Boris Johnson’s Kyiv trip was a cynically calculated manoeuvre

Letters to the editor: our readers share their views. Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

Johnson claims to have gone there purely to show solidarity with his ‘Ukrainian friends’ but that is only partially true (Reuters)

Lo and behold, Boris Johnson has unexpectedly travelled by train to Kyiv to hold face-to-face talks with Volodymyr Zelensky which, on the surface, is pretty impressive, as thus far no other world leader has done so.

Johnson claims to have gone there purely to show solidarity with his “Ukrainian friends” but that, of course, is only partially true. Undoubtedly, the primary reason he went was to impress not only the international community and media, but more importantly, to silence his detractors in this country. From that perspective, it is a cynically calculated but brilliant move as henceforth he shall be dubbed “Brave Boris” by the Tory press ad nauseam.

Nadine Dorries will swoon with adoration. Liz Truss will probably grind her teeth in fury because she didn’t think of doing it herself first, and male ministers will speak of him with admiration tinged with reverence. Yawn.

Some of the general public here will change their minds about him whilst others will, at the very least, begrudgingly acknowledge that it was a clever manoeuvre on his behalf. Killing many birds with one stone. Whoever it was that came up with the idea definitely deserves a slow handclap.

Linda Evans

London

French election

Maybe it’s the constant need for hyperbole and drama, but the predictions in some of the UK media of a “dangerously close” race between Macron and the new, slightly sanitised Le Pen seem over-stated.

It could be that – as with the assumed “shoe in” of Ed Miliband which never happened – sometimes those who think they are in the know just aren’t. But, could there be something else at play here?

Yes, the next round could go against all historical precedent and Le Pen could win, but it is not looking that way. As we already have a right-wing blonde clown in charge and wrecking the UK – maybe some elements would just feel better if our nearest neighbour also did.

Amanda Baker

Edinburgh

Double standards

It’s fine and dandy for Rishi Sunak to make a major fuss about his wife’s tax status, but there are some double standards here.

If I were a benefit claimant, all of my household income and taxation would be taken into account in making the calculations. I understand the inequality of the scale of money involved here, but what’s the moral difference?

Richard Lloyd

Dunfermline

Misleading parliament

Thousands are upset that government ministers are not correcting the official record for misleading parliament and most ordinary MPs can’t correct it themselves.

Is it time that the House of Commons moved immediately into the 21st century and allowed MPs to immediately vote via their mobile phones when they felt they were being misled in the chamber?

The speaker could then, if a majority in the chamber felt they were being misled, demand the MP returns at a set date and time with their evidence. This protest could be recorded in Hansard, the official record of all parliamentary debates.

Kartar Uppal

Sutton Coldfield

Channel 4

The decision to privatise Channel 4 shows the government’s remarkable lack of understanding of the television industry. Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, who is supposedly driving this project, was astounded to discover that the channel is not funded by taxpayers, but by advertising!

Channel 4 is a public service broadcaster, producing, broadcasting and distributing media content, including films for cinemas. They also make programmes which are specifically in the public interest.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment, sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

Most of their income can be spent on making quality programmes, instead of having to fill the pockets of shareholders. The British public directly benefit from Channel 4 being an independent, public service broadcaster, and unlike the majority of commercial TV companies, the channel has the freedom to innovate and encourage new ideas and formats.

British televisual innovation and creativity has enriched the medium across the world. It is very highly regarded globally, and shows like Poldark, Sherlock, The Great British Bake Off (which originated on the BBC), Strictly Come Dancing, MasterChef and many others are shown around the world, generating billions in revenue that flows into this country.

The fact that ministers compare Netflix with the Channel 4 output shows just how out of touch they are. The two companies perform very different functions.

The suspicion is that the privatisation is Boris Johnson’s petty revenge for pricking his remarkably thin skin. In investigative documentaries like Channel 4’s Dispatches, the government has been criticised. Perhaps the prime minister wants a more compliant media, just like Vladimir Putin.

Pete Milory

Trowbridge