Letter of the week: Flags of our fathers

Write to letters@newstatesman.co.uk to have your thoughts voiced in the New Statesman magazine

Photo by Culture Club/Getty Images

I was moved by Tom McTague’s interview with Andy Burnham (Cover Story, 25 September) in which the Prime Minister speaks about the death of his father and how this (and his father’s life) has affected him and made him the person he is.

But reading on, I became slightly irritated by how Burnham was portrayed as a messiah for the British state. “I will do things differently,” he so often says. How many times have we heard this before from previous British prime ministers (remember Blair and the Iraq War), only to be let down, time and time again?

I agree that the country has to break the neoliberal stance that has been taken in past decades. And, of course, we need to be more resilient. But how will these perspectives translate into real change and policymaking? In a world marred by significant economic, social and political risk, and fragility and insecurity, we need policies that will tackle the issues voters are concerned about: the cost-of-living crisis, immigration and the possibility of the far right gaining power.
Kalwant Bhopal, professor of education and social justice, University of Birmingham

Leaps of faith

Tom McTague talks about the bar Burnham has set for himself: to be honest with the country (Cover Story, 25 September). In sport, high jumpers sometimes announce their ambitions in advance, their motive being ambition – not honesty. Why should politics be any different? The only reason could be the fundamental dishonesty of party politics.
David Clarke, Oxford

Pass notes

Eleri Cubbage’s reply (Correspondence, 25 September) to Tom McTague’s “death, it seems, is in the air” uses the D-word four times. Brave, for I have not heard the word at all in recent times; people “pass away”, or even simply “pass”.

Our financial adviser went on using this language to discuss our inheritance even after I had said that he could say “die”. If we are to have useful conversations about death, we must start by being brave enough to use realistic vocabulary.
John Arthur, Bury St Edmunds

Truth on trial

The so-called Lancashire witches did not stand trial in the shadow of Pendle Hill (This England, 25 September). Of the dozen hapless women accused of working with the devil, one was tried at York assizes, the rest being dragged across the moors to Lancaster Castle. No doubt King James’s obsession with the powers of darkness fuelled the interest of officials keen to pander to the monarch’s project.
Austen Lynch, Garstang, Lancashire

Another heroic voice

The highlight of last week’s magazine was Margaret Aspinall (Another Voice, 25 September). She went the extra mile to facilitate the Hillsborough Law, and she deserves every plaudit.
Judith Daniels, Norfolk

Tolerating tradition

When assessing why Britain’s collectivist spirit was stifled from 1945 to 1979, David Kynaston indicts both “individualism” and “entrenched social conservatism” without explaining how they are connected (The NS Essay, 25 September). Had he done so, he may found “tempered liberalism” a helpful term, as it describes a swathe of voters. It is uncommon for a belief in progress to be tempered by a fondness for tradition; for personal fulfilment to be tempered by a love of country; and for optimism to be tempered by experience. Indeed, such an approach is the essence of political conservatism – that synthesis of Whig and Tory beliefs, articulated by Edmund Burke in 1790 and later embodied by Peel, Disraeli, Churchill, Thatcher.

In seeking to analyse the limits of postwar collectivism, Kynaston has highlighted not just “social conservatism” but the pull of conservatism – even when Conservatives are in opposition.
Richard Kelly, Nant Mawr, Flintshire

David Kynaston notes that even in the Swinging Sixties the British public was socially conservative. It was conservatism that explained Thatcher’s popularity, he writes, and these same instincts may limit Labour’s progressive ambitions today. This ignores political ideology and rhetoric. A majority of people are socially conservative: it is what holds societies together. But this does not preclude political change. Few people are wholly socially conservative or individualistic. They are also angered by unfairness, concerned for the underdog, involved in their community and take a “live and let live” approach to sexuality and religion. The task for Labour is to bring out the progressive and tolerant via ideological persuasion and empathetic rhetoric.

As shown in Tom McTague’s interview with Burnham, the PM is suited to this task, because of his upbringing, beliefs and skills as a communicator. An appeal to “traditional” values and tolerance is not a contradiction; it has been the basis of all Labour’s winning majorities. He must articulate this consistently and clearly.
Michael Jacobs, professor of political economy, University of Sheffield

Blue trinity

What a wonderful piece on the history of our beloved Blues by Ethan Croft (Reporter at Large, 25 September). As someone who may have embraced the future PM on the pitch in 1984, I can attest to the ecstasy that followed Adrian Heath’s winner.
Stuart Durkin, Insch, Aberdeenshire

I enjoyed Ethan Croft on the importance of Everton to Burnham’s identity. It’s worth noting that Burnham’s use of the Everton-Labour-Catholicism trinity is not the first time it’s been self-applied by a public figure. In 1999, the former Social Market Foundation director Katherine Raymond stated that she was “brought up to support three things: the Roman Catholic Church, Everton and the Labour Party”. Terry Leahy said in the Belfast Telegraph in 2019: “One religion, one football team, one wife, one firm: Roman Catholic, Everton, Alison and Tesco.”
David Kennedy, Liverpool

Life lessons

As a former teacher, I have fond memories of preparing my class for the eleven-plus (Out of the Ordinary, 25 September). It made me a staunch opponent of the exam and its dispiriting effects.

There weren’t any children of immigrants in my class, which was on a working-class estate in Birmingham. If there were, many may have passed, as Tanjil Rashid’s sensitive column explains. But some wouldn’t have, and would have joined the large majority of working-class kids who failed, whatever their level of intelligence, and who were destined for second-class schooling thereafter.
Colin Richards, Spark Bridge, Cumbria

Back-pedalling

I too am acquainted with the crossing at Farringdon (Future Perfect, 25 September). My granddaughters call it “that place where Nana had the row with the cyclist”.
Gillian Williamson, London EC2

Lament for the balaclava

Following Anoosh Chakelian’s article on the rise of the balaclava on our streets, I have written my take on this subject:

They walk about with such faux bravado,
Hiding inside a range of motley black,
Their black hoodies and black balaclavas
Covering their mean, malevolent faces.

I was thinking if they don’t feel at all
Uncomfortable, at least a tad self-conscious
With the attention such attire might draw;
But self-awareness ain’t their strongest suit,
And I’m pretty sure they have a thin grasp
Of what most people consider to be the law.

But right now, I’m wondering only this:
Do they wear all this gear at home as well?
Do they only sleep soundly wearing black;
Is this their notion of sweet domestic bliss?

Ian J McKenzie, international beat poet laureate

We reserve the right to edit letters

[Further reading: Letter of the week: Big words, little action]