Letters: Nation of monarchist hypocrites hits back

These letters appear in the 4th March issue of The Independent

It would be nice, just for a change, to have a comment piece celebrating Englishness; instead we have the usual dreary accusation from the commentariat of hypocrisy; first from Alan Bennett, and then from Rosie Millard (3 March).

Some of these accusations relate to the actions of governments: thus “we” take pride in Shakespeare, but “we” close libraries; “we” boast about “our” NHS, but then “we” introduce the Private Finance Initiative. But it is worth pointing out, first, that “we” have only limited control over “our” governments, and second, that “we” the English, unlike the Scots and Welsh, do not have a government. PFI was championed by Gordon Brown: guess what, a Scot. But all policies are compromises between different goals, some better than others.

Rosie Millard goes further than Alan Bennett: “we” boast about “our” democracy, but have a monarchy, not a republic; but, again, it is the British monarchy, not the English; and in any case, it is a matter for debate whether a constitutional monarchy is undemocratic. No system is perfectly democratic.

But what really gets my goat is that when people like Alan Bennett and Rosie Millard say “we are hypocritical” they do not really mean that they are hypocritical, but that other people are; now that is hypocritical.

John Dakin

Toddington, Bedfordshire

Rosie Millard’s views are a little skewed if she really believes that the monarchy stops us being a proper democracy. Our monarch can safely be ignored for most practical purposes, particularly if you live outside the circles in which she moves: and I can’t say that I have wasted much of my life fawning over her. But, as head of state, she prevents ultimate authority being in the hands of the Westminster rabble we call politicians. She is also relatively cheap to run, and a popular asset to the country.

The alternatives are awful to contemplate. Should we copy the American model (which we undoubtedly would), where an incoming president has to start campaigning for the next election almost as soon as he takes office?

Or perhaps the German model would suit us better: a titular head of state chosen from the ranks of retired politicians and academics, and whose name nobody can remember without looking it up.

Looking around the most truly democratic countries of Europe, the countries with the greatest social mobility and cohesion, and where people seem most prosperous and content, the names Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands inevitably come high on the list.

Guess what? They are all constitutional monarchies. How undemocratic of them.

John Williams

West Wittering, West Sussex

BBC’s unfair demand for our money

The BBC is annoyed that people can legally watch catch-up TV without a TV licence. This has resulted in politicians suggesting we should adopt Germany’s system of funding the TV licence: a broadcasting levy is applied to every household, regardless of whether it has a television.

This, however, would be very unfair to those, like myself, who do not possess a computer or TV and who never watch live or catch-up TV anywhere. I would rather let myself be jailed than pay for something I choose not to use.

Surely it would be fairer to change the law to make watching catch-up TV illegal without a TV licence. A unique user name and pin number could then be issued to every household with their TV licence to allow access to catch-up TV.

Mark Richards

Brighton

Playing a dangerous game in Ukraine

How apt, Roger Cartland’s letter (2 March). In effect, despite the removal of the Iron Curtain, America has sought to contain Russia and has used the “democracy” card to justify this, while seeking to expand Nato into previously Russian-held territories.

Yet, the people of Crimea and north-east of the Ukraine are mainly Russian speaking, and are of Russian descent. Their motherland is Russia. If we are to speak of democracy, plainly these people have the right to decide who they wish to be allied with. That is the very same right that we expect for ourselves.

The West is playing a very dangerous game here. The obligations of being a member of Nato are that an attack upon one member state is to be considered an attack upon them all. So to draft Nato into Ukraine, where there is an existing conflict, will bring the superpowers into direct confrontation. Very dangerous and badly thought out. Ukraine would be better as a buffer state, albeit slightly diminished.

V Yarker

Maldon, Essex

With terrifying hubris and irresponsibility, David Cameron is sending UK troops to Ukraine to help those fighting Russian separatists (“British troops to ‘train soldiers’ in Ukraine”, 25 February).

Like the insecure school bully who must stick his ham fists into every conflict, the Government cannot refrain from its serial warmongering, in spite of the disasters in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan which resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Cameron declares that the EU must stand up to Mr Putin, clearly illustrating his state of denial at the way the West provokes Russia, with Nato now moved right across Europe to the very border of Russia in Latvia and Estonia.

Surely it’s time our politicians dropped their grotesque “evil empire” attitude to Russia.

Jim McCluskey

Twickenham, Middlesex

Why prices are falling

David Blanchflower’s article on deflation (2 March) confirms what most of the population have known for the better part of two decades. Too many rich people are removing too much from the market economy.

Consequently, consumers cannot afford to buy enough of the products manufactures have made. Over-supply leads to falling prices. There is no shortage of money; just too much money in the wrong place. Ecologically, deflation might be a good thing. It is less good for economic stability.

Martin London

Henllan, Denbighshire

One law for the rich, no law for the poor

Amnesty International’s observation that legal aid cuts “continue to restrict access to justice” (“Britain leading the charge against basic human rights”, 25 February) is correct, but if current policies continue to eradicate this vital service, then access to justice won’t just be restricted – for many people, it will be eliminated altogether.

We are heading towards a system of justice only for the rich. As well as legal aid cuts hitting the poor, low and middle-income earners are about to face a hike of up to 600 per cent in court fees. These will price the public out of the courts and leave small businesses saddled with debts they are due but cannot afford to recover. The Law Society has started legal action over this “flat tax”.

State provision for people to redress wrongs through the courts is the hallmark of a civilised society. If there is not justice for all, there can be no justice at all.

Andrew Caplen

President, The Law Society of England & Wales.

London WC2

Architects team up with engineers

I, in turn, was disappointed to read Robin Luxmore’s letter (2 March), perpetuating stereotypes of the impractical “designer”.

My architectural training included lectures and design coursework in structural and services engineering. I also understand building construction and materials, both modern and historic.

As with many other architects, I am not just a “pretty face”. Because of my training I am able to engage in fruitful collaboration with engineers, to produce interesting and loved buildings. They enjoy working with me and their contribution is acknowledged.

I designed my earliest church at the age of 21. For this job, the engineer wanted a large concrete ring beam to contain the thrust of the roof. I wanted a glazed clerestorey and I wanted the roof to float over it. So I suggested direct-glazing a vierendeel truss instead. He looked at me and said: “You are right. We could do something along those lines. I just need some ties as well further up the structure”... from which we suspended the lights. Result.

Francesca Weal RIBA SCA

Welwyn, Hertfordshire

Solar panels on roofs, not fields

Janet Street-Porter (28 February) is entirely correct to highlight the foolishness of covering arable land with solar panels when they could so easily be mounted on the roofs of buildings, huge numbers of which already face and tilt towards the sun.

A Martian observing a country already far from self-sufficient in food covering good land to make “green electricity” would rightly conclude we must be barmy.

I write both as a supporter and (roof-based) producer of solar power.

Tim Colgrave

Birmingham