Wednesday 27 September 2017

Labour United`s season starts well!

With the season in its early stages, Labour United look set to improve on the encouraging results seen last June. Still relying too much both on the manager to weave his magic, and on the opposition being divided, with Conservative City`s leader clearly having "lost the dressing-room", Labour cannot assume victory to be inevitable. Hard work and thorough preparation are required.
    Home contests will be close, but as long as all stick to the game plan, concentrate on providing a united front, with no individuals trying to be different with an alternative plan of attack, all should be well. Old hands have had their day, the game has changed, the opposition are tougher and certainly better financed, and it is time to keep to the newer tactics which served them so well last season.
     Europe could well be a problem, and United have to be careful its policies do not divide the fans. Defence, too, can be problematic for Corbyn, but a principled approach works wonders!
     Conservative City`s finances have never been in better shape, which means their tactics can be adopted to suit the more modern times. Using social media to keep the fans up-to-date and well-informed, a tactic which worked well for United in the past, is something all opposition teams will copy. Having, and keeping, a young fan-base has always been City`s problem, but with its current manager, and with the list of leaders-in-waiting, lacking any plans to win their support,the dilemma looks set to remain.
     May`s managership has led to a dramatic change in tactics, with the formation now favouring a three-pronged attack on the right-wing, and too few offensives down the centre to worry the opposition. In fact, the three attackers are definitely more anti-strikers than "false number 9s"! One of the three, Davis, has a reputation for only putting in short shifts, whilst the strangely popular Johnson hits the news more for his off-the-ball behaviour than his skills in the opposition half. Johnson was May`s surprise selection, especially as his post-match gaffes tend to outnumber even his missed goal opportunities. Shooting on sight appears his modus operandi, whilst team mates would prefer a more considered approach. 
        The third anti-striker is renowned for wanting the "right result", and for not doing enough to achieve it. Considered the team expert on defence for a short while, Fox`s career seemed to have ended when it was discovered he had smuggled a close friend on to the team bus! Fans love a "fox in the box", but this Fox`s contribution has been minimal, and he might well be spending more time this season on the Conservative`s backbench. With rumours that the Maydays are over, and that Rees-Mogg`s wide right-wing approach offers new vision, anything is possible.

      United should prosper, however, with its approach to academies offering more opportunities to maximise potential, whilst City`s youth policy seems in disarray. Manager May dropped a bombshell when what could be the end of City`s academy system was announced. Rather than grooming the best talent in academies, as has been the common practice in recent years, May was going for selection at eleven, and hoping to see talent develop from there. This caused a huge outcry when announced, even amongst Conservative City`s traditional supporters, and the subsequent U-turn has added to the confusion, and to May`s imminent sacking. Chairman Murdoch cannot be pleased, and many suspect her belated return from holiday to pre-season sessions was simply a ploy to avoid widening the obvious cracks in City`s ranks. May`s refusal to spend, to prop up the team`s ailing performance, when money is clearly not a problem, judging by her profligacy regarding the team`s Northern Irish support, is only one of many problems. Her preference for rhetoric rather than action is another; "talking a good game" is something most managers do, but most actually attempt to transfer words into deeds!     
   It could well, therefore, be an excellent season for Labour United. One certainly cannot fault the shift being put in by manager Corbyn; let`s hope his pre-season efforts reap dividends.

Who is ruling Britain?

It`s an obvious question to ask, but very rarely delivered, especially by the mainstream media. The answer should be, of course, the prime minister, democratically elected only last June, but when one looks at the actions taken and in the process of being taken, it becomes more difficult to say that Theresa May is actually governing the country. That explains why the question - who is ruling Britain? - is so rarely, if at all, asked.Until now. What an opportunity thsi provides the Labourparty - ready-made fuel to add to the Tory misery. A possible question for the PM at the Wednesday session, too.
    If one looks back to May`s election as Tory leader, in July last year, it is difficult to forget that long list of seemingly good intentions, just as it is difficult to find any of those promises being put into action. She promised to "fight against the burning injustices", to help the "just about managing", to lead a government "not driven by the interests of the privileged few", and, when passing new laws, to "listen not to the mighty" but to us, the people! The autumn statement and a budget have passed since, but if the "Jams" have been assisted in any significant way, I must have missed it.
 What has been unmissable has been the way the promises have been watered down, not because we, the electorate insisted, but because the "mighty" lobbying elements did. The pro-business lobby has been behind much of May`s proposals on corporate reform, something she said was vital because excessive pay at the top threatens the "social fabric of our society". Not vital enough, however; the pledge on workers` representatives on company boards fell at the first hurdle, and now it is up to non-executive directors to stand up against CEOs and argue for better pay ratios. The latter will be published but no legislation has been promised to reduce the ratios; instead, there will be a new public register of companies facing regular shareholder opposition to their pay policies. It`s no wonder both the CBI president and the director general of the Institute of Directors are in approval. Their organisations` lobbying has borne fruit, nothing has changed, CEOs will continue to pocket at least around 100 times the pay of their average employees, and May`s promises have been forgotten; her rhetoric is well known for its ability to outweigh her actions, something clearly Labour can rally around, and repeat as one!
   Sadly, there is much more evidence which proves who actually is in charge of this country, and they clearly care not a jot about the "fabric" of our society. We might be very concerned that our government is selling weapons to the Saudis so that they can bomb Yemen, a country so devastated by war that famine and disease are rife, but that doesn`t stop the arms industry lobbyists winning the day.

     Then there`s the food industry, a lobby so influential it insists the public is not told the whole truth about what it eats; the government can harp on all it likes about putting the nation`s security first, but stands back when faced with food contamination threats. Disraeli`s 1875 legislation on food safety, the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, was largely ineffective because of the 19th century`s shortage of analysts. Now we have the analysts, their work in the public sector has seen drastic cuts by years of Conservative-dominated governments, which have been intent on reducing massively the budgets of local authorities. Politicians never tire of telling us how "security" is their priority, justifying the billions spent every year on weapons and defence. What a shame, then, that they don`t attach similar importance to the people`s security from food contamination. The  Food Standards Agency apparently  wants to "improve relationships" with the food industry!  Is that an agency which is next to useless or what? Naming and shaming supermarkets and abattoirs for their contamination levels is not enough; it hasn`t exactly had much effect in reducing tax avoidance! And who takes responsibility  for all of this? Lobbyists, the people who are really ruling Britain.
Labour should be hammering home this point; the Tories are failing in their  responsibility to rule.  
Think of the biggest of the many U turns on the Tories` manifesto made since the election, and then consider who is responsible, not that the government`s arm needed much turning - the Tories clearly know exactly where their bread is buttered! No prizes for guessing which industry`s lobbying succeeded in getting rid of the pledge to cap energy costs, a vote-winner for Labour if ever there was one. 
The betting lobby ensures the continued existence of the addictive fixed-odds betting terminals on almost every high street, and a barrage of televised advertisements on primetime TV. The building industry`s influence over government means little or no affordable or social housing is being built, with doubt increasing about safety levels of those that have appeared, for very obvious and tragic reasons.
 As for the influence of the banking and financial sectors on government policy!! The lack of substantial regulation, the fact that next to no prison sentences have resulted from the many abuses and fraudulent acts, and the refusal of governments to introduce a financial transaction tax all speak volumes.
The question remains: who runs the country? One thing is certain, it`s not Theresa May, and the sooner the people know about it, the better. Labour should be shouting it from the rooftops!

Sunday 10 September 2017

Time to end this lame-duck government

The situation the country is now in is both ridiculous and frightening! We have a prime minister so divorced from reality she makes a statement claiming that there is a "great prize" awaiting us after Brexit, when the UK will become a "great global country" (Tory MPs in revolt as May threatens "soft" Brexiters, 03.09.17). Theresa May even thinks she will still be Tory leader in 2022!  Her party, as Andrew Rawnsley tells us, might be willing  to put up with a "lame-duck leader", because the alternative is a "bloodbath", followed by an election defeat, but the country cannot afford such selfish Tory mismanagement and the consequent "rudderless government"(How long will Mrs May survive? She`s the very last person to ask,03.09.17).
  Meanwhile, our uselessness in foreign affairs, personified by Johnson, results in arms being sold for use in Yemen, and offers nothing to ameliorate political and humanitarian catastrophes. At home, shortages of hospital beds, teachers, GPs and nurses, prison and police officers, firefighters, food and buildings` inspectors, HMRC staff and more, exacerbate problems caused by decreased funding for local authorities, and the many caused by government-enforced austerity policies and real-wage cuts.
   Not only MPs but all those with influence, from judges to lords, from archbishops to political commentators, should, in Anna Soubry`s words, see it as their duty, to "do what they believe is in the national interest", and speak out. Enough is enough, a general election is needed urgently. Political change at the top is essential.

Friday 8 September 2017

Vice-chancellors not worth the money

With the universities minister, in typical Johnson fashion, U-turning his view that vice-chancellors` pay is not government business, there is now a demand for "institutions to justify any salary over £150,000", with a fine the punishment for failure (Vice-chancellors are urged to rein in their salaries, 07/09/17). Most voters would welcome such a requirement for all jobs, especially as the average income is only around £28,000, with real wages for most declining.
    The trouble is universities will be able to cobble together some feeble excuses for the excessive pay with vague comments like "brings in students from abroad", and "attracts new research". The government should insist on what the vice-chancellors achieve on their own, separate from other staff, away from team work, and distinct from the collegiate approach.
 Like school headteachers, vice chancellors` success is only achieved because of the work of staff as a whole.

Wednesday 6 September 2017

Let`s hear it from more dignitaries

Well done the Archbishop of Canterbury and the rest of the IPPR’s commission for speaking out about the dire situation the country is in, with worse to come (Britain’s economy is “broken” and failing to tackle inequality, says major new report). That a “radical new approach” is essential is something that needs to be repeated, and the more it is said by dignitaries like archbishops, judges, lords and business leaders, and even celebrities. The more publicity is gained, and the more likely the public and their politicians are to respond.
Challenging our Government, which has the nerve to say it is “proud of its record”, when the Brexit talks are at a standstill, there are drastic shortages of teachers, GPs, nurses, midwives, police and prison officers, building and food inspectors, carers and many more, when real wages have declined, business pay ratios often obscene, and the austerity policies continue to attack the least fortunate, cannot just be left to a Labour opposition which frequently gets a bad press in the right-wing media.
At a time when the “austerity chickens” are coming home to roost, and more and more people are appalled, it’s time a few more influential people made their voices heard. It wouldn’t hurt if that included some royals, and if protocol or custom prevented that, how about some well-publicised royal visits to food banks and hostels for the homeless?

St Olave`s and an end to Pre-Us

Refusing year 13 places to pupils who have already twice proved their academic prowess is, quite simply, a disgrace (Weaker pupils "dumped" by top grammar, 30/08/17). If St Olave`s, and any other school adopting similar policies, cannot be bothered to try and raise grades from Cs in the mocks to Bs in the final A level examination, they cannot be doing their job properly. All of their students achieved brilliant results at GCSE, so offering them the opportunity for further examination success at A level is their educational duty! Many students go on to university without top A level grades, anyway, and maximise their potential in higher education.
     Having taught A level history for over 40 years in educational establishments where results mattered, but not at the expense of everything else, as apparently happens in "exam factories", one of the most satisfying aspects of the work was seeing students improving, often by more than one grade, in the second year of the course. When management is more "intent on topping the league table", than caring for the welfare of all of their pupils, criticism has to be directed at not only the individual schools, but the system. Having school league tables based only on examination results encourages such devious tactics as those used at St Olave`s.        The sooner this country has a government which insists its schools have the well-being of all pupils as their priority the better. Perhaps a think-tank could devise "a performance measure" based on that ("It was dreadful. There were children in tears", 3/08/17)?

It was interesting to see that the statement from the Diocese of Chichester on behalf of St Olave`s school said that the aim "as a school" is to "nurture boys who flourish and achieve their full potential academically", rather than, as in most schools, to nurture their pupils in order for them to maximise their achievement (Top grammar in U-turn over ditched pupils, 02/09/17). As some of your correspondents suggested, there can be little faith in the ability of staff to raise standards, which, of course, is what they should be concentrating on (Letters, 01/09/17).
      For once, the policy of "naming and shaming" has worked, and a school cheating the system has been forced to change policy, but the revelations about the examination-cheating public schools can only be shown to have a desired effect when the so-called Pre-U examinations are no longer viable as university entrance qualifications. With no limits to the proportion of students universities can enrol from private schools, only private sector pupils taking these examinations, and independent school staff, in many cases, actually writing the questions, the current post-16 assessment system is both unfair and flawed. 
    On the Pre-U website, Winchester College recommends these examinations, as they "are very liberating for teachers". Indeed! If the government really wants the "public to have confidence in the integrity of the exam system", as Nick Gibb says, it needs to ensure Ofqual advocates the use of ordinary A-levels in all schools. 

Tuesday 5 September 2017

University reform urgently needed

The results of the IPPR report indicating that 134 university students took their own lives in 2015, and that as many as 26% of students in some universities "were using counselling services, or on the waiting list", are appalling (Suicide rates nearly double among UK university students to reach all-time high, study finds, 02/09/17). Far too much pressure is being exerted on our students, in 6th forms as well as in higher education, to attain the highest grades, so much so that creditable C and B grades, and second class degrees, are being sneered at.
   The current system is not designed to benefit the students, and universities are profiting, with vice-chancellors now pocketing excessive pay. The stress of leaving universities with debts of up to £50,000, and interest charged at over 6%, is clearly intolerable.

 A simple reform which could be introduced immediately is for universities to place in their publicity exact details of how many hours in each course is taken up by lectures, how much time is devoted to tutorials where academic problems can be discussed, and how much support for the welfare of the students there is. Whether there are personal tutors available, and how many, to deal with welfare issues surely is something all universities should make public. Being "overwhelmed" by the increase in mental health issues is not a viable excuse! If they are too ashamed to publish such details, they have the money to correct the situation;  they could start with capping vice-chancellors` pay, and spending the excess on employing more counsellors and personal tutors!

Monday 4 September 2017

Too many top schools cheating the system

What your report on the grammar school which "boots out kids to keep up its league-table scores" omitted to include was the fact that the school in question, St Olave`s, insists on all entrants passing an exam at the age of 11, and also has a high threshold for entry into the 6th form (Morning Star, 30/08/17). The pupils excluded for failing to achieve 3 Bs in the interim exams had already proved themselves twice to be academically brilliant, so refusing them the opportunity to study in year 13 is inexcusable. Management, it seems, is more intent on  their school rising to the top of the examinations` league table, than giving all of their pupils the opportunity to take A levels. The welfare of the pupils matters not a jot, it would appear!
What makes this more annoying is the fact that these clever students will be welcomed at nearly all universities, regardless of whether they get grades A, B or C, and many of them will exceed expectations at higher education. One would also think that the teachers would relish the challenge of improving the grades of these pupils from the ones attained in year 12, something that most teachers find extremely rewarding.

 The current system of league tables imposed by recent governments encourages such behaviour in these "exam factories". If there have to be league tables, lets have one which concentrates on rewarding schools which aim to maximise the opportunities for all pupils, and offer them a level playing field on which to do so.

Enough is enough!

As Stephen Bush says, May`s successor "faces an uphill battle to be anything other than a brief pause before Corbyn takes over" (Politics, 25th August, 2017). We have now reached a stage where all political correspondents, apart from those stuck rigidly  on the extreme right, have a duty to urge the need for an election, and political change. The nation`s security is now at risk. Not only do we have the ridiculous situation of our government callously selling arms to Saudi Arabia knowing full well that they will be used against disease and famine-ridden Yemen, but also, as Michael Axworthy tells us, the same government is aware that the Saudis` funding for Wahhabi extremism beyond its shores is connected to "terrorist acts committed in the UK" (Islam`s great schism, 25th August,2017). We need our government to stand up to the Saudis, and if the Tories refuse, we should be allowed to elect one which will.
    Security against food contamination is also something about which May`s government is becoming increasingly relaxed, and the next horsemeat-type scandal can only be weeks away; as a result of continuing austerity policies, local authorities lack the funds to carry out their duty to test foods sold in their area, and the Food Standards Agency has been ordered to "improve relationships" with the food suppliers!
 Enough is enough! It is up to the political writers in the media to lead the charge for change!

Friday 1 September 2017

3 letters on "fat cat" pay

Len McCluskey is right to say that the government`s derisory attempts to curb fat cats` obscene pay levels were "evidence of the big business lobby bringing the Tories to heel" (Morning Star, 29/08/17). Publishing pay ratios, having non-executive directors to represent employees on boards, and introducing a new public register of companies facing shareholder opposition over pay policy are as likely to reduce inequality as naming and shaming Amazon and Google was in reducing tax avoidance.
    The strength of the pro-business lobby begs the question about who actually is governing the country. The arms lobby ensures we supply the Saudis with weapons to destroy famine-ridden Yemen. The food industry ensures regulation of the food sold in our supermarkets and the meat produced in the abattoirs is being reduced, with local authorities starved of the funds to do the work. There is a food scandal waiting to happen in Britain, akin to the Grenfell housing scandal revealing insufficient checking of obvious rules and regulations.The food lobby prevents accurate and useful information being printed on every item sold, whilst the betting lobby ensures the continuation of the addictive fixed-odds betting terminals. The building industry`s influence over government means little or no affordable or social housing is being built, with doubt increasing about safety levels of those that have appeared.
With lack of space preventing a mention of other powerfull lobbying concerns (banking, financial, landlords etc) the question remains: who runs the country? One thing is cer


The facts that the CBI president, Paul Dechsler, backs "the thrust of Ms May`s moves" to tackle the "unacceptable face of capitalism", and that the director general of the Institute of Directors, Stephen Martin, thinks pay ratios will "sharpen the awareness of boards", say it all (Government attacked over new laws on excessive "fat cat" pay, 29/08/17). May`s attempts to clamp down on excessive boardroom pay are farcical. There is no way the voluntary publication of companies` pay ratios, non-executive directors representing employees, or a new public register of companies facing regular shareholder opposition over top-level pay will make any difference whatsoever. Without legislation forcing companies to comply, and without proper workers` representatives having a say on companies` pay policies, CEOs will continue to pocket obscene levels of pay, with the inevitable continued increase in inequality, and decrease in productivity.
   Apparently, May has opined that the irresponsibility of excessive pay damages the "social fabric of our society", but her rhetoric is well known for its ability to outweigh her actions, and once again she has backed down to the pro-business lobby which dominates her party. Unfortunately, that same lobby cares not a jot about about the condition of our society. Hopefully, Labour politicians will unite and attack this open goal, for this is clearly another example of the Tory leader shooting herself in the foot, and gifting the Opposition more vote-winning opportunities! 


Andreas Whittam Smith`s confidence in "public pressure" working to reduce fat cat pay will not be shared by many, with, as he admits, the average "full time worker on a salary of £28000" having to work 160 years to earn what a CEO of a big company receives in a year (Fat cat pay is not justified when productivity is so poor - and the government is starting to realise this, 30/08/17). It`s little wonder British productivity is so low, when so much of companies` profits go on bosses` obscene pay levels  rather than in investment in training and technology.
      May`s attempts to clamp down on excessive boardroom pay are farcical. There is no way the publication of companies` pay ratios, non-executive directors representing employees, or a new public register of companies facing regular shareholder opposition over top-level pay will make any difference whatsoever. Does May, or indeed Whittam Smith, actually believe the employees` representative arguing against yet another pay award for the boss will have any impact? Without legislation forcing companies to comply, and without proper workers` representatives having a say on companies` pay policies, CEOs will continue to pocket obscene levels of pay, with the inevitable continued increase in inequality, and decrease in productivity.
   Apparently, May has opined that the irresponsibility of excessive pay damages the "social fabric of our society", but her rhetoric is well known for its ability to outweigh her actions, and once again she has backed down to the pro-business lobby which dominates her party. Unfortunately, that same lobby cares not a jot about about the condition of our society. Hopefully, Labour politicians will unite and attack this open goal, for this is clearly another example of the Tory leader shooting herself in the foot, and gifting the Opposition more vote-winning opportunities!