Will Lloyd’s thought-provoking analysis of the monarchy (Cover Story, 31 October) undervalues cross-generational ties. For Edmund Burke, society is a “partnership between those who are living, dead and yet to be born”. It is easy to dismiss this sentiment as reactionary, yet the opposite is true: without a connection to our past, we become severed from our future, for once the future becomes the present, the present will be the past. An ecologically and economically conscious politics must begin with a reverence for our inherited institutions, traditions and land.
The institution of the monarchy esteems service, duty and obligation – a vital counterweight to the dominant liberal value of self-realisation. And the distinction between the Windsors and the institution of monarchy is a critical one in light of Andrew Mountbatten Windsor’s repugnant actions. For the false comforts of moral indignation cannot compensate for the loss of our ancient constitution’s timeless wisdom. We would do better to heed TS Eliot’s recognition that “A people without history/Is not redeemed from time, for history is a pattern/Of timeless moments.”
Teymour Gray, London W12
Royal service
I loved Will Lloyd’s take-down of the monarchy, but in one respect at least he underestimated the degree of bowing and scraping to that questionable institution. Assuming that Athelstan was the first king of England (disputed I know), we have had 1,098, not 365, years of such servitude. It was only between 1649 and 1660 that we English did not have a monarch to bow and scrape to.
Colin Richards, Spark Bridge, Cumbria
Will Lloyd’s passionate polemic against the monarchy is unsound: it mistakes a family crisis for a constitutional one. Andrew’s disgrace requires accountability, not abolition. Lloyd’s central argument – that one prince’s misconduct delegitimises the entire institution – would equally invalidate any system with flawed members. Parliamentary expenses scandals, judicial misconduct, presidential corruption: all exist without prompting calls to abolish parliament, courts or republics. His evidence is cherry-picked. Does three royal “interventions” across 94 years constitute systematic democratic subversion? Thousands of politically neutral interactions vanish from his analysis. I’m afraid this is advocacy, not assessment.
Most remarkably, Lloyd compares our constitutional monarchy to… nothing. No examination of republican scandals, French presidential corruption, or Chinese authoritarian overreach. The monarchy is judged against theoretical perfection rather than actual alternatives.
That your writer cannot distinguish between institutional failure and individual alleged criminality suggests his conclusion preceded his evidence.
Matthew Kilcoyne, London E1
While I praise Lloyd for the intelligence and lateral thinking of his assessment of the monarchy, I wonder if he’s missed the fundamental point. Isn’t it the whole point of the British constitutional monarchy that it is the best protection against a dictatorial takeover of the political system? The fact that we don’t have a president means that the head of state cannot become a political lackey of a dangerous government. I say this out of practicality rather than any kind of enthusiasm for the monarchy or its members.
James Coyne, Bedford, Bedfordshire
Free radicals
When I got out of the bath this morning, two magazines had arrived with the post. The front of the New Statesman shouted, “No More Kings”. Coincidentally, the New Scientist cover announced, “No Space, No Time, No Particles”. Clearly, science is far more radical than politics.
Keith Evans, Pwllheli, Gwynedd
Lammy’s Labour
I read David Lammy’s article (Inside Westminster, 31 October) with interest. Several things can be true at once – there is global evidence of progressive parties defeating hard-right rivals, but also, the UK’s situation differs from that of countries such as Australia or Norway, owing to our particular national decline. The next UK election is less than four years away, which may render contemporary comparisons meaningless when voters go to the ballot box.
But there is also one stubborn untruth that runs against the grain of Lammy’s argument: that UK Labour is no longer truly progressive. I agree with Lammy’s examples of how the British state is trying to evolve, and with his optimism about the opportunities presented by the green economy and AI. Yet, because Labour has never articulated a sufficiently progressive agenda – one that recognises the scale of change the country requires – it stands little chance in the next election, despite the international comparisons Lammy cites.
Chris Jones, London SE15
David Lammy should read the previous Cover Story by Andrew Marr (24 October) for a dose of reality about the political skills of our Prime Minister. Unless they improve, the actions Lammy sees as positives will not be recognised by the public.
As with New Labour, it isn’t only about what government does; it is also about what it doesn’t do. Reform of the civil service and the House of Lords and the abolition of academies are just a few examples of actions I look forward to. Then they may retain my vote. Otherwise it’s off to the Green Party.
Moira Sykes, Didsbury, Manchester
Fiscal misrules
George Eaton refers to the calls from “left-leaning economists to loosen [Rachel Reeves’] fiscal rules” (Politics, 31 October). New data released by the Working Group on Progressive Economics shows that such left-leaning economists are justified in demanding this of Rachel Reeves.
Before we had fiscal rules prior to 1997, the ratio of debt to GDP was falling, and real, per capita GDP rose from around £6,000 to around £26,000. But every set of fiscal rules since the first – and we are now on the tenth – has corresponded with poorer economic performance.
The rules have not prevented debt and they have corresponded with almost zero growth. There is no evidence in our history to support this kind of fiscal rule.
It’s nothing to do with left- or right-leaning economists; it’s that the rules are neither credible nor reliable as a guide to responsible spending, and they never could be. But of course, that is precisely what they are used for.
David Murray, Wallington, Surrey
La France, c’est nous
It was a delight to read Julian Jackson’s bravura analysis of Emmanuel Macron and France’s entwined troubles (The NS Essay, 31 October). Unlike Macron, Jackson’s insights had a genuine Jupiterian scope. I was also struck by how similar France’s problems – ballooning debt, unaffordable pensions and angry citizens – are to our own.
The French may argue about their issues in a more mellifluous language and over better food and wine, but our countries and their challenges have more in common than we often care to admit.
Robert Dear, Enfield, London
Mean testing
Both of your correspondents, Matt Hammond (Correspondence, 24 October), who wants the state pension “means tested”, and Andrew Wardrop (Correspondence, 31 October), who calls for a “more targeted approach to pensions”, miss a fundamental point. We have become addicted to means testing (including, for example, child benefit) as the way to fiscal prudence and social justice.
Whatever happened to the social democratic commitment to both universal benefits for key demographic cohorts (children and post-retirement elders) as a statement of our civic cohesion, combined with progressive income tax? The latter is fairer and much easier to administer; my state pension is paid gross and taxed. That’s the proper route for means testing.
John Crawley, Beverley, Yorkshire
Close reading
I turn to the New Statesman in search of incisive commentary and analysis but more than anything for memorable sentences. A few recent highlights include Finn McRedmond (Silver Spoon, 17 October): “John Lewis is the spiritual antithesis to Italy”; Nicolas Lezard (Down and Out, 24 October): “And then the sea, which is beyond honesty”; and Will Lloyd on Prince William (Cover Story, 31 October): “He watches Aston Villa and may even be able to name their second-choice goalkeeper.” Long may they continue to delight.
Anthony Wilson, Plymouth, Devon
Correction: Apologies to Helena Kennedy for erroneously reporting in Commons Confidential (31 October) that she had been refused a US visa. The Labour peer and human rights lawyer has been in touch to clarify that she is still in possession of her visa
Write to letters@newstatesman.co.uk
We reserve the right to edit letters
[Further reading: The vindication of V for Vendetta]
Content from our partners
Related
This article appears in the 06 Nov 2025 issue of the New Statesman, Exposed: Britain's next maternity scandal