America’s closest ally is the perfect distraction for Trump

Donald Trump’s confected row with the Labour Party over alleged “foreign interference” in the US presidential election seems to be a clumsy attempt to drown out disturbing messages should he win next month – namely, how a second Trump term might evolve (“Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s phoney war with Starmer over US election interference”, Wednesday 23 October).

After all, why else manufacture a row with your staunchest ally?

As other commentators have observed, the US and UK’s main parties have been exchanging volunteers in elections since the Kennedy-Wilson and later Reagan-Thatcher years without any complaints.

Perhaps Trump is already scrambling around for excuses in case he is beaten.

I believe that it is more likely to be a distraction from what former close Trump aides like John Kelly and former FBI director James Comey have been saying about their former boss. Trump is essentially an authoritarian leader who seems to have little regard or even understanding of democratic principles, the rule of law or the primacy of the US constitution.

That Kelly has even suggested Trump’s attitude and behaviour could meet the definition of fascism is a truly frightening prospect if it turns out to be correct.

Paul Dolan

Cheshire

So, a few Labour supporters go to campaign for the Democrats’ candidates in the United States election and the Republican presidential candidate is quick to complain (“Ludicrous Trump’s got nothing on Labour – but they still need to wise up”, Thursday 24 October).

Yet when Nigel Farage and Liz Truss go over to campaign for Trump, or Conservative leadership candidate Robert Jenrick voices support for dear old Donald, the silence is deafening.

Given that I’m expecting a Trump victory, with maybe a little foreign interference from Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin, it seems clear to me that hypocrisy continues to run very deep in the Republican Party.

Geoffrey Brooking

Havant

Britain has been challenged to pay up to £18 trillion for slavery – but who to? (“Starmer cannot afford to apologise for Britain’s part in the slave trade”, 24 October 2024).

The world has always been a dangerous and deadly place. Many forgotten conquerors and rulers have exacted terrible punishment, suffering and economic harm throughout history. But where do we draw the line?

There are so many examples and counter-examples of historic wrongs that resolving the true value taken or given is practically impossible. If such “obligations” are expected in the modern day, then there will be a never-ending list of periods and nationalities to be held to account. Is the historical cause of suffering to a small social group any less deserving than to a large one?

Yes, we should all acknowledge our sins, apologise and ask for forgiveness, but assessing the monetary value of any change wrought upon others also has to balance the value and benefits arising.

Britain has been credited with many good and bad actions, and some consequences are very evident through societies and the world today. How can we decide the good or bad influence they had in the world today?

Also, how many leaders of tribes and other groups provided slaves and profited? Do their descendants deserve reparations?

It seems unbalanced to expect reparations for specific cruelties when there is no offset from benefits and consequences that might have taken generations and centuries to arise.

At this rate, we will soon be paying foxes for having suffered for our entertainment – and they will in turn have to pay rabbits for calories received.

Michael Mann

Shrewsbury

I am deeply concerned about the timetable the government has adopted to implement VAT on private school fees midway through the academic year (“Reeves facing unlikely alliance of private schools, unions and tax experts calling for VAT delay”, 7 October 2024).

This policy, while financially focused, has serious implications for the mental and emotional health of children affected. Forcing families into a position where they may need to move their children from private schools mid-year could cause significant disruption to the child’s education and, more critically, their overall wellbeing.

From my perspective as a GP, I see the impact of these stressors manifesting in children with increased anxiety, changes in behaviour, sleep disturbances, and even depression.

Research consistently supports these concerns. As a GP, I know how detrimental these disruptions can be to the mental health of children, particularly those already struggling with stress or anxiety.

Moreover, the risks are heightened for students preparing for their GCSEs and A-levels, where curriculum differences between schools can result in significant gaps in learning. These students already face immense pressure, and the added burden of a school move at such a crucial stage could have far-reaching effects on their mental health and academic outcomes.

The government must take into account the potential harm this policy could inflict on children’s mental and emotional wellbeing which has already been disproportionally affected by Covid-19. If financial policies like this are to be introduced, we have a duty to minimise their impact on children. The government needs to look at the implementation timetable to minimise the potential for mid-year transfers and consider exemptions for particularly vulnerable groups, such as SEN, those sitting exams and boarders dependent on school pastoral care.

Dr Hester Monaghan

Truro

In his brilliant book Politics on the Edge, Rory Stewart is full of praise for David Gauke with whom he worked when prisons minister (“Labour is right to enlist a Tory to help them tackle the prisons crisis”, 23 October 2024). He describes David Gauke as calm, considerate, intelligent and wise, a politician very much on the centre ground of his party, and careful to weigh all opinions and evidence before making decisions.

Appointing David Gauke to help deal with the prison crisis is an inspired move by Sir Keir. It’s surely time for much more of this sensible cross-party approach. So many experienced, non-egotistical Tory centrists were lost, thanks to the stupidity and vindictiveness of Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings.

Maybe Sir Keir could do a bit more uncorking…?

Sue Breadner

Isle of Man