May too similar to Disraeli

Already, there are too many similarities, for comfort, between May`s "compassionate conservatism" and the originator of the concept, Disraeli, who infused his administration of 1874-80 with legislation based, supposedly, on "One Nation" Toryism .Non-biased historians quickly saw through Disraeli`s duplicitous attempts to woo working class voters, labeling most of his reforms as "window-dressing", rather than serious legislation designed to make lasting and far-reaching changes. Now we have May`s "voluntary approach, asking manufacturers to reduce sugar levels over time", being all too similar to Disraeli`s permissive reforms, where councils could take necessary action, but only if they could be bothered. Only 10 of the 87 urban areas took any action over slum clearance, for example, following the Artisans Dwellings` Act.

     Unlikely as it is that the food industry will find a Joseph Chamberlain in their midst, May`s "obesity strategy" will have no positive effects whatsoever. Having to resort to 19th century measures for inspiration augurs very badly, and suggests there is plenty more "window-dressing" to come!

New Statesman letter on Labour `MPs

The Labour split is clearly serious, but to suggest, as Wes Streeting does, that "the Rubicon has been crossed" is simply scare-mongering rhetoric  (The Labour schism, 19th August,2016). The majority of Labour MPs are now supporting for leader a politician "untainted by the Blair years" and so, presumably, more electable than most, but with left-wing policies very similar to those espoused by Corbyn`s camp;  twelve months ago, such policies were compared to 1983`s "longest suicide note in history", making Corbyn, apparently, unelectable!

      Instead of listening to the opinions of the likes of Mandelson and Tristram Hunt, whose policies have lost two elections, Labour MPs should consider how Corbyn`s policies, such as an education system where all children get access to preschool facilities, and a National Health Service no longer under-funded or facing part-privatisation, can fail to appeal, if explained properly; public ownership of the rail system is not "hard-left", but a sensible economic solution to a problem, caused mostly by an obsession with profits. Labour`s economic competence can be proved with sensible and fair fiscal policies, whilst the Tories` incompetence, and failure to meet any of Osborne`s targets, is an open goal waiting for shots from the entirety of the Labour parliamentary team.

     George Eaton concludes the article by stating how "voters do not like divided parties", but if, following Corbyn`s inevitable victory, Labour MPs refuse to support him and his left-wing agenda, we shall all know where the blame lies.

De-bunking the grammar school mythology

Well said, Angela Rayner! Selective education does indeed belong in the dustbin of History", especially as the so-called "golden age of grammar schools" is a myth perpetuated by the Tory propaganda machine (Morning Star, 08/08/16). It is, moreover, a myth which needs urgent de-bunking, alongside the one which is currently being fed to us about Theresa May`s caring and compassionate Conservatism, aimed at decreasing inequality. No-one who cares about giving everyone a fair and equal chance in society can possibly support grammar schools, let alone consider increasing their number.

       Of course, many working class students achieved success in grammar schools, but that does not mean social mobility increases under a selective system. In a comprehensive school, these working class pupils would have succeeded just as well, whilst none of their peers would have been written off, and sent to secondary moderns, or their equivalent, where they would have been deemed no-hopers. No-one who experienced the 11 plus examination will forget the divisiveness of the procedure, and the disillusionment and unhappiness of friends who "failed". To even talk of 11 year-olds "failing" is disgusting.

      Not that all of those who passed the selection process were on the path to success. In most grammar schools, yet more selection, again based on the results of the same examination, ensured that only about thirty pupils, the ones in the A-stream, received anything like a reasonable education. The ones destined for B and C streams were given a "different" curriculum, including woodwork and cookery, presumably more suited to their abilities! Results in grammar schools were never as good as they should have been, simply because over half the students were never expected, or encouraged, to pass examinations.

     I read recently of some young people turning to Ukip, because of that party`s preference for grammar schools; they cannot possibly know how appalling most grammar schools were, especially when compared to today`s comprehensive schools, the real "centres of excellence" in our society. There, because they were created in the knowledge that students` abilities and potential continue to develop long after the age of 11, all pupils get the opportunity to demonstrate their talents.

    Wasn`t it the success of comprehensive schools, in enabling all pupils to prove their worth, which caused Michael Gove, back in 2010, to end coursework and resits, not to mention the maintenance grant for potential 6th formers, and to place more reliance on punctuation, memory tests and end of course examinations? Will May turn the clock back? Yes, but not to 2009; she`s going back to the 1950s and 60s!

       Discipline in boys` schools was based on corporal punishment, by means of striking of a cane on to the unfortunate boy`s backside; I well remember still having ridges and bruises days afterwards. Teaching lacked invention, encouragement, variety and even decent preparation, and this was in the grammar schools. Imagine how much worse it would have been for the 80% of pupils in the secondary moderns.

   Don`t believe the Tory nonsense about grammar schools and social mobility; don`t be persuaded that there is even a reason to debate May`s proposal. It has to be rejected, totally!

                

May`s "naming and shaming" and other "peashooter" solutions

Graham Ruddick rightly emphasises the point that the "naming and shaming" of 198 employers failing to pay the minimum wage is "shameful", not simply because there are so many companies on the list, which make such vast profits and which clearly think their success has nothing to do with the hard work of their employees, but because the government must know that such public unveiling is simply "window-dressing" (Poor payers: time to act, 12/08/16). It receives scant attention from the media, especially when released at a time when most people`s attention is focussed elsewhere, but, as Ruddick says, without the added threat of criminal charges, company directors will continue the practice.

 The idea that embarrassment, caused by widespread public knowledge, will deter such anti-social behaviour as tax avoidance and failing to pay the minimum wage, has long been proved a non-starter; has transparency stopped CEOs of FTSE 100 companies taking home 183 times the pay of their average worker? Has the banking industry stopped paying obscene amounts in bonuses, the expensive tastes of MPs been sated by the expenses scandal, or public knowledge of the Speaker`s ridiculous travel claims changed his means of transport?

  If May thinks the voters will be fooled into thinking she is tackling  capitalism`s problems, she is mistaken.

 Eleven "peashooter solutions" to fix the banking industry in the last seventeen years, despite those institutions "reliably" working "against the interests" of the British public, demand a response from the Tory government, especially as May has promised to "reform capitalism" (It isn`t our banks that need an overhaul - our watchdogs do too, 10/08/16). Clearly what is needed is not just for the "state-owned institutions" to be "mandated to lend more", but for them to be amalgamated to create a People`s Bank, working for the benefit of the country as a whole, and not simply to create profits to be divided up into shareholders` dividends and obscene.bonuses.

   It would not only create real competition to the remaining high street banks, but also a nationalised bank would force them to mend their ways, and end such ridiculously callous and greedy practices like, in Larry Elliott`s words, "penal rates for unauthorised overdrafts", not to mention fixing Libor rates, and laundering drug money (Flimsy whip for banks, 10/08/16). Above all, would it not challenge their obviously confident belief that the 3 per cent of customers switching banks is not set to rise in the foreseeable future?

 

May`s laissez-faire policies and Guardian wrong on need for old Tories

Just because Theresa May stated in her initial speech as prime minister that she was in favour of tackling the acute problems of social mobility and British capitalism, does not mean that the message has to be believed, especially by the Guardian. Your editorial claims that she "sees the value of intervention" and supports an "activist industrial strategy", but her actions suggest otherwise (Nudges and requests will fail: it`s time to force change, 20/08/16). The fact that May has, as Sarah Woolaston says, chosen to put the interests of the advertising industry "ahead of the interests of children" does not augur well for the future, and strongly intimates that laissez-faire policies will continue to dominate, at a time when the situation demands regulation (Theresa May`s climbdown on obesity is her first big error,20/08/16).

"Kenneth Clarke on the Tory side and Margaret Beckett on Labour`s" may well "stand out as veterans these days", but their most recent contributions to political debate do not actually support the argument for more experience "on the green benches of Westminster" (A place for the grey-haired on Westminster`s green benches,22/08/16). Beckett attributed the huge rise in Labour membership, recently, to the desire of young people to join Jeremy Corbyn`s fan-club, whilst Clarke`s sexist analysis of the qualities of female politicians is far more likely to appear on tee-shirts than in the pages of PhD students` political theses!

Your editorial concludes by stating that the likes of George Osborne should stay on, because "they have much to contribute", but most constituents would prefer their MPs totally devoted to representing them in parliament, rather than to amassing obscene amounts of money, by making after-dinner speeches in America.

           The news that the "multibillion-pound industry", which "provides advice on aggressive tax avoidance", could face financial penalties in the future is encouraging , but hardly before time (Tax advisers face heavy fines over avoidance,17/08/16). Can we have assurances that representatives of "the big four accountancy firms" no longer are allowed to sit on treasury tax committees, thereby gaining first hand knowledge of fiscal policy details and regulations to utilise later in their avoidance schemes, something apparently known as regulatory arbitrage?

An end to rewarding these firms constantly with extremely lucrative government contracts, and their partners with peerages, knighthoods and other accolades, would be welcomed also. It is worth remembering that not one of the Big 4 has been investigated about their obviously questionable audits of the banks, prior to the 2008 financial crash; they have been protected by their friends at Westminster for far too long!

In praise of comprehensives

The "desire to open new grammar schools", as a solution to the "Seven Per Cent Problem", is only "understandable" if one believes in Tory mythology; as last week`s Leader said, "focusing on early-years education" is a more sensible way, based, as it is, on evidence rather than propaganda, and the recent forced closures of Sure Start centres is a national disgrace (Grammar schools and social mobility, 12th August, 2016).

  It is important, however, to acknowledge that increased investment in nursery and primary education is insufficient on its own, and that spending per pupil at secondary level is falling, with too many academies being forced to employ non-qualified members of staff. Indeed, with teacher recruitment reaching crisis levels, the fact that schools are using agencies to recruit from abroad is being ignored at the country`s peril. The recruitment problem will only ease when teachers receive, not only pay comparable with their importance to society, but also less criticism, at a time when teaching quality in state-schools is higher than ever before.

   Allowing comprehensives to flourish, and to continue helping "all children reach their full potential", instead of shifting the goal-posts, Gove-like, when they do, is certainly a way to reduce private school "domination of public life". On the other hand, looking at the problem from the other end could provide a more immediate solution; in line with the national figure, no university should be allowed to take more than 7% of its undergraduates from the private sector.

 

Verdict on Corbyn

Jeremy Corbyn was weak in the EU referendum, and silly to let Theresa May get off so lightly at PMQs, especially when she had just made pledges, to which a Tory PM would never have any intention of adhering. He has, however,  not only stuck to his principles, but also his policies, and by doing so, has revealed the hypocrisy of the Labour MPs who oppose him; they were quick last year to say he was unelectable, because his left-wing agenda was too similar to 1983`s “longest suicide note in history”. Now they support a leadership candidate espousing left-wing policies, which they hope will win the leadership contest, and which they would then presumably drop, if Smith won.

     Corbyn has also exposed how Tory-lite most of the media are, and their wholesale attack on him shows little has changed since the 1980s and their demolition-job on Michael Foot!