Letter of the week: For one and for both

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

Photo by Gamma-Keystone via Getty Images

I – along with many others, recent polling suggests – applaud Ed Miliband’s action against the illegal and terrifying Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank (Politics, 11 September). Ailbhe Rea makes the important point that the Foreign Secretary “sees no contradiction between his support for Israel and his support for the Palestinian cause”. His belief in the justness of a two-state solution has been echoed by many in the past, never more succinctly or elegantly than by Christopher Hitchens, who could also claim a Jewish ancestry (discovered late in life on his mother’s side).

In an interview on Charlie Rose in 2001, Hitchens said: “If Jews born in Brooklyn have a right to a state in Palestine, then Palestinians born in Jerusalem have a right to a state in Palestine.” Anyone who does not agree with that principle, he suggests, is suspect. Given our historical culpability for the present situation in the Middle East, it is good to see the new government decisively lifting their own veil of suspicion so unapologetically.
Gary Seabourne, Gloucestershire

Principled politics

Like many, I always thought the wrong brother had been chosen as Labour leader in 2010. It later surprised me when, in some quarters, Ed Miliband was considered a potential replacement for Keir Starmer. But, as Ailbhe Rea so eloquently writes (Politics, 11 September), our Foreign Secretary is “remaking foreign policy for the Burnham age”. Miliband’s intent to end Gaza’s suffering and apply Labour values as a party and government have a timbre of principle and honesty that I cannot recall hearing from any minister this century. The cries of “outrageous lies” from the Israeli government only confirm my opinion that Burnham has chosen the right man for the job.
Tom Stubbs, Surbiton

Nothing new under the sun

In Tom McTague’s considered Editor’s Note (11 September), he critiques the unworldly optimism of many politicians and political commentators in the late-20th century. They predicted, he writes, that the future would be “global, tolerant, liberal, nice”.

I find myself turning to Tony Benn: “Every generation must fight the same battles again and again. There’s no final victory and there’s no final defeat.”
Sue Cohen, Bristol

Camp kareishu

There are weeks in which Will Dunn’s Sketch is worth the cost of my subscription by itself. His trip to the Reform UK rally was one such event (11 September), filled with so many zingers, such as suggesting the venue smelled of old age and providing us with the Japanese word for this phenomenon. Here’s to the rest of the conference season.
Les Bright, Exeter, Devon

An evidence-based summary

Ethan Croft made two valid points as to why, despite the turbulence surrounding Reform, the party cannot be written off (Inside Westminster, 11 September). Reform’s policy of lifting the tax threshold is sensible and would help more voters than the Tories abolishing inheritance tax. The party’s digital contact process also makes it competitive in terms of reaching voters.

But any positive feeling about Reform is more than dispelled by Will Dunn’s account of their conference (The Sketch, 11 September). That they don’t care that their former leader in Wales is in gaol for taking Russian bribes is indicative of a lack of morality. The woman quoted in Dunn’s piece who said that all politicians are “pigs in the same trough” signals a wilful disregard for accuracy. I will not give them any time at the doorstep.
David Rimmer, Hertford

Eton mess

As a lifelong opponent of independent education and of our highly privileged royal family, I greatly enjoyed Emily Lawford’s sardonic take on young George’s entry to Eton (This England, 11 September). It is, in my view, Britain’s leading school of maladjusted boys.

I was struck by her tongue-in-cheek remark about boys’ behaviour: “But what would you expect? You can’t demand that boys given everything since birth should be any better than that.” Should something similar be said about disaffected young men in areas such as Middlesbrough? “You can’t demand that boys given little or nothing since birth should be any better.”
Colin Richards, Spark Bridge, Cumbria

AIn’t worth the hype

I often enjoy Andrew Marr’s column but found him falling into a pattern I have often seen (At Large, 11 September). He repeats the conviction that AI is going to be world-changing without the consideration that it may be overhyped. Considering how much funding has been put into AI over the past few years, the achievements it has made are rather limited. It is fundamentally a tool that has been around longer than the popular consciousness knows, and is at its best in very rigid scenarios in which there are clear rules and many possibilities.
Thomas Martin, Grimsby

Not Surtees, surely?

John Mullan reports that Philip Hensher is “astonished” by the neglect of RS Surtees (The New Society, 11 September). If you read only one of Surtees’s novels, make it Handley Cross. It captures the character of a small town community before the railways and Victorian bureaucracy swept it away. Above all, it is hilarious and laid a path for writers to explore how ridiculous people with all their pretensions and failings can be.
Rupert Marlow, Turnastone, Herefordshire

Big step rightwards

The AfD’s victory in Saxony-Anhalt is a political earthquake, but it should not be mistaken for an automatic mandate to govern (Continental Drift, 11 September). With 43.8 per cent of the vote, the party won decisively yet fell short of a majority.

The more urgent question is why parties have failed so comprehensively. The CDU’s collapse to 17 per cent demonstrates that moving right on immigration does not contain the far right; it merely confirms that mainstream parties have run out of ideas.
Federico Forni, London SW15

Money comes, money goes

If Anoosh Chakelian and this government are searching for a better descriptor for how governments should spend money, they could try “we make money work for you” (Bursting the Bubble, 11 September).

Money spent for people spreads throughout communities and generations. Money spent for corporations disappears into tax-avoiding savings via capitalism.
Sheila Currie, Cromarty, Scotland

A loose liberal

In Lee Siegel’s intriguing piece on Richard Hofstadter (The New Society, 11 September) he said that, prior to the rise of McCarthyite paranoia in the late 1950s, the US had a “liberal consensus” agreed by both parties.

I find this extraordinary. It ignores the continued repression of black citizens, particularly in the “Solid South”; the Truman Doctrine and US involvement in foreign wars; as well as the well-documented activities of J Edgar Hoover, the paranoiac’s paranoiac. Maybe it depends on what you mean by “liberal”.
Joel Donovan, London W4

Lezardissimo

I have been a New Statesman subscriber for 50 years. I enjoy the articles by many of the contributors, but I must especially congratulate Nicholas Lezard. At his best – as in his emotive account of life with an elderly loved one with dementia (Down and Out, 11 September) – his writings resonate with universal experiences. And when he’s really on song, he is the master of the perfectly crafted final sentence.
Robert Davis, London NW10

We reserve the right to edit letters

[Further reading: Will AI kill us all?]