More turmoil

Sir: The comparisons made by Kate Andrews between the post-2008 settlement and the ‘Austerity 2.0’ Budget last week seem accurate and this is likely to have wider consequences (‘The squeeze’, 19 November). The failure of growth and perceived lack of care for many in society post-2008 undoubtedly contributed to Brexit and the increased bifurcation of the electorate. Jeremy Hunt now appears to wish to add to intergenerational inequality by keeping the triple lock.

Trussism clearly failed at the point of prosecution, but at least it represented a new approach. The Sunak/Hunt answer, which makes no acknowledgement of the sacrifices made by the young during Covid, will produce more of the political turmoil we have experienced in the last decade. 

Ben Reavley

Balham, London

Squeezed millennials

Sir: The disingenuous waffle from Mr Hunt about hard choices in his Autumn Statement is insulting to those under 50 who have supported the Conservatives these past 12 years. In an attempt to repair his party’s mismanagement of the nation’s economy, Hunt is shackling millennial aspirations. The aim seems to be to keep interest rates low, house prices high, the out-of-work inactive and pensioners wealthy.

It’s not that we don’t understand hard choices need to be made. We are a poorer country now, and that cost must be borne by somebody. What sticks in the craw is the selective nature of this ‘austerity’, with the only group facing cuts being those in full-time work. A prudent economic strategy may have involved structural reform, monetary tightening and fiscal moderation. What we have instead is a direct transfer of wealth from younger workers to the government’s chosen client demographics in a cynical attempt to claw on to power. Gordon Brown would be proud.

As a university-educated millennial in full-time work, recently moved into the higher-rate tax band, people like me are needed to generate the wealth and economic growth needed to get out of the mess Mr Sunak created with his index-linked debt splurge. Instead, our ambitions have been sacrificed on the altar of the triple lock. Combined with the ditching of planning reform to housing and childcare, the Autumn Statement has sent a stark, clear message to people like me. And come the next election, Sunak will be hearing ours. 

Ben Johnson

Suffolk

Laptop lifestyle

Sir: Kate Andrews’s point that ‘fiscal drag’ will pull workers into higher tax brackets is perfectly logical. However, it would be naive to assume that all taxpayers are tied to UK workplaces with simply no choice but to pay up. Here in Thailand the cafés are overflowing with digital nomads living a much more comfortable and lower tax lifestyle than back home. The Autumn Statement will surely only accelerate the mass exodus of entrepreneurial youth, providing economists with a textbook example of the Laffer curve in action.

Neil Stanley

Phuket, Thailand

Whose ‘heritage’?

Sir: James Stourton’s complaint about my review of his Heritage reveals a certain sensitivity (Letters, 19 November). I feel I may have hit the target. When an author so grandiosely speaks for the totality of ‘heritage’, any reviewer must surely take a correspondingly broad view of that subject. Heritage drew on the same currents informing the anti-industrial sentiment that led to our present crisis of declining wealth and prestige. Stourton may be worried that I present him as a grumbling old fogey. If so, he should stop acting like one.

Stephen Bayley

London SW8

Terminal deception

Sir: My wife was diagnosed with terminal cancer in 1978 during a follow-up visit to hospital after a bowel operation (‘Lying in hospital’, 19 November). My wife was not told of this prognosis but was sent to see the nurse while I was told the facts. My first thought was that I would need to keep this diagnosis from her, which I did for the following eight months. I told our GP of my intention and he cooperated completely in this deception.

While I had no doubts at the time that this was the right course of action to take, I had to stop friends – who might have inadvertently made her aware of her situation – from visiting her, which is one of many valid criticisms of my decision. While by today’s standards (perhaps by any standard) my decision and the acquiescence of those who supported it, including all her family, was unethical, it allowed my wife to remain optimistic during the remaining months left to her.

On the downside, the expression of shock, distress and anger at being deceived on her face in the moments before she slipped into unconsciousness and passed away told me that I had no right to act in the way I had, even with the best of motives.

Paul Parker

Liphook, Hampshire

Qatar’s Christians

Sir: As the World Cup kicks off in Qatar and the country’s human rights record comes under increasing scrutiny, one persecuted group has been ignored: Christians. There are an estimated 372,000 Christians in Qatar, 13 per cent of the population. Yet according to Open Doors, Qatar is 18th on their watch list of countries where Christians are persecuted; one place below China. Among the (many) reasons I adore The Spectator is that it is one of the few publications that highlights what, in 2014, the then Prince of Wales described as an ‘indescribable tragedy’: namely the treatment of Christians in the Middle East. Perhaps our footballers should wear a cross as well as rainbow armbands?

The Revd Robin Weekes

Wimbledon

Write to us: letters@spectator.co.uk

The post Letters: What about Qatar’s Christians? appeared first on The Spectator.

Get 10 issues for just $10

Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for the next 10 magazine issues, plus full online access, for just $10.

SUBSCRIBE 10 issues for $10 REGISTER 3 articles a month

Already a subscriber? Log in