Friday 27 April 2018

Tory promises to young people

Last week`s Leader reminded readers that austerity has always been a Tory "choice" rather than a British "necessity", but that did not prevent Cameron and Osborne deviously pretending that the continuance of government borrowing would "burden younger generations" (Crumbling Britain, 20th April, 2018). Labour leaders already promise to end the cuts, but would do well to base much of their propaganda on the point your Leader also makes, that Tory policies have "enfeebled the collective institutions" on which young people rely.
     Based on a "doctrinaire conservatism" which aimed to shrink the state back to levels last seen in the 1930s, Tory austerity policies have targeted young people. Ally the failure to regulate the many Rachman-like landlords, which has meant Generation Rent is never likely to save sufficiently for deposits to own their homes, with the hike in tuition fees to £9000, and the sheer hypocrisy of austerity`s authors, Cameron and Osborne, becomes all too obvious. "Saddling future generations with debt", weighing down "our children" with a "millstone of debt" were Cameron`s excuses for his draconian cuts, and their dire effects will, no doubt, be highlighted in your forthcoming articles on "Crumbling Britain". Denying young people any semblance of equal opportunity by underfunding schools, causing the closure of Sure Start centres, applying appalling minimum wage and apprentice rate levels to the under 25s, and extending zero-hours contracts even to university lecturers are just some of the many reasons the majority of young people will never vote Tory. Who can blame them?
   Brexit was indeed a "symptom of discontent", but a government dedicated to reducing inequality and increasing fairness in our society can be the cure!

Thursday 26 April 2018

Ukip has collapsed but still around

John Harris rightly states that the Windrush scandal highlights the "awful effects of social policy" designed to out-Ukip Ukip, and warns us that the party`s "mixture of opportunism, nastiness and resentment may yet take new forms" (Ukip may be gone but its ideas are locked into our politics, 23/04/18).We don`t have to look far.
    It was only because the disastrous Brexit talks are going so badly, that suddenly Commonwealth countries became economically important to the UK,  forcing May`s government  into apologising and backtracking on the Windrush affair. Ukip may have "collapsed", but its ideas live on in the Tory party.

Wednesday 25 April 2018

May`s foreign policy

Heather Stewart says that a central idea in May`s thinking about foreign policy is maintaining the "rules-based international order" ( The challenge facing "unshowy" PM as she makes the case for airstrikes to Commons, 16/04/18). Would these be the "rules" which allow the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia to use in Yemen, and thereby create the world`s worst manmade humanitarian crisis, with, according to the UN "8.5 million Yemenis at risk of famine" (Britain`s shame, Britain`s duty, 11/03/18)? In Yemen, diphtheria is rife, choking the life out of innocent children, and the worst cholera outbreak in modern history continues to kill hundreds.
  May`s claims that the missile attacks on Syria to be intervention on humanitarian grounds are nothing less than sickening!

Friday 20 April 2018

NS letter on May`s hypocrisy over Syria

Peter Wilby is not alone in wondering why deaths from "US-led military operations" in Syria and Iraq are "more acceptable" than those caused by Assad`s chemical weapons (First Thoughts, 13th April, 2018). Are we supposed to believe that children only suffer terribly cruel deaths when chlorine or sarin gas are employed? Consequently, immediate military responses ordered by western politicians must be viewed with scepticism.
   Bew and Maher rightly suggest that any "credit" Trump gets for having a lower threshold than Obama "for tolerating Assad`s most egregious crimes must be considerably hedged", and that his response to the current crisis has much to do with "mid-term elections looming" (The war without end, 13th April, 2018). What they omitted to mention, however, was that Theresa May`s sudden sympathy for Syrian civilians is also very closely connected to domestic affairs in the UK; the prime minister clearly sees this as her "Falklands" opportunity, moving the headlines away from Brexit, and the crises in health, caring, education and policing, caused by her government`s refusal to abandon disastrous austerity policies. By taking military action while parliament was still in recess, May not only avoided emphasising the weakness of her own position, but also, like Macron in France, appeased right-wingers who fear the decline of their countries as world powers.
    The use of chemical weapons has indeed provided the west, as Bew and Maher say, with a "sense of common purpose", but it has much more to do with political survival than the seizure of a moral high-ground. Intervention on humanitarian grounds is a rather dubious excuse when viewed alongside the selling of arms to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen.

Thursday 19 April 2018

Unanswered questions on Pre-U exams

Despite his "ladder of opportunity", laying out "the statistics of educational inequality", Robert Halfon`s desire for a "more socially just system" is clearly yet another example of empty Tory rhetoric ("The Tory party should change its name to the Workers` party. I am 100% serious", 17/04/18). He might well suggest that A-levels should be replaced, but knows full well that, in many public schools, the process has already started.
  Following the cheating scandal exposed by the Guardian last summer, Halfon`s select committee questioned the head of Eton, a director of Ofqual and the chief executive of Cambridge Assessment International Education (CIE), which runs the Pre-U examinations, around which the cheating was focussed. Even when the head admitted seven of his staff were involved in these examinations, either marking or setting papers, and the CIE chief admitted his organisation was not a member of the Joint Council for Qualifications, which inspects and regulates all other public examinations, the committee displayed none of the indignation or disgust one would expect at the revelation of such unfairness. Not one member of the committee, Halfon included, thought it necessary to delve deeper, and ask, for example, about why so many public schools prefer Pre-U exams to the traditional A-Levels.
     Wilby and others may not regard Halfon as an "orthodox Conservative", but someone in a position of authority who refuses to challenge instances of obvious unjustness, sounds pretty typical of 21st century Toryism to me!

Letter on new Centre party

Bernadette Horton rightly includes the adverb "unsurprisingly" when mentioning how the proposed new "centre" party "has Tory donors too" (Morning Star, 12/04/18).
The point of such a venture can only be to divide the Labour vote as happened in 1983, hand the Tories another five years of wielding their callous power, and blame the election defeat on a left-wing manifesto, to discourage the adoption of transformational policies. It certainly had that effect back then, with all that nonsense about the manifesto being the "longest suicide note in history".
     Despite moderate Labour being defeated in recent general elections, some millionaire donors, who have absolutely no connection or empathy with the millions of voters they need to support them, now think our most unfair and unequal society only requires minor changes. They are never going to back a party intent on ending tax avoidance, increasing the top levels of tax, or promising significant pay rises for teachers and carers.

    They will, as Horton says, have the support of so-called "moderates" in the Labour party, who hate the fact that Corbyn is the leader, but cannot understand that their feeble policies have lost two recent elections. If they cannot support Corbyn and his policies, they need to re-assess their political beliefs; if they do not want to transform our society and reduce inequality, they should not be signing up for a new party, they should be joining the Tories!

Monday 16 April 2018

Letter to New Statesman on BBC

Nick Robinson derides Andrew Adonis for claiming the BBC has decided to back Brexit, "without presenting a shred of evidence", but offers none in its defence (Another Voice, 6th April, 2018). Instead, he counters criticism of the corporation`s alleged lack of impartiality with the suggestion that the alternative is "a British Fox News". Would this defence not have been more convincing if Robinson had given examples of programmes, or presenters, challenging the governments`s Brexit strategy with figures showing how the British economy is likely to suffer after leaving the EU? He doesn`t even mention the undeniable fact that the BBC`s Question Time has given far too much air-time to Ukip MEPs, and too little to MEPs from the other opposition parties.
       Robinson chose to ignore other criticisms of his generous pay-master, especially those relating to the interviewing techniques adopted by both himself and by his Today colleague, John Humphrys. Their use of repetition and interruption, especially when questioning Labour supporters and trade union leaders, adds more fuel to the allegations of bias, and has become as embarrassing as their feeble attempts to explain the gender pay gap at the BBC.
        It is little wonder Robinson did not attempt to justify this public owned corporation`s profligate pay policy, when the 2017 report by the National Audit Office revealed that the number of BBC managers earning over £150,000 was still increasing, despite the corporation`s pledge to reduce it by 20%? The BBC`s website reveals a list of over one hundred senior managers earning above that amount. Perhaps he would claim that such inflated pay packages were needed to fend off the likes of Rupert Murdoch, just as the presenter of a football highlights programme has to be paid millions to ensure football fans watch the programme?
     To make matters worse, the BBC is at the heart of another tax avoiding scandal, with HMRC investigating tax returns of around one hundred current and former presenters. It would seem the BBC is its own worst enemy, and until it delivers "due impartiality" and curbs its profligacy with public money, it deserves every criticism!

Sunday 15 April 2018

Real aim of centre party

I am willing to believe Andrew Rawnsley`s claim that there is a "segment of voters who feel disenfranchised by the choice between a Corbynised Labour party and a Rees-Moggifying Conservative party", but whether this "appetite" is sufficient to make the creation of a new political party worthwhile is doubtful (Opportunity knocks for a new party. But will anybody dare open the door? 08.04.18). The point of such a venture can only be to divide the Labour vote as happened in 1983, hand the Tories another five years of wielding their callous power, and blame the election defeat on a left-wing manifesto, to discourage the adoption of transformational policies.
     Despite moderate Labour being defeated in recent general elections, some millionaire donors, who have absolutely no connection or empathy with the millions of voters they need to support them, now think our most unfair and unequal society only requires minor changes. They are never going to back a party intent on ending tax avoidance, increasing the top levels of tax, or promising significant pay rises for teachers and carers. The "challenges facing Britain" about which they are concerned are not the same as the ones facing the millions of low-paid, landlord-exploited people fed up with rich politicians ruling for the benefit of the few.
    As for the idea that there exists a "convincing" leader with "star quality", perhaps Rawnsley was thinking of someone like Clegg or Osborne, two likely candidates for a post requiring a determination to maintain the status quo at all costs!

Wednesday 11 April 2018

Monet for nothing!

Charging £22 for tickets to the new Claude Monet exhibition at the National Gallery naturally fuels the argument that there exists a "two-tier system", with only the very well-off being able to "afford special exhibitions" (All about the Monet: £22 tickets reignite row over gallery prices, 07/04/18). Free entry to exhibitions is clearly "not the way" the Gallery operates, as its director, with an annual salary of over £150,000, states, but, whilst Mark Knopfler might well nearly have said "Monet for nothing, and the tickets are free", £10 entrance charges should not be out of the question.
     Of course, the 30% cuts to the Arts Council budget have not been helpful, but the National Gallery, nevertheless, has acquired reserves of nearly £220million. Not only should these be used to lower prices to enable a wider audience to see pictures which, for most taxpayers, are still "impossible to see", but also to put on the same exhibitions in parts of the country other than London! 

Sunday 8 April 2018

Corbyn and the common good

Jason Cowley quoted the four "big questions" Michael Sandel believes "for the most part" today`s politics "fails to address" (Editor`s Note, 23 March, 2018).There is a British political leader, however, who does "attempt to address honestly" these issues, and should therefore,  according to Cowley, be on target to "win a landslide"!
    Would not huge progress towards "a just society" be made with Labour`s pledges to introduce a fairer tax system, with rich individuals and companies paying more, and a significant increase in the minimum wage? Similarly, the question about the "common good" is hardly being ignored when such topics as selling arms to dictators, increased diplomacy rather than knee-jerk reaction, gender issues and increased spending on health and education are high on the list of Corbyn`s priorities.
         It has also been made quite clear, on the subject of the "role of the markets" that more regulations are needed, as are rent controls and some nationalisation; there is clearly no room for free-market capitalism, or should that be "crony capitalism", in Corbyn`s Britain. As for the question  of being a citizen, what could be more pertinent than his determination to confront tax evasion and avoidance, to make it absolutely clear what the duty of citizenship involves.
    With such policies, Corbyn inevitably attracts unfair criticism from the right-wing media, so it is essential the New Statesman increases its support.  By all means, analyse his policies and evaluate their effects, but work with Labour to rescue this country from the disastrous effects of yet more years of callous Tory rule.

Observer ignoring key issues

Whilst it is to be expected that a centre-left newspaper will respond when the Labour party clearly has a "problem with antisemitism", having the front page headline and story, plus three pages, including a very damning editorial, devoted to the subject, smacks of anti-Corbyn bias (Only action, not words, can purge this evil from Labour, 01.04.18). "Words without deeds are meaningless" indeed, but nowhere in the paper could be found criticism of the Tory leader, despite her being the arch-exponent of spouting rhetoric, with no intention of taking action.
         In a week when the national living wage was due to rise, accompanied by more  government claims of tackling "burning injustices", an editorial on May`s broken promises would not have gone amiss, especially as the average pay of British workers is still 6% below its pre-financial crash level. Wouldn`t it have been apposite to cover the fact that the week would also see a massive £2.5bn of working-age benefit cuts taking effect? According to the Resolution Foundation, these will cut the income of the "just about managing", the group May promised particularly to help on coming to power in July 2016, by about £1000 a year!
      Labour is not the only party "harbouring antisemitic voices", but it is the only one dealing with it, and with a leader prepared to take some action to remedy the situation. Meanwhile, the government, aided by its right-wing allies in the media, escapes the criticism it deserves for its continued policies of austerity, underfunding of key services, selling arms to despotic leaders for illegal wars, and botching Brexit. Yet the Observer, even with local elections looming, chooses to join the gutter press in lambasting Corbyn for not taking enough action! It appears the only action with which the press will be satisfied is his resignation. Shame on you all!

Tuesday 3 April 2018

Osborne` half-truths and university admissions` problem

Osborne`s comment that a UK chancellor would only "believe schools required more cash", when there was a "very marked and rapid deterioration in standards", needs closer analysis (School finances: read what George Osborne says and weep, 27/03 18). That he was referring only to Tory Chancellors is obvious, but what he also clearly meant was a "deterioration in standards" in Tory areas, most notably in the south. 
   Would the cuts, which he instigated, have been allowed had a Tory stronghold lost all of its A-level teaching, instead of it happening in Knowsley? If there were more than twice the national average number of Neets in, for example, Surrey rather than in Knowsley, Manchester and Middlesborough, I suspect the same "magical money-tree" which funded the Tory alliance with the DUP, would have wondrously appeared (Poverty and funding gap blight children`s futures in the north, 26/03/18).
     The austerity measures, cuts in local authority grants, and lack of investment in northern infrastructure, for which he and Cameron were responsible, all contributed to the increased deprivation, teacher shortages and the underfunding of schools. Yet it was not until 2015 when an election defeat for the Tories was predicted in the polls, that Osborne came up with his "northern powerhouse" wheeze. When state schools` A-level results begin to match those in the private sector, government looks the other way when public schools start using Pre-U examinations instead of the traditional ones. "Deterioration in standards"? Only it it affects the children of Tory voters!


The National Union of Students conference is right to debate how "postgraduate study is becoming the preserve of the well-off" (Morning Star, 28/03/18), but a similar crisis is already occurring in the field of undergraduate study.
  David Lammy, last October, revealed how both Oxford and Cambridge, recipients of over £800m of taxpayers` money each year, enrol consistently around 80% of their intake from the top two social classes, with more offers being made to pupils from Eton than to students on free school meals across the whole country. Totally unsurprisingly, the number of ethnic minority students accepted is so low, Lammy concluded there has to be "systematic bias"!
     The universities claim that the Teaching Excellence Framework, with one of its judgement criteria being drop-out rates, limits taking risks with undergraduate enrolment, but it cannot explain why students with straight As from an economically poor area in the north of England stand far less chance of being accepted by one of the Russell group universities than does someone with similar grades from a public school.
      Where is the "risk", anyway, in offering a place to a student from a school in an economically-deprived area, who achieves grade Bs and Cs in traditional A-level examinations? He or she may lack, unsurprisingly, confidence, and may not perform well in a nerve-racking interview, but research by Cardiff and Oxford Brookes universities has proved students from state schools gain better degrees than independently-educated candidates with the same A-level grades.
       Hopefully the NUS will find time to investigate Pre-U examinations, popular in most public schools, where there is the possibility that the exam papers are either set or marked by their teachers. These examinations, not inspected and regulated by the Joint Council for Qualifications like traditional A-level examinations, must give already privileged pupils an extra advantage.
A two-tiered university system needs investigation!

Externalising the problem of our history

The "British habit", as Kris Manjapra says, is indeed to "externalise the problem of slavery", but is it not traditional policy of recent governments to externalise everything of the past which does not show the country and its politicians in a favourable light (When will Britain face up to its crimes against humanity? 29/03/18)? Resisting "calls for reparations for slavery" comes naturally to an Establishment determined to mythologise its history. Does anyone believe such inhuman treatment of slaves as delivered by the British slave owner, Thomas Thistlewood, was not continued into the 20th century, with Britain maintaining control of its colonies?
      Should apologies and acknowledgement of guilt take place, the very history which British governments have been hiding from the public, either by destroying evidence through Operation Legacy, or by secreting 1.2m historical files in Hanslope Park, would be revealed. The many court cases, such as the ones in 2013 on behalf of 44,000 Kenyans claiming compensation after the brutal tactics employed by the British in crushing the Mau Mau rebellion in the 1950s, would reveal a history very different from the traditional and heroic one the British people are taught to believe.