Letters: Stop the War has been right every time

The following letters appear in the 16th December 2015 edition of The Independent

Jeremy Corbyn in 2012, speaking at Stop the War coalition's 11th anniversary protest against the war in Afghanistan calling for troops to be brought home by Christmas (Corbis)

Your editorial “Pacifism redefined” (11 December) is a good example of the incoherence of the muddled middle. You might ask yourself why it is that Jeremy Corbyn’s decision to attend the Stop the War Coalition’s dinner should attract such criticism, when MPs being wined and dined by the corrupt arms lobby merits no attention.

For all its faults, the Stop the War Coalition has been consistently right in its opposition to Britain clinging to the US military’s coat tails. There has been nothing positive in our wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria. Stop the War has consistently got it right and those who supported war have been consistently wrong.

We would not need to even be debating the merits of bombing Isis if there had been no invasion of Iraq. We were lied to when it was claimed that Saddam Hussein was sponsoring terrorism. It became however a self-fulfilling prophecy and what is now Isis came directly from that war.

Today we are in alliance with the main sponsor of jihadist groups, Saudi Arabia. The concern of Turkey is not Isis, for whom it acts as a rear supply base and oil trader, but the secular Kurds whose PKK we have obligingly declared as “terrorists”.

You have even got it wrong when you talk about Stop the War’s alleged pacifism. It is an anti-imperialist not a pacifist group.

Tony Greenstein

Brighton

Thousands of members walked away from the Labour Party disappointed, dismayed and disgusted by the domestic and foreign policies pursued by New Labour.

With the Party’s machinery firmly in the hands of Blair, Brown, Blunkett, Benn and Balls potential Labour councillors and potential MPs were blocked if they did not subscribe to the leadership’s neo-liberalism and lickspittle adherence to US foreign policy. Thus the Labour Party underwent a process of ruthless political cleansing.

Now that their hegemony is under challenge the old guard squeal accusations of extremism and entryism at every criticism, no matter what the source, be it Corbyn, rank-and-file party members or supporters of the Stop the War Coalition.

Colin Yardley

Chislehurst, Kent

Your most spirited and entertaining political commentator has emerged as a valiant follower of Emerson, the great American moralist who noted that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”.

Matthew Norman, who one day before the Oldham results came out, regretted “the lack of a viable opposition” and dismissed Labour under Corbyn’s leadership as good only for an “infinite supply of cheap belly laughs”, on 7 December wrote an incisive article in which he makes it very clear that Corbyn is now up against “his own Tea Party”. I rejoiced to read it; all is forgiven!

Carla M Wartenberg

London NW3

When we opposed the Iraq war, Blair labelled us “misguided”. In opposing the current intervention Cameron has now branded us “terrorist sympathisers”. Only time will tell whether Cameron’s 70,000 Syrian moderates are as illusory as Blair’s weapons of mass destruction.

Patrick Lavender

Kilkhampton, Cornwall

Government holds up tidal power scheme

Professor Peter Wadhams (letter, 15 December) lists several renewable energy schemes which are suffering or failing because of the lack of commitment and funding by our “green” Conservative government.

I would like to add the Swansea Bay Barrage to Professor Wadhams’ list. The plans for a £1bn tidal energy lagoon in Swansea bay are a world first and are well advanced.

As well as providing energy from the second highest tidal flow in the world, the scheme would provide hundreds of much-needed jobs and would be a great boost to the local tourist economy.

However, everything is on hold pending a much-delayed decision on government funding. The longer the delay, it seems, the less likely it is that the lagoon will be built.

Mike Stroud

Swansea

Cold callers invade our homes

Emilie Lamplough compares the treatment of cold callers with that of assistants in a shop or cafe (letter, 15 December). That is a false analogy.

It is my choice whether or not I enter a shop or a cafe, and so the assistants do not invade my privacy, nor interrupt what I was doing or disturb the right to peace and quiet in my own home.

Derrick Tucker

Farnham, Surrey

Of course we are angry with cold callers but not with waiters or cashiers.

They disturb us in whatever we were doing and cause us to hurry to the phone, cheerfully thinking we will hear a friend’s voice.

They treat us like fools, since some start with the obvious lie “My name is Bobby” in a strong foreign accent, others with fake concern: “How are you today, Miss X? Wonderful!”

They usually gabble. They never apologise. And we know that most are crooks aiming to sell us rubbish, or to get at our financial data, or to hack our computers.

Jacqueline Simpson

Worthing, West Sussex

One approach that I believe Ofcom (or the Government if legislation were needed) might take would be to ensure that Caller Line Identity (CLI) is always transmitted to the recipient by the telephone companies, so that the dreaded “number withheld” is avoided.

Then those of us with the facility could choose to block the specific numbers that are used by unwanted callers. Should the calls be potential fraud or scams, then we could report the offending number to the police.

This may not be a complete cure, and no doubt the spammers would try to find some way around it, but it would be a start.

Roger Thomas

Aberlady, East Lothian

When I take cold calls at work I say: “You are through to the charity that gives patients advice about genital herpes. How may I help you?”

This usually ends the conversation, unless the caller actually wants advice.

Nigel Scott

Head of Information

Herpes Viruses Association

London N7

The insidious magic of branded painkillers

Richard Headland, editor of Which?, recommends that consumers should buy generic versions of common painkillers rather than high-price branded products whenever possible (“Exposed: the painkiller labelling scam”, 15 December).

Good advice. However, a few years ago I was teaching consumer behaviour to second-year students in the business school at the University of Roehampton, and I was curious to explore their preferences for everyday painkilling products.

The question I posed to the students was this: for an identical price you can buy either Nurofen or a generic product from a leading, trusted supermarket which is chemically identical and will have identical effects in the body.

All of them stated that they would purchase the Nurofen, which they considered somehow superior to the generic version.

The experience taught me, and hopefully some of them, about brand magic, the non-rational element that informs our consumer purchases, whether of painkillers, smartphones or foreign holidays.

Sean Carey

St Albans, Hertfordshire

How France keeps extremists out

The French electoral system was specifically designed to prevent any party from securing election without securing the support of a majority of those who vote. This is clearly intended to protect democracy.

A similar outcome could be achieved by proportional representation of various kinds. The French do it by having two rounds to elections. It is perhaps more democratic than a system which allows a party to form a government with the support of only one third of the vote and only one quarter of the electorate – as happened in the latest British general election.

French Socialists may not want the Republican Party to win an election, but they may prefer the Republicans to the Front National. So in the second round the electorate can vote to prevent a minority party being elected on a minority vote. The parties can enhance this process by withdrawing candidates from the second round.

This is not a “conspiracy against the electorate”; it is upholding the principles of the French Constitution, designed to prevent extremist minorities gaining power.

Julius Marstrand

Cheltenham

Bald man in the White House?

Sally Barker (letter, 10 December) advocates a ban on toupées entering the White House.

Reassuringly, the late Gore Vidal prophesied that America would never elect a bald president. But is the American electorate bright enough to see beyond the wig?

Peter Forster

London N4