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!

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)?

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!