Wednesday 30 November 2016

Tories` joined-up thinking and "born again teachers"

If the Teaching Excellence Framework is any sort of guide to the way this country is going to be ruled under May`s administration, the country is in for a hard time (Vice-chancellors and students plan boycott of flagship teaching rankings,22/11/16). Expecting students to report accurately on the quality of teaching, when good scores will enable universities to raise tuition fees even higher, does not suggest there is much joined-up thinking occurring at the government department responsible. Jo Johnson might well think that the information will give future students "clear, understandable information about where the best teaching is on offer", but many will disagree. How can the quality of teaching be determined in part by the number of graduates getting appropriate jobs, or the number of students dropping out before completing thrir course? Indeed, the number who leave early because of poor teaching must be miniscule.
    Universities having the nerve to complain about the Framework, and their insistence. like that of Oxford, that it places "the quality of teaching at the heart of what it does", when the Guardian recently reported that "more than half of academics in Britain`s universites" are employed on insecure contracts, and are members of the "just about managing" class, beggar belief  (Work has been transformed. The law needs to keep up,17/11/16)!

 Gaby Hinsliff is undoubtedly correct: the "born again teachers" may find "being useful harder than it looks" (The golden generation should enjoy the luxury of being useful while it can, 25/11/16). Lucy Kellaway will almost certainly find that, after a day teaching maths "in an inner-city comp", she will have neither the time nor energy to "focus" on her organisation to encourage bankers and accountants "to round off their careers in the classroom". 
     A far better idea would be for the "jaded 50- somethings" to become teaching assistants; still very demanding and socially-useful, but without the extra burden of lesson preparation, marking and report writing. At least, the drop-out rate would be significantly lower!
       The shame of this is that the "socially-useful" aspect of the career should come so late. How different our society would be if the politicians, financial wizz-kids and such like, had been forced to spend a year working in schools, hospitals or care-homes as part of their degree courses.

M. Star letter on May`s duplicity

Your editorial rightly criticised  the autumn statement and its failure to help the "just about managing", despite May`s "extravagant claims" (Morning Star,24/11/16). Disappointment also came with the prime minister`s earlier U-turn on co-determination, but May was never going to force businesses to adopt co-determination against their wishes, and certainly never going to enforce a version of the system which would actually make a difference.
      A quick look at some of her other "promises" reveals that May is no less duplicitous than any of her predecessors. She, apparently, was going to be busy "fighting against burning injustice", but tell that to the members of the Orgreave and Justice Campaign!
 Then there`s  May`s ideas on improving education, especially for working class  boys. Well she`s really going to improve their chances by sending most of them to secondary modern schools, whilst the majority of middle class pupils attend grammars!
The autumn statement banned letting fees, but what Hammond didn`t say was that just two months ago the housing minister, Gavin Barwell, claimed such a move was a bad idea, as landlords would pass the extra cost on to their tenants! What was needed was the ban on letting fees to be accompanied by a nationwide rent freeze.
 "The government I lead will be driven not by the interests of the privileged few", May said, but when it was discovered hundreds of firms were not paying their workers the minimum wage,  she adopted that well known policy of failure, naming and shaming.
May also said, "When it comes to taxes, we’ll prioritise not the wealthy", but the rise in the personal allowance has most effect in increasing the net income of those on the upper end of the income scale - not the low earners! So much for her helping the "just about managing"!
      Labour MPs need to rally around Corbyn , and expose this duplicitous government for what it really is -  a government for big business and the rich. Helping the poorest and the "just about managing" is a long way down its list of priorities, despite the rhetoric!


Tuesday 29 November 2016

UK shouldn`t throw too many stones

Of course, Paddy McGuffin has every right to ridicule the "certifiable psychopath, racist, liar and fraud" that is Donald Trump (Morning Star,26/11/16).  The world needs to know the truth about the next president, who will undoubtedly disregard human rights at home and abroad. The trouble is that his glaringly obvious failings obscure less obvious ones at home; for example, how many are aware that Britain, as the United Nations Disability Committee`s report showed, is guilty of violations of disabled people`s human rights here, including an adequate standard of living and social protection?      
    Furthermore, as a result of Britain licensing £3.3 billion worth of arms to the fundamentalist dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, 83% of the Yemeni population are in need of humanitarian assistance, according to Amnesty International, and two and a half million people have been internally displaced as a result of the bombing. The government`s defence of its policy, that if we didn`t sell the Saudis weapons, someone else will, simply will not wash. Since 2010 Britain has sold arms to 22 of the 30 countries on the UK`s own human rights watch list!
   The fact that there are members of May`s cabinet urging the prime minister to embrace Nigel Farage as a de facto ambassador to the US displays a level of ignorance that is particularly worrying. 

  Then there is the appalling history of the British empire, so embarrassing 2.1million files are kept hidden from historians, and the existence both of tax havens galore on British territory, and politicians, who lie to the people, getting promotion rather than the sack. Add all these together and we have a Britain that may not exactly be a glasshouse, but it certainly has too many windows to justify too many stones being thrown!

Saturday 26 November 2016

Guardian magazine unpublished letter

In a year when the number of food banks has risen exponentially, and homelessness and inequality have continued to grow, would it not have been preferable for last week`s Weekend to have suggested £5 for a pair of knickers, instead of the "£95 for a set of two", and the remaining £90 go to Oxfam Unwrapped, or Crisis at Christmas, or other equally deserving causes (Bumper gift guide,19/11/16)?

Friday 25 November 2016

Autumn statement proves the duplicity

Yesterday`s autumn statement by the chancellor will have disappointed even some of the Tory MPs, whose constituencies include thousands of the so-called "Jams" - the "just about managing". Similarly, more disappointment came with the prime minister May`s earlier so-called U-turn on co-determination, which suddenly became voluntary, rather than the promised "compulsory". Workers` representation on the boards of companies was one of the many promises she made, both in her Tory leadership campaign, and on the steps of Downing Street.
   What she promised at the Tory conference was "to publish plans to have not just consumers represented on company boards, but workers as well". 
And unbelievably, she added "Because we are the party of workers"!
 The point is, however, that May was never going to force businesses to adopt co-determination against their wishes, and certainly never going to enforce a version of the system which would actually make a difference. Presumably many Tory MPs object to co-determination on principle; workers should have no say in how their employers run their companies. If  workers on boards were to have any effect, for example, on the pay gap between average worker and CEO, the TUC reckons a third of companies` boards should be made up of workers` representatives. And that was never on the cards! Instead, businesses can choose to have workers` representatives on their boards if they so wish, as they have been able to for decades. But they don`t!
 A quick look at some of her other "promises" reveals that May is no less duplicitous than any of her predecessors. She, apparently, was going to be busy "fighting against burning injustice", but tell that to the members of the Orgreave and Justice Campaign! Sadly, this pledge was never going to include an inquiry into one of the most glaring examples of "burning injustice" in modern history, the treatment of the miners during the strike, and the politicisation of the police by Thatcher`s vile government.
 Then there was  May`s ideas on helping to improve education, because "If you’re a white, working-class boy, you’re less likely than anybody else in Britain to go to university". Well she`s really going to improve their chances by sending most of them to secondary modern schools, whilst the majority of middle class pupils attend grammar schools! Social mobility, instead of being improved, will get worse.
The autumn statement banned letting fees, with Hammond claiming that this would help ease the housing problem, and thereby, make life easier for those "just managing". What he didn`t say was that just two months ago the housing minister, Gavin Barwell, claimed such a move was a bad idea, as landlords would pass the extra cost on to their tenants - in other words, it would cause rents to rise! Remember how May also said that "if you’re young, you’ll find it harder than ever before to own your own home"? Until the greed of these modern-day Rachmans is curbed, rents will always remain too high to allow young people to save for a deposit on their own homes. What was needed was the ban on letting fees to be accompanied by a nationwide rent freeze.
 As for increasing social housing.......? Don`t even go there.
"The government I lead will be driven not by the interests of the privileged few", she said, but when it was discovered hundreds of firms were not paying their workers the minimum wage, what did she do? Press charges against their CEOs for breaking the law? No chance. She adopted that well known policy of failure, naming and shaming. That works well, Theresa. Notice how Google and Amazon are paying billions in taxes these days!
Talking about taxes, what did May say about them? "When it comes to taxes, we’ll prioritise not the wealthy". Oh really? Well why didn`t the autumn statement increase income tax for the rich, or increase inheritance tax? The rise in the personal allowance has most effect in increasing the net income of those on the upper end of the income scale - not the low earners! So much for her helping the "just about managing"!
       The trouble is, this is just the start! May will continue to please the Mail and Telegraph readers with her "window dressing" reforms which, in reality, change nothing fundamentally. Labour MPs need to rally around Corbyn , and expose this duplicitous government for what it really is -  a government for big business and the rich, like all previous Tory administrations before it! Helping the poorest and the "just about managing" is a long way down its list of priorities, despite the rhetoric!





Wednesday 23 November 2016

Tax increases in the autumn statement

The Department of Health statement might well say that the "public can be assured that under this government the NHS will remain free at the point of contact", but as the duplicitous Tories clearly have no intention of adequately funding the health service, more privatisation, and the inevitable charging will follow (Morning Star,17/11/16).
     There could well be some notional increases in funding in the forthcoming autumn statement, but whether it will be additional money, or, indeed, arrive where it is needed, are moot points, and the call by the Tory MP for an "honest debate" on fees for treatment is both enlightening and worrying.

      Of course, the Tories will say there is insufficient money for the NHS, but the chancellor will undoubtedly announce some tax reductions, when the opposite is needed. Many in the media suggest tax increases for us all, but the lower paid provide too much in taxes already.The rich, on the other hand, have benefited hugely from the Tories` tax cuts since 2010, and increases in income tax to 45% for all those earning over £65000, 50% over £100000, and 55% over £140000 do not appear unreasonable, especially when remembering the average eanings are around £26000. Most modern economists are agreed that the Laffer Curve was simply a political method to enable lower taxes for the rich.
       These new tax bands need not be permanent, but until the country`s economy improves sufficiently so that welfare services are no longer at risk, such increases should be underpinning the strategy of a government supposedly eager to maintain the high standards of the NHS.

Monday 21 November 2016

May`s all talk and no action

Your editorial suggested that "more than half of academics in Britain`s universities", employed on insecure contracts, have joined the class of workers who are "just about managing" (Work has been transformed. The law needs to keep up,17/11/16).
      How can someone who is forced to supplement his meagre lecturer`s pay with work as a refuse collector, or an academic having to work at three different institutions, be considered to be "managing"? "To do what?" is the obvious next question. As with the "agency workers in warehouses and care assistants" whom you mentioned, they are clearly not managing to live lives of any quality, with no spare cash or time, and yet they are working in the 5th or 6th richest economy in the world.
    We all have heard the rhetoric from May, without any action or firm proposals, and none likely, at least to be effective, in this week`s autumn statement. With so much inequality and simple unfairness, a Tory government is never going to limit top pay, increase minimum wages to decent levels, regulate landlords to force rent reductions, and close all tax loopholes and havens.

    Whether the Guardian likes him or not, Corbyn is our only hope, and must be given support and encouragement by the left-leaning press and the parliamentary Labour party, to enable him to change this most unjust of societies!

2 letters on Tories` idea of co-determination

An "industrial policy", with an accompanying "reform of corporate governance and business behaviour", could well be on the cards from this Tory government, but its effectiveness has to be open to serious doubt (Enough snappy titles.Let`s have a consistent strategy,10/10/16). Can anyone imagine May`s party supporting the introduction of co-determination which would actually make a difference. The requirement of a workers` representative on company boards might be the sort of token gesture, or "window-dressing", that Tory backbenchers might promote, but would they approve a measure insisting on a third of board members being made up of elected employees` represenatives, a sufficiently high number to have actual influence on pay policy? May`s naming and shaming companies failing to pay the minimum wage was easy, but doing something to remedy the outrageous statistic that only three employers have been prosecuted in the last two and a half years, for breaking this law, clearly goes against the Tory grain (Only three out of 700 firms prosecuted for paying below minimum wage,28/09/16).
   The idea of "rewarding companies", along the lines of FDR`s "Blue Eagles" in 1930s America, is not without merit, especially if they pay their proper share of taxes, and pay the actual rather than the "national" living wage, but is insufficient. The question of zero-hours contracts needs dealing with, as does the exploitation of tenants by private landlords, both topics which received inadequate attention last week in Birmingham., but both, in their way, connected to an industrial strategy.

  Policies are all very well, but until they are backed by action, they remain very firmly in the folder marked "Tory rhetoric"!

If, as Philip Inman tells us, the cabinet "is split on Theresa May`s plan to put workers on boards", imagine the divisions in Tory ranks if the idea wasn`t mere "window-dressing" (Governance test,12/10/16). Presumably many Tory MPs object to co-determination on principle; workers should have no say in how their employers run their companies. If  workers on boards were to have any effect, for example, on the pay gap between average worker and CEO, the TUC reckons a third of companies` boards should be made up of workers` representatives.
   Inman says May has "to go all-in or fold"; sensible money has to be on the Disraelian pragmatic approach. The reform would insist on one workers` representative on the board of every large company, whilst being "permissive", in that companies could allow more if they so desired

Sunday 20 November 2016

Labour needs a rethink on Brexit

Whilst it was good to see John McDonnell calling on the duplicitous May and her government to "borrow for investment, end cruel spending cuts", and "reform the tax system", it was a little mystifying to read also that Labour will not "block or delay" article 50 (Morning Star,16/11/16). The argument that this would be to "side with corporate elites" is flawed, because that is exactly what this Tory government will be planning for Britain`s leaving of the EU.
Furthermore, unless parliament, and that includes all of the opposition parties, threatens to discuss, and if necessary amend article 50, the Tories will have a blank cheque to arrange for Brexit on their own terms. Those will include as many benefits for big business as possible, and "ordinary people`s rights" will be way down in the list of Tory priorities, as will the free movement of labour, something which Corbyn supports.

   Caroline Lucas is right in saying Labour should rethink this "premature move"; it makes no sense, economically or politically. The thought of May and her cronies arranging the terms of our exit from the EU, without opposition amendments, is too frightening for words! 

Friday 18 November 2016

Media must share blame

As Helen Lewis says, there are "dark days ahead" with the election of Trump, and there will be "much soul-searching by the media" in America in the next few weeks (The politics of whitelash, 11th November,2016). Whether Trump was treated as a joke-candidate for too long, and whether his political beliefs were investigated in sufficient depth, are certainly questions many should be asking themselves, but the same can be said of the British media in relation to this country`s political dire situation.
   Farage, our own Trump-like "spectacle", certainly, has not only been given far too much airtime, especially by the BBC, but also far too easy a ride, being allowed to express views in general, but never interrogated on the details. As a result, we know more about his far-right, fascist views from speeches made in support of Trump, than from media interviews and appearances here. Like his fellow Brexiteers, and the president-elect, Farage`s view of the past is a mistaken one, based on a manipulated and mythological history, but he is never asked to substantiate it.

     As in America, the media here must take much of the blame for the left`s decline, and the apparent "unelectability" of the Labour leader. Corbyn`s speeches and policies are rarely given adequate coverage in the press or television, and, should an early election be called, as George Eaton intimates it will (Politics,11th November), the victory of a Tory party moving increasingly to the right should cause some soul-searching by many journalists writing in the few left-leaning publications remaining in this country!

Thursday 17 November 2016

Teachers` workload

The fact that "only teachers in Japan and the Canadian province of Alberta work longer hours" than those in England is absolutely disgraceful (Morning Star,11/10/16). Whilst it shows the commitment and professionalism of the profession, it also demonstrates the urgent need for change. Two problems are obvious: working up to sixty hours a week in such a stressful occupation is bound to be having serious repercussions on health, whilst the damage it is doing to hopes of ending the teacher recruitment crisis is colossal.
    That the extra hours are found to "consist mostly of marking and lesson planning" reveals that the ambition and  overzealousness of many headteachers are to blame. It is nonsense, whatever Ofsted and other so-called experts might say, that all lessons require detailed, written plans; samples are quite sufficient, especially as there are so many lesson observations taking place.
   Marking requirements are clearly excessive, at both primary and secondary level. There`s a job, here, for the Education Secretary; parents, especially those of children in primary schools, need to be told not to expect every piece of work to be marked and commented upon. Far better to concentrate on the detailed marking of one piece of work every week, or even fortnight.
   At secondary level, some heads seem to think that constant testing and reporting should replace teaching as the main method of improving results, whilst the underfunding of state schools is adding to teacher pressure. Add all this to the decreasing pay, you do, indeed, get, in Chris Keates`s words, a "toxic combination". Sadly it is one which this Tory government is content to ignore.

 

Monday 14 November 2016

2 letters on history,Cold war, and Germany

Of course, "co-existence (with Russia) is the only option" (Cold war 2.0: different times, different dangers as Russia and the west collide, 25/10/16). At least there are some in Britain, like the ex-Moscow ambassador, Tony Brenton, and unlike the foreign secretary, calling for calm, and when Brenton says that "telling other bad countries how they should behave is less and less possible", he is absolutely correct.
     The west is in no position to criticise Putin for his aggression, when it not only supports a regime like that of the Saudis, but sells it billions of pounds` worth of weapons to use against civilians in Yemen. Until the UK and US stop their arms-dealing to warmongering states, surreptitiously offering military help through advisers, and carrying out their own air offensives, they cannot object to other countries like Russia behaving in a similar belligerent fashion. 
    In the short term, how about inviting Putin here for talks, and playing to his vanity by throwing in a dinner with the queen? Without some diplomatic efforts starting soon, there is a danger of the hawkish element in the US Senate dictating policy, and that can only lead to the problem worsening!

The fact that Germany with, as Omar Khan says, its "onerous baggage from its past", now appears "more confident in terms of its identity and values", is not really as "strange" as he makes out (We damage our country by denying its migrant past,27/10/16). Germans were forced after the Second World War to face up to the truth about its recent history, something that the British have never been expected to do. Whereas the Nazi atrocities and mass-murders became known throughout the world, preventing the return, generally, of any thoughts of racial superiority in Germany, British history has continued to be manipulated by politicians, keen to hide the evidence from the historians, and the school text books. 
     The concealment of 1.2 million files relating to our involvement in events going back as far as the Crimean War, supports Khan`s opinion that Britain`s history is, indeed, an "imaginary" one. Only when the truth is revealed about the methods used to acquire and keep the empire, for instance, can any "informed discussion" about British identity, and the need to accept fully "people of migrant background" as "truly British", take place. 

Sunday 13 November 2016

Letter on anti-Corbyn article

Writing as someone coming from "an alienated fringe of the middle class", finding comfort in "belonging in an anti-capitalist protest movement", I found John Gray`s attack on Corbyn particularly malicious (Closing of the liberal mind, 4th November 2016). To suggest that his policies have been "plucked from a blue sky, without any attempt to connect them with earthbound facts" is simply anti-Corbyn propaganda, better suited to the Tory tabloids. Is it not a fact that privately-owned railway companies have been ripping off British taxpayers for too long, not to mention their customers? Nationalisation of the railways is long overdue. Am I wrong in thinking anti-austerity policies are needed because the Tory-initiated austerity programme was simply an excuse to shrink the state back to pre-war levels? Has inequality not increased  partly because of the rich being undertaxed, and the fictional Laffer curve guiding Tory fiscal policy?
     Gray was right to say that Labour`s moderates were "so devoid of new thinking" they only offered "empty slogans that reeked of the past". It makes little sense, therefore, to  attack so spitefully a Labour leader offering policies different from those of both the Tories and his predecessors, based as they are on  fairness and equality of opportunity.

 

Friday 4 November 2016

Labour election victory is possible!

I notice, not only that George Eaton thinks that Labour will "survive the next general election as a united force", because of the "new consensus being forged in the PLP", but also, that he declines to suggest they can win it (Politics, 28th October, 2016). A wise decision, with this unity only based on Trident, Nato, constitutional reform such as PR, and an anti-austerity programme; there have to be more policies which resonate with the young, and with voters flirting with Ukip or the Greens. A detailed proposal to regulate private landlordism, and to ensure fair rents, and decent housing for all, is a must, whilst polls have revealed already the popularity of railway nationalisation. Miliband made horrendous errors, but he was right to focus on energy costs, and if all Labour MPs cannot find common ground in higher taxes for the rich, and tougher legislation on tax avoidance and evasion, one must question their reasons for being in the party in the first place.
     May`s government will inevitably continue to support divisive policies, like the return of grammar schools, whilst there will also be Tory divisions over Brexit, and problems putting the prime minister`s warm words into practice, so plenty for an opposition to unite against. The Labour party`s survival should not be the focus of the PLP, but victory in the next election!