Wednesday 16 December 2020

Tory diplomacy belongs with Palmerston!

British history has seen many examples of British politicians lacking diplomatic skills at crucial moments, often leading to unnecessary conflict as, for example, the wars in 1899, 1914 and 2003 testify. The deployment, however, of four Royal Navy armed patrol vessels with the "power to halt, inspect and impound all EU fishing boats" in UK waters must rank alongside the most idiotic of Britain`s blunders (Navy ships may be sent to protect UK waters, 12/12/20). At a time when the Brexit talks are on a knife-edge and when a deal, which can minimise future economic disaster, is still possible, trust between the politicians is of the essence. Military threats of this nature, reminiscent of the gunboat diplomacy favoured by the likes of Palmerston, can only do even more damage to the country`s reputation as a reliable and trustworthy partner, and sadly, this time, there is no chance of the House of Lords condemning the action, as it did in 1850! In those days, of course, free trade was valued, not only for its economic benefits, but for its role in keeping the peace between nations, and the latter became one of the main arguments forwarded by Cobden and Bright in the movement to repeal the Corn Laws. There is probably little possibility in 2021 of errors of the magnitude of the 1904 Dogger Bank incident taking place, when British trawlers were mistaken by the Russian Baltic Fleet for ships belonging to the Imperial Japanese Navy, and fired upon, but with the present government in charge, you just wouldn`t bet against it! With "Palmerstonian nationalism" taking precedent over peaceful diplomacy, anything is possible!

Tories gaming the system!

Andy Beckett is absolutely right when he says that the non-Tory reaction to "the brazen gaming of our political system" by a succession of Conservative governments is to "feel appalled, frustrated or helpless" (Is Brexit the end of the game for Tory rule-breakers? 11/12/20). This is not only because the Tories are seen as "Britain`s natural rulers", due largely to the constant emphasis of such by the majority of the mainstream media, but by a fear by opposition parties of appearing too radical and arousing criticism from that same media. Tories "game the system" in more ways than Beckett had space to mention: they impose ten years of callous austerity but lower tax rates for those earning incomes over five times the national average, and claim everyone is "in it together"! Their fiscal legislation ignores the avoidance schemes and off-shore havens where their supporters have investments; the strict regulations they impose on public examinations do not apply to exams taken in most private schools, enabling their pupils to continue their long-enjoyed domination of our most prestigious universities, and consequently, the top jobs! They can even vote for a totally unnecessary war, as in 2003, and know the ire of the media`s majority will be targeted elsewhere! Brexit will not end the "Tory disdain for rules", but the problems inevitable in the coming months might, at least, embolden the Labour party`s leadership into adopting a more radical

Wealth tax insufficient on its own!

Whilst there is little economic need to start repaying the national debt, a wealth tax in a society "that is calling for a fairer social settlement" can certainly be justified, especially after years of callous austerity policies which have widened the inequality gap hugely (Who wants to tax a millionaire? The UK is short on options, 10/12/20). The real tragedy lies in the fact that the UK, the 6th richest country in the world, needs to raise billions "to support small business and help poor neighbourhoods" just as much, and in the same way, as Argentina, a country whose economy does not even figure in the world`s top twenty! A wealth tax alone, however, might well raise £260bn, as the Wealth Tax Commission says, but much more could be raised by chasing tax avoiders and evaders efficiently, increasing capital gains tax to income tax levels, increasing council tax rates on high-value properties, and increasing income tax levels incrementally up to 90% for earnings over £1 million. All of these could be implemented immediately, without affecting spending on the high street in any way, and, no doubt this one-nation Conservative government of ours is contemplating their introduction at this very moment!!

Thursday 10 December 2020

Eurosceptic mythology still around!

Rafael Behr`s point about "Eurosceptic mythology", and how Brexit would provide the "freedom to do things that Brussels had never stopped Britain from doing", is a valid and relevant one (In truth, there was only ever one road out of the EU, 09/12/20). An excellent example was given by the then chief secretary to the Treasury, days before becoming chancellor in February, earlier this year; Sunak claimed that as free ports are not allowed in the EU, Brexit enabled the UK "to unleash this potential in our ports". Unfortunately for him, on the same day the European Commission announced that the EU`s free ports, all 82 of them, were "aiding the financing of terrorism, money-laundering and crime" (EU cracks down on free ports for role in corruption and crime, 11/02/20)! It seems that since January 10th, authorities across the EU have been urged to take extra measures to identify suspicious activities at the ports as a result of the "high incidence of corruption, tax evasion and criminal activity"! Even in this week`s PMQs, Johnson was still alluding to Britain`s Brexit-enabled ability in 2021 to establish free ports! Presumably the British people are expected to believe that if these free ports are set up in the UK, standards on security, safety, workers` rights and the environment will not be compromised. Johnson`s government, like its predecessors since 2010, treat the UK`s citizens as mugs, and indeed, most recently as its reduction of overseas aid indicates, raving Faragists, How ironic that at a time when the prime minister has, as Behr says, "borrowed heavily against Britain`s reputation" for being "level-headed", and "reliable", he is incapable of being either!

Starmer and Brexit

There are, as Polly Toynbee says, too many risks attached to Labour voting for Johnson`s "economy-wrecking deal" for Starmer to do anything other than order his MPs to abstain (Johnson`s deal will spark a war in his party, 08/12/20). Allowing the government`s obvious divisions to widen, and its leader`s hold on the party to weaken, is clearly a sensible way forward for an Opposition racked with its own unity problems. Starmer`s opportunity for a "speech of a lifetime" must, most certainly, not be wasted, as long as it includes all the ingredients appropriate for a leader who won his position electorally by promising to carry out much of his predecessor`s manifesto. By focussing on this, pointing out all of the Tories` 2016 unredeemable pledges, and adding assurances to oppose not only any deregulation following Brexit which threatens workers` rights, safety and security, but any moves towards a return to austerity, he could yet prove himself capable of unifying his party. Increasing the distance between Labour and the Tories, whether over Brexit, the economy and the north-south divide, or basic domestic policy is now more important than ever. ,

"Levelling-up" cosmetic only, as it always has been!

John Harris is absolutely right in saying that "levelling-up remains a matter of political cosmetics", with both his excellent article (The vaccine brings hope. But for many, the crisis will last, 07/12/20) and Helen Pidd`s report on the recent findings by IPPR North showing how there is no evidence to indicate that the government`s supposed policy of "reducing regional differences" is having any effect whatsoever (England`s inequalities deepening and "should be wake-up call to PM"). This is hardly unsurprising when the ideas of a "Northern Powerhouse" and the"leveling-up" programme were both introduced only to win votes prior to the 2015 and 2019 elections respectively, rather than become the basis of a domestic policy intent on lasting change.What is surprising, however, is that the Labour leader is so quiet on the subject. One would have thought that having upset so many of his party with not only Corbyn`s suspension but his lack of decisiveness generally, the Tories` failure to deal positively with the north-south issue would provide Starmer with an ideal opportunity to create at least a semblance of a united front. History shows us that when a Conservative government makes a big deal about being a "one-nation" administration, the result is inevitably cosmetic only. In Disraeli`s case the reforms were described by historians as "window-dressing", and there is clearly no reason for modern historians to reach a different conclusion for Johnson!

Government insults teachers yet again!

It would be interesting to hear why ministers actually think that the giving of "advance warning of examination topics" and permission to use "exam aids" will be "of greatest benefit to those who have suffered most" (Students in England to be told exam topics next year, 03/12/20). These changes, coupled with "more generous grading", will, of course, be advantageous to all pupils, so the ones who have missed the least face-to-face teaching, with the most privileged home backgrounds, and from schools where staffing problems have had least effect, will still receive the highest grades. What Williamson is, in effect, doing is two things; firstly, he is displaying what few other experienced educationalists are prepared to do, and that is showing total faith in the fairness of the UK`s examination system, when it is guided by norm-referencing in the grading procedure, and is different for most pupils in the private sector. Secondly, by refusing to acknowledge that moderated teacher-assessed grades would be the fairest way out of the Covid-related dilemma, the education secretary exhibits his lack of trust in the judgement and professionalism of the teaching profession. Given the immense stress and mental health issues caused by the GCSE and A-level examinations, Williamson has missed a wonderful opportunity to start a process which could provide all pupils with a broad and balanced education, with an assessment programme based on fairness, and allowing all pupils to realise their full potential.

Govt intervention in universities is needed

David Feldman is right to criticise the education secretary for his threatening letter to universities which promises to remove funding and the power to award degrees from institutions which "do not share his faith in the efficacy of the IHRA working definition" of antisemitism (Universities should not be told how to fight antisemitism, 02/12/20). Such poorly thought out action is typical of both Williamson and the Tory government. This is not to say, however, that interference from the secretary of state in some aspects of the way the UK`s universities are run should not be forthcoming. A start can be made to eroding the "mosaic of harms and harassment" endured by racial and religious minorities in our universities by a serious revision of admissions procedures. Universities should have to accept the so-called "privilege cap", which would limit the proportion of students accepted from private schools to the national figure of 7%. This would force universities into adopting contextual admissions policies, and making more room for talented pupils from the underfunded schools, from underprivileged families and from economically deprived areas, whose potential remains seriously untapped. Oxbridge`s insistence on interviews hardly helps matters! Could there be a more effective deterrent to getting able pupils from working class backgrounds to apply to Oxbridge than the thought of an hour-long grilling by academics? Test their ability after three years of their higher education, not after eighteen years of being disadvantaged! Antisemitism is not the only example of discrimination in universities which needs government intervention!

Friday 4 December 2020

Labour and overseas aid

It is not the first time the words "astonishingly callous" have been used to describe an action taken by this Tory government, but they are particularly apt when reporting its abandonment of the pledge to "spend 0.7% of GDP on aid" (Breaking our pledge on aid spending doesn`t make Britain shrewd - just small, 30/11/20). The decision becomes especially galling when it`s considered alongside the stated reason for doing so, that "Britain could not afford it" (Cutting overseas aid in the name of fiscal prudence is nonsense, 30/11/20)! As Larry Elliott tells us, retaining the 0.7% level would cost the Treasury "an additional £3bn to £4bn" a year, at a time when the cost of servicing the debt has fallen exponentially, and when the Bank of England`s quantitative easing programme has delivered over £800bn since 2009, taking up a third of the national debt, with the bonus of no urgent requirement to pay it back. Tories are playing a very dangerous game if they think of the British electorate as raving Faragists, and with Labour in need of at least some semblance of unity, decisive action by Starmer on this issue would be sensible. As support for Johnson`s three-tier system is apparently "not unconditional", isn`t this a great opportunity for Starmer to gain the moral high ground, especially if he used some of Andrew Mitchell`s "likely impacts" in his argument (Johnson seeks to mollify rebels before Commons vote on tiers, 30/11/20)?

Wednesday 2 December 2020

Tax the supermarkets

Labour`s belated calling on the government to block "foreign takeovers of British firms" is to be welcomed, but there are plenty of other areas relating to the economy which the Opposition needs to address. The news that the discount retailer B&M is clinging to its £38m from the Treasury even as it pays a £250m special dividend to its shareholders, highlights the fact that the Treasury`s Covid-support programme has been handled appallingly. The receipt of state aid such as loans, grants and, as in the case of B&M and other companies allowed to trade during the lockdowns, relief from business rates, should have been subject to certain conditions.These could have included withholding dividend payments to shareholders, guaranteeing reduced pay ratios, ending obscenely high bonus payments to CEOs, and curtailing involvement in all tax avoidance schemes. According to the real estate adviser Altus Group, the UK's supermarkets will have benefited from almost £2bn in business tax breaks this year, and unsurprisingly, all have enjoyed record levels of profit and paid millions to shareholders. Tesco, with tax savings of £585m paid out a £315m to shareholders last month, whilst Sainsbury`s, saving £498m, are now following suit. No doubt next year, there will be bonuses for managers and CEOs of all supermarkets in the UK, and for what? Selling food to a nation when all other shops are closed on government instructions! Far better, even than paying back the millions to the Treasury, would be to award significant pay rises to all supermarket employees, from shelf-stackers to warehouse staff, delivery drivers to workers on the checkouts, the people who, along with NHS workers, really did keep the country going! It would have the additional bonus of pressurising our measly government to award pay rises to key workers in the public sector! Failure to introduce the pay rises should be met with the imposition of an immediate windfall tax on all supermarkets!

Head of MHRA

After reading Archie Bland`s article, many Guardian readers will be asking is whether June Raine, the head of the medical regulator, MHRA, is the right person to be "assessing the vaccines that are supposed to end the coronavirus crisis" ( Woman with final say on which vaccines we can use, 28/11/20). Spending years as the MHRA`s director of "vigilance and risk management of medicines division" is all very well, but does she really meet the government`s requirements for such an important role? For a start she is not married to a Tory MP, and was not appointed to the post as a result of lobbying by associates in the Commons. Her life has been "devoted to public health", with no experience whatsoever of working for accounting firms like Deloitte, or even an outsourcing firm like Serco. Has she ever employed her own media team, let alone paid one absurd amounts of taxpayers` money? She probably doesn`t even run a pub close to the Health Secretary`s constituency home (Hancock`s ex-neighbour won Covid-19 kit work, 27/11/20)! Hardly a basis for joining the UK`s "world-beating" team!

Tuesday 24 November 2020

Preparing the way for austerity

When the chancellor says that "We`ve provided over £200bn of support to protect the economy", are we to assume he is including the Bank of England`s role in the government`s recent spending (Record borrowing lifts UK`s debt mountain to £2,076bn, 21/11/20)? The inference is that it is all taxpayers` money, and as tax receipts have fallen, the books have to be balanced and public finances put back on a "sustainable path". Could the reason the disingenuous Sunak does not mention the Bank's quantitative easing programme, which has provided the government with £875bn since 2009, including £350bn this year, with promises of more to come, is because he is going to announce what amount to austerity measures in Wednesday`s spending review? What Johnson calls the "A-word" may not actually be mentioned, but pay freezes, cuts and/or tax increases are certainly in the pipeline. Britain`s "debt mountain" only reaches the £2tn mark if the £875 of QE is included, and, as the Bank of England is a government entity, why should it be? The truth is there can be no excuses for not funding our social services properly, not extending the £20 a week extra benefit payments, and increasing public investments to create employment. Interest rates are at record low levels, with payments on the government`s debt costing £2bn this October, £4.4bn less, as your reporters Inman and Wearden tell us, than in the same month last year. No Tory urgency then for a return to the belt-tightening days, especially with the election looming! Increased government spending, furthermore, has the backing of the IMF and the OECD, especially with economic multipliers known to reduce costs significantly. The country, as a recent editorial pointed out, is being "softened up for austerity policies" (Vaccines will not end the unemployment crisis, even if they end the health crisis,17/11/20). Hopefully Starmer and Dodds are aware of the shortcomings of Sunak`s economic theories, and ready to put matters straight! Polly Toynbee is right to say the Sunak`s "underlying message" in his spending review, is to "prepare the way for a new austerity" (This week, Rishi Sunak is aiming to level down, not up, 24/11/20), as is the editorial when stating that a pay freeze would "undermine the government`s commitment to levelling up (A public-sector pay freeze is evidence of ministers clapping without caring, 24/11/20). The truth is that there can be no excuses for not funding our social services properly, not extending the £20 a week extra benefit payments, and increasing public investments to create employment. Interest rates are at record low levels, and increased government spending has the backing of the IMF and the OECD, especially with economic multipliers known to reduce costs significantly. Of course, countries like Japan have "run large deficits for years", with debt-to-GDP ratios of well over 100%, not that this will rate a mention in Sunak`s speech. Furthermore,the Bank of England is willing to add to the £350bn it has already created this year through quantitative easing, making £875bn in total since 2009, sums which the government need not repay immediately, if ever, so reducing its exaggerated £2tn national debt total by a third. . Preventing ordinary people spending money to boost local economies is madness in the best of circumstances, so any tax increases or pay freezes announced by Sunak should be focused on high earners and on capital gains, along with tougher measures to prevent tax avoidance and evasion. Hopefully, Labour`s leadership team are being primed to expose the error of the chancellor`s ways!

No mention of QE!

Two pages devoted to comment and analysis of "the full extent of the pandemic`s economic shock", and no mention of quantitative easing (Sunak refuses to rule out future tax rises and public sector pay freeze, 22/11/20). No doubt, the chancellor will also fail to mention it when delivering his spending review on Wednesday, when he explains why public sector workers, who until recently were referred to as "key workers", have to endure what is effectively a government-ordered pay cut. Presumably the British public is not expected to know about the government-owned Bank of England`s quantitative scheme which has created £350bn this year to help the government cope with the Covid crisis, and £875bn altogether since 2009. The only reason Sunak includes this as part of the national debt of over £2tn has to be to create justification for what he calls a public sector pay freeze, and what we know as the beginning of unwarranted austerity measures!

Friday 20 November 2020

Tories` myopic view of defence

Making a "headline investment pledge" of £12bn in a "green recovery package", when "much of it has been announced previously", is typical of Tory political chicanery the country has become accustomed to since 2010 (A green revolution needs more than words to become a reality, 19/11/20). Agreeing at the same time to "a four-year £16.5bn increase in defence spending", days before the chancellor's spending review, when Sunak almost certainly will warn of impending austerity measures, necessary because of extra spending during the Covid crisis, like so many of Johnson's pronouncements, beggars belief (PM finds £16.5bn for defence as foreign aid budget faces huge cut, 19/11/20)! As he says, the "defence of the realm" must indeed "come first", but by equating "defence" with increased military spending, Johnson reveals the limitations of his political understanding. What is the point of increasing the defence capability of the UK against foreign adversaries when far greater threats exist from deadly viruses, killer diseases and global warming? Defending the people from illness and disease must also "come first", as must defending children from food shortages, poverty and lack of education. A population`s security does not depend on military capability, but on a government`s willingness to spend money wisely to create healthy, happy and prosperous communities, to fund public services sufficiently, and provide decent jobs and living accommodation for all. Defence against exploitation from greedy employers and landlords is essential, too. That`s the trouble with having a leader and ministers from privileged backgrounds; their wealth has prevented them from not only ever understanding ordinary people`s need for security, but from seeing defence as anything other than a military requirement!

Sunday 15 November 2020

Left-wing Biden and Starmer?

Your editorial suggests "the no-nonsense vice-president elect", Kamala Harris,should be given the job of keeping the left-wing of the Democratic party "in line" if they challenge Biden for slipping "into his old, middling ways" (Joe Biden faces a massive challenge. But, for now, let`s celebrate a powerful victory, 08.11.20). Isn`t this the wrong way round? As the editorial also states, Biden made a "calculated" move, "shifting leftwards" in order to gain votes by "embracing the progressive agenda". As the election victor, isn`t he now obliged to carry out his pledges? That is, after all, what a "decent, honest" leader would do, and, indeed, how democracy is meant to work! Harris is the one who should be ready to "pounce" if election promises are forgotten. The parallels with Starmer and the Labour party are obvious. Here`s another party leader so keen on party unity he was willing to pledge a left-wing manifesto in order to win his leadership election, and already being doubted for his sincerity. Both Starmer and Biden clearly need to remember their parties` recent histories, and reflect on the reasons for too many years of Conservative and Republican dominance.

Friday 13 November 2020

For Biden, read Starmer!

Many of the observations made by Thomas Frank about the need for Biden and the Democrats to "confront their own past", and "acknowledge how their own decisions over the years helped make Trumpism possible" are clearly applicable to the UK`s Labour party and ten years of Tory governments (Now Biden must tackle the causes of Trumpism, 09/11/20). A preponderance of centrist policies which ignored "the grievances of blue-collar workers" cost Labour the 2010 election just as it lost the 2016 election for Clinton. Both Biden and Starmer were forced to include more left-wing ideas into their respective manifestos in their attempts to be seen to be unifying forces in their parties, and it is vital that they do their utmost to rubbish Republican and Conservative "preposterous claims to be workers` parties representing the aspirations of ordinary people" with action and policies respectively. Years of shrinking the state in both countries have proved disastrous, as have unfair taxation, deregulation and rising inequality, not to mention the abundance of corruption and cronyism. The US isn`t the only nation which has "grown sick of plutocracy", but if there is to be a new era of politics it is essential that Starmer, like Biden, confronts his party`s recent history and learns from it!

Wednesday 11 November 2020

Work for Public Accounts Committee

The news that the government has awarded a £347m Covid-19 testing contract to Randox, "a Tory-linked private healthcare company", comes as no surprise, given the number of similar contracts awarded to the private sector, where profit is still the goal, regardless of a nationwide crisis (Tory-linked company awarded new £347m Covid-testing contract, 05/11/20). The facts that the Tory MP Owen Patterson earns more as a consultant for the company than he does working for his constituents, that the company`s previous work resulted in the recall of 750,000 kits because of their lack of sterility, and that no "other companies were asked to bid", all suggest an immediate investigation is required. As the role of the Public Accounts Committee is, according to parliament`s website, to "monitor public spending across the whole of the Government, with particular focus on ensuring value for money for the taxpayer", it is clearly one of the first ports of call for investigating such "cronyism", and has, indeed, started an inquiry into "Government procurement", with the deadline for evidence being 2nd December. Is a committee with 9 Tory MPs and only 5 Labour members really going to get to grips with the problem? What is evidently required is a demand from Labour for a public inquiry., not only into the awarding of contracts, but into the judiciousness of MPs having second jobs. A salary of over three times the national average, plus very generous expenses, and subsidised meals in the Commons, should be more than adequate for anyone dedicated to such public service. If not, the conclusion has to be that they`re in the wrong job!

Friday 6 November 2020

Labour needs to be more critical of Sunak`s policies

Whilst Anneliese Dodds is clearly right to say that the chancellor should have "introduced a job recovery scheme that incentivised employers to keep more staff on", Labour`s criticism of the government`s business and workers` support policies is, sadly, another example of Starmer`s opposition appearing to do "too little, too late" (Boost support for employers or face jobless surge - Dodds, 09/10/20)! Months ago we learned that despite many of the FTSE-100 firms turning to the taxpayers to pay the wages of furloughed workers, the pay of their bosses had largely remained unchanged (Bosses of only a third of top firms have taken pay cuts, 05/08/20). Now we find out that Restaurant Group will pay obscenely high bonuses to its CEO who has overseen the closure of 200 of its outlets with 4,500 job losses, despite the company "still making use of the government`s job retention furlough scheme". In a similar vein, greedy supermarkets like Tesco and Morrisons, pay out massive dividends to shareholders which equate approximately with the amounts saved from the government`s business rates holiday (Tesco to pay £315m dividend after enjoying rates holiday, 08/10/20)! Labour should have been demanding from the start, and with more measures on the cards for next week, repeating more vociferously now, that all government aid to the private sector should be accompanied by strict conditions. Reining in bosses`pay, tax commitments, closing pay gaps, suspending dividends, and pledges on new technology and apprenticeship schemes should be among the conditions for the receipt of any financial aid from the government. Instead we get murmurings from Tory propagandists about "unsustainable borrowing", questionable levels of national debt, and the need to cut back government spending, with hints of tax rises being necessary.. And they`re still claiming to be "one nation Tories"!!

Tuesday 3 November 2020

The oxymoron that is "One nation Conservatism"

Well done all those Labour MPs who signed the letter organised by Richard Burgon to demand that "no worker is paid less than the national minimum wage if they are furloughed " during the current health crisis. Forcing workers on the minimum wage now to live on 67% of their earnings means the earnings they get will be , as the article says, £5.81 an hour! Not only is this typically callous, and typical of Tory governments, it illustrates clearly the nonsense that is Johnson`s government`s claim to represent "one nation Conservatism". Now there`s an oxymoron if ever there was one! This, of course, is the concept developed by Tories to win elections in the late nineteenth century. Faced with the unstoppable surge of increased suffrage, and therefore also with the need to win the votes of poor, newly enfranchised men, Disraeli`s party`s solution was to promise a country which would no longer be divided into two "nations", the haves and have-nots, an electoral ploy which helped Disraeli win the 1874 election. Johnson talks a lot about bringing the country together as one nation, but knows, like Disraeli, Tories cannot achieve it, as it would split the party and alienate too many donors. Johnson and Sunak constantly complain that increases to minimum wages and increased benefit payments cannot be afforded, but the reality is that they have no intention of doing any such thing. Disraeli couldn`t carry it out, and the voters kicked him out in 1880; Johnson won`t try it because his party would remove him long before the next election if he did! Starmer`s Labour should be aiming, therefore, to expose the true objectives of this government by illuminating the lies being told about the economy, the amount of debt that is really owed, and the full extent of the Bank of England`s role in supplying hundreds of billions through quantitative easing for the government to spend, and which should not be included in debt figures!

No hat-tricks for Starmer!

Although his three goals helped his team destroy formidable European opposition, Marcus Rashford`s truly "remarkable hat-trick" was scored off the pitch (Rashford`s hat-trick underpins ruthless dismantling of Leipzig, 29/10/20). Having succeeded in helping to provide food for impoverished and disadvantaged children, and forcing the government into at least one embarrassing own goal with the U-turn over free school meals in the summer holidays, he is also responsible for exposing almost single-handedly the true nature of this Tory government. Not only did 322 Tory MPs in a government of so-called "one-nation Conservatives" vote against an extension of the free schools programme, many of them went public with their reasons for doing so, which included what Angela Rayner rightly called the "stigmatisation of working-class families" (Ben Bradley urged to apologise over free school meals tweets, 24/10/20). What Rashford is also doing is putting the Labour party, especially its leader, to shame. Forcing governments into making policy changes leading to embarrassing and damning excuses for doing so, used to be the job of the Opposition. So did causing tensions in the Cabinet, dividing the prime minister and his inner circle from the machinations of any fellow Tory politician "who strives to be prime minister", as is clearly happening now (Rishi Sunak`s ambition is on a collision course with Boris Johnson`s ego, 27/10/20). Rashford`s success has illuminated what many in the Labour party must already know: Starmer puts in a good shift in the middle of the park, but his attacking instincts in the final third are limited! With Starmer insisting he "doesn't want a civil war in the Labour party", perhaps he should heed the advice from former party chair, Ian Lavery (Pro-Corbyn MPs may quit Labour amid fear of "mass purge", warns former chair, 31/10/20). To "reach out before it`s too late" would mean the Labour leader immediately having to calm the fears of all those on the left of the party who remember his promises during the leadership campaign, and who were persuaded by them to support his bid. Within days there needs to be reaffirmed commitments on taxing the rich, ending the scourge of tax avoidance, increasing pay for key workers, pledging more state ownership, and even supporting a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even before the Corbyn crisis, the excellent Marcus Rashford was putting the Labour party, and its leader, to shame, and causing many embarrassing government U-turns, so now is definitely the moment for Starmer to put his money where his mouth is! Replacing this "cruel and useless government", as Jonathan Freedland says, has to be the long-term priority, but that will prove impossible unless Starmer is able to stifle the left`s fears and show a united front (Labour and antisemitism: once again, it`s all about Corbyn, 31/10/20).

PQA will not solve university admissions problems

As Peter Lazenby rightly says, the current "university admissions system puts working class students at a disadvantage". As well as the possible introduction of post-qualification application (PQA), there is the matter of the actual qualification; after all the fuss of Gove`s assessment reforms, and the provision of highly regulated A-levels containing more "rigour", and described by Ofqual as "national qualifications based on content set by the government", it is ridiculous that universities should accept, as academic entrance qualifications any other exams! The lightly-regulated Pre-U exams, set and marked by teachers in private schools, mostly for their pupils give far too much advantage to entrants from the private sector. Yet Oxbridge and others are allowed to get away with such bias, allowing hundreds of undergraduates to study in their colleges every year without A-levels. This year saw massive A-level grade inflation of 4.7% increase in A*/A grades in independent schools, but we saw no media outrage, or even clarification of whether this included Pre-U results! It seems ridiculous that in the academic year 2017-18, there were 125 Oxbridge 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. The phasing out of Pre-U exams is to be welcomed , but it still means that for another few years, the privileged will continue to have their university places guaranteed, and their monopoly of "educational advantage" continued. Universities should accept the so-called "privilege cap", which would limit the proportion of students accepted from private schools at the national figure of 7%. This would force universities into adopting contextual admissions policies, and make more room for pupils from the underfunded schools, from underprivileged families and from economically deprived areas, whose potential remains largely untapped. Oxbridge`s insistence on interviews hardly helps matters! Could there be a more effective deterrent to getting able pupils from working class backgrounds to apply to Oxbridge than the thought of an hour-long grilling by academics? Test their ability after three years of their education, not after eighteen years of being disadvantaged! The introduction of PQA might help, but so many barriers would still remain!

Re-writing history

It was recently reported that Dominic Cummings was advising the prime minister to be more robust against attempts to rewrite British history in the wake of the Black Lives Matter protest. Consequently, Johnson has stated that the removal of statues is "to lie about our history", as if history is actually set in stone and cannot be changed (Boris Johnson says removing statues is 'to lie about our history' ,12..06.20). Although he has written what many have described as "history books", he clearly does not understand waht history.actually entails. Of course it changes! Isn't that what historians are seeking all the time to achieve? Researching, finding new primary evidence, interviewing participants and detecting bias all mean that history cannot stand still, as this government presumably wants us all to think. The story about the new evidence emerging, revealing a previously secret role of Henry VIII in the execution of Anne Boleyn, is timely (Chilling find shows how Henry VIII planned every detail of Boleyn beheading, 25.10.20). The fact that he explained "precisely how he wanted his second wife to be executed" does not mean that all Tudor history books have to be re-written, but it will have a significant effect on how historians approach the execution in the future, and how the blame should move away from Henry`s "trusty adviser Thomas Cromwell". Thanks to the work of our academic historians, the story of British history is changing, albeit more slowly than many would like. Gradually, much of the mythology is being eroded; no longer is it accepted, for instance, that Britain was actually "alone" in 1940, or that Germany was defeated in both world wars by only Britain. That erosion would be certainly enhanced if Johnson, true to his word about the lies in history, actually allowed our academics to study the millions of history files which governments for years have secreted away in Hanslope Park! Those documents, however, could well prove the non-existence of British "exceptionalism", a concept which helps to explain both Brexit, and Johnson`s election victory!

Saturday 24 October 2020

Angela Rayner was right!

How much lower can this government go? Having proved itself totally corrupt and incompetent throughout the Covid crisis, it has now whipped its MPs to vote against Labour`s motion to "continue directly funding provision of free school meals over the school holidays until Easter 2021" (Star, 22/10/20). The business minister Paul Scully actually said on television that children had been going hungry "for years", as if it was no big deal, and why should governments worry about it anyway! Another Tory MP, Ben Bradley said that free meals "increase dependency". One must assume then that he and all the hundreds of Tories who voted against the motion never take advantage of the heavily subsidised meals at the Commons restaurants, or dined out during the "eat out to help out campaign", as it would surely have made them too dependent on the state for their cheap food! After all, they only earn around £80,000 a year plus expenses, plus 2nd job salaries for many! Presumably they never choose to eat "Chargrilled ribeye steak with hand cut chips, tomato, mushroom and Bearnaise sauce" at the Members` Dining Room, as it would only cost them £9.19? The "pan-fried salmon with courgette provencale, buttered cocotte potatoes, black olive crumb" must mostly go to waste as these conscience-laden MPs couldn`t possibly eat it for fear of taking advantage of the state`s generosity! What a disgraceful shower these Tory MPs are, and how apt Angela Rayner`s description of them was! What the Labour party should now pledge is firstly an end to these less than half-price meal deals at the Commons, and secondly, free school meals for disadvantaged children all year round, in perpetuity!

Tuesday 20 October 2020

3 week exam delay

Is it any wonder education unions have "accused the government of a dereliction of duty" over its decision to go ahead with next year`s exams (Star, 12/10/20)? Not only does it make the exams even more unfair than is usually the case, it displays total ignorance of what goes on in England`s state schools, especially those in the more deprived areas, and a lack of appreciation of the anxiety such decisions cause both teachers and students. As the DfE thinks the current system of examinations is the "best and fairest way" of judging students` performance, it is hardly surprising that it cannot devise a "plan B" which only involves mock exams in "controlled conditions". This begs the question as to what sort of "uncontrolled" conditions do they think state schools normally carry out their internal exams! Having "mock exams" as the only back up is obviously another mistake, but hardly surprising in view of the exams taken in most private schools as a way of avoiding A-levels: aren`t these Pre-U exams just like "mocks" in that they are set and marked by their teachers? No wonder 75% get top grades! Williamson and his team clearly cannot understand how teachers use "mocks"in the real world, either to give encouragement to students or to provide extra incentive for greater effort, or how "specimen papers" cannot take into consideration the disruption many students have already faced since going back to school. Pushing back the start of the exams by three weeks, according to Ofqual`s chief regulator, Glenys Stacey speaking to the BBC, will "be particularly beneficial for those who have more time away from school than others"! How on earth could anyone, let alone the person in charge of exams for our state school pupils, reach that conclusion? That could only be the case if all the other exam entrants, who missed few lessons because of the virus, and who suffered no gaps in their learning because of ample modern technology, were placed in isolation cells without books or tablets for those three weeks, to stop them having all that extra time for revision. Adding to all the unfairness is the norm-referencing which determines the number of top grades to be awarded after the papers have been marked. As long as that exists, and clearly doesn`t in the Pre-U exams, the exam system remains flawed. The government needs to have faith in the teaching profession, and go for moderated teacher assessment on a permanent basis! Presumably those of us concerned by the government`s insistence on having pupils assessed by GCSE and A-level examinations next summer are meant to be appeased because Nick Gibb, the minister for school standards, told the education committee that the issue which worries him "more than any other is unfairness and unevenness" (Fears for exams as virus keeps 400,000 off school in England, 21/10/20). Grades, apparently, are going to be "adjusted to reflect lost learning", which will at least make a change from having grades lowered because of the usual restrictions imposed by norm-referencing. The fact that the DfE is working with Ofqual to deliver fairness will hardly decrease concerns when Ofqual`s chief regulator, Glenys Stacey, speaking to the BBC, said the three week delay will "be particularly beneficial for those who have more time away from school than others"! Staged assessments, "moderated to ensure fairness", as a previous editorial commented, is looking the only option (By failing to plan for next year`s exams, ministers are letting pupils down, 10/10/20).Teachers need to be told to prepare pupils for another year of exam-free assessment, and to set assessment exercises such as "mocks", classroom tests, and research or homework tasks which can be marked and sent to examiners for checking, Gibb has been an education minister since 2010, so it`s strange that the unfairness in our assessment system has not worried him b

Sunday 18 October 2020

Of course it`s affordable!

With the prime minister saying he doesn`t "want Britons to rely on Uncle Sugar the taxpayer" (The poor will suffer because the PM gets no buzz from compassion `s sugar rush, 16/10/20), and the chancellor refusing to make the support package more generous because of "concerns about spiralling borrowing" ("We must not make the north a sacrificial lamb", 16/210/20) it`s clear the Tory propaganda machine is stepping up a gear.. What is never mentioned by the government is the fact that much of what has been spent already on the furlough schemes and business grants has come from the Bank of England`s quantitative easing measures, billions which have wrongly been included in the national debt figures. There is still plenty of scope for, as the IMF suggests, more borrowing, and with little risk of inflation, more quantitative easing. It is worth remembering that when the economy needed a boost after the 2008-9 crisis, no such concerns were shown when £375bn was created for the banks to lend to businesses, and none either, when they didn`t!

Friday 16 October 2020

Moderated teacher assessment is the answer!

Is it any wonder education unions have "accused the government of a dereliction of duty" over its decision to go ahead with next year`s exams (Star, 12/10/20)? Not only does it make the exams even more unfair than is usually the case, it displays total ignorance of what goes on in England`s state schools, especially those in the more deprived areas, and a lack of appreciation of the anxiety such decisions cause both teachers and students. As the DfE thinks the current system of examinations is the "best and fairest way" of judging students` performance, it is hardly surprising that it cannot devise a "plan B" which only involves mock exams in "controlled conditions". This begs the question as to what sort of "uncontrolled" conditions do they think state schools normally carry out their internal exams! Having "mock exams" as the only back up is obviously another mistake, but hardly surprising in view of the exams taken in most private schools as a way of avoiding A-levels: aren`t these Pre-U exams just like "mocks" in that they are set and marked by their teachers? No wonder 75% get top grades! Williamson and his team clearly cannot understand how teachers use "mocks"in the real world, either to give encouragement to students or to provide extra incentive for greater effort, or how "specimen papers" cannot take into consideration the disruption many students have already faced since going back to school. Pushing back the start of the exams by three weeks, according to Ofqual`s chief regulator, Glenys Stacey speaking to the BBC, will "be particularly beneficial for those who have more time away from school than others"! How on earth could anyone, let alone the person in charge of exams for our state school pupils, reach that conclusion? That could only be the case if all the other exam entrants, who missed few lessons because of the virus, and who suffered no gaps in their learning because of ample modern technology, were placed in isolation cells without books or tablets for those three weeks, to stop them having all that extra time for revision. Adding to all the unfairness is the norm-referencing which determines the number of top grades to be awarded after the papers have been marked. As long as that exists, and clearly doesn`t in the Pre-U exams, the exam system remains flawed. The government needs to have faith in the teaching profession, and go for moderated teacher assessment on a permanent basis/ As the DfE thinks the current system of examinations is the "best and fairest way of judging students` performance", is is hardly surprising that it cannot devise a "plan B" which only involves "mock exams in controlled conditions" (Pupils will sit strict mock exams as "plan B" to prevent rerun of A-level and GCSE chaos, 10/10/20). Williamson and his team clearly cannot understand how teachers use "mocks", either to give encouragement to students or to provide extra incentive for greater effort, or how "specimen papers" cannot take into consideration the disruption many students have already faced since going back to school. As the editorial states, "staged assessments, moderated to ensure fairness" does make much more sense (By failing to plan for next year`s exams, ministers are letting pupils down, 10/10/20).Teachers need to be told to prepare pupils for another year of exam-free assessment, and to set assessment exercises such as "mocks", classroom tests, and research or homework tasks which can be marked and sent to examiners for checking, and verification or amendment of the proposed grades. The need to avoid the use of an algorithm to enforce norm-referencing on state schools` examinations should be obvious to Ofqual, and perhaps even to Williamson, but no doubt private schools will still manage to dominate the so-called "top" universities with grade inflation allowed to continue unabated in their Pre-U exams.

Tuesday 13 October 2020

Increase in MPs` pay??

It is, of course, disgraceful that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) should be proposing a 4.1% pay rise for all MPs (Star, 09/10/10). It`s no wonder that unions have "condemned" it, especially when "ministers refuse to negotiate a rise for public sector workers", whose efforts were so loudly applauded everywhere during the first wave of the pandemic . Admittedly, some MPs have spoken out against it, promising to refuse it and so on, but the fact that it has been contemplated highlights both the economic divisions in the country, and the lack of awareness of so many people with power. Take, for instance, the Ipsa chair, Richard Lloyd, who apparently stated that a review of MPs` salaries was needed because of "the uncertainties arising from the coronavirus pandemic", which for most people would be an obvious reason for having no such review at all. Some right-wingers actually believe the salary of MPs should be increased dramatically, in order to attract what they call a "higher calibre" of person to enter politics, but presumably they mean the sort of Oxbridge graduates who now are fast-tracked into the business and financial sectors, where they can be expected to have salaries in excess of a million, plus bonuses and share deals, annually. That is exactly the sort of person that parliament, and the country, does not need; there are too many of those there now, privately educated and profit obsessed, whose objectives for the UK have led to increased inequality and the demise of social mobility. MPs should not need the incentive of a higher salary than the one currently available; at over three times the national average, plus expenses, it is more than enough to provide a very comfortable living, and if it doesn`t satisfy them, they are clearly in the wrong job. If the incentive of having the opportunity to improve the lives of the people isn`t sufficient, it`s time to move on and leave room for people for wh

Where does Starmer stand?

With numerous articles on the subject, including the headline lead on the front page (UK at "critical" point ahead of new Covid restrictions, 12/10/20), and John Harris`s column in the Journal (Lockdowns dictated from London are causing chaos, 12/10/20), one would have expected to see at least one mention of the Labour leader. Starmer has frequently complained about the government`s incompetence, and indeed, shown sympathy with locally elected leaders over the lack of consultation about Covid measures. But in this time of crisis, is that enough? He will, no doubt, give the Labour party`s support to the grading of areas into three tiers, but should, in fact, have been calling for such a system weeks ago, when the lack of clarity was already obvious. He has rightly criticised the test and trace system, but not its privatisation. Now, when Labour mayors and council leaders are in dispute with a "shambolic and dictatorial" government, Starmer`s position is far from clear. Does he agree with Burnham and Anderson that Sunak`s plan "to pay people affected by business closures only two-thirds of their lost pay" is totally inadequate? If he doesn`t, Labour supporters need to know how he thinks affected people should manage over the coming months. If he does, he should be making the point repeatedly and loudly. It`s all very well to want to be seen as supportive to the government during such an unprecedented crisis, but when a large area of Labour support such as the North is being "locked down on the cheap", the Labour leader needs to get his act together! At the moment, there is no doubt where the blame lies for this "omnishambles", but an all-too passive Opposition does not help matter

Thursday 8 October 2020

Labour should attack Sunak`s economics

Sunak is not the first Tory chancellor to claim he has a "sacred responsibility to balance the books for future generations", whilst doing nothing to ease graduates` debts, improve young people`s chances in the housing market, increase social mobility, close pay ratios, or even give the most obvious form of help to them by increasing spending on all aspects of state education (Chancellor warns of "hard choices" to address debt, 06/10/20). "Future generations" would benefit far more if the need for food banks was eradicated, and there were guarantees of jobs and decent pay. The International Monetary Fund`s advice to increase state spending ( The chancellor`s speech signals that he wants to go back to the future, 06/10/20) is likely to be ignored, just as it was in 2013. Just two months before his March budget, George Osborne was told by the IMF of the need for a "reassessment of fiscal policy" (Austerity is failing, IMF tells Osborne, 24/01/13). Work by the IMF`s chief economist, Olivier Blanchard, on fiscal multipliers had shown the devastating effects tax and spending cuts were having on economies. Naturally, Osborne ignored the advice and went on to continue with departments` spending cuts, reduce corporation tax to 20%, and cap public sector pay awards to 1%! When it comes to a choice for the Tories between a Roosevelt-like New Deal, as Larry Elliott suggested, to rescue jobs and businesses (Britain needs a New Deal, but all we get is confusion, 02/10/20), and austerity measures, it`s already clear where Sunak`s rhetoric will take us! Amazing how the chancellor can come out with all the usual Tory nonsense about "supporting businesses and communities", and using "the overwhelming might of the British state" to "create, support and extend opportunity" to as many people as possible, whilst still possessing "a sacred responsibility to balance the books for future generations" (Star, 05/10/20). What a pity this "sacred responsibility" to future generations does not extend to ensuring they have sufficient government expenditure on their education, housing and job prospects, or even on eradicating the need for any future use of food banks! Apparently, the International Monetary Fund is saying the government should increase state spending, advice which is likely to be ignored, just as it was in 2013. Just two months before his March budget, George Osborne was told by the IMF that he needed to reassess his fiscal policy". Work on the effect of fiscal multipliers by the IMF`s chief economist, Olivier Blanchard, had shown the devastating consequences tax and spending cuts were having on economies. Naturally, Osborne ignored the advice and went on to continue with departments` spending cuts, to reduce corporation tax to 20%, and to cap public sector pay awards to 1%! Anything this chancellor does is almost bound, as the trade union leaders say, to be like a "drop in the ocean". When there is an existential threat to our society, as there is now, governments must ignore considerations about budgets and debt, and opposition parties must tell them so, loudly!

Monday 5 October 2020

Liverpool`s Abbey Road

With the controvery raging over the future of the old Abbey Cinema in Wavertree, it seems that two undoubted facts need to be taken into consideration. Firstly, that the popularity wordwide of the Beatles is set to last for many more years, and secondly, that Liverpool as a city could be doing far more to attract even more Beatle fans from all over the world. The first point is incontrovertible, and if the record company currently in charge of their recordings had any sense and re-released all the Beatles` albums on vinyl, with the original sleeve designs and at cut-price rates, yet more fans would be added. The second some might dispute, but seeing (last year!) hundreds of foreign tourists waiting to have their photographs taken beside the Penny Lane roadsign, should be evidence enough! After travelling thousands of miles, there has to be some disappointment that the city celebrates one of the most famous songs ever written with a meagre road sign! Now might be the time to promote again the building in the centre of Penny Lane, once Sergeant Pepper`s bistro, into becoming a Beatles` visitor centre, focussing on the Pepper album and the 1967 period. As well as information and posters on the walls relating to the period, I`m sure people with Beatle connections would be willing to voice or write messages, and there could be plenty of opportunities to buy Beatle merchandise. Just up the road a few hundred yards is the old Abbey Cinema, about to become a Lidl supermarket. Is it beyond the realms of possibility to believe that the council could come to some arrangement with the German owners, so that the bottom floor would be the shopping area whilst on higher floors would be a council-controlled Beatle Centre? Lidl could possibly sponsor it and consequently be allowed to use it in advertising etc. whilst the council could develop its potential for attracting fans by concentrating on the last year of the Beatles, and, of course, the album, Abbey Road. There would be planty of scope for music, videos, Rooftop Concert clips, and such like, plus yet more merchandise selling. Last but not least, why not change the name of the road linking Penny Lane and the old cinema, with a designated and safe cycle lane between the two, with the council providing the bikes! 2022 sees the 60th anniversary of the release of Love Me Do. Can anyone think of a better way for the city to celebrate, and benefit, than from the opening of two new Beatle visitor centres, and of Liverpool`s own Abbey Road?

Friday 2 October 2020

Cabinet not chosen for ability!

The shadow work and pensions secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, is right to criticise Therese Coffey on not knowing "her own government`s advice on people returning to their workplace", but he can hardly be surprised (Star, 01/10/20). Every week we see ministers embarrassed by their confusion in front of select committee questioning, or hear their ignorance first-hand on the Today programme. Johnson himself frequently appears at a loss as to what is happening and to what his own government has decreed, but what did even the Tory MPs who voted for him as leader expect? What probably came as a surprise to them was the obvious incompetence of Tory colleagues. Johnson, under strict orders from Cummings, selected his cabinet ministers on the basis of their loyalty, not their ability, and consequently, we hear secretaries of state who clearly have not read, let alone understood and memorised, their briefing papers. and ministers like education minister Gillian Keegan unable to clarify Covid rules. Of course, all of us are confused about the rules, but we are not in the cabinet and about to face interrogation which will inevitably include questions about the new regulations to control coronavirus; if we were we would do some homework, something this arrogant bunch of incompetents is clearly incapable of doing. The fact that it hasn`t occurred to anyone that a three-tiered system of Covid regulations, at least until now, with simple add-ons to top up the nationwide "rule of six", is needed, when so many areas, notably with districts of extreme poverty and deprivation, are being given "local lockdown" instructions, is simply unforgivable. The only explanation has to be that if the nation is confused by the regulations, there is more chance there will be some waywardness, and more opportunities to transfer the blame on to the people!

Thursday 1 October 2020

Labour and the economy

It shouldn`t be left to Gordon Brown to warn that the Covid generation "faces a no work, no hope future" (Star, 28/09/20). Admittedly Labour has issued a statement about the problems facing those working in the "unviable" sectors, and the shadow chancellor has written to Sunak on the issue, but two factors make it urgent and essential that Labour do much more. Labour`s handling of the economy is still apparently seen by the electorate as a problem, whilst, with Sunak being possibly the Tory leader in the next general election, Starmer`s team cannot afford to spurn any economic open goals. Having written to the chancellor pointing out the weaknesses and inconsistencies of his latest plan, Anneliese Dodds will no doubt be able to say "I told you so" when things go wrong, as they almost certainly will, but much more is needed from the Opposition . Although the letter contains reasonable points, particularly about the insufficient size of the package, the need for worker retraining, and the effects on those in the performing arts, unless she is supported by the party leadership on the matter, Dodds will indeed struggle to be heard, and the letter ignored. It might well be the wrong time to expose the ingredients of the next Labour manifesto, but now has the be an opportune moment to go on an all-out offensive on the government`s economic strategy. The attack, however, must contain details of what Labour would be doing instead. This means firstly making the point that the UK`s national debt, is not a record £2.024tn as most of the right-wing press claim: £735bn of the so-called debt is owned by the government via the Bank of England`s bonds under its quantitative easing programme. Labour needs to be arguing for more borrowing and more QE; other countries have managed for years with a debt-to-GDP ratio of over 100%, and the UK could do the same, despite what the Tories say! What is the point of worrying about how to pay back debt, when the future of the whole economy is at stake? Labour`s priority has to be the health of the people first, the truly patriotic thing to do, and then the economy and people`s jobs. If they think Sunak has got it wrong, shout it, loud and clear!

Monday 28 September 2020

Universities` admissions

Will Hutton asks whether the Labour party is "thinking big thoughts", and proceeds to outline a number of quite feasible ideas it should be discussing during its online conference (If the Labour conference were on now, would I be knocked over by a rush of ideas? 20.09.20). One strange omission, however, especially in view of the many positions Hutton has held in British universities, was education. With the recent shambles over external examinations, and a "campaign to end GCSEs" about to be launched, it certainly is an appropriate time to consider whether there would be far less mental health issues amongst our young people if teacher assessment, with a moderating role for exam boards, was to be adopted on a permanent basis (Schools make bid to kill off GCSEs, 20.09.20). Indeed, the arrival of the second wave of the coronavirus and the probability of examination cancellation again, make such discussion an urgent priority. As Hutton knows very well, the admission procedures of our universities are both outdated and biased, and reforms are essential if the country is not to continue to waste genuine talent. The only examination grades deemed acceptable for university academic places should be A-levels, the exams described by Ofqual as "national qualifications with content set by government". This would mean private schools would no longer be able to sidestep the highly regulated A-levels, by entering pupils for Pre-U exams, with their very high proportion of A*/A grades. Pupils from underprivileged backgrounds and understaffed state schools would also benefit from contextual information being taken into consideration when places are offered. "Best get started", as Hutton says, is good advice for Labour, but to omit education from its agenda most certainly was not!

Sunday 27 September 2020

No exams next year

With the government`s appalling test and trace system "needlessly disrupting" thousands of children`s education, and "94% of schools with pupils who have had to stay at home" because of Covid symptoms, it doesn't require a degree in rocket, or even moonshot, science to conclude that GCSE and A-level exams next year are in jeopardy (Star,18/09/20). Having an education secretary as on the ball as Gavin Williamson, one can assume therefore that he has ordered all examination boards both to give details to all secondary schools about the type of sample work of pupils which will be needed to justify the teacher assessed grades, and to make the necessary appointments of grade moderators! The need to avoid the use of an algorithm to enforce norm-referencing on state schools` examinations should be obvious to Ofqual, and perhaps even to Williamson, but no doubt private schools will still manage to dominate the so-called "top" universities with grade inflation allowed to continue unabated in their Pre-U exams. With a second wave now inevitable, teachers need to be told to prepare pupils for another year of exam-free assessment, and to set assessment exercises such as "mocks", classroom tests, and research or homework tasks which can be marked and sent to examiners for checking, and verification or amendment, of teachers` grades. To shorten the process, schools could be told that sample work will be required from any pupil, and then when work completed, asked for the work from, for example, numbers 1, 4, 7 and 12 in the teacher`s "order of merit", from a class of twelve pupils. For classes of 5 and under, work would be required for all pupils. Unions need to be involved, but a sensible secretary of state would have started preparatory work on this already.

Friday 11 September 2020

4 letters on Pre-U`s scandalous results

As your excellent editorial said, the "evidence that educational inequality has grown" in recent months is, indeed, "dismaying", but there is another factor exacerbating the problem, which failed to get a mention (Poorer pupils lost most during the pandemic. Now they need help to catch up, 07/09/20). Disadvantaged pupils falling behind through lack of learning facilities and teaching opportunities is bad enough. When the algorithm moderating A-level examination results is geared to control grade inflation with a measure of norm-referencing, but obviously not applied to the preferred examination of schools in the independent sector, the Pre-Us, the inequality becomes even greater. For example, this year 73.8% of entries for the Pre-U history exam gained A*/A grades , or their equivalent, whilst only 24.2% managed the same at A-level. Similarly, Pre-U`s physics results revealed 75.5% awarded top grades compared with A-levels` 31%, French 83% compared with 46%, and Spanish 82.8% with 44%? Cambridge Assessment, which runs the Pre-U examinations, have in the past explained these results by claiming, rather dubiously, that brighter pupils take them, but what about the very bright pupils in state schools and sixth form colleges who were denied top grades by the algorithm? Sadly, although the education committee learned last week that the algorithm was set up with advice from, among others, Cambridge Assessment, no questions were deemed necessary on the subject of exam results in private schools, in over one and three quarters hours of inquiry! "Schools policy", indeed, cannot "on its own" solve all the problems associated with poverty and inequality, but when norm-referencing is only applied to the examinations described by Ofqual as "national qualifications based on content set by the government", and not to ones taken by already hugely advantaged pupils, that policy clearly is in need of reform. An earlier editorial made the point that pupils from the private sector will this year again be dominating the top universities (Ministers, not pupils, are the ones who have messed up this year`s A-levels, 14/08/20). Is it any wonder? The Sutton Trust CEO was right to say that "fair access to higher education is key to expanding opportunity", so why isn`t he making a massive fuss about Pre-U results (Star, 03/09/20)? More to the point, why didn`t the select committee on education, particularly its Labour members, at least raise the subject when it spent one and three quarter hours questioning the Ofqual leadership earlier this week? We know that in England overall, A*/A grades were up 2.4% on 2019 figures, and 4.7% in independent schools, and that most of the latter use Pre-U exams instead of A-levels as the means for getting their pupils into university. One would therefore expect someone on the committee to wonder how this came about and inquire about the final standardisation of Pre-U results. Should the public not be informed how, for example, 73.8% of entries for the Pre-U history exam gained A*/A grades, or their equivalent, whilst only 24.2% managed the same at A-level? Is there no interest on the committee about Pre-U`s physics results, 75.5% top grades compared with A-levels` 31%, or French 83% compared with 46%, or Spanish 82.8% with 44%? Cambridge Assessment, which runs the Pre-U examinations, have in the past explained these results by claiming rather dubiously that brighter pupils take them, whilst Ofqual might attribute them to the algorithm, which the committee learned was set up with advice from Cambridge Assessment! Grade inflation in A-levels is controlled by an element of norm-referencing, so that the percentage gaining top grades cannot rise very far above the previous year`s figure. Obviously this rule is overlooked when it comes to Pre-U exams, as it allows the privileged to continue to dominate numbers in our top universities. It`s not only Dominic Cummings`s eye-test nonsense which exposes the "one rule for us - another for them" scandal! "Ofqual`s senior leadership" did indeed endure "a long session before the MPs" on th education committee, but surprisingly, not one question was asked about inflated A-level results in the private sector (Williamson is to blame for A-level exam fiasco, Ofqual leaders tell MPs, 03/09/20). We know that in England overall, A*/A grades were up 2.4% on 2019 figures, and 4.7% in independent schools, and that most of the latter use Pre-U exams instead of A-levels as the means for getting their pupils into university. One would therefore expect someone on the committee to wonder how this came about and inquire about the final standardisation of Pre-U results. Should the public not be informed how, for example, 73.8% of entries for the Pre-U history exam gained A*/A grades , or their equivalent, whilst only 24.2% managed the same at A-level? Is there no interest on the committee about Pre-U`s physics results, 75.5% top grades compared with A-levels` 31%, or French 83% compared with 46%, or Spanish 82.8% with 44%? Cambridge Assessment, which runs the Pre-U examinations, have in the past explained these results by claiming rather dubiously that brighter pupils take them, whilst Ofqual might attribute them to the algorithm, which the committee learned was set up with advice from Cambridge Assessment! Whatever the explanation, having no questions on the subject in over one and three quarters hours of inquiry seems a wasted opportunity! The recent examination fiasco has, as Professor Collini says, revealed "tensions in our current assumptions about the nature and role of higher education" (Universities are in chaos. Yet still we`re told it`s "success", 01/09/20). It may well be "fantasy" that universities can "positively correct" problems emanating from our "class-divided society", but it is certainly true that many of our so-called "top" universities emphasise class division with their entrance requirements. After all the fuss of Gove`s assessment reforms, and the provision of highly regulated A-levels containing more "rigour", and described by Ofqual as "national qualifications based on content set by the government", it was ridiculous that universities should accept, as academic entrance qualifications, lightly-regulated Pre-U exams, set and marked by teachers in private schools, mostly for their pupils. Yet Oxbridge and others are allowed to get away with such bias, allowing hundreds of undergraduates to study in their colleges every year without A-levels. This year saw massive A-level grade inflation of 4.7% increase in A*/A grades in independent schools, but we saw no media outrage, or even clarification of whether this included Pre-U results! The phasing out of Pre-U exams is to be welcomed , but it still means that for another few years, the privileged will continue to have their university places guaranteed, and their monopoly of "educational advantage" continued. "Don`t faff around with entry tariffs" is the professor`s advice, but there are hundreds of students from disadvantaged schools and backgrounds whose potential is never fully realised. Cutting back to a 7% maximum of intake from private schools, in line with national figures, is an oft-requested reform, but ensuring all contextual information is taken into account before offering university places is essential, too!

Starmerism exists!

Alan Finlayson claims that "the shape of Starmerism-to-come is hard to make out" because of his lack of political speeches, but during the leadership campaign, there were plenty (Labour has to decide: is there such a thing as Starmerism? 10/09/20)! Thousands of us who voted for him remember his pledges to endorse the majority of the last election`s Labour manifesto; promises on increasing income tax for the wealthy and corporate tax, on state ownership, and on clamping down on tax avoidance, among many others, were made in an effort to unite the party. It may be inappropriate to repeat all of them now, but Labour members will not forget them. Clearly it is not the time for "retail politics", as Finlayson states, but the pandemic crisis cannot mean the end for political opposition or the continued support for "the institutions, people and professions most needed" not only during an emergency, but in more normal times when inequality has to be targeted. Remember how Starmer insisted that key workers "were last, and now should be first"? Finlayson is wrong to say that currently "there is no alternative", but it is certainly up to Starmer to be more forceful in its presentation.His speeches should be dominating the headlines, not the lack of recent ones occupying editorials and political columns!

Wednesday 2 September 2020

Omnishambolic Tories!

Having a Conservative government packed to the rafters with arrogance and contempt for ordinary people is par for the course, but you might expect something different when the government is in the middle of the most serious health and economic crisis in over a hundred years. You might, but you will be disappointed. Johnson and his team of incompetents cannot even give the appearance of being serious politicians making important decisions in unprecedented times. Within days, we have the Transport Secretary, Grant Shapps, repeatedly telling us "that there is a limit to working from home",in interviews with the media given from, of course, his home (Star, 29/08/20)! Is it too much to expect that an important member of the Cabinet would have the sense to see that this message would engender more positive reaction if delivered from his office at Westminster? The same applies to the rest of the Cabinet. Hancock and Sunak in particular are keen to get workers back into what in many cases will be "unsafe workplaces", but fail to persuade even their own staff to return to their offices. The numbers of civil servants who are still working from home are very high, with only a relatively small proportion taking what they clearly believe to be a risky undertaking. Considerations like adequate childcare provision, safety and cleanliness on public transport and Covid-secure workplaces, all matters which should have been high on the government`s agenda for months, are ignored. Profits still come before everything else! Should we expect any better from this omnishambolic government when its absentee leader sees nothing wrong with taking weeks off during this major crisis, and on returning, makes no effort to look other than idiotic. Visiting a school at the end of the holidays might seem a sensible move for a prime minister keen on photo opportunities and keen to get his message across via a speech to pupils going out "live" on a media platform. Indeed, unless the prime minister is Johnson! He tried to show some seriousness by taking out notes before starting, but clearly, if he was a smoker, they would have been on a cigarette packet! He didn`t even know the ages of the pupils in front of him, so could not relate to their situation in the education system whatsoever. After total confusion, Johnson finally ascertained what was imperative he knew all along, that they were Year 11 students. So to add to the litany of buffoonery, he then proceeded to talk about their examination results, unaware obviously that it is at the end of year 11 in school that GCSE assessment takes place! He then , as was well reported, claimed that results had been distorted by a "mutant algorithm", which really needs no further comment, except perhaps, that its further proof that this has to be the simply the most embarrassing government in memory!

Saturday 29 August 2020

Opposition needs to get going!

Your editorial rightly states that workers "cannot trust the government or employers to ensure their safety" and that any second wave of the virus will almost certainly be blamed on the people`s "irresponsible behaviour" (Star, 21/09/20). We know that this appalling Tory government is adept at "passing the buck", whether it be to Ofqual for the A-level debacle, or to Public Health England for the mismanagement of the coronavirus crisis. Refusing to accept responsibility for anything which goes wrong is the default position of this Johnson/Cummings administration, as is giving massive contracts paid for with taxpayers` money to past associates and friends of Gove and the prime minister`s advisor. The trouble is that we should not be reading about the antics of one of the most incompetent, corrupt and arrogant UK governments in modern history in your editorials, excellent as they frequently are, but in one of many reports on the front page, of speeches by the leader of the Opposition. He and his colleagues should be shouting from the rooftops about our absentee prime minister, his government`s degenerate cronyism, the damage it is doing to every facet of ordinary people`s lives, and the danger it creates for every worker in the country. Outlining details of manifesto policies can come later, but highlighting what is being done now cannot be delayed! The lead held by the Tories in the polls will not be seriously challenged until the public is more aware of what Starmer`s Labour stands for, and until that happens, the misgovernment continues unabated! Editorial should comprise comments evaluating the action of the government and other parties, pointing out shortcomings and omissions, not having to take the place of the Opposition. What on earth are Starmer and the others thinking? At the moment , Johnson and co. know they can do what they like!

Wednesday 26 August 2020

Stressing Tories` incompetence is insufficient!

Andy Beckett rightly states that calling for competence in government "is not a rival programme for office", but Starmer cannot afford to wait "until parliament returns next month" to make Labour`s case (Nobody denies Johnson`s government is incompetent. But do enough voters care? 22/08/20). Showing the "unsuitability of many Tory ideas, barely changed since the Thatcher era" would be a good start, and where better than the economy? The £2tn debt story will inevitably be developed by many Tories into an excuse for austerity and higher taxes, so Starmer should be demanding the Bank of England`s quantitative easing be on the agenda, along with the flawed evidence behind the Laffer curve, and the positive effects on economic growth of having a debt-to-GDP ratio of over 90% (Coronavirus drives national debt to £2tn for first time, 22/08/20). Emphasising the difference between government and household debt is essential. Labour strategists certainly have a point when stressing that "establishing competence comes first", but that is where Beckett`s "displacement activity" comes in (Starmer playing long game in undermining Tories, 22/08/20). Pointing out the government`s ineptness, for example, over the "exams fiasco" only gains votes if Labour`s alternative looks better, but there wasn`t one, not even the practicable system of sending predicted grades along with samples of work to exam board markers, all of whom will have been chosen long before the lockdown! Of course, Starmer and his colleagues should be shouting from the rooftops about the absentee prime minister, his government`s degenerate cronyism, and the damage being done to every facet of ordinary people`s lives. Outlining details of manifesto policies can come later, but the public have to be made aware of what Starmer`s Labour stands for, and until that happens, Johnson`s misgovernment continues unabated!

Saturday 22 August 2020

"Served his masters well"

"Making up policy on the hoof", as Williamson was clearly doing throughout the A-level results fiasco, and as your editorial stated, is obviously the default position for this government (Exam fiasco just the latest betrayal of our children, 16.08.20). As it took until the weekend for the Education Secretary to realise that there were in his words "real concerns about what a large number of students were getting", it is more than likely that he will never realise what a good job he has done for his Tory leaders. With a rise of 4.7% in the number of A/A* grades for private school pupils, no public outcry about such grade inflation, and no media inquiry into the number of students in the independent sector whose grades were actually Pre-U qualifications, rather than actual A-levels, Williamson has served his masters well. So-called "elite" universities will have already guaranteed places for these pupils, providing an excuse again for denying most of the genuinely talented students from disadvantaged backgrounds a chance to show their true potential. Another U-turn, this time on examination results, is par for the course as far as this government is concerned, but no Pre-U turn means yet another victory for the privileged! No doubt this will be replicated with the GCSE results, and the lack of detail relating to the private schools` preferred choice, iGCSE. Another reason for Johnson and Cummings to defer Williamson`s sacking!

Thursday 20 August 2020

No Pre-U turn

The Tories` "U-turn on their A-level grading system" was indeed, as your article stated, deeply "humiliating" for the government, and, of course, it was most welcome, as it did repair a huge level of injustice heaped on thousands of young people (Star, 18/08/20).What it didn't do, however, was to change the way our so-called "top" universities are dominated by undergraduates who received their earlier education in private schools. The rise in A/A* grades of 4.7% was the epitome of grade inflation, yet the mainstream press and media largely ignored it. It wasn`t affected by Williamson`s change of heart, so these advantaged students were able to book their places at Oxbridge and the rest, without any challenge or furore. As it took until last weekend for Gavin Williamson to realise that there were, in his words, "real concerns about what a large number of students were getting", it is more than likely that he will never realise what a good job he has done for his Tory leaders. With no public outcry about private schools` grade inflation, and no media inquiry into the number of students in the independent sector whose grades were actually Pre-U qualifications, rather than actual A-levels, Williamson has served his masters well. Their guaranteed university places will no doubt provide the excuse they need to deny most of the genuinely talented students from disadvantaged backgrounds a chance to show their true potential, whilst the secrecy surrounding Pre-U grades, and the way they were decided, remains. Thursday`s GCSE results, despite the U-turn, will almost certainly fail to reveal the disparities between actual GCSE grades and those of the preferred exams in the independent sector at this age, the iGCSEs. Another U-turn, this time on examination results, is par for the course as far as this government is concerned, but no Pre-U turn means yet another victory for the privileged! Another reason, too, for Johnson and Cummings to defer Williamson`s sacking - for now! As it took until last weekend for Gavin Williamson to realise that "there were real concerns about what a large number of students were getting", it is more than likely that he will never realise what a good job he has done for his Tory leaders (Government forced into humiliating exams U-turn, 18/08/20). With a rise of 4.7% in the number of A/A* grades for private school pupils, no public outcry about such grade inflation, and no media inquiry into the number of students in the independent sector whose grades were actually Pre-U qualifications, rather than actual A-levels, Williamson has served his masters well. So-called "elite" universities will have already guaranteed places for these pupils, providing an excuse again for denying most of the genuinely talented students from disadvantaged backgrounds a chance to show their true potential. Another U-turn, this time on examination results, is par for the course as far as this government is concerned, but no Pre-U turn means yet another victory for the privileged! Another reason, too, for Johnson and Cummings to defer Williamson`s sacking (Why Johnson wants to keep minister in place - for now, 18/08/20). With 49% of entries by students in private schools in England receiving an A/A* grade, compared with 20% for state-educated students, the inevitable increased domination of so-called "elite" universities by students from the independent sector is, as your editorial rightly says, "not just unfair but grotesque" (Ministers, not pupils, are the ones who have messed up this year`s A-levels, 14/08/20). It is not a new phenomenon, of course, especially with private schools in recent years choosing Pre-U examinations in preference to A-levels. and increased entries this year for such qualifications. Totally predictable, too, is the secrecy which not only again surrounds Pre-U examination results and the proportion of entries awarded top grades, but, of course, the way the final results were determined. According to the website, predicted grades, rank orders and previous performance were taken into account, but whether an algorithm decided a predicted B candidate should be awarded an E because of the previous teaching group`s results in 2019 is unknown. Huy Duong described the "information Ofqual had made available about its methodology" as "scant", but imagine if he had been working on Pre-U exams rather than A-levels (Concerned father who predicted the A-level results farce, 15/08/20)! Rather than subsume Pre-U results in their A-level ones, shouldn't all private schools, and the relatively few state schools which use them, be forced to separate the two, so that a clearer picture of how the examination system is being abused emerges? Pre-U examinations are being phased out over the next few years, but that still means hundreds of university places will be gained by students taking an alternative route. And the government still insists on calling it "a level playing-field"! Comments like "national outrage" and "rolling disaster" were inevitable as soon as the government decided to award A-level grades "based on an algorithm conceived by the regulator Ofqual" (Mocks proposal "shows failure to understand how system works ",13/08/20). With previous results a factor, it was always likely that pupils who "made progress since GCSE" would "lose out significantly ". The teachers' predicted grades and orders of merit should have gone to the same subject markets along with samples of pupils' work, and the final grades decided after the usual careful moderation. By persisting with such an obviously flawed system this government shows itself not only lacking trust in the teaching profession and completely out of touch with the workings of state education, but also intent on exacerbating inequality rather than reducing it! Strangely there appears to have been no fuss over the awarding of grades for Pre-U exams, the ones preferred to A-levels in most of our private schools!

Monday 17 August 2020

A-level results fiasco

With so many things completely wrong and unfair about this year`s A-level results` procedure, one dreads to think what will be the outcome after Thursday`s GCSE results (Star, 14/08/20)! What is absolutely clear is that giving so little credence to teachers` expert evaluation of their students` progress, and so much to pupils` previous results and the schools` previous performance, is quite simply wrong! Research has shown that past results to be taken into account should not be GCSEs taken two years earlier, as they do not indicate the improvements most pupils make, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. The teachers' predicted grades and orders of merit should have gone to the same subject markers as in ordinary years, along with four or five samples of pupils' work, and the final grades decided after the usual careful moderation. By persisting with such an obviously flawed system this government shows itself not only lacking trust in the teaching profession and completely out of touch with the workings of state education, but also intent on exacerbating inequality rather than reducing it! Strangely there appears to have been no fuss over the awarding of grades for Pre-U exams, the ones preferred to A-levels in most of our private schools! Rather than subsume Pre-U results in their A-level ones, shouldn't all private schools, and the relatively few state schools which use them, be forced to separate the two, so that a clearer picture of how the examination system is being abused emerges? Pre-U examinations are being phased out over the next few years, but that still means hundreds of university places will be gained by students taking an alternative route. And the government still insists on calling it "a level playing-field"!

Sunday 16 August 2020

Unpublished Observer letter on Starmer

With the country in the grip of a pandemic and economic crisis, and simultaneously governed by one of the most incompetent administrations in British history, one would expect the leader of the opposition to figure prominently in the UK 's leading left-leaning Sunday newspaper. In last week's edition, however, with excellent, analytical articles on reaction to Covid-related government policies, wealth taxes, fears for the future of private tenants, forthcoming economic recession, loss of prisoners' rights, abuses of parliament's power, the existence and purpose of the house of Lords, the need for action on inequality, and unfair examination results, the very issues about which Labour should be raising the roof, there was no mention of Labour's policy on the subject, or even of the party leader's name! Neither the letters page nor the editorial whose conclusion on the government's white paper, "Planning for the future", that it "will take a lot more to address the housing crisis", cried out for a comment on the opposition's response, mentioned Labour or Starmer either (Tinkering with the rules won't solve the housing crisis, 09.08.20)! The only times he did get a name-check were when donations to the Labour party were reported on (Big Labour donors returning to the party, 09.08.20), and when William Keegan, somewhat surprisingly in the circumstances, wrote that Starmer "is proving a formidable opponent"(In my view, 09.08.20). We don't necessarily want Labour's manifesto details for the next election straightaway, but providing policies on current issues surely has to be a major requirement of the opposition leader, formidable or otherwise!

Saturday 15 August 2020

2 letters on teacher assessment (March and April)

Gaby Hinsliff's excellent article on the long term effects of the current crisis makes a pertinent point about examinations (The coronavirus crisis will pass, but life may never be "normal" again, 13/04/20). "Squeezing thousands of children into exam halls", especially with probably hundreds of them feeling below par but determined nevertheless to get those all-important grades, makes no sense, so why not award GCSE grades this year based on teacher assessment? As the examination boards will have already appointed their examiners and allocated their schools, teachers could be required to send them two examples of pupils' work, perhaps mock exam or test papers which have been already marked, along with a brief comment to justify the grade suggested. The examiners' job then would be to verify in most cases, and query in a few, the subject teachers' assessment. This would provide teachers with a unique opportunity to display their expertise and professionalism, and act as an experiment in assessment without causing the stress and mental health problems associated with our current examination system. The criteria for awarding the qualifications which would have previously depended on end-of-course examinations do indeed, as your editorial makes clear, "need to be carefully thought through", but obstacles will only arise if insufficient faith is placed in the teachers` professionalism (The closure of schools is the latest step in the long march to lockdown Britain, 19/03/20). Why not award GCSE and A-level grades this year based on teacher assessment? As the examination boards will have already appointed their examiners and allocated them schools, teachers could be required to send them two or three examples of pupils' work, perhaps mock exams or other work done under test conditions, which have been already marked, along with a brief comment to justify the grade suggested. The examiners' job then would be to verify in most cases, and query in a few, the accuracy of the subject teachers' assessment. Many politicians appear to believe that examining and assessing pupils` progress continually throughout the examination courses only happens in private schools! There should be plenty of evidence available in all schools to ensure that pupils get the grade they deserve, and if some haven`t yet proved their ability, having arrogantly wasted five terms, hoping to catch up at the end, then so be it! This system would provide teachers with an excellent opportunity to display their expertise and professionalism, and act as an experiment for future assessment which would no longer cause the stress and mental health problems associated with our current examination system.

Monday 3 August 2020

The Cummings handbook

The "premature rush", as your editorial states, to relaxing the lockdown rules is the "real problem", not the "tightening of restrictions", but there is one other factor also causing so many lives to be endangered, but not mentioned (The real problem is the government`s acceleration, not its use of brakes, 01/08/20). By claiming that there are signs of a "second wave" of the pandemic in Europe, and that it could possibly spread to the UK, Johnson and Cummings are giving the false impression that the first "wave" here is under control. With "one in 1500 people now having Covid-19", it is clear that it is not, and failing to admit it is another reason for trust in this administration to decrease further. Informing the public of the true situation would improve positive reaction to government announcements, and make a full-blown resurgence of the coronavirus less likely. It would also entail, however, an admission of failure through wrong or belated decisions, so will not happen. Instead there is now a "whiff of the government blaming the public" for failing to follow the guidance, and, of course, yet more criticism of European countries. Accepting responsibility and admitting culpability clearly are not in the Cummings handbook for advising prime ministers; attributing deaths to a "second wave" from Europe evidently is!

Thursday 30 July 2020

Labour and economic multipliers

It was good to read in a recent editorial not only how the public sector unions Unison, GMB and Unite have been advocating a "fair pay rise for council staff", but also how they have been arguing how the "net cost" for such a rise is far lower than the "headline cost" which the government uses (Star, 22/07/20). As a result of these workers paying more tax, plus spending more online and in the local shops which helps create jobs and thereby increases the Treasury`s tax income whilst reducing its expenditure on benefits, economic growth is increased. 
    These economic multipliers mean that none of the government`s spending pledges actually cost as much as they claim, which is why they ignore them, hoping unions and workers will not realise the truth. The same applies when infrastructure spending is announced, when the government`s figures fail to take into account tax returns that inevitably ensue over the years. 
     It is welcome news that trade unions are using economic facts in their arguments, but in truth, they should not be alone in doing this: it is the job of the Labour party and its leader in particular to challenge the misleading claims and figures used by the government, especially when the latter`s purpose is to deny much deserved and needed pay awards.
    Johnson and Sunak will be telling voters about the immense cost of the furloughing without mentioning the multipliers which enable much of the cost to be massively reduced, or the recent £300bn the government received from the Bank of England`s quantitative easing. Throughout the coming weeks the Tories will ensure the media keeps "unsustainable borrowing" at the forefront of the UK`s news. Starmer`s team must ensure they do not use the Tory tactic of treating the voters as mugs, and take every opportunity to use economic facts to challenge the Tories` fictitious figures. 

Wednesday 29 July 2020

Against taxing over 40s for social care

If, as the Whitehall source suggests, "there is a renewed focus" in government for getting the social care problem "fixed", shouldn`t the solution on the table be at least a fair one (Plan for all over-40s to pay extra tax for social care, 27/07/20)? The net income of the majority of people in this country is insufficient to warrant more taxation and it would be much fairer to introduce income tax increases on those who can afford to pay more.
   Frequently forgotten in this country are the facts that the average income is around £26,000, and that people earning between £50,000 and £150 000 pay income tax at 40%. To pay for social care a graduated increase in the tax rate paid by all those earning over £50,000 seems an obvious solution, with the rate rising well over the current 45% paid by those earning more. Allied to this could be the employment of thousands more tax inspectors to root out the avoiders and evaders who cause billions to be denied to the Treasury every year.
    As for the £300bn deficit caused by the current crisis, isn`t that what the £300bn of quantitative easing was for, or has it all gone to the banks again?