I
don’t understand all this fuss about
Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old
who’s sailing to America on a
zero-emissions yacht (well, anything’s
better than flying United). The Left
hangs on her every word; the Right
can’t stand her. Why? She’s just a kid.
Because I’m an adult, I have absolutely
no interest in what children have to
say about anything, even if I agree
with them. If Greta told me the Moon
was made of cheese, I wouldn’t say
“wow, tell me more!” or lose my
temper, I’d just say, “That’s nice dear”
and suggest she go and play outside.
I might be old-fashioned, but so is
Greta. Has it only occurred to me that
Miss Thunberg is essentially a girl
guide – zipping off around the world,
collecting badges? I did all that stuff
when I was a boy, too. We were forever
going on nature rambles and learning
the names of trees, and I could do more
things with a pen knife than was
strictly healthy. The only difference is
that my scout troop never sailed toAmerica because no newspaper round
on earth could’ve paid for it. What
Greta is selling – and I use that word on
purpose – is an upper-middle-class
lifestyle. She belongs precisely where
you can find her: on the cover of GQ
magazine. Environmentalism is as
much a way of living as the Atkins diet
or Kundalini yoga.
Some of the Royals are in on it. No
one can deny the admirable passion
that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle
feel about the environment – so much
that Harry said he would probably
only have two babies “maximum”. In
July he wrote on Instagram, “With
nearly 7.7 billion people inhabiting this
Earth, every choice, every footprint,
every action makes a difference.”
This month, Harry and the family
have taken two trips by private jet to
Ibiza and France (the latter was
financed by Sir Elton John, who says
he made sure the flight was “carbon
neutral” by donating money to offset
its footprint). It’s also claimed that
Harry flew to the Google Camp event
in Sicily, which chose global warming
as its theme. As well it might. Over a
hundred private jets were reportedly
cleared to land at Palermo; some of
those who didn’t fly sailed in on
“superyachts”, tasteless great
behemoths that look like they were
built to patrol the Persian Gulf.
Now, I’m not going to pursue the
boring old charge of hypocrisy, in part
because I genuinely think the super
rich don’t notice the contradiction
between supporting the green
movement and flying many miles in ajet plane to do so. Why would they? It’s
part of the consumer lifestyle. A lot of
middle-class interest in
environmentalism isn’t about
conserving what we’ve got in Britain- otherwise they’d be threatening to
lie down on the tracks of HS2 – but is
motivated by concern for things
they’ve encountered on holiday: the
rainforests of Brazil, elephants in
Kenya, the majestic icebergs of the
Antarctic.
I don’t question this legitimate
ethical worry. Thank goodness
someone in Britain is also speaking up
for the Bangladeshis threatened by
rising sea levels or Africans hit by
drought. But there’s no escaping that
many rich environmentalists are
buying an ethical way of life that the
rest of us can’t afford, while at the
same time refusing to give up some of
the things they enjoy doing that are
insanely expensive, very polluting and
yet part-and-parcel of that globe-
trotting lifestyle.
The sad fact about Greta’s big green
ocean adventure is that people will
have to fly to New York to collect the
yacht and take it home. The team
behind the yacht insists that all its
flights are “offset”, but acknowledges
that there still is no way “to cross an
ocean without a carbon footprint.” In
which case, I’m at a loss as to the point
of Greta taking part. Her lifestyle
choices mean nothing to me. What am
I supposed to make of her travelling
on to Chile for a UN conference by
train and by bus? None of us have the
time or the money to make such a trip,
Save the planet from middle-class eco-consumers
Greta Thunberg is selling
a lifestyle for the wealthy
that the rest of us will
never be able to affordtim stanleyey
O
n BBC Radio Four’s Today
programme yesterday, John
McDonnell, the shadow chancellor,
was questioned about Labour’s
convoluted Brexit policy. In
particular, he was asked what the
party would put into an election manifesto should
Jeremy Corbyn succeed in bringing down the
Government in the no-confidence motion he
intends to table next month.
This, said Mr McDonnell, would be a matter for
debate inside Labour which would then reach a
democratic decision. “If you sign up to democratic
rules you have to abide by them,” he added.
He said this without a trace of irony; indeed, he
was laughing at the very notion that anyone could
possibly think otherwise. Yet when it comes to the
democratic rules of the 2016 referendum, where a
majority voted in favour of leaving the EU, he does
not consider himself to be under any obligation to
abide by them.
He wants to defeat Boris Johnson’s Government,
win a general election, delay Brexit once more and
hold another referendum with Labour offering the
option to stay in the EU and, if Mr McDonnell gets
his way, campaigning for such an outcome, albeit
with an unspecified Brexit option also on the ballot
paper. The internal rules of Labour seem to matter
more to Mr McDonnell than those of the nation.
Mr Corbyn, meanwhile, made what was billed as
a keynote speech ostensibly to clarify his party’s
position but which left no one any the wiser. The
country, he said, is heading into a political and
constitutional storm because Mr Johnson is intent
on taking Britain out of the EU on October 31 – a
date agreed by Parliament and by the EU27.
Mr Corbyn is proposing he should head a cross-
party coalition to stop this happening and is not
prepared to countenance anyone else in that role.
This means that if the Government did lose a
motion of no confidence and a new administration
was not formed within 14 days, Mr Johnson could
call an election for a date after October 31, thereby
defeating the entire point of bringing him down.
If Messrs Corbyn and McDonnell really believe
in democracy and want to avoid no deal they could
form a common purpose with the Government to
persuade the EU that a new agreement is necessary
to fulfil the instruction given to Parliament by the
popular vote that has already taken place. Brexit
supporters in Labour seats will doubtless take note
of the fact that they have no intention of doing so.Idea of democracy
is lost on Labour
T
here’s not much between you and Russia if
you stand by the seaside at Shishmaref in
Alaska. Siberia’s nearer that Nome. But now
the Nome Nugget, that award-winning weekly,
brings news of a Russian message in a bottle sent
from a far greater distance – in history, that is. It
was dropped in the ocean in Cold War days by
Captain Anatolii Prokofievich Botsanenko of the
Soviet Navy in 1969. If Captain Botsanenko, now
86, had written a diary in 1969, no one, we fear,
would trouble to read it. But his message, still dry if
smelling of alcohol, has naturally attracted interest
on both sides of the Bering Strait. The years have
not been without their penalties. The aged seafarer
shed a tear over a photograph of his old ship,
scrapped in the Nineties. “Happy sailing,” he had
written then. It was a message worth sending.Message in a bottle
T
he Marchioness disaster on the Thames 30
years ago today cost the lives of 51 young
people who were on the river for a night out
when their pleasure cruiser was hit by a dredger,
the Bowbelle. No one can feel anything but sadness
at such a dreadful event and the deepest sympathy
for the relatives who feel the loss to this day. The
tragedy led to an inquiry 11 years later chaired by
Lord Justice Clarke whose 2001 report concluded
that “The basic cause of the collision ... was poor
look-out on both vessels.” One of the
recommendations was that a safety assessment
should be carried out on river passenger ships and
especially older vessels.
Some 18 years later this is being implemented in
such a way that it will mean the end of boats that
have plied the river between Westminster and
Hampton Court for decades. They include two of
the “little ships” that evacuated troops from the
beach at Dunkirk in 1940. The Maritime and
Coastguard Agency is proposing that they should
be subject to modern safety standards requiring
compartments below the water line to reduce the
likelihood and speed of them sinking.
But the owners say it will cost £250,000 per
craft to convert them to single-deckers and would
reduce capacity by half, making them no longer
economically viable. There have been no fatal
accidents involving these boats yet an integral part
of the maritime heritage of the River Thames is
now under serious threat.
On a day when we remember the victims of the
Marchioness we should also question whether it is
a justifiable and proportionate response by a state
agency 30 years later to put an entire way of life
out of business. We suggest that it isn’t.Threat to the Thames
ESTABLISHED 1855otherwise I’d happily spend the next
three months going down the Nile in
an upturned umbrella.
Who does have such time? A child.
And good for her: Greta is living a
great life and were she my daughter I’d
be very proud. But nothing in her brief
life experience comes close to the
40-year-old mum ferrying two kids to
school in a decaying Volvo or a cattle
farmer trying to make ends meet.
What might frustrate those people is
seeing actors, royalty and children
enjoying more influence over MPs
than their constituents do. The future
is being quietly designed without a
great deal of popular input, from
charges to electricity bills to shutting
down power plants.
I say, “bring it on”. I agree with
Greta that the world needs saving and
I’m still a scout at heart, too: I’d love it
if we could all walk more, shop less,
eat better and be able to tell an oak
from an ash tree. But you’ve got to put
your ideas fairly to the people and
govern by consent, not middle-class
lobbying. And if the world is as close to
disaster as the green movement says it
is, it will require a radical policy shift
that means no more eco-tours of Costa
Rica. In fact, no more foreign holidays
at all. Perhaps it’s time for Harry and
Meghan to discover the hidden
delights of Scarborough.We accept letters
by post, fax and
email only. Please
include name,
address, work and
home telephone
numbers.111 Buckingham
Palace Road,
London
SW1W 0DTfax
020 7931 2878email
dtletters@
telegraph.co.ukfollow
Telegraph Letters
on Twitter
@LettersDeskfollow Tim Stanley on Twitter
@timothy_stanley; read more at
telegraph.co.uk/opinionLetters to the Editor
sir – Charles Moore (August 17) asks
why Philip Hammond doesn’t apply
even fiercer strictures to a British
trade deal with the EU than he does to
John Bolton’s proposed “great trade
deal” with the United States.
As a member of the board of
governors of the European Investment
Bank (EIB), Mr Hammond signed off
on a most unattractive agreement
under which Britain would dispose of
its interest in the bank on terms that
clearly inequitably benefit the EU to
our disadvantage.
Britain owns 16.1 per cent of the EIB.
The Withdrawal Agreement provides
that Britain will be repaid its nominal
capital of €3.5 billion, but will leave its
rightful share of the retained earnings,
€7.6 billion, for the remaining EU-
members’ benefit. Worse, Britain only
gets back the nominal capital over 12
years in equal instalments, the final
one being in December 2030 – and no
interest is to be paid during this
period.
This EIB settlement is so obviously
completely inequitable that it issurprising that it has not yet received
much attention.
It’s not as though the EIB can’t
afford to buy Britain out at fair value.
It makes a profit of around €2 billion a
year. It has already approved a pro-rata
capitalisation of a small part of its
extensive reserves to replace Britain’s
paid-in capital.
Ignoring the significant value of
deferred payment over 12 years, the
£7 billion Britain proposes to give
away to the EIB amounts to nearly a
fifth of the £39 billion “divorce bill”.
Was not Mr Hammond’s acceptance
of this settlement a further example of
the defeatism to which Mr Moore
refers?
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
London SWsir – When the Conservative Party
manifesto for the next election is
published, will Philip Hammond and
his friends back the party if the party
line is Brexit?
Eddie Peart
Rotherham, South Yorkshiresir – Perhaps we need some balanced
leaking over Brexit.
Steve Baker, who quit as a Brexit
minister over the Chequers blueprint,
commissioned while he was in office a
report on the cost of a no-deal Brexit
for each EU member state – perhaps
this could be leaked to us?
Julian Ridley
Lytham St Annes, Lancashiresir – Senior Brexiteers are
recommending that Boris Johnson
calls a snap election.
If he does so before October 31,
before he has fulfilled his promise to
leave the EU, I will vote for the Brexit
Party. If he goes to the country after a
successful Brexit, the Conservatives
will get my vote.
I’m sure many millions are of the
same opinion.
Patrick Kelly
Chippenham, Wiltshiresir – In disputing my letter (August 17),
Neil Oakes (Letters, August 19) does
not relate the whole story concerningthe Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011.
As is common practice, the Act’s
explanatory notes state that they “do
not form part of the Act and have not
been endorsed by Parliament”. None
of them is law, including the note on a
vote of confidence after a gap of 14
days “to provide an opportunity for an
alternative government to be formed
without an election”.
The Act and its notes say nothing
about Parliament appointing a new
prime minister and evicting the
incumbent, who could still form “an
alternative government” in the 14 days
after losing a vote of confidence. Those
powers remain with the Queen, not
Parliament. Any alternative
government must still be installed by a
prime minister she appoints.
Therefore, even if the matter came
before a court which interpreted the
Act purposively and thus took the
notes into account, the incumbent
Prime Minister could not be forced
from office by such an action.
Peter Sharp
Sherborne, DorsetPhilip Hammond’s defeatism has landed Britain with a scandalously bad EU bank settlement
Church roof thefts
sir – Your report (August 19) on the
theft of lead from St Peter’s church in
Stourton, Wiltshire, highlights the
heavy-handedness of diocesan
advisory committees in their control
of the maintenance of churches, many
of which depend on small, elderly
congregations for their funding.
Planning rules prevent the
replacement of a lead roof gully, only
visible from the air, with fibreglass – a
material that is more dependable and
durable than lead, and has no scrap
value. According to this logic – that
only traditional materials should be
used – electric wiring should never
have been introduced into churches.
The committees are making it
impossible to fund the maintenance of
village churches, and are therefore
contributing to their decay.
Jeremy Chamberlayne
GloucesterWorse then A-levels
sir – The most impressive aspect of
the International Baccalaureate
(Letters, August 19) is its marketing.
The course involves a level of
constraint that most youngsters would
hate: they cannot, for example, take
three modern languages at higher
level, the classics are marginalised,
three sciences and maths cannot easily
be taken at higher level and the
creative subjects also take a hit.
When pupils choose their A-levels at
16, they commit themselves to their
studies in a way that encourages them
to engage and make progress. The
rigour of A-levels bears comparison
with the IB and is provable beyond
anecdotal evidence.
Noeleen Murphy
Assistant Head Academic
City of London School, London ECSimpler pleasures
sir – Charles Moore (Comment,
August 19) should visit Bruton, in
Somerset, where he will find exactly
the restaurant he desires.
At Matt’s Kitchen you pay cash,
bring your own booze and eat what
you are given. Bliss – although it is so
popular that there are often no tables.
Rachel Robbins
Bruton, SomersetAmbridge silence
sir – Is it not about time for Eddie and
Clarrie in The Archers to check on
Grandad – just to see if he is all right?
Philip B Millington
East Bergholt, SuffolkFirst World War novels
sir – The interesting article on First
World War poets (“War is hell but the
poetry is heaven”, August 17) reflects
the popular view that the First World
War inspired poetry while the Second
World War produced novels and films.
There were, however, successful
First World War novels, such as Under
Fire by Henri Barbusse and All Quiet
on the Western Front by Erich Maria
Remarque, and autobiographies
including those by Edmund Blunden
and Robert Graves, not to mention the
three-volume Memoirs of George
Sherston by Siegfried Sassoon.
While there has been less focus on
Second World War poets, it did
produce Keith Douglas, Sidney Keyes,
Alun Lewis, John Jarmain and Henry
Reed. Others who subsequently
achieved fame as authors – Kingsley
Amis, Laurence Durrell, William
Golding, Cecil Day-Lewis and Mervyn
Peake – also wrote poetry.
As the 80th anniversary of the
Second World War approaches, it
might be time to reassess the poets
and poetry of that conflict.
Professor Tim Connell
Esher, SurreyStamp duty U-turn
sir – We at the Association of
Accounting Technicians (AAT) have
long promoted the idea of switching
stamp duty liability from the buyer to
the seller, so we were pleased to hear
Sajid Javid publicly back the idea
(report, August 17), less so by the
U-turn within 48 hours.
It was particularly odd to hear the
Chancellor claim that one reason for
this was because the Ministry of
Housing, Communities and Local
Government did not back the idea, as
senior individuals there have privately
expressed very strong support for our
recommendation.
AAT does not believe switching
stamp duty liability is a panacea –
building more homes is the key to
solving Britain’s housing problems –
but switching liability would be fairer,
simpler, more effective and cheaper
than the current regime, and is
something that any Conservative
government should surely support.
Phil Hall
Head of Public Affairs and Policy, AAT
London ECLeg or wing?
sir – As we are advised to eat more
insects, perhaps Beefeaters (Letters,
August 17) should become Anteaters?
Sue Pickard
Epsom Downs, SurreyA violin concerto by Schumann (who was buried in Bonn in 1856) surfaced in 1937 ALAMYSIR – Literature is not the only art for
which lost masterpieces may or may
not resurface (Arts, August 16).
Classical music is the same, and the
results are often similarly
disappointing.
A recently discovered Stravinsky
score was interesting at best. The
Jena Symphony, first attributed to
Beethoven, turned out to be by
Friedrich Witt – although it took
nearly half a century to work this
out.
Sibelius destroyed the score of his
8th Symphony. Four Mahlersymphonies didn’t survive the
Second World War.
Schubert’s final symphonies,
however, were eventually unearthed
and Schumann’s Violin Concerto
resurfaced following a spiritualist
seance in 1937. No one knew Bizet
had written a symphony until it was
found in the Thirties.
So there is still hope lost works
will show up – the complete score of
Beethoven’s Violin Concerto in C, for
instance, or his Oboe Concerto.
Dr Jacob Buis
Betws-y-Coed, CaernarfonshireStill hope some lost Beethoven might turn up
sir – I believe the right punishment
for murder (Letters, August 17) is death
by hanging.
I taught in prisons for 10 years and I
know we must do more to rehabilitate
offenders, to assist them on release
and to provide better education to
help young people prosper. But there
must also be a deterrent in place to
help us be decent members of society.
The argument against capital
punishment was based on the risk of
miscarriages of justice. But since
forensics and surveillance have
developed, and juries have become
more reluctant to convict unless
evidence is conclusive, the risk is
greatly reduced.
Society faces a simple choice: arm
our police or bring back the rope,
which was once referred to as “the
copper’s friend”. I, and most officers,
would not like to see our police armed.
Bob Clark
Chalgrove, Oxfordshiresir – I cannot agree with Simon
Crowley (Letters, August 12), who
supports having an unarmed police
force with specialist armed officers on
call.
In 1958 I joined the Royal Ulster
Constabulary. I received firearms
training and was able to dismantle and
reassemble a Sterling submachine gun
blindfolded. I was later stationed at
Crossmaglen, which became
notorious. I never had to draw my
weapon but it was there if I needed it
and I knew how to use it.
In France every gendarme is armed,
as are customs officers. We visit Le
Touquet and find guards stationed
outside the President’s home there.
They are dressed in normal uniforms
but carry submachine guns. When I
see our armed police in action – with
all the accoutrements and yelling – I
find the spectacle ridiculous.
John R McErlean
Elstow, BedfordshireA choice: arm the police or bring back hanging
The Daily Telegraph Tuesday 20 August 2019 *** 15
RELEASED BY "What's News" VK.COM/WSNWS TELEGRAM: t.me/whatsnws