Given up on Chesterfield? Sir: Matthew Parris makes some interesting and accurate points about growing Tory support in the north and Midlands (‘The Tory push north will end in failure’, 7 December). He did not mention Chesterfield in his article, but it is a good example of what he talks about. It seems to me that
Look closer to home Sir: In your interview with Boris Johnson (‘Austerity was not the way forward’, 30 November) he attributes the EU referendum result to ‘regional inequality… parts of the UK were simply being ignored… leaving people behind’. Yet he says his remedy for this is ‘infrastructure and education and technology’. In other words,
Down to zero Sir: Paul Collier’s siren call to take advantage of near-zero interest rates to go on a massive government infrastructure splurge is one Jeremy Corbyn might welcome but Conservatives should resist (‘Back to Plan A+’, 16 November). Japan tried what he is proposing when its bubble burst in 1990. The result: $6.3 trillion debt and
Nowhere to turn Sir: Like Tanya Gold and Matthew Parris (9 November), I too am feeling politically homeless. Over the decades my vote has wandered along the mainstream party spectrum but today that seems wider than ever and its constituents increasingly unappealing. A vote for the Conservatives would be to endorse utter incompetence in government
A bad idea Sir: Your editorial in favour of an amnesty for illegal immigrants (‘The case for amnesty’, 9 November) flies in the face of extensive evidence. Italy, Spain and France have, between them, granted any number of amnesties; almost without exception, each one prompted further waves of illegal immigration. In 2005 the French Interior
No special protection Sir: Rod Liddle’s joke that the election might be held on a date when Muslims cannot vote, thereby reducing support for Labour, has apparently led to outrage. There has been no similar outrage over your front cover (‘A vote is born’), which satirises the Christian nativity by portraying Johnson, Corbyn and Swinson
Another referendum? Sir: Matthew Parris’s article ‘What question should a second referendum ask?’ (26 October) occasioned a wry smile from me this morning. His first question — whether Britain should remain in or leave the European Union — has already been asked and answered, at great expense and trouble, in 2016. The only logical reason why
Cameron’s fatal error Sir: Jo Johnson’s otherwise informative review of David Cameron’s For the Record (Books, 12 October) suggests Cameron’s ‘mistake’ was to not call the referendum earlier, and his ‘fatal error’ was his failure to nail down the Leave campaign on how they ‘would actually deliver Brexit’. Not so. Cameron’s mistake was to assume
Bad sport Sir: At last a respected member of the shooting community has popped his head above the parapet. Patrick Galbraith has had the courage to express the view that many of us from the ‘bygone sporting era’ hold, but have either been too afraid of the commercial consequences, or too idle, to go public
Deny Remainers oxygen Sir: Your correspondent Richard Dawkins seems to have a very tenuous grasp of logic for an academic (Diary, 5 October). He excoriates a referendum on the grounds that in the run-up the voters may have been misled. There is one choice between two alternatives, and the supporters of each outcome will do
Judges of experience Sir: In the midst of the furore about the Supreme Court judgment, many people are now questioning how the senior judiciary are appointed (‘Imbalance of power’, 28 September). Lady Hale is undoubtedly extremely clever. But perhaps that is at the heart of the problem. It is well established that the ranks of
On judging the judges Sir: The spectacle of judges questioning essentially political decisions is not an edifying one. But we should be slow to dismiss the importance of the role of judicial review. Dr Ekins is justifiably troubled by the escalation of appeals to the Supreme Court in politically sensitive terrain. (‘Judgment day: the danger
Parliament’s responsibility Sir: I always enjoy reading the intelligent and outspoken Lionel Shriver. But her latest article (14 September) puts forward an invalid argument. As Ms Shriver points out, no one in the USA seriously argued that the disaster of Trump’s election, and the damage it could cause the country, meant the result should be
Shambles at sea Sir: On 19 July Iranian Republican Guard forces captured the UK flagged tanker Stena Impero, as described by former defence secretary Penny Mordaunt in her Spectator Diary (3 August). It was a national humiliation and it needn’t have happened. As was made clear at the House of Commons Defence Committee hearing on
Helping the homeless Sir: The number of rough sleepers in one of the richest countries on the planet is surely a finger of accusation pointed at our generation (‘Wake-up call’, 31 August). Adam Holloway is correct when he says that giving cash directly to those living on the streets often compounds rather than alleviates the
Harry’s army career Sir: I believe Jan Moir has misread the situation over Harry and Meghan (‘By royal disappointment’, 24 August). Shortly after Prince Harry left school he was filmed leading drill as a cadet. He was grinning ear to ear, clearly enjoying himself. Harry flourished in the army, which made his leaving it in 2015
Travelling in discomfort Sir: I don’t agree with much of what Matthew Parris says these days, but he was spot on with his piece about train seats (‘Who’s to blame for my terrible journey?’, 17 August). I think his hunch about where the blame lies for such uncomfortable seats is correct. In these parts, our
God Sir: In his defence of Christianity (‘Losing our religion’, 10 August), Greg Sheridan writes as if Christianity and religion are interchangeable terms. His claim that the vast majority of people who have ever lived have believed in God may be true, but most of them were or are not Christians. And when he mentions
We don’t cut God Sir: The Revd Dr Peter Mullen suggests (Letters, 3 August) that Boris Johnson told him my BBC Great Lives programme had cut from our broadcast treatment of Samuel Johnson an extended discussion of Christianity’s role in Dr Johnson’s life. Boris J championed Samuel J for our programme, and your correspondent has been
Poppycock Sir: Last week’s lead article (‘Boris begins’, 27 July) suggested that if we leave without a deal, ‘the Johnson government will have another huge challenge on its hands — how to avert large-scale economic damage’. I have some experience of the conduct of economic policy, and I hope you will forgive me for saying that this
