Promises, promises
Sir: Fraser Nelson (Politics, 6 October) suggests that the approach that won David Cameron the leadership in 2005 was conveyed in messages like ‘social responsibility’ and ‘general wellbeing’. I, and I believe many others, decided to vote for Mr Cameron after he promised to withdraw the Conservatives from the EPP/ED Group in the European Parliament.
A new Tory strategy based on specific promises will only be successful if there is a genuine commitment to carry these out.
Richard Soper
New Zealand
Lib Dems and the EU
Sir: We read that again the Liberal Democrats are blaming their leader for their fall in popularity in the polls. Does it not occur to them that it is their policies which are unpopular rather than their leader?
Those of us who greatly admire the Liberal Democrat stand on civil liberties and unfair taxes such as Council tax, which is not based on the ability to pay, cannot reconcile this with their desire to subsume our country ever deeper into the EU. Can’t they see that this totalitarian regime, governed by a political elite, unelected and unaccountable to the people, is neither democratic nor liberal and is the antithesis of freedom and self-government?
Additionally, the Liberal Democrats are breaking their election promise by denying a referendum on the renamed constitutional treaty. How can they expect us floating voters to vote for them with this in mind?
Bill Woodhouse
Mappowder, Dorset
Our Christian foundations
Sir: ‘I don’t want to live in a society where I get stoned for committing adultery; I want to live in a society where I get stoned, and then commit adultery.’ So, epigrammatically, the Spectator/Intelligence2 debate about culture declares its conclusions (Lloyd Evans, 13 October). The motion was, ‘We should not be reluctant to assert the superiority of Western values.’
But what are these values? Low-brow hedonism, sex and shopping; abortion on demand, in fact as a means of contraception; a lewd and trivial entertainments industry and vile popular culture.
What we are seeing is not a society that offers a morally serious challenge to militant Islam, but one which has lost its nerve because it has given up its Christian faith. For a thousand years Christianity taught us how to think and how to feel and how to behave. Chivalry, self-restraint, service to others, examination of one’s conscience — these all have their origin in Christianity. The mistake made by the secularised sophists is to think that civilised society will somehow remain even as we abandon Christianity. It won’t.
The Revd Dr Peter Mullen
Rector of St Michael’s Cornhill, London EC3
Are rights right?
Sir: Douglas Murray is right: ‘Decades of intense structural relativism and designer tribalism have made us terrified of passing judgment’ (‘Don’t be afraid to say it’, 6 October). It is indeed ‘time we spoke up’. But for what?
Sadly, his article epitomises the muddled thinking which brought us here. He notes in passing that ‘it is no coincidence that equality before the law arose out of Judaeo-Christian ethics’, but goes on to portray Western values in terms of the culture of ‘rights’ which his article repeatedly refers to, not Judaeo-Christian values.
For Murray, Western values are epitomised by Thomas Jefferson’s concept of being ‘free… to pursue happiness’. Jefferson’s pursuit of happiness included enslaving his own illegitimate children by his black mistress.
The rights culture began with Rousseau (the philosopher who abandoned his children at a public orphanage) as a way of replacing God with the state.
Edmund Burke remarked: ‘Against these their rights of men let no government look for security in the length of its continuance, or in the justice and lenity of its administration. The objections of these speculatists, if its forms do not quadrate with their theories, are as valid against such an old and beneficent government as against the most violent tyranny or the greenest usurpation.’
In America, rights were trumpeted the loudest by those in favour of slavery, even up to the end of the Civil War. Karl Marx eagerly embraced much of Rousseau’s thinking and Lenin based the Soviet constitution on the rights of men.
Julian Brazier
London SW1
So misread
Sir: Richard Bolchover, in his letter criticising my review of The Israel Lobby (13 October), makes a common mistake: he conflates the authors’ views with mine. I did not attack Israel’s expulsion of Arabs in 1948. What I said was this: ‘In fact, they [the authors] contend that by doing little more than expressing mild regret at Israel’s expulsion of most of its Palestinian population and obstructing thereafter the establishment of a Palestinian state, the US has provoked the anger of even those Middle Eastern states, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which are normally its friends.’
Mr Bolchover compounds this error by saying that I blame the Israel lobby for the second invasion of Iraq. I don’t and indeed I criticised the authors for stating this: ‘The authors’ chapter on how the lobby and its sympathisers inside the defence department and in the White House propelled the US to attack Iraq the second time is powerful but fails to consider that the US, during the last 50 years, has intervened all over the world for many reasons. After 9/11 in particular, revenge was a big justification for going after Saddam, although he had nothing to do with the assault on the Trade Towers. As Thomas Ricks shows in Fiasco, Saddam was regarded as a pushover whose quick defeat would demonstrate American resolve.’
I suspect that, like many critics of this book, which has its faults, Mr Bolchover hasn’t read it and, additionally, he has misread me.
Jonathan Mirsky
London W11
Aid for the tsunami
Sir: Contrary to Michael Howard’s claim (‘Lessons of the tsunami the world forgot’, 6 October) that the EU reacted slowly to the Solomon Islands tsunami crisis, European Commission personnel were dispatched to the area the very day disaster struck. On the basis of their assessment, we gave an immediate green light for E550,000 in emergency humanitarian aid to be channelled through Save the Children UK (implemented by their Australian arm) and the French Red Cross. We verified the use the funds were put to and concur on the excellence of the NGOs’ work.
Speed being of the essence, the Commission’s humanitarian aid is never delivered through governments. Fast-track financial procedures ensure funds are available within 48 hours. In the case of long-term development aid, the international consensus is that it should be delivered through governments, where possible, to improve ownership and help build local institutions. In the Solomon Islands, donors work together with the government to see how the distribution of aid can be improved. EU funds are being used to reconstruct roads and bridges (in partnership with the Asian Development Bank) and schools (to be implemented by Unicef). Unlike humanitarian aid, these operations are not life-saving but life-improving, and rely on careful planning for their success.
Anthony Gooch
Head of Media, Representation of the European Commission to the UK, London SW1
Game for lunch?
Sir: Everyone is entitled to their own food preferences but Paul Johnson goes too far when he states that ‘pheasant is not worth eating’ (And another thing, 6 October). All game meat is currently enjoying a renaissance in popularity with consumers attracted by its seasonal distinctiveness and nutritional qualities (pheasant is lower in fat than many red meats and is a good source of protein and vitamins containing high levels of iron, Vitamin B6 and selenium). As a result, sales of game meat soared by 46 per cent between 2004 and 2006, reaching £57 million last year. It is the only meat sector showing double-figure growth and is even outstripping sales of organic products by more than double (Mintel, February 2007).
I would be delighted to invite Mr Johnson to lunch to show him what he is missing.
Alexia Robinson
Countryside Alliance
London SE11
Lucky to be alive
Sir: I loved Matthew Parris’s article the other week: ‘celestial strains of a violin made my soul soar’ (Another voice, 22 September). Whether it is music, a beautiful painting, an unexpected act of kindness, a happy child’s smile, we can all be touched. I was cantering across a rolling piece of countryside recently on a lovely horse; good old turf underfoot with my dog sometimes ahead, sometimes delving into the undergrowth, and once going potty in a fast gallop on a circle with her tail between her legs in sheer exhilaration at being alive — and then coming back to a walk. All quiet and peace, and I was deeply touched with happiness and delight. There are so many problems for so many in the world but, Christ, aren’t I lucky just to be here just now?
Charlotte Steel
London SW6
Ships in the night
Sir: It can be difficult when reading a review of a book one has not read to know whether the opinions are those of the author or reviewer. In Michael Howard’s review of Max Hastings’s book on the Pacific war (Books, 6 October), one or other appears to conflate views and attitudes held at the grand strategic, strategic and what is now termed operational levels. For all his strengths, Admiral Ernest King was not the totality of the United States Navy (USN). While he personally opposed the Royal Naval deployment to the Pacific theatre in 1944, the USN co-operated fully in its equipping and operational training (e.g. USS Saratoga and Sourabaya attacks). Nor am I aware of any evidence of ‘mutual contempt’ between the ships companies of the USS Houston and HMS Exeter in early 1942 or later. Indeed the deployment of HMS Victorious to the Pacific in 1942-43 at the request of the USN to cover a ‘carrier gap’ suggests rather mutual respect. When in 1944 the Royal Navy contributed a full carrier task force of four fleet carriers with its fleet train (TF57), it made a not dissimilar contribution proportionately to the Pacific campaign as the USN made to the battle of the Atlantic. I would not describe the latter as ‘rather pathetic’, nor should it be applied to TF57.
Surgeon Rear Admiral M.A. Farquhar-Roberts
Alverstoke, Gosport, Hampshire
Simple chemistry
Sir: Elliot Wilson writes in his biofuels article: ‘A single ton of refined palm oil generates 33 tons of carbon dioxide emissions — 10 times more than petroleum’ (Business, 6 October).
A ton of palm oil, or indeed petroleum, coal or any other fuel, can only contain at a maximum one ton of carbon, and generally a bit less, depending on the proportion of hydrogen, nitrogen and other elements. Burning one ton of carbon from any source can only produce a maximum of 3.28 tons of CO2 — that is simple chemistry.
So is Mr Elliott talking about the CO2 cost of the other components of the production chain, such as forest or peat-swamp destruction, fertiliser, processing or transport? If so, he should say so clearly and cite his authority for the number. Depending on the origin of a particular crop, where it is grown, what it displaces, processing and transport, the figure for other costs will vary enormously. Why 33 tons? Why not 10, 20, 30 or 40?
There are many, many concerns about the destruction of forests to produce palm oil; Mr Elliott would add clarity to the discussion by indicating the range of uncertainty of these other costs.
David Hutton-Squire
Northallerton, North Yorkshire
Comments