Guardian letter on short-termism

Your editorial`s conclusion, that successive governments have failed to "think clearly" about the crisis in health and social care, making it "a bleak indictment of short-termist democracy", sadly can be applied to all aspects of government policy (Years of political cowardice now risk the sustainability of the NHS, 17/10/17). Short-termism leads to all sorts of apparently unforeseen problems; did no-one see that cutting council grants would bring about quality reductions in public services? Was no-one in authority able to predict recruitment crises in nursing and teaching, through over-work and a pay freeze? Tax reductions for the rich would not lead to increased inequality and decreased revenue for the Treasury? Selling weapons to the Saudis would bring in revenue, but the longer-term effects of the weapons on human targets, let alone on the government`s ethical standing, mattered not a jot. Promising £350m a week for the NHS might lead to a Brexit vote, but with drastic consequences later.

Similarly, short-termism in business has led to companies focussing more on immediate profits, rather than the benefit of improved productivity from longer-term investment in technology and training. 

   With the effects of such policies now coming home to roost, is it any wonder principled politicians, with plans to transform the way our society is managed, are on target to win the next election? 

The Tory disease: short-termism

John McDonnell is wisely concentrating on the OECD`s "criticism of Britain`s weak productivity", and how the organisation stressed the need for more "infrastructure investment,  increased research spending and improved training". This highlights the sharp contrast  with Tory policies, which almost all are based on short-termism, and which have caused immeasurable problems, not only for the country`s economy, but for most of its long-suffering people.

      Labour needs to emphasise how successive governments have failed to think clearly about their health and social care p[olicies, and their short-termism has led to the present crises, and to obvious, but apparently unforeseen, problems. Did no-one see that cutting council grants would bring about quality reductions in public services? Was no-one in government able to predict recruitment crises in nursing and teaching, through over-work and a pay freeze, or that tax reductions for the rich would not lead to increased inequality and decreased revenue for the Treasury? Selling weapons to the Saudis would bring in revenue, but the longer-term effects of the weapons on human targets, let alone on the government`s ethical standing, clearly mattered not a jot.

     Britain`s current productivity problems have been caused by government-endorsed short-termism in business, with companies focussing more on immediate profits, shareholder dividends, and obscene pay and bonuses for bosses, rather than on improving productivity with longer-term investment in technology and training. Of course, companies concentrating on such policies should be the only ones considered for government contracts.

      With the effects of such short-termism now coming home to roost, is it any wonder principled politicians, with plans to transform the way our society is managed, are on target to win the next election? Being able to manage joined-up thinking is always handy when in government, and Labour being immune from  the Tory disease that is short-termism is something that needs publicising!

Question Time needs changing!

Roger Mosey makes many pertinent points about the future of Question Time, paricularly that the BBC is "right to try to renew its relevance" (Off the Air, 13th October, 2017). Also sensible is, as "these are serious times", that there is little room for celebrities and such-like on the panel, but plenty for experts; when, for example, the Education Secretary guests, why not also include an experienced examiner, headteacher, or union leader? Doctors or surgeons when Secretary for Health is on?  

  Mosey, however, misses an important point: viewing figures are not going to increase significantly unless some radical changes are made. Regardless of how "adept" Dimbleby is, a new format requires either a younger chair, preferably female, or  different guest chairs every week. Scheduling the programme against Newsnight has always seemed ludicrous, as is the idea that "the multiplicity of minor parties" demands panel representation; Ukippers have spoilt too many editions already! Studio audience participation could be enhanced by the use of electronic voting devices, whilst the wider audience could be involved by asking them to follow @bbcquestiontime on Twitter, and responding with retweets, or not, after every question. 

 As for the getting the "excellent This Week", to "move earlier", Mr Mosey!! There is nothing like the sight of opposing politicians cosying up together, whilst earning a fat fee, to put young people off politics for ever!

Every day is bad for PM

Why John Rentoul should think that Wednesday this week was an especially "embarrassing day for Theresa May" beggars belief (Voices, 18/10/17).  Admittedly she carelessly answered "Yes" to Corbyn`s request that she "pause universal credit", and her government agreed to last week`s Labour demand for a "freephone helpline for claimants". There was also also  the expectation that Tory MPs be "instructed not to take part in the vote" at the end of the universal credit debate, but whether this makes for  a particularly bad day for May is doubtful.

           We have a prime minister so divorced from reality she recently made a statement claiming that there is a "great prize" awaiting us after Brexit, when the UK will become a "great global country"! Theresa May even admitted she thinks she will still be Tory leader in 2022! How embarrassing can she get?

  Her government`s uselessness in foreign affairs results in arms being sold for use in Yemen, and offers nothing to ameliorate political and humanitarian catastrophes. Sucking up to Trump, rather than criticising him for his crassness, goes a step further than shame and humiliation. 

  At home, shortages of hospital beds, teachers, GPs and nurses, prison and police officers, firefighters, food and buildings` inspectors, HMRC staff and more, exacerbate problems caused by decreased funding for local authorities, and the many caused by government-enforced austerity policies and real-wage cuts. If she is not embarrassed by all of this, she should be ashamed of herself.

     One of the the troubles is that May`s rhetoric knows no bounds, and ever since the Downing Street speech in July last year, she has done nothing to lead a government  "driven" by any interests other than those "of the privileged few". The "burning injustice" that is the lack of parity funding "between the south-east and the north", amounting to £59bn over ten years, is not going to be remedied by her government with a record of disastrous cost-cutting,  and which has already committed to Crossrail 2, rather than the electrification schemes across the north, which were promised in the Tory manifesto.

    History shows that the Conservative party is based on preserving the riches, property and benefits enjoyed by the wealthy, who in return become party donors. Businesses have their regulations reduced by Conservative governments so that they can make more profits, and in return, help to fund the party. As a result, corporate excess, greedy landlordism and lack of sufficient regulation on the financial sector are problems never likely to be tackled by May`s government. Every day in office is an embarrassment, and Wednesday was no more degrading than any other day!

Too much mis-remembering

Will Hutton misses the point when writing about there being "too much remembering" (Endlessly refighting old wars does nothing to heal a fractured present, 08.10.17). Catalans wanting independence, just like the residents of eastern parts of Germany who voted far-right, have memories of their past which are not "inflated" as Hutton calls them, but so vivid they cannot be forgotten. History is always manipulated by politicians to suit their own ends, but when its justification is "ethnically based superiority", it becomes dangerous.

 What Hutton omitted to mention is that for many in Britain the memory of the fight against fascism is not just "over-remembered and over-deified", it is inaccurate, something that our governments have been keen to encourage, and has led to a preponderance of feelings of national pre-eminence. It is clearly a case of too much mis-remembering. The idea of "Britain alone" overcoming the Nazis is still being perpetuated, even on the cinema screens. Then there are the myths about the British empire acquired to spread civilisation, regardless of the massacres and atrocities, slavery and torture. Why else would millions of documents either have been destroyed or hidden away from the prying eyes of historians? The "glorious past", a time of economic growth without the need for European co-operation and immigration, did not exist.

  It is never "a time to forget and move on", as Hutton concludes. The mythology certainly needs to be scrapped, but the truth, especially in 

Labour should end Pre-U examinations

Few, if any,will have any problems with Labour`s promises to "radically transform Britain`s education system", and that "teachers would be at the heart of it". Most of the problems which have developed since Gove`s outrageous abandonment of advice from experts could have been avoided had the then Secretary of State listened to teachers.

 There is today, however, one very secret area of the education system which involves teachers very heavily, though sadly the teachers in question belong to the private sector. Who knew, before the recent scandal involving examination-cheating at Eton and Winchester, that there existed examinations taken by privately-educated students in this country, which were equivalent to A-levels but not the same, and whose grades are recognised by universities as entrance qualifications? They are called Pre-Us, and often include questions set by teachers in the private sector, who also mark them.

     With no limits to the proportion of students universities can enrol from private schools, only private sector pupils taking these examinations, and independent school staff, in many cases, actually setting the examinations, the current post-16 assessment system is both unfair and flawed. 

     On the Pre-U website, Winchester College recommends these examinations for use by other public schools, because they "are very liberating for teachers". I bet they are!

 Having taught A-levels for over forty years, and being "unliberated", I knew nothing about the existence of such examinations, and I doubt if many of today`s teachers in state schools realise that their students are actually competing for top grades and university places with privately educated pupils whose "A-level grades" will have been earned in a rather different way. Imagine how easier teaching becomes when, for example, having to cover three hundred years of history, and knowing which questions will be on the paper, even if no actual "cheating" is involved! How many state-school students have been denied access to their first choice university because of better grades achieved in these A-level substitutes?

    Labour must ensure these "examinations" are no longer viable as university entrance qualifications immediately!

Manipulated history and Brexit

Last week`s Leader mentioned the important role history is playing in the current issue of Catalonia`s independence (The Spanish crisis, 6th October, 2017). The "feeling of hurt" after the oppression the Catalans suffered during the Spanish Civil War and Franco`s dictatorship "has never gone away", and allying this with economic resentment has led to the demand for a referendum.

   Strangely, the Leader did not see fit to compare this with the UK`s current crisis. That similar economic frustration was an important factor in the Brexit decision is irrefutable, but Britain`s struggle against the fascists also played its part, albeit rather differently. Our manipulated version of history has given many Britons an aversion to the idea of European co-operation, having been led to believe "Britain alone" defeated the Nazis, that the empire existed to spread civilisation, and that our "glorious past" showed the economy could flourish without immigration. 

     British governments have allowed historical files, which would correct inaccurate history, to remain secret, and they must share responsibility both for creating a general belief in our mythological past, and for the utter confusion which now abounds.