Guardian and Observer letters on Oxbridge links with private schools

Of course, "cultural institutions should have some principles", but there can be little surprise that Oxford University is going to set up a "predator-funded ethics centre" with the £150m donation from  financier, Stephen Schwarzman (Ethics fly out of the window at Oxford when big donors come calling, 23.06.19). It is well documented how the university, just like Cambridge, has failed to introduce a contextual admissions policy which would increase diversity among undergraduates, offer more opportunities to students from northern and working class backgrounds, and decrease the domination of students from private schools.

     Instead, the links between independent  schools and Oxbridge remain as strong as ever, with  Cambridge Assessment`s lightly-regulated Pre-U examinations, marked and set mostly by teachers in private schools, and with a higher proportion of top grades, being increasingly accepted as entry qualifications. A Freedom of Information request recently revealed that in Oxford and Cambridge universities, in the academic year 2017-18,there were 125 undergraduates with three or more Pre-U qualifications but no A-levels, and 1075 students with a combination of three or more A-level and Pre-U qualifications. Whatever happened to Gove`s insistence on more "rigour"?

    Rather than adopting a more "ethical" policy regarding admissions, it would appear the opposite may be happening, so one of our top universities accepting a massive gift of dubiously-acquired money should astonish no-one. Vice-chancellor Richardson claims that Oxford`s "judginess" has been left behind, but only, it would appear, when it comes to money!

What should be worrying politicians and everyone concerned about our decreasing social mobility is not that there exists a "pipeline from fee-paying schools through Oxbridge and into top jobs", but that the "pipeline" is being enlarged (Privately educated people retain grip on elite jobs, 25/06/19). With the increased use in independent schools of Cambridge Assessment`s lightly regulated Pre-U examinations instead of the newly-reformed and more rigorous A-levels, privately educated pupils have increased their chances of being accepted into our "top" universities.

A Freedom of Information request recently revealed that in Oxford and Cambridge universities, in the academic year 2017-18,there were 125 undergraduates with three or more Pre-U qualifications but no A-levels, and 1075 students with a combination of three or more A-level and Pre-U qualifications. What chance do our brightest pupils from underprivileged backgrounds and underfunded schools have when trying to compete with pupils using a different and perhaps more generous route into university for university places? 

Boris`s mouth a "godsend for Labour"!

As your editorial states, Johnson`s "record in office is one of carelessness", not only with public money and the fate of British subjects, but also "about the truth" (The public won`t choose the next prime minister. But scrutiny is still vital, 24.06/19). In the list of his  "horrible rhetoric", Matthew D`Ancona  should not have omitted this particular "potential" prime minister`s description of the £250,000 paid for his weekly Telegraph column as "chicken feed", as it clearly is indicative of his total lack of empathy; if there exists a Labour propaganda machine, Johnson`s mouth has to be a godsend (Boris Johnson has turned the Tory party into a cult, 24/06/19)!

       d`Ancona correctly concludes that "we have a right to know everything" about this would-be PM, and that must, therefore, include whether he is as careless with his own finances as he appears to be with the public`s. Scrutiny is, indeed, "necessary", and pressure needs to be exerted to persuade the two remaining candidates to make public their recent tax records. It seems ridiculous that voters know more about the tax paid by the likes of Amazon than about the amount paid by our prime minister!

Tory candidates need to be questioned about this

If, as Andrew Rawnsley says, Johnson`s "fellow Tories think that something seismically scandalous - probably to do with money" has to be revealed if he is to be prevented from becoming our next prime minister, is it not surprising that transparency about recent tax payments has not become an issue in this leadership contest (The dirty secrets of Boris Johnson`s seduction of Conservative MPs, 16.06.19)? Surely, out of desperation if nothing else, one would reasonably have expected one of the outsiders to have thrown down the gauntlet to the others, and made public recent tax records.

  Much of the press, Guardian and Observer included, made a big deal out of the Dutch historian, Rutger Bregman, taking billionaires to task for not paying their fair share of tax at the Davos Economic Forum, and similarly have criticised the government for the UK and its "corporate tax haven network" for being, according to the Tax Justice Network, the world`s "greatest enabler of corporate tax avoidance" (UK and territories are "greatest enabler of tax avoidance, study says, 28/05/19). Yet when it comes to the selection of our next prime minister, the subject seems most definitely to be off the table!

     The British public does not have a clue about any of the candidates` proposals to deal with the billions lost every year through tax avoidance and evasion, and are even being denied any knowledge of their own tax arrangements. With trust in politicians at an all-time low, what better way of showing the electorate that  faith can be restored than by proving they pay all the taxes due. Out-Faraging the Brexit leader cannot be the only way to win this leadership contest!

"Dark arts" in Tory election!

As if it wasn`t  sufficiently undemocratic to have our next prime minister elected by 160,000 Conservative members, nearly all of them "richer, older and whiter than the general population", it appears that there are clearly, to use Rory Stewart`s words, "dark arts" at work (This Tories-only election will install a prime minister with no credible mandate, 20/06/19). Should the public not be told whether Johnson`s campaign manager, Gavin Williamson, really has "people who have five or ten proxy votes", as Stewart claims, in these "strange secret ballots" at Westminster? Can we expect more vote-fixing to ensure Hunt is Johnson`s main opponent in the final vote, someone perceived to offer him much less of a challenge than Gove?

   Was it merely coincidence that the fuss over the tweets of the TV debate`s questioner, Abdullah Patel, only came to light after Johnson `s feeble and embarrassing attempts to answer his question about "words having consequences" (Imam and solicitor from BBC debate suspended over tweets, 20/06/19)? Supporters of Johnson who "criticised the BBC`s handling of the debate" certainly succeeded in deflecting attention away from this, and Johnson`s failure even to remember the imam`s name! "Rules", no doubt, are "being followed", as your editorial says, but that does not mean the country is not being manipulated into having the odious Johnson as its leader!

All candidates should have "done a Boris"!

It is hard to disagree with Simon Kelner`s view of the Tory leadership TV debates as "a cast of characters arguing the toss" (Tory TV debates are a waste of prime time television, 20/06/19). The trouble is the "toss" is about whether the government gives more money to the rich or to cash-starved health, education and welfare departments, whether we go to war against Iran in the vain hope it will help us gain a trade deal with the US, and whether the policies leading to increasing homelessness and use of food banks continue.

     A more enlightening TV programme would be aired if all those remaining in the contest  "did a Boris", and failed to turn up. Emily Maitlis, faced with the empty lecterns, could put the viewers` questions, and then answer on each candidate`s behalf, using evidence which is actually reliable.

    We would then find out that Johnson`s words do have  massive consequences, and that his apparent "One Nation" Conservatism is mythical. Similarly, the others would be revealed as having voted diligently for not only all the cruel austerity measures of recent years which hit the least fortunate the most, but also for the budgets which benefitted the wealthy. At the very least, viewers would be spared the nonsense about their plans to "help primarily the poorest people in society"!

Irony of new Churchill revelations

How ironic that at a time when a politician with a most undistinguished past is about to become our unelected prime minister, the politician whom he claims most to emulate is having his somewhat racist past made public (How Churchill helped engineer the Windrush scandal, 18/06/19). David Olusoga`s revelations about Churchill being determined in 1951 to link the newly-arrived West Indian population to "social problems", and even considering a racist election slogan, show how British history has been manipulated by politicians to hide the truth about our past from the people.

    A prime minister who has written pseudo-history books about Churchill, and thereby contributing to the myopia which governs our history, is the last thing this country needs in these divided times. Hopefully, Olusoga will set his sights on getting the 1.2 million files hidden away in Hanslope Park, and going all the way back to the Crimean war, opened. The sooner it is accepted that our past is no more "glorious" than any other country`s, the better.

Why drugs but not taxes?

When politicians admit to having taken class A drugs in their younger days, and are then found to have introduced policies which led to others losing their jobs for the same offence, they rightly "face accusations of hypocrisy", and hit the front pages of the country`s newspapers (Gove is branded a hypocrite after admitting using cocaine, 09.06.19). It leads to others making similar confessions, but does nothing, apparently, to prevent them continuing with their bids to become party leader and prime minister.

  It seems absurd then that far less care is taken when scrutinising the tax payments of these would-be prime ministers, and indeed, why it is not a requirement of all candidates in the race for any party leadership to make public their own, and those of their partners, recent tax records. The winner of the current race will be responsible for all tax policies in the country, from income tax rates and VAT levels, to corporate tax rates and the measures to be taken to regain the billions lost every year through tax avoidance. Yet the UK electorate has no clue whatsoever about the amount of tax paid by any of the Tory leadership candidates! Knowing more about the drugs they took over twenty years ago and nothing about how much tax they currently pay is simply ludicrous!

Paul Johnson, "IFS guru", is undoubtedly correct when saying, as quoted in Polly Toynbee`s article, that none of the candidates for Tory leadership has a "fiscal strategy" for the country, and that none of their figures add up (The Tory leadership candidates - all in denial, all in dreamland, 11/06/19). Whether this is true of their personal fiscal policies is more of a moot point, especially as none of them is prepared to make public their own tax records, let alone those of their partners, and thereby throw down the gauntlet to the others.

Ian Birrell is rightly incensed by the "sickening display of double standards"  exhibited by the candidates for the Tory leadership (The elite`s double standards on drugs, 10/06/19).The country has had enough of politicians who "say one thing and do another". How long have we been hearing about government`s aims to end tax avoidance, but seen nothing to bring back the billions which are lost every year? Finding out about politicians` drug taking in their youth is clearly important, but is it really as relevant as discovering their recent tax records, plus those of their partners?

      In fact, shouldn`t it be a prerequisite of all candidates for party leadership that recent tax records be made public? It would almost certainly have reduced the number of runners and riders in this particularly ridiculous race! Details of their recent claims for parliamentary expenses would no doubt prove enlightening also.

Ian Birrell is rightly incensed by the "sickening display of double standards"  exhibited by the candidates for the Tory leadership (The elite`s double standards on drugs, 10/06/19).The country has had enough of politicians who "say one thing and do another". How long have we been hearing about government`s aims to end tax avoidance, but seen nothing to bring back the billions which are lost every year? Finding out about politicians` drug taking in their youth is clearly important, but is it really as relevant as discovering their recent tax records, plus those of their partners?

Following Gove`s admission, as Matthew d`Ancona says, the other candidates for Tory leadership "all now have to go through the same ritual, admitting what drugs they have taken in the past" (Hard Brexit is the drug Tories need to wean themselves off, 10/06/19). What a shame the "ritual" does not also include having to make public all of the recent tax records belonging to them and their partners. Not only would it ensure the country was getting a prime minister serious about ending tax avoidance, something which up to now has clearly been missing, it would also guarantee a more sensible number of runners and riders entering the Tory race!

Most of us will have agreed with London mayor, Sadiq Khan, when he  said he found the "idea that Boris Johnson`s record as mayor was an application for the job of prime minister astonishing! (Morning Star, 02/06/19). Every time Johnson`s name appears in the press there should be in brackets a list of his ten most obvious gaffes and sexist comments. Also included should be some of excerpts from book reviews, as rightly happened when Rees-Mogg fancied himself, like Johnson, as a pseudo-historian!

       Indeed, if there was a chance that the mainstream media in this country would delve into details, rather than offering a brief summary of CVs, there most definitely not have been the ridiculous situation of thirteen (at the time of writing) candidates joining in the race to woo the approx.100,000 Tory party members.

  The party`s 1922 committee have tightened up some rules about having to have eight or so backers before entering the contest (well it is about who will be the next prime-minister!), but in a modern democratic and transparent society, regulations should be much tighter, and that goes for all the main parties. 

   The number of candidates would be seriously reduced if a requirement for entry was making public their tax records, plus those of their partners. The public have a right, too, to be made aware of recent parliamentary expense claims, the number of properties owned including those rented out, extra-parliamentary earnings and all business interests. 

The race for Tory leadership provides ample scope for ridicule, and who better than Marina Hyde to ensure that every candidate promising to "deliver Brexit" gets the Michael duly extracted (Full no-dealers take on bluffers in race not to deliver Brexit, 01/06/19)? Providing fodder for clever columnists, however entertaining the product, should not be the main purpose of the contest, which, heaven help us, is going to provide  the country`s next prime minister.

    With the runners and riders already lining up for the Lib Dem leadership too, some sensible regulation is clearly required for such competitions. How about an expectation that all leadership contenders for any party should make public all their taxation records, plus those of their  partners, and of course, their recent parliamentary expenses` claims? I can`t imagine the fields would be quite so crowded if this rule was in place!

   

Johnson`s popularity will be short-lived!

Polly Toynbee`s hatchet job on Johnson and the hundred-plus Tory MPs, the real "ones to blame, crowding in to join his bandwagon", did not actually go far enough (Boris Johnson spoke: you can`t trust a word, 13/06/19). Most of the Johnson-supporting MPs will indeed be hoping for one of the "120 plum posts", thinking also that with him as prime minister out-Faraging Farage, their seats can be saved from Labour in the next election, but what Toynbee doesn`t mention is how short-lived Johnson`s popularity will be.

      Being prone to the odd gaffe and having a reputation of being something of a rogue, will only be popular attributes in the short-run; even before his arrival in Downing St, inevitably there will be, what Toynbee calls  "nation-shamingly", exposures, a mixture of revelations of infidelities, tax irregularities, gross exaggeration of past achievements, and bare-faced lies. By the time of the general election, Johnson`s inability to grasp detail will be obvious to all, and Tory MPs will have huge difficulty in explaining their choice of such an inept leader to an embarrassed electorate. Even Corbyn`s team should realise what damage six questions demanding detailed answers on a variety of subjects will do at PMQs.

     Lets not make the Tory mistake of treating the voters as mugs; Johnson is no "One Nation" Conservative, and will take his party down with him! 

Flawed BBC argument

It`s little wonder that the BBC "faced fierce criticism" over its decision to make most over-75s pay the TV licence fee (End of free TV licence for millions of over-75s, 11/06/19). Arguing that this was the "only way to avoid closing channels and making substantial cutbacks" is the most feeble of excuses, especially when the corporation`s history of profligacy is taken into account.

    Alternative "ways" include imposing a salary cap on all of its presenters and managers, and insisting on a strict policy of no tax avoidance. Why there is  a need to pay obscene amounts of licence-fee payers` money to presenters of sports highlights programmes, pundits and newsreaders escapes me, especially when there is so much kudos to be gained by working for the national broadcasting company. Similarly why the BBC has to pay well over one hundred of its "managers" more than the prime minister`s salary is equally bewildering.

Relationship not so "special" in 1939-40!

John Harris rightly reminds us again of the myths which prevent "any instinctive popular understanding of our national past", mentioning particularly "splendid isolation, the glories of the second world war, and the wonders of empire" (Brexit is the act of a country that is blind to its own history, 03/06/19). It would certainly have been apposite to have also included some factual details about the so-called "special relationship", especially when our apparent closest ally decided not to intervene to help us in the troubled years of war between its outbreak and December, 1941.

            Notwithstanding events like Dunkirk and the Blitz, it was only when Japan attacked Pearl Harbour that the US decided to intervene, and even then it was only Hitler`s declaration of war against them which brought us the much-needed military help! Unsurprisingly that section of the history of the "special relationship" is another aspect of our past which is either ignored or deliberately forgotten! Those trusting Trump to come to our aid, as most Brexiteers seem to do, need to check up on their history!