The Tory civil war over human rights proves only Keir Starmer’s Labour can lead now

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

The debate in itself proves that the Conservatives remain split down the middle (PA Wire)

So, yet again, there is a civil war in the Conservative Party, this time over the European Court of Human Rights, and it is yet again undermining the everyday work of the government.

Lee Anderson, Karl McCartney, and Robert Jenrick all want the Conservatives to leave the ECHR even though Rishi Sunak has pledged to govern within it. Have these people no idea what such a move would do to Britain’s once-respected global reputation and influence?

Even the highly respected MP for Henley, John Howell, the very man who took over from Boris Johnson so that he could become London mayor all those years ago, is on record as saying that he can’t see “any government moving away from the ECHR”.

Likewise, former Brexit secretary David Davis said that “calls to leave the ECHR are from those who clearly do not understand the basis of the problem”.

The debate in itself proves that the Conservatives remain split down the middle on Europe, thus undermining the work of good government which I believe only Sir Keir Starmer can now lead.

Geoffrey Brooking

Havant

A special Tory Logic

PM Sunak has blamed the crisis of NHS waiting lists on this year’s strikes; a catastrophe that has, in fact, been building for years under Tory rule.

The DUP’s Sammy Wilson has blamed the Irish government for the effects of Brexit, and Tory Mark Francoise has recently blamed another massive government failure – the disastrous asylum backlog – on none other than the European Court of Human Rights.

On this basis, I can only assume they think dolphins are responsible for the raw human sewage in the waterways?

Amanda Baker

Edinburgh

Speaking sense

“We can’t have global security without net zero. There’s no global security if millions of people are having to uproot because of weather patterns.” Well said, Grant Shapps.

At last, a politician (and a Tory one at that) addresses the heart of the issue when it comes to small boat crossings. In big contrast to Lee Anderson’s rant and other Tory rhetoric which amounts to trying to bail out a sinking ship while ignoring the hole beneath the water line. I fear however Mr Shapps’ will be an isolated comment amid the dog-whistling.

Paul Keeble

Manchester

The final straw

The Independent’s recent editorial describes the eyewatering hike in motor insurance premiums as seeming “remarkable, excessive, and grossly unfair”.

The amount of the rise should not be so surprising. UK energy price rises (pegged at 4 per cent in France) put it in the shade. We have a Tory government, and we have an industry that appears to be collusively profiteering at an eyewatering level whilst its executive remuneration soars to ever greater heights – there is nothing new here.

There seems little doubt that Rish Sunak will validate this free-market model and is unlikely to take action in the public interest. Were Mr Sunak to try thinking of it as inflicting the sort of inflationary damage he associates with strikes, frequently wrongly, he might be inclined to treat it accordingly.

It certainly affects us all, but somewhat disproportionately. This will not go down well, particularly in rural England, an erstwhile Tory stronghold. It must be apparent by now that in the face of a continuous assault on their disposable income the public will not simply “keep calm and carry on”. For some, this may prove to be the final straw.

Even more votes, and seats, lost? Nothing new there either.

David Nelmes

Newport

Separation of church and state has never been more vital

Recently I attended a Festival of Politics event which discussed how it had been 35 years since the inception of Section 28, a hateful and now repealed government act which sought to ban the “promotion” of homosexuality as a “pretended family relationship.” Though I lived through it at the time it was still shocking to be reminded that gay relationships were believed to be “pretended” and of the absurd idea that children would have chosen to be gay simply because they knew about the existence of LGBT+ people.

Many battles have been won since those days but we are reminded that outstanding LGBT+ inequalities are largely religiously based – faith schools are exempt from providing LGBT+ inclusive sex and relationships classes that should run counter to their “ethos”, a full ban on so-called gay conversion therapy was met with demands that “pray away the gay” uniquely should be allowed to continue, and unrepentant homophobic views are to be excused even in candidates for first minister if they are religiously derived.

We cannot prevent that minority of believers who still hold these views from privately doing so, but separation of church and state is absolutely vital to prevent them being deployed from a position of advantage or privilege.

Neil Barber

Edinburgh