Latest news with #SimonJenkins
The Guardian
7 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
To compare Donald Trump to Teddy Roosevelt on nature protection is absurd
Simon Jenkins' article (He may talk rubbish but Trump has an eye for beauty, and that is a breath of fresh air, 1 August) was for the most part milquetoast Trump apologia, studded with the usual non-criticisms to give an impression of impartiality (yes, Trump does sometimes 'talk rubbish') and lauding one particular droplet in his firehose stream of insanity as some sort of visionary pronouncement (I would argue one of his more significant early actions was to economically attack my country, deride its sovereignty and muse on annexing us, but yes, restoring federal buildings is nice, too.) Where the article veered into insulting territory, however, was in comparing Trump to Teddy Roosevelt, claiming that both men 'seemed to care about America's natural environment, its forests and deserts, and a role for Washington in their custodianship'. To call this comparison absurd would be an understatement. Teddy Roosevelt was a committed conservationist who created the United States Forest Service; Trump called climate change a Chinese hoax. Roosevelt greatly expanded the national parks system; Trump opened up national parks in Alaska for oil drilling. Roosevelt created 51 wild bird reserves; Trump neutered the Migratory Bird Treaty Act at the behest of the fossil fuel industry. Roosevelt used executive orders to protect 600,000sq km of forest from logging and other exploitation; Trump used executive orders to try to bring back coal. Should I go on?Justin JoschkoOttawa, Ontario, Canada Imposing classical revival styles in federal architecture is the tool of dictators. To insinuate that Trump has any taste at all fails. His own ostentatious display of wealth by dipping everything that he surrounds himself with in cheesy gold paint is proof. The American Institute of Architects is on record against this mandate as being retrograde, and calls out this failure to promote forward-reaching design and creative Simmons Santa Fe, New Mexico, US Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. As I have driven across Kansas, Oklahoma and crossing into California from Arizona on Interstate 10, I smile when I see those turbines turning and think, ah, green energy, less pollution and saving the planet. They, to me, are beautiful, much better than coal belching pollutants into the AckersLeawood, Kansas, US How disingenuous to suggest that President Trump has any care for the aesthetic beauty of our environment, without noting his zeal for plundering the earth's resources to their limit for personal and private profit. Don't we all remember 'Drill, baby, drill'? His antipathy to wind turbines, regardless of where they are sited, owes more to his loathing for renewable energy solutions than it does to his concerns about aesthetic HutchesonCastle Carrock, Cumbria If Donald Trump has an eye for beauty, why did he destroy the sand dunes near Aberdeen in order to install his golf course? Cliff SaxtonLauzun, France
The Guardian
30-07-2025
- General
- The Guardian
Talking is the key that unlocks all education
Simon Jenkins says the teaching of oracy 'was launched about 10 years ago by progressive educationists' (Another way we are failing an entire generation: we must teach young people to speak, 24 July). There has been enthusiasm for spoken English in schools for much longer than that. In 1989, the government published the report English for Ages 5 to 16. In it, Brian Cox argued for the greater inclusion of oracy by asserting that 'talk is now widely recognised as promoting and embodying a range of skills and competence – both transactional and social – that are central to children's overall language development'. Much effort had already gone into legitimising spoken English opportunities in the classroom, including by its appearance in examinations for CSE English. This was not only for formal oral presentations (debates, rehearsed readings etc) but more for the dynamic use of language arising from the multiplicity of environments with effective communication at their heart. Jenkins is right when he argues that the narrow focus on the three Rs is archaic and irrelevant to the real world. What we need is a learning environment in which children can experience and explore talk in all its forms, as the backbone of language and its Mike DavisBlackpool, Lancashire As a teacher of mathematics and computer science, I cannot let Simon Jenkins' assertion that maths 'is not needed by 95% of jobseekers' pass without comment. I accept that a lot of the maths taught for GCSE (eg trigonometry, quadratic functions, laws of indices) is irrelevant in daily life, but I imagine the same is true of all subjects, since most of us do not need, for example, to recall shapes of molecules or understand chromatography (science), or be familiar with medieval or early modern Britain (history). In her delightful book Is Maths Real?, Eugenia Cheng likens the study of maths to exercising core muscles. 'There is no activity in life that involves only core muscles, but it's helpful to have a strong core because it enables us to use the rest of our muscles to greater effect,' she writes. 'It gives us better access to the rest of our strength, as well as protecting us against things like balance issues, tripping over and hurting our back.' All study for GCSE qualifications strengthens our brains – different subjects in slightly different ways. Hence studying a variety of subjects, including maths, is vital. Moreover, if we strip several of these subjects down to the core useful bits, what will be left for students to talk about in oracy practice sessions?Chris WillisOxford I couldn't agree more with Simon Jenkins. When I was a child my parents had no money for books and, as I had a twin, an ideal playmate, the idea of sitting and quietly reading was a non-starter. My parents talked a lot. To each other and to us. Opinions, family jokes, quickfire wit, stories and a lot of questions and most important, how to listen as well as talk. All this was, of course, informal. My English teacher assumed I read all of the time at home, such was my ability to communicate. Sadly, with so many distractions in the home these days, the teaching of oracy in the curriculum seems more essential than ever for a child's development and ability to communicate and to take their place in the increasingly complex CameronFormby, Merseyside Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
The Guardian
30-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Britain's security depends on more than soft power
I am very surprised by Simon Jenkins lamenting the lack of soft power shown to Russia (Note to Starmer and the other sabre-rattlers. Why spend billions on weapons – soft power would keep us safe, 26 June). He writes: 'Every conceivable tool should have been deployed to introduce Russia into the European community of nations.' Russia was incorporated into the G7, received a state visit from the Queen, and was added to Eurovision. Tony Blair gave Vladimir Putin silver cufflinks for his birthday, and supported Russia's war in Chechnya. None of this, not the facilitating of Russian oligarchic investment in the UK, not BP investing billions in Russia, not Russia hosting the Winter Olympics and World Cup, has worked. Sometimes soft power simply ensures that tyrants continue to act with impunity, and ensures that the message 'We disagree with your actions and want you to stop' falls on deaf RousellDurham Simon Jenkins is absolutely correct. To spend $1.3bn on US aeroplanes whose operational use is subject to US approval serves only to repeat the continuing and expensive folly of Trident et al. To announce this in the same week as proposing to cut support for some of the most disadvantaged people in our grossly unequal society beggars belief. Many years ago, Ralph Miliband argued that the Labour party had become a 'party of modest social reform'. Even this now seems overly optimistic. As a party member since the early 1970s, I am one of many thousands who are seriously thinking of TaylorPooley Bridge, Cumbria Simon Jenkins makes a compelling case. Arming ourselves to the teeth sustains hostility rather than fostering peace. The west missed the golden opportunity to end the cold war when Mikhail Gorbachev dismantled the Soviet Union. The end of the cold war would have made Nato redundant. Instead it was treated as a victory of capitalism over communism, and Nato was strengthened. That has led inexorably to Putin. Soft power fosters mutuality. Overseas aid, properly targeted, helps communities to health education and self-reliance. It engenders a friendly disposition towards the aid-givers when it is politically unconditional. That is surely a more successful path to a safer world, rather than retreating behind a fortress mentality and spending on defence, which soaks up our public services resources while not solving real, existential global StoneThames Ditton, Surrey Apparently Simon Jenkins thinks that in dealing with Putin's Russia, soft power will keep us safe. It is a huge pity that the great Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya is not alive to comment on this story, but she was shot dead outside her Moscow apartment in 2006 – on Putin's birthday as it happened. Natalia Estemirova, the Russian human rights activist might have said something, but she was murdered in 2009. Possibly Sergei Magnitsky, the Russian tax lawyer, might have said something, but he died in police custody in 2009. Boris Nemtsov, the Russian opposition politician, would surely have offered a different point of view but he was assassinated within sight of the Kremlin in 2015. Sadly Alexei Navalny is unable to rebut the wishful thinking of Jenkins as he died in a Russian gulag in BonnerPorirua, New Zealand Of course Simon Jenkins is right to emphasise the importance of soft power, but surely we need both the hard and soft options? As Theodore Roosevelt said: 'Speak softly and carry a big stick.'Dr David FineExeter Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Telegraph
17-06-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Is Stella Creasy the worst politician in Britain?
For all my adult life I have been an advocate of the 'Jenkins' Law', a guide to public policy based on the writings of the commentator Sir Simon Jenkins. Jenkins' Law is simple, useful and infallible: whatever he writes, the opposite is correct. In recent years, however, a variant of this law has emerged. Not so much a variant as a complementary alternative: Creasy's Law. The principle is similar. Whatever Stella Creasy, the Labour MP for Walthamstow since 2010, says or writes, the opposite is correct. This week Creasy's Law has, once again, proved its utility. Ms Creasy is behind an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would remove all legal prohibitions on abortion up to and including during birth, even if the baby is fully capable of surviving outside the womb. It is widely accepted that the law surrounding abortion requires modernisation, not least because of advances in medical technology; and, from the other perspective, what many see as the unjust prosecution of women such as Nicola Packer, who was cleared by a jury last month of illegally terminating a pregnancy after taking abortion pills during lockdown. But Creasy's amendment goes far beyond modernisation; it is about removing any bar to abortion, no matter how near to birth – or even during birth – by scrapping the crime of intentional destruction of a child 'capable of being born alive', as well as removing all other legal bars on late-term abortions. Creasy says all she wants to do is remove criminal sanctions, but in reality her amendments would simply remove the current 24-week limit with no replacement. In addition, she wants abortion to be classed as a 'basic human right'. The usefulness of Creasy's Law is especially clear here. Even amongst the country's abortion clinics her proposals are regarded as wrong-headed. Rachael Clarke of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service told BBC Radio 4's Today programme last week that Creasy's plan 'is not the right way' to overhaul abortion laws. 'We are not supporting NC20 [Creasy's amendments], and neither are any of the abortion providers in the country,' Clarke said. Nor does it seem the public supports Creasy. A ComRes poll from several years ago found only 1 per cent of women supporting abortion up to birth – a clear example of Creasy's Law in action. Creasy is such a useful figure to have in public life because her interests roam over many areas, and she is thus able to help the rest of us pinpoint immediately what to think by thinking the exact opposite. Probably her most notorious comment was in 2022, when she weighed in on one of her favourite issues: 'Do I think some women were born with penises? Yes'. Creasy has been a long-term advocate of ignoring biology and allowing men who pretend to be women to claim all the rights under law that they would have if they were actually women. It's a shame so much time – and money – was spent clarifying the law around sex. There need never have been a Supreme Court ruling. A few years ago Creasy wrote: 'As I walk past everyone going to Christmas parties and drinks on my way to get the kids from nursery, yet again acutely aware the motherhood penalty is just a gift that keeps giving…. Not just flexible working we need but flexible networking too.' For Creasy, it seems, having children should not impact one's life. Creasy's Law is helpful here, too, showing that parenting involves a trade-off between the freedom to do whatever you want, whenever you want, and the needs arising from being a parent. Creasy has advocated for aggravated criminal sentences as a hate crime for men who hold what she considers to be 'misogynistic' beliefs. No need to go through a debate on this or look at the ideas underlying it; just apply Creasy's Law to know it would be wrong. It's easy to look disapprovingly at Stella Creasy, who is not only wrong about everything, but compounds that with a patronising manner which seems to treat anyone who disagrees with her as some kind of bigoted fool. Instead, we should see how useful she really is and turn more often to Creasy's Law for guidance.
The Guardian
12-05-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Putting up a defence for jury trials in Britain
Simon Jenkins' indictment of jury trial (Here's a radical way to save England's collapsing justice system: get rid of juries, 5 May) deserves a damning verdict on a number of counts. He points to the excessive delays afflicting English criminal courts, which he attributes to the 1% of cases that are decided by juries. He provides little evidence for this, while making no mention of the true causes – Covid and chronic underfunding. There is no evidence that jury trial causes delay in contested cases as opposed to judges sitting alone. Judges would have to provide reasoned arguments for each factual decision (subject to review) and, for this reason, the vast majority of British criminal judges strongly favour jury trial. Jenkins adds that we should join 'the rest of Europe' and end jury trial, without telling us what systems those countries enjoy and whether they are to be emulated. Yet the inquisitorial system in, say, France, with its many complications including dual investigation by examining justices, is subject to horrendous delays, historically far worse than their adversarial equivalent in the UK. Jenkins attributes jury trial to a 'medieval hangover, judgment by one's peers, over the whim of an unelected manorial lord or other authority' as though this were undesirable. In fact, it is far more likely to originate in an adversarial democratic culture inherent in British history and observable in parliament. But the greatest concern is the absence of any mention of the libertarian value of jury trials in an increasingly totalitarian world. As one of Britain's greatest jurists, Lord Patrick Devlin, observed: 'The first object of any tyrant would be to overthrow or diminish trial by jury. It is the lamp that shows that freedom lives.'Bob Marshall-Andrews KC Labour MP for Medway, 1997-2010 Simon Jenkins' article struck a strong chord with me. Having served on two juries, I am less than impressed. How are you meant to have a sensible discussion in the jury room without a transcript of the trial proceedings? Your only written record is whatever you can write in pencil on a sheet of paper, despite the fact that an official record is being taken. You are given no advice about how to run the jury proceedings, presumably because English yeomen all know intuitively how to do this. Not every member wants to be there, and some members' contributions can be negligible. For my first trial there were six charges, all related. For one charge, evidence from the victim indicated the rough date of the alleged offence quite accurately. It was revealed at a different point in the proceedings, and I noted this on my bit of paper, that the accused was in prison at the time. Despite this, the accused was convicted by 11 to one. I have also had to sit through the verbatim acting out of a police interview, where the prosecution barrister played the accused and the police interviewer played himself. The jury room may well be little more than a glorified broom cupboard. On my second trial, I was encouraged when I saw a whiteboard, which I thought would be quite useful. Naturally, the marker pens all needed replacing, and their replacements were highlighter and address supplied Simon Jenkins thinks that members of the public who serve on juries are incompetent to decide complicated factual issues. If he is right, then voting in elections should also be left to FitzGibbon KCLondon Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
