Kwasi Kwarteng and Boris Johnson share one obvious trait

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

The reliance on a series of U-turns, that were so much a part of the Johnson administration, will be both inevitable and terminally damaging to his political reputation (AP)

We are told that the chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng, has a brilliant intellect and has been held up throughout his life as among the most intelligent of his peers. Similarly, the previous prime minister was often described as “highly intelligent” by those who were blinded by his ready wit and classical education.

As well as sharing similar educational backgrounds, they also have one other trait in common. The inability to think ahead, plan carefully and gauge the consequences of their actions seems to sit alongside their much vaunted intelligence.

In the case of Kwarteng, the failure to calculate the impact of his ideologically driven tax cuts on public services that have been savaged already by a succession of Tory government blunders – austerity measures, exit from the EU and mismanagement of the pandemic – is staggering in its economic and political naivety.

The reliance on a series of U-turns, that were so much a part of the Johnson administration, will be both inevitable and terminally damaging to his political reputation – if not his future earning potential. It is to be hoped that the consequences for the chancellor – and the current prime minister – are similar to those meted out to their recently disgraced predecessor.

Graham Powell

Cirencester

The health secretary and deputy prime minister Thérèse Coffey is refusing to comment on policy that might or might not happen because it is “hypothetical”.

She may need to be reminded that all government policy is hypothetical until it actually happens – and even then it can be reversed, as with the national insurance rise that was supposed to “fix” social care and the NHS backlog.

In the long-ago period when Theresa May was PM, I was speaking to some European scientists about confusing aspects of the English language when someone asked about the difference between “assure” and “ensure”.

I gave the example of the PM “assuring” us repeatedly that the UK would leave the EU on 29 March 2018, but noted that she was unable to “ensure” this happened. This perfect explanation remains the sole Brexit benefit I have personally experienced (and that was only when it didn’t happen).

For this Coffey, I would ask her to remember that “hypotheticals” are all we have to go on. Unsatisfactory as they are, she is surely in a better position to suggest how they are going to work than the voters who will now have to add losing their home to the list of other disasters for which the Tory government bears responsibility.

Katharine Powell

Neston

The Tories cared about children once

I’m old enough to remember when even Tory governments cared about children. My father was killed in a road accident in 1955 leaving my mother penniless with me aged 10 and my sister aged three.

My sister immediately qualified for free nursery care so that our mother could work as a cleaner and I qualified for free school meals. This help was provided by the local council in Grimsby. Our mother later became a school dinner lady.

Despite our situation, there was always food on the table and never any need to steal to survive. The following year I passed the 11+ and went to grammar school. The council stepped in again providing my mother with vouchers to cover the cost of the compulsory school uniform.

Successive governments have reduced local councils ability to help poor families, with the result that food banks are everywhere and nobody in government seems to care. As my own experience shows, it doesn’t have to be this way.

Alan Lammin

Dumfries

How would England cope without the rest of the UK?

Nicola Sturgeon’s view of the Tory government is widely shared by many Scots. Liz Truss said the first minister should be “ignored”, but by that she showed that she thought Scotland should be ignored (and I suspect she has similar views on Wales and Ireland). And this from the most inept PM we have ever had.

In truth, many people would love to see England try to cope without the devolved nations. Power supplies, water supplies, reduced tax income and a drain on talent would soon take its toll. After all, why else would they not wish for independence to succeed!

L Robertson

Orkney

A narrow history curriculum

I absolutely, 100 per cent agree with DJ Spoony in the Voices section.

For far too many years and far too many generations of children, the history curriculum in the UK has been narrow in its content, not reflective of the diversity of the UK population and as described to me recently by friends of my own grandchildren about to select GCSE subjects, frankly boring.

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

These children see no relevance to what they are being taught. Nothing to connect or relate to, which would power their thirst to want to learn more from the subject. The history of the UK is certainly vast and all the more reason why the selection of what is taught in schools should reflect the diversity of the peoples who have created that history.

More to the point, it should be taught with honesty and truth – warts and all. Teachers need to provide a platform that enables questioning and debate surrounding the traditional historical writings, which as DJ Spoony rightly points out is portrayed by the perspective of the victor.

Black and colonial history is of immense importance to the way our society and diversity of population is today. Our classrooms are made up of that very diversity and to bring that to life in a history lesson is now more needed than ever.

C Younis

Buckinghamshire