There was a lot to digest in the 11 October issue. But a point that didn’t get much coverage was the impact of the failure of Keir Starmer or his team to take responsibility for decisions that, with a modicum of scrutiny, could easily have been viewed as dubious. Appointing Sue Gray, given her previous role running the investigation into Downing Street gatherings; accepting free clothes and personal donations; and setting the income bar too low on the change to the winter fuel allowance are notable. The consequences of these decisions were easy to anticipate. Taken together, they give a disappointing picture of entitlement and lack of competence.
Labour has a huge majority because people were sick of this type of behaviour. Starmer’s failures leave us thinking we’re getting more of the same. Going forward, getting the Budget right and not making easily avoidable mistakes will be key. As will honesty when things don’t go to plan. We expect and deserve better.
Andy Leslie, Horsham, West Sussex
No prizes here
Bruno Maçães’s article on the Middle East’s new liquid conservatism (Comment, 11 October) was well-judged except in one regard: Amos Oz never won the Nobel Prize for literature. Every year I hoped he would. Some of us pray for his humane vision of the mutual flourishing of Israelis and Palestinians. Liquid hope.
Simon Burton-Jones, Bishop of Tonbridge, Kings Hill, Kent
Badenough of disrupters
John Gray (These Times, 11 October) suggests Kemi Badenoch holds the key to a revival of Conservative fortunes, stating that only someone able to disrupt the status quo can revitalise an ailing party. Surely we’ve had enough of so-called great disrupters? From Margaret Thatcher and George Osborne to Dominic Cummings and Liz Truss, Britain has suffered under their desire to smash all the china in the cabinet, hoping to reassemble the pieces in a new, coherent form. The result of these hubristic experiments is a poorer, more fragmented society.
Felicity McGowan, Cardigan, Wales
War and no peace
Wolfgang Münchau raises many interesting points (The NS Essay, 11 October), but one cannot help being concerned regarding his conclusion that the efforts of the West should be directed towards fighting a “defensive war”. I dimly recall that Carl von Clausewitz saw war as a way to force one’s political aims upon the enemy by violence and victory. A purely “defensive war” can only end in “negotiated peace”, giving the enemy the possibility of causing further trouble. Münchau points out Putin has turned his state into a “war economy”, spending 40 per cent of his federal budget on arms. Meanwhile, European countries struggle to spend on average 1.7 per cent of GDP on defence and rely on the US to support Ukraine.
Clausewitz emphasised that victory in war would go to the nation which made the most wholehearted moral commitment by its people, military and government first. Success depended on the citizens accepting inconvenience and pain, as we did in the Second World War. Even amid the bombs and rationing, towards the end we were spending over 40 per cent of our GDP in support of the war. Fighting a “cut-price war” or even a “defensive war” is unlikely to achieve success.
Geoff Brown, Walton-on-Thames
Tragedy on both sides
I read Atef Abu Saif’s account of the past year in Gaza, part of the NS’s 7 October special issue, with mounting dismay. Part of this was because of the tragic situation he graphically describes: the death, injury, destruction, homelessness and fear. But also dismaying was Saif’s blindness to the suffering of Israelis. There was not a word about the tragedy that on 7 October hundreds of Israeli civilians were massacred by Hamas, with others kidnapped and who we are to believe are still being held in captivity. If someone of Saif’s distinction, in depicting his own people’s suffering, is unwilling to acknowledge the suffering wrought on “the other side”, what hope can there be for the mutual understanding which is the precondition of peace and an end to all this suffering?
Michael Grenfell, London
“I am Jew-ish”
I thought the illuminating article by the Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis (4 October) had resolved the question of whether, as an atheist of Jewish heritage, I am a Jew. He writes: “Jews are a people with a common ancestry, heritage and faith.” However, in the next paragraph, he refers to “religious Jews” and then to “secular Jews” before underlining the distinction by discussing Zionism from the perspective of Jews “whether religious or secular”. Perhaps, therefore, I will have to accept, following Jonathan Miller, that I am Jew-ish.
Dr Howard Mason, Chorlton, Manchester
Going to bat for Batson
I was astonished that the review of Black Arsenal (The Critics, 11 October) made no mention of Brendon Batson, Arsenal’s first black player. He debuted for the club in 1972 and went on to play at Cambridge United and West Bromwich Albion, where, with Cyrille Regis and Laurie Cunningham, he fought against the racism that was endemic in football. His contribution to the game is a startling omission.
David Morris, Stourbridge, West Midlands
What would Jesus do?
Pippa Bailey’s observation that there is “no formal threshold for salvation” is correct if we use Anglican liturgy as the yardstick, but not if we consult Jesus himself (Deleted Scenes, 11 October). When faced with an easy-believing Nicodemus, Jesus knocked him back with an invitation to cultivate the faculties necessary to participate in the quiet revolution. No sympathy there for any private position in his heart.
Dr Craig Millward, Thurnscoe, South Yorkshire
Top-tier joke
Kevin Maguire asks for a football joke (Commons Confidential, 11 October). Here’s one: I’ve placed £20 on Preston North End getting promotion to the Premiership!
Joe Hayward, Stanmore, Middlesex
Write to letters@newstatesman.co.uk
We reserve the right to edit letters
[See also: Rachel Reeves’ make-or-break Budget]
Content from our partners
Related
This article appears in the 16 Oct 2024 issue of the New Statesman, Make or Break