Hunting traditions, Why Blair must not ignore core voters and others

Glorious hunting traditions: rudeness and broken hedges

Sir: It is hard to remember when I have read so much pretentious rubbish as that written by your correspondents from Chalfont St Giles and Canada about foxhunting (letters; 25 January, 1 February). My personal experience of foxhunting goes back to the early 1920s when my family relocated from a mixed farm in Worcestershire to an all-pasture dairy farm in the Vale of Aylesbury.

At that time there were in our vicinity no less than three packs of fox hounds, a drag hunt and a stag hunt which pursued a stag carted in for the purpose. The stag was not hunted to death, but recaptured and carted away until required for the chase again. There were also harriers who hunted hares from horseback and beagles who hunted hares on foot. The whole ghastly collection were in the main the most ill-mannered, arrogant assembly of humans I have encountered in a long and diverse life.

They believed that they had the God-given right to ride, run or walk over anyone's property and to push their horses through hedges, leaving gaps for stock to escape, not to mention the damage the hooves of their mounts caused to the pasture. They rarely closed a gate.

Our part of the vale was farmed by small farmers. The majority of them held the hunt in contempt. But it was wise to keep your feelings to yourself. There were those who supported the hunt who were wealthy and influential and any farmer who openly opposed the hunt would soon find that life could become very difficult.

As for the fox, in those days of mainly free-range poultry it was regarded by most practical country folk as destructive vermin. The most effective way of dealing with a predatory fox is to shoot or trap it. Any farmer who did that in hunting country would soon find that life would become impossible. Nevertheless foxes did get killed covertly and there would be a few sly grins amongst those in the know when a dead fox turned up full of shotgun pellets.

A J GRIFFITHS
Hunstanton, Norfolk

Why Blair must not ignore core voters

Sir: Johann Hari (Opinion, 9 February) tries to argue against Labour running a right-wing election campaign, but repeats the same inaccurate analysis of electoral behaviour which leads Labour strategists to do just that. It is simply not true that election results depend on "the 2 percent of voters who are in the absolute centre".

True, the first-past-the-post systems means that election results are determined in marginal seats - but the marginals are a microcosm of society. They usually consist of a number of different communities with quite distinct social characteristics. For Labour to win in a marginal, it is just as important to persuade people on a council estate to vote as anyone else. In fact, in these days of low turnouts, marginals are more likely to be won by a high turnout among people already inclined to support a party than by winning over a few undecided voters.

Labour's neglect of its natural supporters is leading to a collapse of its vote in areas where it should be strong, to the benefit of the Liberal Democrats and others, and an inability to inspire its natural supporters to turn out and vote everywhere, including the marginals.

Failure of core voters to turn out and vote was the main reason why the Conservatives lost power in 1997. Labour gained a few extra votes in that election, but Conservative losses were massive. Faced with a more competent opposition, Labour would now be in deep trouble, and would lose power through the same process.

ALAN TAYLOR
London SE24

Sir: Political commentators in despair over new Labour's appeasement of the right over immigration are mistaken if they think the Labour leadership is unhappy with the system. Some around Gordon Brown are deeply unhappy, but the dominant Blair-Milburn axis is very happy indeed. This is a system which has brought them two massive majorities and unprecedented power and privilege. Why on earth should they want to change it?

Columnists like Johann Hari can certainly dream that Blair and company will change the voting system, challenge the power of the press, and put Brownite issues at the heart of the manifesto. It is not going to happen. Tony Blair chose Alan Milburn to run the campaign and marginalised Gordon Brown precisely because he is deeply conservative on all the major issues facing the country.

No principled and progressive party would join the Tories in scapegoating immigrants. But New Labour is neither principled nor progressive. It is because Blair and Milburn pander to the reactionary politics of the right that many Labour supporters are considering tactical voting to reduce the chances of a massive Blair majority and even more unprincipled shifts to the right.

TREVOR FISHER
Stafford

Sir: What a wretched choice the two main parties present to the electorate. Both supported the disastrous Iraq war and are committed to spending billions on keeping British troops there. Both parties will slavishly follow American foreign policy. Both vilify immigrants and asylum seekers at every opportunity. Neither party is prepared to defend long-standing civil liberties; both are committed to compulsory ID cards. Whichever party is elected, the privatisation of public services (by whatever name) will increase. Both parties will retain low levels of income tax and high levels of regressive indirect and local taxation, which hit the low-paid hardest. Income inequality will continue to spiral.

It's true that parties such as the Lib Dems offer a genuine and positive alternative, though under our voting system they have no realistic chance of power. I predict this election will see the lowest turnout in modern times, and the return to power of a man who has taken Britain into an illegal war, and who despises Parliament, the rule of law and civil liberties. Two cheers for democracy?

DAVID WESTBURY
Lydney, Gloucestershire

Dyke was right

Sir: Lord Young's criticism of Greg Dyke (letter, 7 February) was characterised by the same imbalance that discredited the Hutton Report he so obviously admires.

He accuses the former Director General of the BBC of accepting no responsibility for the mistakes that were made when Mr Gilligan's story was presented. But surely, Mr Dyke accepted responsibility when he resigned? As I understand it, what he objects to is the fact that no one in the Government is prepared to do the same.

Lord Young must be aware that a great many people share Greg Dyke's objection. They heard Lord Hutton first outline evidence suggesting that certain aspects of Government behaviour had been less than acceptable - and then conclude that no member of Mr Blair's administration had done anything wrong.

The real legacy of Hutton is a continued and accelerated erosion of public confidence in so-called independent inquiries.

ROBERT BOTTAMLEY
Hedon, East Yorkshire

Sir: Lord Young misses why Greg Dyke, together with many other people who have thought about the issues, is still angry about the outcome of Hutton. In essence Mr Gilligan had a true story and it was worth defending strongly in the face of abuse from No 10. For Greg Dyke to resign because he reports to the Governors and for Tony Blair not to because he appears to report to no one is, in the face of their relative culpability, a gross injustice.

DAVID CUTTS
London N5

Drug illusions

Sir: Indeed one should never "pretend that the use of hard drugs can only result in disaster" (leading article, 5 February). But neither should one pretend they ever benefit anyone.

All habitual drug-takers have fallen for a clever con trick. A drug attacks the senses, rendering the user unaware of the bad effects until it is wearing off. This creates the illusion that the drug provides pleasure. The truth is that the only reason anybody feels the need to take a drug is to relieve the symptoms that drug itself causes. Users develop increasing tolerance so they need more and more to create the same effect.

A great problem with all drugs is the misconception that they help some people and destroy others. Whether they kid themselves they are in control or not, occasional users are suffering from an earlier stage of the same disease as the "addict".

MAURICE RYAN
Belfast

A royal marriage

Sir: Prince Charles' decision to remarry is a snub to the large proportion of British subjects whose main relationship is without marriage. He and Camilla should continue to go where they are welcome as an unmarried couple and be glad of the chance to skip events where they are not. This may mean missing the occasional high-society function, but they probably attend too many of these and too few low-society ones.

Given their past, the suggestion that the effect of their wedding could be to maintain respect for the institution of marriage would seem absurd.

There are many examples of royalty intent upon dignifying a politically problematic relationship with the title of marriage. The list includes Nero, Edward IV and Edward VIII. It has generally been an indication of insecurity and self-absorption and tends to end badly. A monarch needs the confidence to regard the role of his mistress as good enough for anyone.

With the advent of DNA testing marriage is now obsolescent even for royals who are going to have children. For those who aren't it is an irrelevance. How many more generations of expensive divorces can the family afford? The precedent of a long-term unmarried relationship would be a valuable legacy for Charles's sons.

JOHN RISELEY
Farnborough, Hampshire

Sir: Prince Charles and Camilla get my congratulations and good wishes.

Not many wealthy people are as philanthropic as he is. The spectacle of MPs baying for the Prince's blood over his income from the Duchy this week sickened me. Labour woo celebrity, commerce and industry with promises of no tax increases yet display venomous envy of the Prince who has helped countless people of all ages through patronage of the Prince's Trust and in so many ways.

It would bring nothing to this country to have a president in the mould of Thatcher or Blair. Heaven forbid that we move towards giving more power to those who may be fiscally irresponsible and morally bankrupt, yet quick to blame and scapegoat.

PIETER GROOTENDORST
Sidcup, Kent

Sir: A few days ago it came to light that Prince Charles pays no capital gains tax or corporation tax on his income. Now it seems that there will be another person added to the royal payroll. For how much longer will this royal rip-off be allowed to continue?

Rowan Williams will be doing his theological contortions to accommodate this marriage. I assume Blair has also searched his conscience for the intelligence that solves the constitutional WMD. Roll on the republic.

JON GIBBS
Ivybridge, Devon

Sir: It is to be hoped that once Prince Charles marries the love of his life, he will make another important decision in order to try and regain the respect of the public, and that is to renounce his right to accede to the throne. If he does not he will be scorned as a man who had it all but wanted more.

BOB BEADMAN
Hong Kong

Wrong apology

Sir: With so many other things for which he could have chosen to apologise, why did Tony Blair choose something that wasn't actually his fault?

STEVE RUDD
Goldthorpe, South Yorkshire

Check for democracy

Sir: So what's Sistani got against chess? ("Cricket but no chess in Sistani's vision for democratic Iraq", 9 April) The knights, the bishops, the queen or the omnipresence of the pawn?

COLE DAVIS
London NW2

Messy sex

Sir: Deborah Orr must lead a very sheltered life. Surely, heterosexual life is no less "messy" than homosexual ("A subtle (but dangerous) new prejudice", 1 February). Ninety-nine per cent of the cards in telephone boxes advertising sexual services, for example, are directed at heterosexuals and advertisers usually expect replies, indicating that they are answering a demand. If there is any difference between heterosexual and homosexual lifestyles, perhaps it is that the latter are just a little more honest, both with themselves and everyone else.

ROBERT SENECAL
London WC1

Mahler with irony

Sir: Robert Maycock writes: "There's no reason why you shouldn't play Mahler without irony" (Classical, 7 February). After a lifetime of performing the oboe solos in most of the Mahler symphonies with a fair amount of confidence, I now find I am filled with doubt. Should I, shouldn't I, must I have played these passages with irony or without it? Thankfully, as only a semi-professional oboist, my livelihood has never depended upon it.

PATRICIA RAMSAY
East Cowton, North Yorkshire

Individual voice

Sir: You close your appreciative obituary of Bernard Stone, bookseller and publisher, (8 February) with the assertion that "The age of the individualist in the book world is over." No it isn't.

DAVID MITCHELL
Bookseller and Publisher
Cromford, Derbyshire

Effect and cause

Sir: Richard Yorke (letter, 10 February) could be right, but ... what caused the first ever Christmas card to be sent?

GEOFF GODDARD
Nettleton, Lincolnshire