Already a subscriber? Log in
Cameron’s equivocation
From Martin Newland
Sir: Michael Gove (‘The anniversary of Emperor Ming’, 17 February) rightly criticises Sir Menzies Campbell’s stance on the Middle East peace process in his excellent piece on the Liberal Democrats. But is it only the Liberal Democrats who can be accused of criticising Israel and America as a means of improving their domestic political fortunes? David Cameron has already delivered a major speech criticising American foreign policy, and his party was swift to adopt the language of ‘proportionality’ towards Israel when it was attacked last summer by Iranian-equipped forces from southern Lebanon.
The Conservatives have no discernible policy towards Europe and appear to be distancing themselves from the Americans. This latter position might gain them a few votes at home, but where exactly would a future Tory government forge its key alliances if things turned nasty? Much is made of the apparent ‘endorsement’ of Mr Cameron in these pages by the presidential hopeful John McCain. But you can be certain that once McCain or any president of either political hue takes over the geopolitical driving seat, they will be looking for less equivocal allies than the Conservatives. It would be ironic if Mr Cameron, so ‘modern’ and ‘progressive’ in the field of domestic policy, were to render Britain a member of ‘Old Europe’ in the foreign-policy arena.
Martin Newland
Chart Sutton, Kent
Education ‘captured’
From John Blundell
Sir: I congratulate Fraser Nelson and James Forsyth for their two fascinating articles on our failing schools (‘Look back in anger’, 3 February; ‘Liberate schools’, 10 February). They hint at the greatest mystery of all — the refusal of politicians to allow real parental choice. In my view, freeing schools from municipal monopoly would ensure huge electoral advantage to its exponents. As matters stand, the ‘producers’ have totally captured education from their ‘customers’.
When, as education secretary, Margaret Thatcher attended the centenary celebration of the 1870 Forster Education Act, which made local authority provision mandatory, her next appointment was to launch a campaign against adult illiteracy. Could they be connected? All three parties seem intimidated by the interest groups in schooling. Only one interest matters — the pupils and their parents.
John Blundell
Director General, Institute of Economic Affairs, London SW1
No justification for torture
From P.L. Nock
Sir: On the subject of torture (‘Meeting Professor Torture’, 17 February), I would like to make two points. First, that it’s difficult to see how a so-called Christian state could practise such infamy. Second, I think it was Cicero who said, rightly, that torture is an unreliable method of eliciting information, since its victims will naturally say what they think their interrogators wish to hear — which may not necessarily be the truth. Is this really how we think civilised states ought to conduct themselves?
P.L. Nock
Windermere, Cumbria
Now we are online
From R. Molony
Sir: Charles Moore has some suggestions for updating children’s books for the internet age (The Spectator’s Notes, 13 January). May I widen the field a little? At the start of my lesson on Dickens, one student asked, ‘Sir, are we reading Great Explaystations today?’
R. Molony
By email
From Olive Cairtan
Sir: Charles Moore should have mentioned Charlotte’s World Wide Web, about a spider and her broadband connection. Quite enchanting.
Olive Cairtan
London E8
Also in Society
Also by The Spectator
Latest
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in