Tuesday 28 November 2017

Tories have the nerve to protest about defence cuts!

Tories will happily moan about defence cuts – but stay quiet on the ones that really matter

With more defence cuts on the horizon, Tories predictably churn out the adage about it being the “first duty of Government above all others”, and “open rebellion” apparently on the cards (Theresa May’s proposed army number cuts face “very substantial rebellion” from Tory backbenchers). What a shame the same Tories didn’t say they were “prepared to hold the Government’s feet to the fire”, when its cuts to local authorities mean the defence against food contamination and the security of the nation’s health is weakened because of the reduced number of food inspectors.
Why are there no protests when the continued lack of regulation in the City brings another financial crash ever nearer? Shouldn’t the security of taxpayers’ money be a priority? Defending children from the ravages of poverty has to be a top priority for any government seriously concerned about its duties, but the number of children living in poverty has increased hugely.
Safeguarding the right of every child to a decent education should also be one of the Government’s first responsibilities, but that doesn’t prevent schools being underfunded, and the teacher recruitment problem reaching epidemic proportions. Defending the population against criminals should be another priority, but cuts in police numbers continue without a murmur of protest. What about the Government’s responsibilities to protect people against Rachman-like landlords, greedy banks, cowboy builders and such like? How many more disasters have to take place before politicians realise priorities have to change?
Yet, defence against an enemy which apparently can only be stopped with nuclear weapons launched from new submarines costing around £50bn, is a real priority. The Tories are right: defence of the people is the Government’s duty “above all others”, but not always simply against exaggerated threats from foreign powers. For centuries British governments have wasted billions on military spending to justify the country’s position as a so-called great power, all the while denying the necessary resources to close the poverty gap and reduce inequality. Nothing has changed! 

Monday 27 November 2017

Pre-U examinations add to unfairness

The appearance of the head of Eton before the Commons` education select committee, "to be questioned about exam malpractice at the school", is to be welcomed (Head of Eton grilled by MPs over exam malpractice, 25/11/2107). Hopefully, questions will also cover some wider issues. Why, for instance, do so many "elite independent schools" favour Pre-U examinations in the first place? It appears these examinations were "created in response to demands from private schools", because, presumably, they were not happy with the A-levels which the vast majority of 6th form students in the country take. Why? On the Pre-U website, Winchester College recommends these examinations, as they "are very liberating for teachers". In what ways? Are the courses and assessment procedures so different? Are the fees for these examinations higher than for "bog-standard" A-levels, and therefore out of the reach of most fund-starved state schools?
        It is clearly wrong for people currently teaching an examination course to set questions; it not only leaves doors open to the malpractice revealed this year, it gives massive advantages to the pupils taught by the teachers who set the questions. Furthermore, the "little oversight" Ofqual clearly has over these examinations begs the question about whether alternative examinations to A-levels should exist at all. It is not as though pupils educated privately have not been given enough advantage over the average A-level student!
      A lot of questions need answering before faith in the integrity of the examination system can be restored.

Friday 24 November 2017

Unpublished letters on Brexit (2)

The conclusion in last week`s Leader that Brexiteers have been "betrayed by mendacious mediocrities such as Mr Johnson" is obviously correct, but it is also true that many people voted in the referendum for Brexit because it was a way of protesting against duplicitous politicians (Leader, 17th November, 2017). A New Labour government, described by many as in cahoots with the City, followed by a Tory-led coalition and then Cameron`s administration, appeared to be mainly ruling in the interests of the rich and the south-east, ignoring vasts swathes of the UK, and have resulted in a popularity surge for Corbyn. This explains the view of the Labour leader`s inner circle, that "opposing Brexit now would undermine" his "political project" (The Brexit wars rage on, 17th November, 2017).
       It also explains why the current "Exit from Brexit" dinner-goers stand little or no chance of "halting Brexit altogether"; the individuals mentioned by George Eaton include no one able to engender trust, and too many who generate suspicion. Labour right-winger Chuka Umunna apparently has "media savvy", but little popular support; ex-corporate lawyer Nicky Morgan is well remembered by teachers for her solution to the recruitment problem being for 60 hour-a-week teachers to project a "more positive image"! Anna Soubry`s voting record on fairer tax and increased austerity is appalling;  Nick Clegg is remembered by everyone for sacrificing any liberal values he might have had at the altar of parliamentary power in 2010, whilst Mandelson`s "intensely relaxed" views on the very rich helped to increase inequality.
    The "greatest obstacle Remainers face" is not "time", but the widely held lack of trust in most politicians. Until Corbyn decides Brexit has to be stopped, the Remainers` case is doomed.

Nick Timothy recently wrote that Philip Hammond "lacks a burning desire to change people`s lives", as if this was the  common denominator of Toryism. As your editorial stated, May has "turned down every opportunity to make things better", with no doubt, another chance scorned this week (Hammond must banish the ghost of Osborne and help the left behind, 19.11.17). The prime minister appears to care little about how history will judge her, and at the moment, she is nothing more than a stop-gap, interim ruler in name only, lacking the courage to stand up to political harassment from Tory bullies.
      She can do little about being a temporary leader, but May could certainly act to change what historians will write about her; William Keegan provided a clue (Brexit lacks credibility - but Remainers lack leadership, 19.11.17). Of course, the Cameron government "should have explained how the whole of the UK benefits from the EU", but it is not too late. No-one is going to take Clegg seriously since his liberal principles were sacrificed in 2010, and too many of the Remainers either also have ambition rather than principle at the heart of their politics, or a name abhorrent to electors, like Mandelson. Corbyn, as prime-minister-in waiting, is correctly election-orientated, so that leaves May.
    She should, as Keegan says, "broadcast to the nation", and come clean about what the negotiations have revealed, that Brexit really does mean economic disaster. It might result in her immediate removal, but at least May would leave office with some self-esteem and integrity intact, with more of the truth revealed about the duplicitous Johnson and Gove, and with historians` judgement likely to be a little more sympathetic.

Saturday 18 November 2017

Tax transparency an election winner for Labour

John McDonnell`s response to the Paradise Papers leak has been excellent, and his plan for an immediate public enquiry into tax avoidance, a "specialist tax enforcement unit" and the "public filing of tax returns" for large companies and the rich appear to be exactly what is needed (Morning Star, 16/11/17). In fact, all those in the shadow cabinet should be doing everything they can to publicise these plans, and force as much of local and national media to make them universally known.
   What might add to Labour`s argument, and cause May`s government further embarrassment, is the possibility of everyone in the shadow cabinet making public their tax returns. Corbyn did this last year with some impact, but the effect could be multiplied if they all did it. Why not make it compulsory for all Labour MPs, and for future candidates in forthcoming elections? Whilst we are on the subject, why not publish a list of all expenses claimed by Labour MPs, and voters would benefit, too, from knowing if they employ members of their own family on their staff, and whether they are landlords.
 The more distance and difference voters can see between Labour and Tory MPs the better the chances of winning over the still worryingly high numbers of government supporters.

 

Guardian letter on pay and productivity

Now that research has been carried out on levels of productivity on a city by city basis, and found unsurprisingly that the economy would be far larger "if all cities were as productive as those in the south-east", is it not time to investigate earnings levels in a similar manner (Productivity study shows south-east miles ahead,16/11/17)?
     The fact that "growth in earnings" nationally is lagging well behind the inflation rate is well documented, but it would be interesting to see the changes in pay levels on a regional basis, and whether the most recent 2.2% increase in the July-September quarter would be replicated in all areas (Jobs data suggests Britain`s employment boom has ended, 16/11/17). Presumably this percentage rise is positively affected by pay levels in the City, as it is difficult to see levels rising nationally, even at 2.2%, when a pay freeze for state sector workers is in operation.
   The truth is that if as much had been invested by successive governments in education and infrastructure in all areas as it was in London, the UK`s productivity problem would be less significant. A sensible tax policy for the very rich would have prevented short-termism in business, and encouraged CEOs to invest in technology and training rather than to accumulate wealth for themselves and shareholders!

Friday 17 November 2017

Toryism a spent force

As Simon Heffer states, "May was in serious trouble " before the "Weinstein-on-Thames scandal" managed to rock the sinking Tory ship (From hubris to nemesis,10th November, 2017). What he doesn`t appear to grasp, however, is that, regardless of who is at the helm, the rocks are beckoning this particular vessel. Heffer pins his hopes on a cabinet reshuffle bringing in "gifted people", and obviously, a new leader filling the void created by "the utter absence of May`s authority", but significantly, no names of potential leaders are put forward. At least two of those mentioned for cabinet office would be electoral gifts to Labour.
 Heffer clearly fails to understand that ideologically, British Toryism is a spent force. He shows this most obviously when suggesting a "sensible and popular" budget would reverse Osborne`s stamp duty reforms. No doubt it would please the very rich, able to buy £1 million pound properties, but it would do nothing to help people on average earnings get on to the housing ladder, and away from the grip of Rachman-like landlords. Massive investment is needed, fairness applied to the income tax bands, tax avoidance prevented (Heffer`s silence on the Paradise Papers was deafening!), welfare and education services properly funded, landlords regulated, energy and transport provision reformed, and Brexit delayed. Crises are abundant, and the Tory party, "rudderless" or not, is disinclined to solve any of them!

Saturday 11 November 2017

Paradise Papers: immediate action needed

John McDonnell is right to say that the Queen should "open up her full financial records" in the wake of the Paradise Papers scandal (John McDonnell calls on Queen to release financial records amid Paradise papers leak, 11/11/17). The revelation that the Duchy of Lancaster invested millions of the Queen`s money in a Cayman Islands` offshore portfolio which "are not set out in the royal household`s annual statements" begs obvious questions about the quality of advice being currently given.
 What the Papers also revealed  were details about how the British government had been influenced by offshore lobbyists in the lead up to the 2013 G8 summit, whose themes were tax evasion and transparency. Whilst neither May or Hammond will do anything about this, parliamentary committees could and should. Labour MPs should be demanding answers regarding what in the Papers was called "superb penetration of UK policymakers" by lobbyists on behalf of the International Financial Centres Forum (IFC) which represents offshore law firms. It`s little wonder the G8 measures on evasion and transparency in 2013 were so ineffective. Shouldn`t the Public Accounts Committee be demanding to question Shona Riach, the senior Treasury official, who had a "crucial meeting", according to the Papers, with IFC representatives two days before the summit? Similar questions must be asked of David Gauke, the then exchequer secretary to the Treasury, who also had meetings with IFC prior to the summit.

 It`s clearly not only the Queen who has been embarrassed by the leaks, but the sad fact is that serial tax avoiders, like Tory donor Lord Ashcroft, and racing driver tipped for knighthood, Lewis Hamilton, reveal no shame when named! The little embarrassment caused to the super-rich by the Papers show laws must be changed.

21st century Poor Law

Remember how the Tories and their allies in the media thought they were on to a winner when Labour`s nationalisation and tax policies led them to claim gleefully that Corbyn was taking the country back to the 1970s? The popularity of the policies clearly took them by surprise, but the results of their disingenuity are now coming home to roost. With disgraceful poverty figures, real wages declining, and the government`s refusal to "remedy the debt trap of Universal Credit" making matters worse, it is quite obvious where May`s administration is taking the country, and it`s certainly not forward! In fact, there are valid comparisons with Britain around 180 years ago!
  The Tories have been treating the poor as criminals since 2010, and the similarities between now and the way the less fortunate were treated as far back as the 19th century are obvious. After the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834, the workhouse test insisted those wanting help could only find it with "indoor relief", in the workhouses, where conditions were to be worse than those endured by the lowest paid workers. Now we have a disgraceful 21st century "welfare test", with  a similar principle of less eligibility; delayed and reduced payments of universal credit aiming to serve the same purpose as a workhouse, starving  people into accepting low paid work, paid by exploitative employers. 
    Pressure on the government to pause universal credit`s introduction must be maintained, despite the distractions caused by Brexit problems, tax avoidance and sexual misconduct. The country cannot wait for another 4+ years  until a general election is called. In fact, Labour must take every opportunity to force votes in parliament, and demand an election as soon as the government is defeated; there is far too much blood on this government`s hands already!

Brexit is our history`s legacy

For Simon Jenkins to state that "we should not be remembering but forgetting", and that "memory sustains ongoing disputes", is absurd (Too much remembering causes wars. It`s time to forget the 20th century, 09/11/17). Admittedly, Remembrance Day has become something of a "synthetic festival", and many schools`history syllabuses are skewed towards Hitler, but that simply means, as ever, our history is being manipulated by governments and their agents. An accurate and balanced view of the past, in all nations, would encourage co-operation, whilst discouraging nationalism, and promote fairness rather than bigotry.
   Take British history: the manipulated version of our history exaggerates differences with our neighbours, and suggests the existence, as Martin Kettle recently wrote, of a "tradition of exceptionalism", but there was nothing "exceptional" about our trading in slaves, seizing and looting colonies whilst committing the most awful of atrocities, entering wars unnecessarily, and exploiting workers (Protestantism is on the wane, yet the Reformation sowed the seeds of Brexit, 27/10/17). Britain behaved as barbarically as all the other imperial powers. That same history not only painted an inaccurate picture of World War II, with "Britain alone" defeating the nazis, and enjoying a "glorious" post-war aftermath when European ties and immigrants were not needed, it simultaneously bred arrogance.
      Whilst a country like Germany is prepared to face up to its past, acknowledging that people need to be told the truth about their history, and learn lessons from it, Britain continues to hide millions of historical files away from the prying eyes of historians, unable to deal with unpleasant truths about our nation. Luther didn`t "nail delusions of greatness into the English soul", our distorted history did, and Brexit is its true legacy!
  There is no need to "find closure on the 20th century", but the "remembering" must be of the truth!

Friday 10 November 2017

New Statesman`s article on Johnson too lenient

Writing an article criticising the career of Boris Johnson must be like what Americans call a "turkey shoot", and Martin Fletcher`s article certainly made a decent fist of it (The way of the chancer, 3rd November, 2017). Asking the question "Who seriously believes that Johnson gets up each morning and asks himself, How can I improve the lot of the ordinary people?" was however, given the Tories` recent record of callous austerity, and May`s abject failure to put her "just about managing rhetoric" into practice, a little unnecessary; could Fletcher name anyone from the current Tory crop who does?
          On the other hand, the knife could have been plunged a little deeper. "Adding £250,000 to his official salary of £140,000" as mayor for a weekly Telegraph column was surprisingly not accompanied by mention of how Johnson described it - as "chickenfeed"- at a time when Conservatives were trying to show themselves in touch with the people, and oust Labour.
      Fletcher mentioned Johnson`s book about Churchill, but not how it was reviewed: the Telegraph described it as a "mixture of Monty Python and the Horrible Histories", whilst another said it bore as much resemblance "to a history book as a Doctor Who episode". No mention, either, of his efforts at fiction, as if his "history" books didn`t include enough; 2004 saw the publication of Johnson`s "Seventy Two Virgins", "not quite a novel" according to the Observer ( Drats. MP falls foul of facts, 03/10/04), with the author a "heroic failure as a novelist". An unsurprising verdict, with prose like  "a suicide bomber`s head would fly off as though drop-kicked by Jonny Wilkinson"!
 Despite the omissions, an enjoyable read about a "thoroughly untrustworthy charlatan". Speaking of which, can we have more please? Next, how George Osborne tricked the nation into believing austerity was imperative, followed by one on Gove`s totally unnecessary education reforms.

Thursday 9 November 2017

One solution to BBC`s gender pay gap problem

As no-one in their right mind can possibly think co-presenting a radio programme on the publicly-owned BBC for three mornings a week to be worth anything like £600,000 a year, there is an obvious, if still over-generous, solution (Montague in talks with BBC over job swap at Radio 4, 02/11/17). A start to solving the "gender pay gap row at the corporation" can be achieved by offering all of the Today programme`s presenters a new £200,000 a year contract. Those who refuse to tear up their old ones need to be asked to justify their action, live on air, and preferably by Ms Montague!
 With one of the key roles of the programme`s presenters being to challenge policies, it is absurd in the current climate, and with the present government imposing a pay freeze on all other public sector workers, to have the work done by people earning well over twenty-four times the national average.

Monday 6 November 2017

Since when has experience been necessary?

Mary Dejevsky`s support for the appointment of Gavin Williamson as Fallon`s replacement as Defence Secretary is valid in many ways, certainly in view of the unlikelihood that he will have "the sort of skeletons in his closet that cost Sir Michael his job" (The real reason Theresa May had to appoint Gavin Williamson, 02/11/17). Even if he has, few MPs will run the risk of exposing them. Strangely, Dejevsky omitted to question whether Fallon`s sexual misbehaviour should disqualify him from holding a knighthood as well as a post in the Cabinet.
   She does, however, suggest that May is unlikely to be worried by Williamson`s inexperience making him unsuitable "to fill one of the great offices of state". When have inexperience and unsuitability ever precluded Tory MPs from holding office? Doesn`t the fact that most of the recent Cabinet members have been millionaires, totally out of touch with the people of this country, privately educated with a skewed view of history, and with little concern for the wellbeing of the least fortunate, make them all unsuitable and lacking the necessary experience to govern us? Even Chancellors of the exchequer don`t need to have economics degrees as Osborne showed us!
    Even where Dejevsky sees some suitability, as with Davis taking over Defence because of his time with the SAS, or Rory Stewart`s job at the Dept for International Development making him a likely Foreign Secretary, there is massive cause for concern. Ex-army people in charge of Defence? Really? Stewart recently maintained that all returning jihadists should be killed, a view which is so contrary to the rule of law it should ensure his political future is over. 
  For once, May has made a sensible decision. Her next should be to ban all Tory MPs from drinking in the vast number of subsidised Westminster bars, and threaten to hand over to the media all MPs` monthly bar accounts.
 

 

Saturday 4 November 2017

University welfare strategies

With the number of first-year students "who disclose a mental health problem" having risen fivefold nationally, and suicide rates rising in parallel with the increasing economic and academic pressure on students, Nottingham Trent University`s wellbeing policies should be applauded (Campus confidential, 28.10.17). All universities should be instructed to provide details in prospectuses of their student welfare strategies, perhaps on the same page as where their vice-chancellors` salaries are disclosed.

Friday 3 November 2017

UK`s economic problems not only caused by Brexit

George Eaton`s otherwise excellent appraisal of the damage being done to the UK`s economy by Brexit failed to be sufficiently critical of coalition and successive Tory governments` policies (The new sick man of Europe, 27th October, 2017). Are we really expected to believe that, without Brexit, this Tory government would be delivering "transformative economic policy"? There is absolutely no evidence to support this; an apparently "new industrial strategy" as well as policies on corporate governance were watered down to the ineffective measures they now are by right wingers in the cabinet, lobbyists outside it, and a general Tory fear of upsetting party donors.
      Eaton was right to stress how the UK is "too unbalanced, too unproductive, and too unequal", but he fails to mention the role played by recent Tory governments in creating this situation. Tax cuts for the rich, lack of investment in infrastructure outside the south-east, and a minimum wage which is both too low, and too lightly enforced, are only three of the factors causing economic problems, long before the Brexit vote. With British businesses dominated by short-termism, with pay for managers and CEOs determined by annual profit levels, leading to a tendency to rely on cheap labour rather than investment in new technology and training, and low productivity the inevitable result, a government willing to legislate to enforce change is needed. 
       At least, last week`s Leader column appeared to suggest that the intensification of "strife and stress" faced by low earners, caused by the government`s callous Universal Credit system, proves May`s pledges about the "just managing" were nothing more than rhetoric (A universal failure, 27th October, 2017). Now is surely the time to support the policies of Corbyn and McDonnell.