Andrew Marr omitted immigration from his otherwise full and considered appreciation of the storms that may lie ahead for the Labour Party (Politics, 26 July). Keir Starmer has been absolutely and incontrovertibly correct to condemn the atrocious thuggery committed by the far right in various English cities and Belfast recently. The new Labour government should be clearer, however, that it is concerned about worker exploitation where migration is used to undercut terms and conditions at work. Those affected are social housing providers, GPs and teachers (especially those who work in primary schools), and asylum seekers themselves.
Confusion, misinformation and disinformation as it pertains to immigration is, rightly or wrongly, fundamentally exploited by those on the right of the political spectrum, including the Conservative Party. Transparent information, such as that provided by the think tank Migration Watch UK, would do much to ease tensions if it were more widely publicised.
John Bishop, Edinburgh
Trumped by Harris
While I agree largely with Andrew Marr’s article (Politics, 26 July), it seems naive and pessimistic of him to deem a Trump/Vance win in the autumn “likely”. Indeed, after only a few weeks of being the presumptive nominee, Kamala Harris is now statistically tied with Donald Trump in swing states across the US and in the national voting intention. This is with only a handful of major rallies under her belt.
Factoring in the re-energised young vote for the Democrats due to social media and the spiralling animus towards JD Vance and his comments, the signs seem very auspicious for mitigating a second Trump presidency.
Harry Laban, Northamptonshire
Bloomin’ lovely
Helen MacDonald’s piece (Summer Reflection, 26 July) on the magic of the heath was a small masterpiece of nature writing: insightful, accurate, evocative. The general inability of the political class to read nature is a serious problem, preventing them from understanding the causes of the nature crisis and its potential solutions. It is good to see this in your publication.
Chris Rose, Norfolk
Civil exchange
“Government-by-consultancy”, cited by Mariana Mazzucato and Rosie Collington (“Ending the consultancy cult”, 1 August, newstatesman.com), is not an idea members of the Management Consultancies Association recognise. There is no doubt that the Chancellor faces a complex series of challenges, and we believe government will continue to need private-sector expertise to deliver better front-line services for taxpayers. As an industry we have stood up resources as part of the national effort, including recently to improve cybersecurity, to drive the transition to net zero, and to put in place the energy-price guarantee scheme.
The UK civil service is one of the best in the world, however it is unrealistic to expect government to employ a vast pool of private-sector experts and resources to help improve the efficiency and delivery of critical services. It is also far more cost-efficient to use them for short-term projects. The partnerships our sector has formed with the public sector have been some of the most intellectual, dynamic and productive in the world. They have also frequently come at times when the nation urgently needed extra skills and capacity.
Tamzen Isacsson, chief executive, Management Consultancies Association
Sorrow in the sonata
I was delighted to read Edward Docx’s enthusiastic article on Beethoven’s cello sonata in A, Op 69 (Music, 26 July). As a cellist and academic, however, I should point out a small detail that intrigued me.
Beethoven did not, in fact, sign his manuscript “Inter lacrymas et luctus” (“Amidst tears and sorrows”). The Latin motto, supposedly found in a lost autograph manuscript, originates in Alexander Wheelock Thayer’s biography of Beethoven, and is based on Thayer’s misreading of an earlier source. Jonathan Del Mar clarified this in his 2004 edition of the sonata. As Docx notes, there are few of either tears or sorrow in this piece.
Dr George Kennaway, Huddersfield University Centre for Performance Research
Cry Woolf
In “Who’s Offended by Virginia Woolf?” (Critic at Large, 26 July), Anna Leszkiewicz writes of the vilification of Virginia Woolf for her offensive comments on race and disability. Much as I love Woolf’s writing, I have always found her ugly depictions of single, working-class women, who invariably contrast with the idealised mothers in her novels, equally offensive.
Leszkiewicz writes that Woolf was “statuesque” and a “titan” of literature. Today Woolf is often either put on a pedestal or demonised. Statues of heroes and heroines serve only to harden the ways we view writers – positively, negatively and indifferently – and yet, in spite of his wishes, statues of Dickens have been erected. Woolf’s prose can be beautiful in its fluidity and openness, but it is marred by the ugliness of her prejudices, as is the case with many superlative writers. She continues to be, though, the target of excessive hostility, which is often, at its root, misogynist. In my career as an academic I have grown angry and weary of the jibes about Woolf as a woman and as a writer. Her writing is a legacy we should treasure.
Dr Gill Gregory, University of Notre Dame, London
A guiding light
Slavoj Žižek reveals that on a visit to a museum in Budapest he bought a candle in the shape of Stalin’s head (Interview, 26 July). This reminded me of a visit I made to Moscow in 1966 during which I purchased a surrealist-style candle in the shape of Lenin’s head. When I returned to my student bed-sit in Hull and tried to light it, the room suddenly went completely dark. Should Žižek get round to lighting his Stalin candle, there is every possibility that he will have exactly the same experience.
Ivor Morgan, Hertford Heath, Herts
Write to letters@newstatesman.co.uk
We reserve the right to edit letters
[See also: Letter of the week: Humans vs resources]
Content from our partners
Related
This article appears in the 14 Aug 2024 issue of the New Statesman, England Undone