There are self-made MPs in Westminster, but Rishi Sunak isn’t one of them

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

The chancellor had some very clear advantages to begin with (PA)

Is Rishi Sunak really self-made, as Salma Shah suggests? The chancellor’s father was a GP, his mother a pharmacist. They were probably not rich, but they were wealthy enough to send him to private schools for his education, which was almost certainly a major contribution towards his subsequent education at Oxford and Stanford.

This, in turn, placed him in an excellent position for his career in venture capital where he made his money.

In my book, a self-made person is one that starts with few advantages in life, but by sheer determination and hard work achieves significant success in whatever field they choose – and that doesn’t necessarily mean great wealth.

Since we’re discussing the field of politics, people such as Angela Rayner, Jess Phillips or even Keir Starmer spring to mind. Liam Fox would be a Tory example.

Rishi Sunak probably worked hard to get to where he is, and certainly married well, but he had some very clear advantages to start with and can hardly be described as self-made.

Antony Robson

Address supplied

Delusions of Churchill

It is amazing how the government can suddenly find £1bn on weapons for Ukraine but cannot give frontline workers a decent pay rise. No one would oppose support for Ukraine, but why is the UK so much to the fore? The UK is not a superpower.

Many will see the role taken by the UK as laudable, but others may wonder how much it has to do with the prime minister’s delusions of grandeur.

Boris Johnson is a fan of Winston Churchill and some will feel that much of what is going on now has something to do with his efforts to emulate the great man, as well as deflect from home difficulties.

Everyone though must be united in a desire to see peace in Ukraine, not an escalation of the conflict.

Paul Donovan

London

Voting reform

Although Johnson’s legacy looks as if it is going to be something like “the worst prime minister in modern times”, I believe he could claw back some credibility by introducing a proper system of proportional representation.

Why not factor each MP’s vote in the House in proportion to the average number of votes it took to get a member of his/her party elected? And legislate that any referendum concerning significant change should require a two thirds majority to count as a vote for that change.

Perhaps it would be a kindness to Johnson, as well as a benefit to the country, if we all started campaigning for the above to all the political parties and the Electoral Reform Society (do they still exist?) to help him achieve some sort of record of achievement.

Tony Baker

Thirsk

We disagree that ECT should be banned

Depression is more prevalent in women than men, and severe depression is more common in older people. The ECT statistics quoted in this article, therefore, reflect the demographic of people affected by this condition. A similar ratio of women and men have electroconvulsive therapy in other countries.

ECT is also reserved for people with severe depression. That 36 per cent of people receive it without consent demonstrates that it is reserved for severely ill people, where individuals may be unable to consent and treatment is given within the protections afforded by the Mental Health Act.

There is a wealth of scientific literature that shows ECT is an effective treatment for severe depression and catatonia. In fact, research shows an effect size that is amongst the highest for treatments used in psychology and psychiatry.

Memory problems are a cardinal feature in untreated severe depression and most aspects of memory functioning actually improve following the course of ECT, reflecting the effects of recovery. The evidence is clear on this, though in some patients, some aspects of autobiographical memory may be affected, and this is acknowledged in the literature, and by the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

Any medical treatment comes with benefits and risks, from the use of chemotherapy to taking ibuprofen. This is true of ECT and these benefits and risks should be discussed in each case, in keeping with the Royal College of Psychiatrists guidance. Severe depression is life-threatening and to advocate for withholding an evidence-based treatment in these severe cases exposes some of the most severely ill patients to prolonged suffering and increased risk.

We strongly disagree with the assertions being made about ECT as we feel the evidence behind those claims is unjustified by the relevant scientific literature. We see this as potentially harmful. We are considering the treatment of people with the most serious of mental illnesses (severe depression and catatonia) who are unlikely to benefit from other treatments (including talking or drug therapies) and who are at significant risk of harm, including death. These individuals have the right, as do people with all illnesses, to be presented with the best quality evidence in a measured and accurate fashion so that they can make informed decisions about their treatment.

If anyone is worried about the current treatment they are receiving for depression, we would recommend that they should speak to their doctor, who will be able to explain the risks and benefits in their particular circumstances.

Dr Sameer Jauhar, consultant psychiatrist, Coast Early Intervention in Psychosis Team, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust

Prof Allan Young, professor of mood disorders, Institute of Psychiatry Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London (IoPPN)

Prof Oliver Howes, professor of molecular psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London (IoPPN)

Prof George Kirov, clinical professor, Division of Psychological Medicine and Clinical Neurosciences , University of Cardiff

Prof Bill Deakin, professor of psychiatry (Emeritus), University of Manchester

Prof Carmine Pariante, professor of biological psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London (IoPPN)

Prof Guy Goodwin, emeritus professor of psychiatry, University of Oxford and Chief Medical Officer, Compass Pathways

Prof David Nutt, Prof David Nutt, the Edmond J Safra chair and head of the Centre for Neuropsychopharmacology, Division of Brain Sciences, Dept of Medicine, Imperial College London

Dr Michael Bloomfield, UKRI future leader principal clinical research fellow, Institute of Mental Health, University College London (UCL)

Prof Andreas Reif, head of Department of Psychiatry, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University

Prof Anthony Cleare, professor of psychopharmacology and affective disorders, Institute of Psychiatry Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London (IoPPN)

Prof Rupert McShane, chair, ECT and Related Treatments Committee, Royal College of Psychiatrists

Prof Declan McLoughlin, research professor of psychiatry, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland

Dr Mario Juruena, clinical senior lecturer in translational psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London (IoPPN)

Prof Robert Howard, professor of old age psychiatry, University College London (UCL)

Dr Julian Beezhold, secretary general, European Psychiatric Association (EPA)

Dr Tania Gergel, Wellcome Trust senior research fellow, Institute of Psychiatry Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London (IoPPN)

Dr Leon Rozewicz, medical director, Priory North London Hospital

Damage to our NHS

Towards the end of Margaret Thatcher’s three terms as prime minister, my father was in hospital suffering from pneumonia, and nurses were forced to wrap sheets around his pillows due to a shortage of laundered pillow cases.

It would appear from your article yesterday on linen shortages that the NHS are in a similar situation again after 12 years of Conservative government, years of damaging health cuts and the foreseeable impacts of Brexit.

Will the NHS ever be safe in Tory hands?

Jane Mogford

Gloucestershire

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

Areas of outstanding beauty

During the pandemic, millions of people, from across the UK visited national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty to boost their health and wellbeing. But these vital landscapes are increasingly under threat.

The legislation to protect and support these places was developed in an era before climate change, biodiversity loss and before inequalities in access were so evident. Now, it urgently needs updating to support national parks in realising their full potential for nature, people and climate.

Today in Westminster, we’re recognising the incredible work taking place across the national parks through our Park Protector Awards, from teams of volunteers looking after well-used paths and supporting people from all backgrounds to visit, to hard-hitting campaigns to protect national parks from water pollution.

We’re calling on the government to match this energy and enthusiasm by taking forward specific legislation that will ensure nationalparks thrive for generations to come. There is a narrow window of opportunity for implementing these changes in parliament, and the government must seize it with both hands.

Nick Hall

Chief executive, Campaign for National Parks