Advertisement

ES Views: Like Churchill, Brexiteers understood ‘darker forces’

Would Winston Churchill have identified the 'darker forces' in today's society?
Would Winston Churchill have identified the 'darker forces' in today's society?

Matthew d’Ancona completely misconstrues the relevance of the film Darkest Hour to the current situation in Europe [“Churchill is still inspirational in this age of intolerant populism”, Comment, January 17].

The lesson from history, when an authoritarian, anti-democracy elite subjugates its people, was the reason for many of us voting Leave. Brexit was not a “populist” vote, it was an anti-populist vote. It was a vote for the principle of government of the people, by the people, for the people.

We were voting against the dangers of the future to which mainland Europe is inexorably moving because of the disconnect between the electorate and the unelected anti-democratic EU elite, exacerbated by the weakness and complacency of current and past political leaders.

Churchill would have seen the reality of where darker forces in the same position of unaccountable authority could take Europe in the near future. Voting for Brexit was the one and only chance for the ordinary person in the street to stand up for democratic principles.

Thankfully, enough of us were sufficiently prescient to do so.
Mark Wingate


Matthew d’Ancona writes eloquently about “the democratic freedoms the great war leader fought for”. Of course he is right that Winston Churchill was both a great leader and a determined opponent of the fascism which would have extinguished our liberty if Germany had won or been appeased. But the championing of domestic freedom was not in fact a major concern of Churchill’s.

He wanted the government of the day to commandeer the BBC during the 1926 General Strike, and pressed for the ultra-critical Daily Mirror to be closed down in 1942 on the grounds that it was sapping public morale. On both occasions he was stopped by his more freedom-loving Cabinet colleagues.

Honouring — but not mistakenly idolising — our heroes is the best way to preserve the critical tradition which d’Ancona celebrates.
Professor James Curran, Goldsmiths, University of London


Matthew d’Ancona perfectly exemplifies the arrogance of Remainers. He mentions that those people who voted for Brexit did so because of hostility to immigration, effectively tarring 52 per cent of the electorate as xenophobes. Even worse, he praises brave Remainers for fighting intolerant populism by seeking to overturn the results of the EU referendum.

The truth is that by castigating anyone who disagrees with them, and seeking to subvert the results of a democratic vote, Remainers prove they are even more intolerant than the most ardent Brexiteers.
Uche George


Labour needs to be more balanced

Ayesha Hazarika [Comment, January 17] is right to observe that with Labour’s NEC now more reflective of the Momentum agenda, there is an increased chance of deselections of incumbent Labour MPs and councillors.

We can debate the merit and spirit behind the motivation to bring such contests forward but ultimately it will be the democratic vote of Labour members which will determine the outcome.

Since most party members favour Momentum it is hard to argue that party candidates shouldn’t or won’t come from that wing of the party. To ensure a more balanced blend of views and direction, however, Labour needs to grow its membership further to mirror the wider population.

If this happens Labour will benefit, as will the best of our incumbent elected representatives, and the party will have a much enhanced chance of winning power.
Nick Mayer


Contrary to Anne McElvoy’s belief [Comment, January 16] that Labour “moderates” (actually Right-wingers) are in denial, they have used every trick in the book in an unsuccessful attempt to undermine party leader Jeremy Corbyn.

The election of Jon Lansman and his colleagues to the NEC with nearly 63 per cent of the vote shows yet again what the vast majority of party members want: policies that benefit the majority, not just the few.
Graham Livingstone


Ban plastic bottle as well as straws

RE your campaign against plastic [January 16]: I believe drinks bottles are a far bigger issue than straws. Millions more are thrown out and each one uses a lot more plastic.

I would love to see your campaign widened to see a minimum level of recycled material to be used in the manufacture of plastic bottles. Drinks firms are reluctant to be the first to use recycled materials as this makes the plastic more opaque, but if legislation were introduced no one company would be disadvantaged.

A push by the Standard could make a real difference.
Christopher Mahon


Problems pile up for King's College Trust

Ross Lydall’s article on the crisis at King’s College Hospital, which dealt with the recent catastrophes and atrocities in London on a limited budget, highlights the fact that no reimbursement for this additional expenditure has been forthcoming [January 17].

King’s College Trust’s greatest mistake was taking on the money-losing Princess Royal University Hospital and its satellites from Bromley health authority — no wonder Lord Kerslake resigned. The Princess Royal, which opened in 2003, was thrown up cheaply to impress politicians. The hospital has wide corridors, huge distances between departments and poorly designed, cramped wards and A&E areas.

Perhaps Steve Barclay’s department should investigate the previous authority bosses, who could no doubt explain why they failed to build an efficient and effective hospital.
Ray Fleming

Join the conversation: #esnewsviews