Gloucestershire
Wine and tide
Sir: Charles Moore has written a glowing article regarding the Wine Society (Notes, 15 June). My father, a second world war naval submariner, was a subscriber and well-known client to the Wine Society. He would ring to make an order, and say: ‘Captain Gatehouse speaking, the tide is out.’ The reply was always the same: ‘Captain Gatehouse, sir, the tide will be in tomorrow at noon.’ It always was.
Rosemary Corbin
Zeals, Wiltshire
Ladybird memories
Sir: Mary Wakefield’s ‘What I learnt from Ladybird’ (15 June) reminded me of my own long-gone Adventures from History collection, and the series description I recall from somewhere: ‘vividly, simply, and truthfully told’. I had the William the Conqueror one, and while I can’t recall John Kenney’s illustration of Harold’s death, I do remember thinking that his battle sequences were very realistic (though, from memory, minus blood and severed limbs).
While on the subject, any takers for Look and Learn? My commemorative Bumper Book of Look and Learn of some years back reminds me of the breadth of the subject matter in those weekly magazines.
Alan Riley
Dorchester, Dorset
In defence of sociology
Sir: After several years of reading The Spectator, one expects to come across the occasional article with which one disagrees. Rarely have I read such tosh as that written by Robert Adès (‘The sociology trap’, 15 June). I should, at the outset, declare my interest as a sociology (and politics) teacher of 33 years, both at A-level and GCSE. We do not use the single textbook he appears to have consulted, preferring to allow our students to consider a range of books and sources in order to learn how to think.
I am sorry that Mr Adès sees sociology as half-baked old-left apologist propaganda; if he had been in any of my lessons, he’d have struggled to discern any such thinking. Teachers can encourage students to learn how to weigh up arguments and evidence, and not simply to rely on one textbook. To characterise a rigorous A-level subject as one of ‘tendentious speculative generalisations, poor methodology and flagrant falsehoods’ suggests a few more years teaching the subject are needed by Mr Adès, to appreciate how useful sociology is.
Jonathan Williamson
Sheffield
Pitt’s port
Sir: Bruce Anderson writes that Pitt the Younger used to hold the House of Commons after drinking three bottles of port (Drink, 8 June). He had been accustomed to drinking port since the age of 14, when he was prescribed a bottle a day as a cure for the gout and ‘biliousness’ he suffered from. It was then a well-established would-be remedy. In Pitt’s time, with bottles being made of thicker glass than now, a bottle of port would contain about 35cl, a great deal less than today’s standard bottle of 75cl. And port wasn’t as strong then either, being 16 per cent alcohol compared to about 20 per cent now. Still, he died of liver disease at the age of 46.
Richard Symington
London SW17
Write to us The Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London SW1H 9HP; letters@spectator.co.uk
Comments