Measuring patriotism by flags

Will someone please tell Tory ministers that patriotism can never be measured by the number or size of union flags, and has nothing to do with monarchism (My flag`s bigger than yours: ministers parade their patriotism on TV, 20/03/21)? What patriotism most certainly has to do with is pursuing policies of justice and fairness which reveal genuine concern for all of the UK`s population, in all of its areas! Neglecting public health infrastructure to such an extent the country is totally unprepared to face a health crisis does not come under the heading "Patriotism", and neither does imposing austerity which hurts the disadvantaged the most? Caring for the British people, ensuring they are safe from disease, is clearly an essential role for a patriotic government, but so is pursuing policies which improve education provision for all. What is patriotic about underfunding state schools whilst giving financial advantages to private schools, or wasting taxpayers` money by enriching cronies or buying unnecessary weapons of mass destruction? Just like the flags, the number of weapons can never be a measurement of a government`s patriotism! The next time the likes of Johnson, Jenrick and Truss, with their pseudo-patriotic paraphernalia, are mocked on television or social media, could the Guardian please refrain from describing pictures of the queen and union flags as "patriotic backdrops" when they are clearly no such thing!

School and university reform

As John Gray wrote, Roberto Unger`s "proposals for a national project are mostly unworkable", but that does not necessarily include his ideas relating to education (How to remake Britain, 19 March). Unger is rightly critical of the national curriculum`s "intimate association with testing" and the value placed on "the memorisation of facts" (The system cannot hold, 19 March). Both resulted from Gove`s unnecessary assessment reforms in 2010, and can easily be remedied. The current debate about how our history has been manipulated, and how imperial amnesia has led to a distorted and misplaced view of Britain being somehow "exceptional", demands change. Many text books need rewriting,and many documents unearthing from their secrecy in Hanslope Park before the subject can justify a compulsory place in the curriculum up to year 11, but what better way is there of preparing pupils "to use information critically" than the study of historical evidence, using knowledge and understanding to evaluate and analyse its reliability and utility? Of course, fairness in education would be enhanced by the abolition of private education, which Unger recommends, but it would need a much greater commitment from Labour than currently exists. That does not mean the ridiculous financial incentives given to independent schooling, like charitable status, and fee exemption from VAT, should continue, nor the ability to bypass the highly regulated A-levels to gain university entrance qualifications. Private schools` exclusion, in the main, from inspection by the same regulator as state schools, Ofsted, is absurd! If ever the British people are to be released from "the bonds of belittlement", whether through a "national project" or the transformational policies of political parties, reforming education will be key! As Gavin Williamson says, the current university admissions system does put working class students at a disadvantage, but whether the introduction of post-qualification application will prove the answer is a moot point (Gavinn Williamson`s pitch to save his job,22/03/21). The phasing out of Pre-U exams, taken by many private school pupils to avoid highly regulated A-levels is to be welcomed but universities should now 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. That would be "levelling up" in action rather than rhetoric! 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? It clearly put off Williamson`s "mates"! Test their ability after three years of their education, not after eighteen years of being disadvantaged! "Wholesale reform of universities" does not mean "tweaking the grading system", but levelling the field for admissions, and this Williamson almost certainly will not do!

Johnson the clown

I suspect most readers of "the long read" will already have depicted Johnson as a clown, but few with the justification of so much detailed evidence as provided by Edward Docx (The long read: In the court of the clown king, 18/03/21). A clown intent on "satire, subversion and mockery" does indeed "distract the audience", a point no doubt noted by many in the Tory party who supported his leadership bid. By ridiculing most human conventions, Johnson`s multitude of lies would be overlooked by an electorate seeing only an "honest politician" and not necessarily the policies which would simultaneously increase inequality and please party donors.Claiming anything other than a miniscule pay rise for NHS staff to be "unaffordable" whilst offering a £25bn bribe to businesses to invest to increase their own productivity, and posturing as the defender of underprivileged pupils whilst ensuring top universities are dominated by students from independent schools are two cases in point. So far, opinion polls would suggest the electorate`s attention to the obvious calamitous mishandling of the pandemic has been again "distracted" by Johnson, but if memory of circuses serves me well, clowns ended up at least being drenched with water, if not fired from cannons. This has to happen soon; there are too many "important issues" which need to be settled!

Has Johnson ever heard of Chernobyl?

History shows that very few, if any, of the old challenges were met "by turning to nukes and aircraft carriers" so it is highly unlikely any of the "new" ones will be either (The future of defence and foreign policy looks oddly old-fashioned, 17/03/21). Having a nuclear arms race in the Cold War not only revealed the stupidity of politicians, willing to waste billions on sufficient weapons to destroy the world many times over, it displayed their sheer ignorance prior to the Chernobyl nuclear explosion in 1986. The radioactive contamination spreading thousands of miles away from Chernobyl actually focused minds sufficiently for US and Russian politicians to complete serious talks, culminating in the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), signed in July 1991. By "raising the cap on our nuclear warheads" at the same time as "slashing the international aid budget" Johnson has revealed himself not only as "especially childish", but prone yet again to political posturing. Does anyone really believe the UK is so "exceptional" it can demand the respect of the world by adopting "oddly old-fashioned" 20th century policies which were idiotic then, and even more so, now? Can anyone, let alone a prime minister with such a distorted view of history, explain how the safety and moral standing of the country can possibly be increased by raising the number of nuclear warheads from 180 to 260?

Olusoga and our make-believe past

As David Olusoga rightly says, both royals and tabloids are "trapped in a fantasy version of Britain`s past" which is dominated by the concept of British exceptionalism (The royals are just like much of our press - trapped in a fantasy version of Britain`s past, 14.03.21). In a recent televised talk, the queen described the human traits of "self-discipline" and "good-natured resolve" as "national attributes", whilst the popular media`s fondness for our "glorious past" leads to the mistaken belief in Britain having to fight on "alone" in 1940. Whilst the French president recently announce the setting-up of a "memories and truth" commission to find out what really happened in their Algerian war, the British government, with its colonial amnesia, insists on refusing access for historians to the million-plus historical files locked away in Hanslope Park. The problem is that the truths revealed would almost certainly prove the non-existence of British exceptionalism, the myth responsible, in part, not only for Brexit, much of our institutionalised racism, our refusal to follow the WHO`s advice on testing last March, but the popularity of a prime minister who revels in it! Only when the truth about the UK`s colonial past is revealed, when the facts about our seizing and looting of colonies, whilst committing the most awful of atrocities, and our reliance on essential colonial aid to emerge successfully from world wars, are all openly admitted and taught, can the people and government of this country ever hope to have a non-distorted view of the future.

Labour and imposing definitions

Philip Collins is absolutely correct: "left to their own devices" the Tories will indeed define levelling up in the most minimal way possible", which is why Labour must "impose a definition" (The Public Square, 12 March). This is the way to "horrify the Tories" because their version of "levelling up" is merely political rhetoric, just like setting up a "northern powerhouse" or getting rid of "burning injustices". Similarly, providing a 21st century definition of "patriotism" would not go amiss, stressing how it entails the pursuit of justice and fairness for all of the UK`s population, in each one of its areas. "Managing the economy", also, must be re-defined, to escape Tories` control of the economic narrative. For too long, Labour has been forced to accept the Tory brand, with its outmoded view of tax payments from the rich, and its myths about "trickle-down" wealth. Even their latest "soon to be U-turned" decision to offer no more than 1% pay rise for NHS staff was explained by an "unaffordable cost" excuse. None of Starmer`s protests mentioned how economic multipliers ensured that increases in pay for public sector workers practically paid for themselves through increased tax returns. The sad fact is that election victories will continue to elude Labour as long as the Tories are in charge of the political and economic narratives; definitions have to be provided which reveal the shortcomings and incompetence of this duplicitous government Despite the fact that, as John Harris says, the Conservative party "spent much of the last century reinventing itself", it still remains a "two-nation" party (Despite all their failures, the Tories are still riding high,15/03/21) They might claim otherwise, such as when imposing austerity measures in the last decade, but there is no doubt that the disadvantaged suffered most, whilst the taxes on the rich were reduced substantially. If Tories are to be "dislodged", Labour has to focus more on debunking myths, and redefining what Harris calls "enduring Tory themes". Too often, the Tories are allowed to dictate the narratives by determining the criteria by which their actions are judged. How can law and order and patriotism be "enduring" when the government repeatedly fails to address violence against women, to acknowledge institutionalised racism, and, even after the warnings from Operation Cygnus, to prepare the country properly for a pandemic? Security is not simply about defence against a foreign attack. Patriotism involves having an education system which maximises the potential of children from all backgrounds, and a government investment scheme for all areas of the country. Managing the economy cannot include a reliance on myths like the Laffer curve and trickle-down economics. Labour has to provide its own answers, but election victory remains unlikely without a wholesale attack on Tory myths

Pushy Parents

No one with an iota of understanding of how state education runs would even contemplate final GCSE and A-level grades being determined after "negotiation between students and teachers", let alone make comments to that effect (England heads fear pushy parents will demand better grades, 12/03/21). Of course, teachers need to be "protected" from undue pressure, and, as Geoff Barton says, "strict quality assurance mechanisms" should have been put in place. A better system would have schools sending marked samples of a variety of their pupils` work, complete with a proposed grade, to assessors appointed by the examination boards who would be responsible for the final grade, with all costs paid by the government. (Apologies to the DfE and Ofqual for any joined-up thinking this might have entailed!)

PMQs and debunking Tory myths

The weekly session of PMQs, ostensibly where the government is held to account by the leader of the Opposition, has become somewhat farcical. Starmer`s questions provoke waffle, not answers, and the Speaker makes no interjections to improve matters. To his credit, and to Johnson`s obvious bewilderment, Starmer devoted all six of his questions last week to the callous cut in aid to Yemen. To show the need for moral leadership, it was a sensible move, but embarrass Johnson it did not! The temptation this week to focus all questions on the 1% pay offer to NHS staff should be resisted. Lead with it, by all means, but with Johnson and Sunak insisting "the government could not afford a higher increase", the five remaining should be devoted to the Tories` management of the economy, changing the focus each time to maximise the PM`s display of lack of detail (Johnson defends his 1% pay offer despite NHS staff exodus warning, 08/03/21). £25bn can be afforded to provide a tax break for companies which invest in plant and technology! Does Johnson not understand how economic multipliers work, how pay rises to public sector workers cost little, bearing in mind the boost they provide both to local economies and to the Treasury? Voters need to be shown how Tory understanding of economics is based on myths like the Laffer curve and private being more efficient than public, and how, despite Johnson`s claims about being a "one-nation" Conservative, Tory budgets end up favouring the well-off. Of course a more generous offer can be afforded!

Debunking Tory economic myths

If Labour is to have a hope of winning the next election, its leadership team has to challenge the Tories` handling of the economy. Dictating the economic narrative should not be the preserve of the Tory party, especially as it insists on churning out the same economic theories, which have more to do with mythology than modern thinking on the subject. It`s time Labour debunked these theories once and for all! In the weeks approaching Sunak`s budget, we will be inundated with figures about the dreadful state of the country`s finances, and how the government must start paying back some of the national debt as soon as possible. This is straight out of the Thatcherite economics text book, and is typical of a chancellor desperate to put ideology before common-sense mathematics, and to start justifying a return to some sort of austerity. Osborne did the same in 2010, claiming that the UK was on the verge of bankruptcy and ruin, ignoring the fact that the Bank of England was at the time creating £350bn with its quantitative easing scheme. The mistaken theory on which this is based states how government debt is like household debt, and must be paid off as soon as possible. As well as stating that government investment is far more urgently required now than debt repayment, Starmer should question Sunak`s figures about the debt totalling over £2tn. If the £895bn of quantitative easing money is included, it means that well over a third is actually owed to the government owned Bank of England. The USA`s national debt stands at $27tn , yet that is not preventing Biden spending £1.9tn on a stimulus package; the UK`s debt should not prevent government spending here either! Sunak will mention frequently, no doubt, how our debt-to-GDP ratio now exceeds 100%, but will ignore pointing out that this has been the case in Japan for over 20 years. Starmer will need to do it, instead! The chancellor will also stress how the government has spent billions already, but never will admit that much of that expenditure actually will return to the Treasury in the form of income and corporate tax, and VAT returns. These economic multipliers are obvious, but we the people, treated as mugs as usual, are presumably not expected to understand them. Really? If a construction company wins a government contract, a large proportion of the company`s fee will result in profits, which are taxed, will pay wages, which are taxed, and will be spent , which will generate VAT returns. This is why cutting benefits is purely ideological, as economically it makes little sense. Perhaps Starmer, and shadow chancellor Dodds, could point out Sunak`s inevitable omissions, when he claims to be part of a generous, "one-nation" government? The third myth in need of greater challenge from Labour, is the one suggesting how the Tory party is the only one which can be trusted with taxpayers` money. The Covid crisis has shown this to be a nonsense, with so much cronyism, contracts given to firms with some connection or other to members of the government, and so much money also wasted on private firms like Serco and Deloitte, resulting in a massive £22bn splashed out on a test and trace system which has so far achieved little. Such government profligacy has to be a major target for Labour; even the National Audit Office pointed out last September the lack of transparency and conflicts of interest in the procurement processes. By proposing that the National Audit Office be allowed more "independent invigilation" of government spending, Dodds has made a sensible start towards winning credibility, but much more is needed. Taxation is often a problem for Labour governments, largely because it gives too much credence to the significance of the so-called Laffer curve, and ends up increasing taxes on the wrong people. Modern economists disregard Laffer`s invention, designed as it was to enable President Reagan to cut taxes for wealthy Americans, but Tories still use it to justify having a mere 45% as the highest band of income tax. The claim that if the rate is higher, fewer taxes are paid, is nonsense, and Starmer and Dodds need to ignore it when targeting the wealthy earners for tax increases in the next election manifesto. Challenge too the absurd Tory notion that taxing the rich is anti-aspirational; are people really deterred from aiming high because taxation will prevent them from enjoying their money? Tories are far too keen to forget that average income is around £26,000, while insisting increasing taxes for everyone is the only way to save the NHS. Wrong on so many accounts! If Starmer is so keen on playing the patriotic card, he and his team should stress how paying taxes in full is the truly patriotic thing to do, and make public their recent tax details. Throwing down the gauntlet to the Tories should soon reveal which party is the more patriotic!

Starmer`s 21st century patriotism

Listening to Starmer`s speech (18/02/21) it would seem he took Mandelson`s advice, sadly, and judging by a recent televised political broadcast, wrapping the Labour party in a union jack flag as well as kowtowing to business appear to be Labour`s current direction. If, however, Starmer is to embrace patriotism, as some think tanks have obviously suggested, at least it should be a 21st century version, not the one advocated by the right wing press and Johnson`s government. Their patriotism is straight out of Victorian school books, designed not only to foster jingoism and exceptionalism, but to encourage young men to volunteer for battle when required, and young women to wave their white feathers..... Starmer could outline what a patriotic prime minister should be doing - pursuing policies of justice and fairness which reveal genuine concern for all of the UK`s population. By challenging the Tories on the role patriotism played when governing this country for the last decade, the Labour leader could at last be seen to be doing the job he was elected to do. Is it patriotic to neglect public health infrastructure to such an extent the country is totally unprepared to face a health crisis? Even when a dummy run of a pandemic is tried, should a patriotic government ignore the findings, as the Tories did in 2016 after Operation Cygnus? A government that cares for its country as much as Tories claim to do would have all the PPE and ventilators necessary for any crisis, not to mention ensuring the 100,000 nursing shortages were filled. Caring for the British people, ensuring they are safe from disease, is clearly an essential role for a patriotic government, but so is providing a decent education for all of the population. Yet the last decade has witnessed an education policy aimed only at making sure the so-called "top" universities are dominated by students from private schools, whilst state schools have been seriously underfunded, and consequently, understaffed. Strangely, none of the Tory concern we hear so much about for underprivileged children was evident from 2010-2020, and with serious cuts to council budgets, hundreds of Sure Start centres have been forced to close. Patriotism does not mean only caring about the education of the over-privileged! Looking after the economy, taxing fairly, and spending taxpayers` money wisely are all the duties of any government wanting to be considered patriotic, but what we have seen in the last ten years has been nothing of the sort; cutting taxes for the rich whilst imposing the most callous and cruel austerity policies on the least advantaged in society cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be showing love for one`s country! What have we seen during the pandemic crisis? An incompetent administration more intent on giving government contracts for urgently-required eqiuipment to friends and party donors than controlling the spread of the virus, too concerned with helping tax avoiding companies like Serco and Deloitte than getting things done properly by experts in the public sector. It`s all very well for Starmer to want to work in partnership with British businesses, but it would make more sense if that partnership was conditional, and applied only to companies that were willing to prove their patriotism - by paying their taxes in full, by having reasonable pay ratios, by allowing all workers to join unions, by ending their short-termism and instead used profits to create new jobs and apprenticeships, and,of course, by cutting carbon emissions and working towards a green economy. How much more patriotic would it be than Johnson`s policy if government contracts were only given to firms if they met these criteria. "Patriotism" for Labour need not be the test the Tories envisage.but a means to embarrass Tories in general, and this government in particular. Starmer would be foolish to waste this opportunity.

Guardian letter on Yemen aid cut

When Andrew Mitchell says that "cutting aid to Yemen by 50% is unconscionable" (Health crisis looms, say agencies ahead of UK funding cuts, 03/02/21), and adds that "this is not who we are", John Crace disagrees, and is right up to a point (Sketch, 03/02/21). It is what this nation has become, largely because of what can only be described as brainwashing. Being told constantly by the mainstream media that the national debt needs repaying urgently and foreign aid has to be cut leads to a gradual acceptance, as Johnson well knows when claiming to have popular support, and mocking Starmer for devoting all six of his questions at this week`s PMQs to the subject of a poor country`s imminent famine. Similar backing from the media in 2010 meant Osborne`s unnecessary austerity, based on the ridiculous notion that the country was near bankruptcy, and leading to untold misery for thousands, whilst the rich were given tax decreases, went through with little opposition. Having too many low paid public servants and key workers, a "forgotten third" of our children underachieving in underfunded state schools, top universities dominated by students from the private schools, numbers relying on food banks increasing daily, when London-based banks announce billions of profit yet insist poor countries repay debt rather than buy Covid vaccines, is, it seems, also what "we are". Perhaps if the media repeatedly insisted that we are the world`s 6th richest economy, with enough untaxed wealth to pay everyone a living wage, and provide everyone with a decent home, who "we are" would change dramatically. Aid to Yemen pales into insignificance when compared with the figures associated with the government`s "chumocratic" contracts and failure to rein in tax avoidance! 6 Budget-day questions on Yemen? Well done, Mr Starmer!

Johnson is consistent!

ohnson May well be, as Philip Collins asserts, a "character who is hard to characterise", but that does not necessarily make him "hard to oppose" (The Public Square, 26 February). A prime minister claiming to be a "one-nation" Conservative, intent on "levelling up", is an easy target when enacting such policies would enrage most of the party`s members and donors, and doom them to failure. History has shown us, from Disraeli to May,, that Tory claims to be on the side of the working people and against "burning injustices" are simply political rhetoric! Stephen Bush`s suggestion that Johnson`s "most consistent attribute is inconsistency" misses an important thread running through his administration (Boris Johnson`s great gamble, 26 February). Sending children back to school gradually would have meant following the lead of the Welsh and Scottish administrations, just as having all teaching staff vaccinated at half-term an acknowledgement that Starmer had driven the decision. In the pandemic`s early stages the WHO strongly suggested that testing was the way forward, only for Johnson`s insistence on the UK`s "exceptionalism" leading to obfuscation and delays. Johnson`s proposals have to be of English origin and not copies of methods used in other countries, or ones proposed by Starmer. The quarantine scheme has to be different from the one used successfully in Australia, and naturally ends up half-baked and unlikely to prove effective. The decisions are all political, designed to show Tory ideas better than Labour`s and England`s solutions more effective than those of all other countries. A death rate per capita worse than that of the US does not appear to be as significant for Johnson as the next election!

On Johnson`s modus operandi

Marina Hyde is wrong (The curious tale of a wild dog in No 10 - and Boris Johnson -24/02/21). Playing the "calm, authoritative setter of boundaries" he may well be, but it`s the same old Johnson running the country. Too afraid of his right-wing backbenchers, he makes the mistake of producing too early a roadmap which causes the majority to relax their Covid defences. So intent on exhibiting "exceptionalism", schools in England have to reopen all at once rather than following the more sensible Welsh and Scottish example of a phased return. Fearful of pursuing any policies put forward by Starmer, the prime minister cannot support the idea of vaccinating teachers. It was the same last year when the WHO`s advice on early testing, and Australia`s example of a successful quarantine system could not be followed for similar reasons. Unless all staff involved in children`s schooling are vaccinated in the coming weeks, the reopening looks like a disaster-in-waiting. Indeed, Covid will continue to flourish until all of the people unable to work from home but crucial to the economy`s survival, are given priority vaccination status! Of course it "would be better not to allow an uncontrolled spread" of Covid in younger people, but that would mean breaking from Johnson`s modus operandi (Betting it all on vaccines. But are they the Covid pandemic`s magic bullet? 23/02/21). Sending children back to school gradually would have meant following the lead of the Welsh and Scottish administrations, just as having all teaching staff vaccinated at half-term would have been an acknowledgement that Starmer had actually made a sensible proposal. In the pandemic`s early stages the WHO strongly suggested that testing was the way forward, only for Johnson`s insistence on the UK`s "exceptionalism" resulting in the advice being ignored. This explains all of the policies adopted so far; the ideas have to be of English origin and not copies of methods used in other countries, or ones proposed by Starmer. The quarantine scheme has to be different from the one used successfully in Australia, and naturally ends up "half-baked" and unlikely to prove effective. The decisions are all political, designed to show Tory ideas better than Labour`s and England`s solutions more effective than those of all other countries. A death rate per capita worse than that of the US does not appear to be as significant as the next election!

Labour and tax

With the obvious effect of reducing demand, Labour is quite right to say that "economically, now is the wrong time to increase taxes (Labour wary of being saddled with the old party caricature of tax and spend, spend, spend, 26/02/21). Displaying more economic nous than the Tories is essential if future elections are to be won, and debunking myths is a good way to start. There are plenty more, like the infamous Laffer curve, in need of critical analysis from Labour. Fair tax rises need not include those paying basic rates of income tax, no matter how strongly many of them are willing to contribute more as an "act of paying back to our NHS", as mentioned by James Johnson (Tax rises are no longer taboo. So who will dare put them up? 26/02/21). As well as rises in corporation tax in the future being necessary, Labour should be pledging future increases in income tax for all earners in the higher bands, as well as in capital gains tax, plus a windfall tax on companies who have profited massively because of the crisis. Debunk myths, by all means, but the need for people on average earnings to pay more when the rich pay far less than they can afford has to be addressed, too, no matter what the likes of Mandelson might sa

Debt and bankers` bonuses

The Jubilee Debt Campaign is absolutely right to say that the British government should be doing more to force UK banks to "alleviate the new developing country debt crisis" (UK urged to help ease debt crisis in developing countries, 22/02/21). With 30% of the debt owed to British banks, the chancellor should be doing more than "calling on private-sector creditors" to join the debt suspension scheme. Not only are these poor countries spending so much on interest payments, they cannot afford to run adequate health services, let alone purchase Covid vaccines, they owe to banks which last week published annual profits in the billions. The result is the banks pay staff massive bonuses which are surplus to very generous salaries rather than helping poor countries recover from the pandemic! When banks last faced criticism for paying obscene levels of pay and bonus, they justified their action by claiming they had to attract the "best people", and that banks were putting "ethics before profits" after the 2009 crash. Even if such policies ever existed, they certainly didn`t last very long!