Will Dunn presents Gabriel Zucman (The NS Interview, 24 July) as a quintessentially French economist, someone who understands the deeply political nature of the distribution of wealth. By portraying this tradition of economics as distinctly un-English, Dunn ignores the deep British roots of Zucman’s work.
At his heart, Zucman is an empirical social scientist who draws direct inspiration from British economists such as Tony Atkinson, a pioneer in the study of the distribution of income and wealth, and Richard Stone and James Meade, who helped develop the modern system of national accounting. Going back further, it was the utilitarian philosophy of Englishman Jeremy Bentham and the economics of the Anglo-Irish Francis Ysidro Edgeworth that provided an intellectual foundation for progressive taxation, the principle that Zucman’s proposed tax on billionaires seeks to restore.
For any Brit, it is too tempting to regard France as a country of mouldy cheese, revolutions and radical economists. But in doing so, the risk is misrepresenting not only those economists, but also Britain’s own intellectual history.
Wouter Leenders, Lecturer in Economics at King’s College London
Unifying ideas
If Andy Burnham is still looking for ideas with which to unify the party (Cover Story, 24 July) and the country, he might look to GK Chesterton. In his novel The Man Who Knew Too Much a character wishes to become a parliamentary candidate, and runs on a promise to take back all the land owned by the landed gentry and redistribute it amongst the poor. There is one setback, however. The name of the candidate’s party? Reform.
Steve Morley, Hampton
Maybe my attention span has been corrupted by short-form content across various social media, but it was nice that the cover story wasn’t half the magazine. I often find myself waning by the fourth or fifth page of an article, regardless of how captivating the topic is, and I found Ailbhe’s writing succinct and to the point here. I know others will appreciate the necessity of a thousand words, but I, for one, would like to see a wider breadth of shorter articles.
Babs Mundye, Birmingham
Actions and words
Iain Dale’s recollection of the kindness and affection shown by Ann Widdecombe towards her gay friends and acquaintances in spite of her ideological homophobia struck a chord with my anecdotal experience of encountering racist tropes among decent people whose daily interactions with their foreign colleagues belie their potent prejudices (The Diary, 24 July). We need to bear in mind this far-from-uncommon experience before dismissing such people as ignorant. In this, as in so many things, the cliché stands: actions speak louder than words.
Paul Thomson, Mobberley, Cheshire
Some feedback
If you are going to poke fun at historical re-enactments by identifying anachronisms, then try to get your facts right (This England, 24 July). If PA systems were invented in 1993, how come I remember them from my childhood (approximately 1956 to 1965)? Why do we hear tannoys on every wartime RAF base?
John Young, Usk, Monmouthshire, Wales
Grit grates
I was slightly baffled by Andrew Marr’s piece stating that today’s politicians had not suffered childhood hardship like pNeil Kinnock, Margaret Beckett and David Blunkett had (At Large, 24 July). The implication seems to be that contemporary politicians are somehow the lesser for it, since they lack “grit”. If the backgrounds Marr describes are uncommon now, surely that is something to be celebrated.
I would challenge his assertion that today’s politicians have not known trauma. Naz Shah grew up witnessing her father severely abuse her mother, who had endured homelessness, grooming and sexual assault. Ed Davey was a child carer for his terminally ill mother and then his grandmother. I don’t think it aids the fight to eradicate child poverty if we come over all “Four Yorkshiremen” about it.
Jane Middleton, Bath
The en-word
Alan Parker (Correspondence, 24 July) reminds us of the very different possible meanings of the term “enormity”: either magnitude or monstrosity. Recently I’ve been struck by the enormity of the rebellion against Starmer, the enormity of ranks of MPs lining up behind an unelected prime minister, the enormity of the transfer of loyalties to Burnham and the enormity of the man’s ambition. Readers can decide for themselves if my usage is correct.
Jo Eadie, Cambridge
Notes on a culture
I really enjoyed Nicholas Harris’s Letter from Clacton (24 July) and the insight into a culture that many people think has died out. I’m pretty sure deep down most are decent people, just misguided. But how do we change their viewpoint? I’ve already seen some positives in Andy Burnham’s first week in charge – I’d like more of this and less of the cool-dad antics on social media.
The fans of Jim Davidson aren’t going to care what your favourite New Order album is. Give them convincing arguments and actions and don’t fall into those traps that make everyone think the government is “rotten” again. I’m cautiously optimistic.
Rob Grew, Birmingham
Leon Griffiths would be turning in his grave at Nicholas Harris’s suggestion that the stereotyped Nigel Farage support group “gets its thrills from Minder boxsets”. Griffiths’s pitch for the series sets out his idea for a new sort of London-based series: “Stories set among the Greeks of Camden; the Irish around Holloway and Kilburn; Indians in Southall; Bengalis in the East End; Italians who’ve moved from Clerkenwell to Stanmore.”
Minder was one of the first British series to celebrate the multiculturalism that Farage, Davidson and their ilk find so threatening.
Gus Colquhoun, Somerset
Strong language
If we followed Oli Dugmore’s approach to Keir Starmer’s time in office, we’d have to conclude that all Labour PMs have been terrible (Left Hook, 24 July). Clement Attlee dispatched troops to crush an insurgency in Malaya to protect commercial interests. He funded the development of Britain’s atomic bomb programme without the knowledge of parliament. He introduced charges to fund rearmament for the Korean War. Wilson, Callaghan, Blair, Brown, Starmer all made serious errors of judgement, but that’s no reason to disregard all that was achieved by their governments.
Madeline Thompson, Cambridge
Are we to have regular diatribes from Oli Dugmore? His rant about the monarchy was vicious; his column about Starmer was an indulgence in emotive language. He must use less shouty, more considered language.
Libby Grimshaw, Nottingham
Oli Dugmore likened Starmer to nitrogen. This is unfair to nitrogen, which is consequential for Earth. Perhaps ozone is a more suitable atmospheric metaphor. A short-lived molecule, ozone decays into two components: one of which is much more radical than what came before, and the other highly prone to combustion.
Keiran Clifford, Cambridgeshire
Newt your best work
I am haunted by a withering glance I received from Bill Oddie. I hosted Bill as the celebrity guest at the opening of a pond. Before the press and children, Bill dipped in a net and fished out a great crested newt. Innocent of premeditation, I exclaimed, “What a goody!” If looks could kill…
James J Mercer, Swanage, Dorset
Manchester moggy
When No 10 North has a cat, I will know it’s serious.
Dave Thomas, Bristol
We reserve the right to edit letters
[Further reading: Mayo’s All-Ireland win has the world jealous]