Barclays transforming banking!!

It was only February this year that Antony Jenkins, chief executive of Barclays Bank,said in a press conference, "We get it, we are changing the way we do business". He added that the bank would put ethics above earnings, and unveiled his grand plan, "Project Transform"; this was a management jargon acronym, standing for Turnaround, Return Acceptable Numbers and Sustain Forward Momentum, all designed to restore Barclays` reputation in the wake of Libor-fixing, PPI mis-selling and the other scandals and scams it was involved in.(Guardian,13/02/13) Perhaps some alterations may be needed in view of recent news?(Barclays faces currency market inquiry,31/10/13) "Falling" profits down to a measly £1.4bn, "Obfuscate", as in need to "push harder", "Reduce" staff by 40,000 with "a vision for more technology", and "Manipulate" the 3tn-a-day currency markets cover the 2nd half, leaving plenty of opportunity to fit in "Shareholders" to be tapped for £6bn, so that the bonus cap can be "Avoided", by "Rewarding" its investment staff 41% of its income ,thereby ignoring previous "Target" which was only there to appease customers contemplating a switch anyway. The "N"? "No",  as in "change to the banking culture"!

HIDDEN ARCHIVES

         Foreign Secretary William Hague boldly said earlier this year, when the court case about British torture during the Mau Mau insurgency was being held, that it was his intention "to release every part of every paper of interest subject to legal exemptions". He was joking, of course, Tory-style, like Cameron promising to make public the tax details of all members of the coalition cabinet, after the May elections, without saying which year. Geddit? The words "subject to", of course, were Hague`s "get-out clause", as, guess what, the "legal exemptions" are secret! Heard the one about Royal Mail being worth only £3.3 billion?

       During the court case it emerged that many documents relating to events at the time of the British empire had not been released for scrutiny as they should have been under the terms of the 1958 Public Records Act. Strange that, especially as a statement from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) made another bold claim that  a feature of our democracy is that "we are willing to learn from our history"! This "history" is Michael Gove territory, where facts are apparently all-important, Gradgrind syle,as long as they don`t upset the establishment, those pillars of decency, christianity and order.The case ended with compensation to the Mau Mau victims of British torture, which included  beatings, sexual assaults and roasting alive!

       Now it has been revealed that the FCO has repeatedly failed to obey the thirty year rule, with the result that an archive containing 1.2 million files going back in British history as far as the Treaty of Paris, which ended the Crimean War  in 1856, exists, but under lock and key, unavailable to the prying eyes of historians, eager to discover trivia, like the truth and facts.Why have governments allowed this to happen, and it`s not just Tory ones to blame? What are they hiding? Suspicions are raised about British mis-rule in the colonies, but other aspects of history, like the Cold War, are included in the missing archives.Is it so important to protect reputations of long gone governments and long dead politicians. Such, what Richard Drayton calls the "manipulation of history" hides the fear that the truth will result in the public losing respect for their rulers, and what Cameron calls "Britishness" being weakened. In other words, people will lose  respect for their "betters" and realise that they are still being exploited and ripped off. The establishment evidently think that a culture of secrecy will maintain the status quo, and that means their wealth, power and dominance in our society will continue unabated.

       Drayton recently wrote in the Guardian that "the practice of full release acts as a brake on the abuses of power"; the fact that everything states and their monarchies,aristocracies, civil servants, armed forces and politicians do will be recorded and available for scrutiny, is essential in free and civilised societies. If details of events are kept secret, abuses will continue, and history will never be accurate. Our children will be brainwashed in  the myths perpetuated by ideologically-driven writers of history, and whilst that may please politicians, especially when, as in 1914, they needed volunteers for a needless war, or near election time, they attempt to out-do each other`s nationalism and patriotism in embarrassing attempts to win votes,it is not what the people of this, or any country, deserve.The purpose of a state supposedly rooted in democracy is freedom for the people, not for those who are in control.

       With next year`s World War One commemorations, the countless television programmes ,media coverage,coffee-table books and such like, we have to bear in mind those hidden documents; they are not just about British mistreatment of Africans, but about wars, and the causes of wars, about deaths and why so many innocents died.

       And politicians still have the nerve to  talk about the need for transparency!!

Labour and energy

The big six energy companies are clearly not too bothered by the furore surrounding their price hikes with, as Jill Treanor tells us, only E.ON "dispatching its UK chief executive" to give evidence to the Commons energy and climate change committee, and the rest sending mere divisional heads.(Business analysis,29/10/13) Why should they, as they are obviously acting in union, have prepared their spurious "excuses" off pat, and will raise prices at least once more before the election, in order to get "their retaliation in first" in case Miliband does win the 2015 election and freezes their prices? So when Lord Jenkin condemns their "oligopoly" and tables an amendment in the House of Lords "calling for greater competition", are we expected to believe that three or four new energy providers would make a significant difference to household bills? (Electricity costs fell as househod bills went up,29/10/13) They would still be privately owned and have profit and shareholders` dividends as their priorities, so they would not offer gas and electricity prices much different from the others.

      Nationalisation of the energy companies, the preferred option, polls tell us, of 74% of the population, is deemed to be too expensive for the opposition to contemplate, so why not consider state ownership of just one of the small providers, outside the big six? This could be affordable, especially with progressive taxation, advocated recently by no less a body than the IMF. The governmnent owned company could offer much lower prices, reacting to wholesale  prices when they fall as well as rise; profit margins could be nearer the "adequate margin" deemed by the regulator in 1998 when "the market was liberalised", to be 1.5%, and the customers could rest assured no corporate taxes were avoided. Labour has benefitted hugely from their conference energy proposals, whilst Cameron and co. have looked increasingly desperate as their obfuscation and over-reliance on the market lose them support; it`s time for Labour to hammer home their advantage and step closer to election victory.

yet more Tory lies

How appropriate that a review of a book about the "media demonisation of refugees", (Morning Star,27/10/13) appears in the same week as the government, the source for most of the "ignorance-inducing" stories, was spreading its vile propaganda about Britain`s "health tourists". In the hope that Tories can look tougher on immigration issues than Labour in the build up to the election, Jeremy Hunt alleged that foreign visitors and short-term migrants, taking advantage of the NHS, cost  the taxpayer £300m a year. Yet the government`s own research suggests the true figure is nearer £60m, but when has this government ever bothered about being accurate when it comes to data, as long as it can feed the "gutter press" with misinformation to mislead the readers of the Sun, Mail and Telegraph?

Hunt, of course, is far from being the only government minister to use such tactics, especially when a few incorrect figures can deflect attention from a ministry`s incompetence, or promote a flawed ideology. Not so long ago a certain Iain Duncan Smith, the works and pensions secretary, was discovered to have issued inaccurate statistics to claim his benefits cap had encouraged 8000 unemployed to move into jobs; the made-up figure did not deter the media from reporting it as fact, and the damage was done before the truth was revealed.

  Gove has misled the public on so many occasions, even to the extent of being reprimanded by the OECD, in his quest to denigrate state schools, that he seems to have convinced the so-called opposition of the need for free schools and Performance Related Pay for teachers! Accuracy, such as the positioning of British schools as 6th in Pearson`s education league tables, somehow gets ignored.

Figures, of course, add authority to Government claims, but when none "suitable" are available, Goebbels-like repetition is the method used; hence we have the necessity of privatisation in order to encourage profits and investment in our industries and transport, and the millions paid into the Treasury by the profitable Royal Mail and the east coast railway are ignored. State ownership is always wrong, except when other countries` nationalised companies are taking over British businesses.

The sad thing is that the government gets away with it,with its massive media support, and a response from Labour which, to say the very least, is ineffective.

Labour RIP

Labour Party RIP! It shouldn`t come as a surprise to anyone who`s been disappointed by Miliband`s refusal to support a Tobin tax or introduce higher tax bands for those earning over £75K a year,but now it`s official. With  the party`s election co-ordinator stating that the message they will be taking "across the country" is that "Labour stands up for the squeezed middle", the party`s break with the working people of this country is complete.(Labour takes aim at Tory suburbs in drive for votes, 27/10/13) New Labour may have gone, but what has replaced it is more akin to a Lab Dem party! The assumption is, of course, that, with the expected demise of the Lib Dems in any forthcoming elections, Labour has to fill the centre ground vaccuum, before the Tories attempt to do so. This explains their emphasis on moderate proposals in areas such as education, housing and rent control,whilst stressing toughness on welfare and benefits, and even borrowing Lib Dem ideas like the mansion tax. For traditional supporters desperate to see a return to policies based on fairness, with radical ideas to reduce the gap between rich and poor, haves and have-nots, Labour promises next to nothing.Their lack of protest at the sale of state-owned and profitable Royal Mail and the east coast railway (Profitable and publicly owned-so why sell it? 27/10/13) reveals timidity, fearing right-wing media`s "red Ed" propaganda more than shouts of "Judas" from its own supporters.

With the consequent prospect of a low turn-out in 2015, and local activists standing against the "official" Labour candidates, some of whom no doubt "parachuted in" from London, this election strategy is extremely risky, not only because victory is far from assured, but because it leaves the low earners, unemployed and less fortunate without representation, and a voice, in parliament.

Overrated heads

Both the NASUWT and the ATL teaching unions did well to dismiss the latest efforts of Clegg to cash in on the universal unpopularity of Goveism , and the description of his ridiculous "Champions League" proposal for headteachers as "eye-catching froth" is spot-on. (Morning Star, 25/10/13) His desperation is becoming more obvious with every announcement he makes.

However, there is a danger that politicians` propaganda on education is beginning to have an effect, with an important and worrying consequence; this country is in danger of becoming obsessed with the belief that good results in our schools can only be achieved by the appointment of what Nick Clegg calls "oustanding headteachers" and "ambitious deputies". It`s accompanied by the other dubious idea that such people must get "substantial pay rises", as we all know that teachers, like nurses and social workers, only joined the profession for monetary reward, and will only make a real effort for their pupils if the financial inducement is sufficient!  

    Good leadership is, of course, essential in all schools, especially as the head has overall responsibility for discipline, but it is the work done in the classroom which determines academic improvement and the examination results. Hunt`s recent support for Performance Related Pay was, therefore, all the more disappointing as it revealed that Labour has started to believe the Tory criticism of state education.  When will politicians start to understand that it is blatantly unfair to reward the head for a school`s improvement, when he or she is already generously paid, two or three times more at least, than the classroom teacher, and when the actual learning of the "improved students" takes place under the auspices of many different people, some not even teachers? Should an A-level teacher with ten A* pupils be rewarded extra, when someone else was the reason for the students` determination to succeed, another teacher of the same subject was the "inspiration" lower down the school, or that the student`s real improvement in reading and understanding resulted from work done in the primary school?

Channel 4`s  "Educating Yorkshire" received justified praise for its portrayal of the life-changing influence teachers have, but it only concentrated on, presumably with viewing figures in mind, the more difficult children, and ignored what also happens in comprehensive schools with good GCSE results like Thornhill`s: showing children handing in homework, writing essays in silent classrooms, analysing and challenging sources, evaluating data, speaking a foreign language etc would have proved that such things are not the preserve of private schools. It would also reveal, yet again, how Gove`s policies are not based on factual evidence, and historian, Tristram Hunt, should really know better than to support anything this ideologically-driven Education Department proposes.

Miliband needs to "do a Clegg", over-ruling his subordinates, and come out with an educational policy which is fair to both teachers and students; after the last four years of , it`s the least they deserve.

WWI re-written, 13/08/13

As expected, the hundredth anniversary of the start of the first world war is being used as an excuse by the government to re-write history and to create some sort of feel-good, Olympic-style, propaganda which, Tories hope, will result in electoral reward. (First world war abridged, 13/08/13) We now learn that the chair of the advisory board thinks the time is ripe for a new assessment of the "bungling generals leading brave soldiers" idea; ironically, only a few weeks ago  we were informed that  the discussions whether to "celebrate 8 August 1918" were ongoing, the reason being, not because it was the date of the penny-dropping for the military leaders, but because it was a "black day" for the German army according to Ludendorff. (Next year, let`s remember a world war, not a British conflict, 23/07/13) Perhaps not all proverbial "donkeys" but it wasn`t until the fifth year of conflict that the generals realised surprise was a key to victory, and could well result in much less slaughter of our soldiers. Silence and night movement of troops, plus the absence of the usual pre-battle bombardment, actually caught out the Germans, and played a crucial role in the ensuing forward movement.

 Re-writing history to suit the ideological and nationalistic wishes of a government still willing to listen to military chiefs who think Afghanistan can be conquered, the Taliban defeated, and nuclear weapons essential in their "war against terrorism", must be opposed. The government`s idea of commemoration of war does nothing for international harmony, serves only to provide numerous excuses for political posturing, and, therefore, can only be supported if it refuses to celebrate "victory", but instead accepts the historical fact that in 1914, the British volunteers, convinced as they were by the government propaganda that the war would be "over by Christmas", were sent to their deaths by the incompetence of the military high command.

Labour and housing, 09/08/13

Your recent, excellent editorial on housing (MStar,09/08/13) stressed the need for Labour to commit itself to provide social housing, and rightly criticised the recently acquired 40,000 mortgages for the buy-to-rent brigade. The latter will mean, not only profit to private landlords and the continuance of high rents for people mostly ill-equipped to pay them, and, of course, more taxpayers` money in the form of housing subsidies going straight to profiteers` pockets, but also yet more government money going to the banks. Until we have a clear commitment from Labour to the providing of more social housing, more taxation like the Tobin tax, and continued public ownership of RBS and the East coast railwayline, the country will continue to be run for the benefit of the banks, their highly paid employeees, and their shareholders. There has to be a period of re-equalisation, where the gap between rich and poor is reduced, or the result will inevitably be a form of "economic apartheid"; living wages have to be the norm, so that the profit-making corporations actually pay for their labour and don`t have them subsidised by the British taxpayers, which, hardly surprisingly, rarely includes them.

      Instead of offering it to the banks, the cheap money governments can currently get their hands on could be offered to local councils directly, in the form of long-term, minimum or no interest, mortgages, with the strict proviso that heavy penalties would be incurred for breaking any assurances given; the money would only be available on a ring-fenced basis, after the councils had detailed how and where it would be spent, how many homes would be provided, and assurances that no "green" areas developed or sold. The lower rents charged for such social housing would undercut the exploitative private landlords, forcing them to reduce their rent, and also make the buy-to-let industry less profitable.

    The current government found £375 billion for the banks, with no significant improvement; the creation of at least one million council-owned homes seems cheap at the price!

US hypocrisy and Syria

So much hypocrisy! So many double-standards! Presumably it`s not "morally obscene" to use American drones which have killed and wounded indiscriminately in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Yemen? International law is again so important Dominic Grieve is to advise the NSC on the legality of British and American intervention in Syria, yet Israel`s many breaches go unpunished, and their atrocities,now so frequent,against some of "the world`s most vulnerable people" are barely regarded as newsworthy, certainly not front-page material. It appears it`s morally justifiable to massacre Palestinians, and build settlements on their land! (MStar 27/08/13)

     And still no "smoking gun"; with modern history including so many examples of politicians, and their military advisers, faking attacks, or ignoring warnings, so that innocents die in the hope wars are started or escalated, Cameron`s "little doubt" remark is clearly insufficient to convince anyone that there is concrete evidence to support his claim that the order to use the chemical weapons came from the Syrian government; as your editorial rightly says (MStar,28/08/13) "our leaders lie to us", some governments more than others. Why Cameron`s sincerity should be believed over foreign affairs more than the barrage of untruths he and his cronies have launched at the British people since 2010 is a mystery. The British parliament needs to consider whether the suddenly all-important "morality" is best served by air strikes and cruise missiles, which will almost certainly lead to a larger and long-lasting conflict. Do modern wars really end in victory, with the enemy defeated and removed, peace restored to the area, the local people better off, and the military effort justified, or do they actually serve little purpose other than offering opportunities to politicians to posture, and arms manufacturers to profit, whilst causing unnecessary suffering to thousands?

Niall Ferguson`s dubious history, 07/09/13

What the Guardian didn`t mention was that Niall Ferguson "advised" the Republican John McCain in his election campaign in 2008 against Obama, and supported Romney in 2012, so it hardly comes as a surprise that his article in favour of direct action in Syria by America is so selective in its use of historical evidence. (The left`s blind spot, 07/09/13)  For instance, he is full of praise for America`s intervention "to end the post-Yugoslav violence in the Balkans", but glosses over the disaster that was the Iraq war, and fails to mention that the intervention of the US and Britain in Afghanistan did not defeat the Taliban. As for Vietnam, it`s clearly the war which must never be mentioned in this debate, either by the political "hawks" or their historical advisors; intervention there, of course, failed to bring about the desired solution, despite the widespread use of banned chemical weapons.

     Ferguson rightly says "that the Middle East is not the Balkans", and that the "forces of radical Islam are far more powerful", but cannot link American and European military interference in their affairs to their anti-imperialist stance. Does he really think that the use of armed force of whatever kind, though he is typically reluctant to be precise, will reduce the "sectarian conflict"? Missile and drone warfare, as Caroline Lucas says, are "responsible for the indiscriminate killing of thousands of innocents, and undermine our moral authority", so can only serve to  provoke further acts of revenge. He intimates that the "infamous Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916", responsible for many of the Middle East`s borders today, made mistakes, but cannot connect it to the earlier British and French intervention in the area because that would go against his basic premise that British imperialism, despite its greed for wealth, land and labour, its use of weapons, massacres, concentration camps and torture, was a force for good. This is the most important reason why so many historians objected to him advising Gove on the new history curriculum for schools; the longer the myths about intervention and imperialism are perpetuated, the more politicians will boast about no other country having  "a prouder history", (PM`s riposte to Russia with notes on a small island, 07/09/13) and the greater the chance that miltary action will always hold sway over diplomacy.

HS2

As for linking the north with continental Europe, Simon Jenkins rightly points out that HS2 does not actually connect with HS1 and St Pancras, but finishes at Euston! (HS2 isn`t the next Olympics. It`s a domestic Afghan war, 11/09/13) He is also right to point out that already the "rise in intercity passenger numbers is slackening off"; couWhen the government has to employ the accountancy firm, KPMG, to make its case for HS2, it`s a sure sign that the argument is being lost, and when KPMG`s conclusion is that the new line will benefit the economy by £15bn we are expected to believe that the only factor holding back the British economy is poor transport! We are also told by government propagandists that HS2 will reduce the wealth gap between north and south. Assuming that the intention here is to boost the economy of the north rather than reduce that of the south,logic demands that the first priority must be to build first the line connecting the northern industrial centres, and the London link last. Prioritising the 45 minute journey from London to Birmingham only serves to emphasise the importance of the capital to the economy. The point made by the HS2 supporter in Birmingham that it will "stop talented young people feeling they have to leave for London" may be valid, but it will nevertheless encourage them to seek work there! (HS2 is a heart by pass to unclog travel arteries,minister claims,11/09/13)
ld this have anything to do with the increased use by business people of modern technology, skype and video conferencing, all very good methods of doing business, without travelling at all?

         Miliband must come out in complete opposition to the project now; HS2 is simply a vanity project of a government trying to show how forward thinking it is, and how much it`s trying to bring prosperity to parts of Britain other than London.It even wants us to believe that the total cost will be just over half (42.6bn) of what the Institute of Economic Affairs predicts; what do they take us for? Miliband needs to show the same bottle he showed over Syria and say no to HS2 and a third runway, and no to Trident whilst he`s at it; lets have some detailed proposals for spending vast sums which will actually "change the economic geography of Britain", and which still could win him the next election.

Irresponsible capitalism, 07/09/13

Hardly surprising that ate a two-tiered education system. (Collective bargaining must be won back, 07/09/13) Cameron, Osborne and Clegg have shown themselves extremely adept at looking after the highly paid, so it iwe are seeing "greater inequality and the emergence of a two-tier workforce", when the very objective of the government`s policy on examinations in schools is to cres left to Labour to present the electorate with serious and believable policies which will improve the life chances of the low-paid.
The minimum wage clearly isn`t high enough and Labour must promise to raise it significantly, but that does not mean they cannot attempt improvements in other ways as well. Few would object, for instance,to a Labour pledge to prosecute all firms, regardless of size, which were found to be paying workers less than the minimum wage. Such examples of "irresponsible capitalism" can be discouraged by damaging publicity, as Starbucks has found to its cost, whilst more positive incentives might result in a more responsible approach to capitalism`s treatment of its workforce and customers. Borrowing from a New Deal idea, businesses which paid a living wage to all employees could be allowed, by a Labour government, to display, say, a green star in all their advertising and signage. Similarly, other stars could be displayed by companies paying the correct amount of corporation and capital gains tax, offering proper apprenticeship schemes, and even by those which rejected the bonus and obscene levels of pay culture.Yes, a government department would be needed to explain and oversee the system, but the end result would be higher paid workers, less people relying on tax credits to make ends meet, more taxes in the Treasury`s coffers, and more money available to be spent where it is most needed. The other parties might present themselves as defenders of the poor, but the recent evidence will inform the electorate otherwise.Hardly surprising that we are seeing "greater inequality and the emergence of a two-tier workforce", when the very objective of the government`s policy on examinations in schools is to create a two-tiered education system. (Collective bargaining must be won back, 07/09/13) Cameron, Osborne and Clegg have shown themselves extremely adept at looking after the highly paid, so it is left to Labour to present the electorate with serious and believable policies which will improve the life chances of the low-paid.

Tory arrogance 15/09/13

As we have seen time and time again, this government`s arrogance knows no bounds, and it`s evident once more with its ridiculous plan to privatise Royal Mail.

Their excuse, when lowering the top tax band for themselves and their millionaire mates, was that when the rate was 50%, the rich didn`t pay it, so it made economic sense to lower it by 5% so that they would. Really? We were meant to believe this?

Their contempt for the ordinary people seems to grow by the day, for what else can explain their willingness to destroy the welfare state, treat poor and unemployed as criminals, and cut benefits even for those with disabilities? We are expected to believe they know best, that the last Labour government was to blame for the economic crash, and that bankers had nothing to do with it. That`s why Osborne spoke out in Brussels against capping bankers` bonuses, and why the British government recently challenged the legality of the financial transaction tax, successfully it seems, even though Germany, France and the rest had adopted it as a fair way to get something back from those who had caused this economic mess. But the people of this country are still expected to believe that the Tories, and of course, Clegg and his cronies, complicit in all things Cameron, are determined to stamp out tax avoidance! Pull the other one!

Now, in the continuance of ideological policies to privatise at all costs, and further enrich the already rich, we have the case of Royal Mail, which they have to sell off, they say, because it`s taking too much government money, and preventing spending on hospitals and schools! You could not make this up!  So the government had to scrap the £55bn Building Schools for the Future scheme in July 2010 because of the need to plough more money into the postal service? What the Royal College of Nursing calls a "slash and burn" approach, cutting the number of  nurses by over 5000, is caused by the post being so demanding of extra funds from the Treasury? Who knew? Most of us were under the impression that the average pay for a postman was around £19,000 a year, well below the national average.

    What do they take us for, but perhaps,more importantly, how much disdain do they have for the Opposition? Tory propaganda has got away with political murder, with the "skiver" nonsense, and education needing to go back to the 50s, with barely a Labour murmur of protest, so they know excuses for their privatisation of Royal Mail can be as ludicrous as possible, and they, with of course, support from Murdoch`s media, can get away with them.

     The truth is rather different; Royal Mail has profit margins of 5%, and made £403m profit last financial year, but in the future, at least half of these profits will go as dividends to shareholders.Everyone knows so-called "increased efficiency" will lead to job cuts and a less regular service, especially in rural areas. A little further down the line, there will, no doubt, be zero-hours contracts and increased part-time work. The general public are against it; a YouGov poll showed 67% opposition, and even amonst Telegraph readers, 72% are against the sale. However, I shouldn`t imagine there`s much opposition from the government`s City friends; a mere £15m at least will be paid to investment banks for their "advice" over the flotation, providing the fees are set at 1% of the value, and the banks getting yet more taxpayers` money include Goldman Sachs, UBS, Barclays, Bank of America and Royal Bank of Canada.

If Labour actually, not only opposed the sale of Royal Mail, but pledged to re-nationalise it when in power, it would not only scare off many City investors, it would show support to the beleagured workforce, and be popular with the majority of the electorate. At least, let`s have a debate in Parliament, or even a series of questions at PMQs, so the public can hear  the government`s nonsense. If I am completely fed up of being lied to, and treated as an idiot by "posh Tory-boys", why isn`t Miliband?

In praise of teachers

The propaganda has been growing for a while, and the result is now evident; this country is in danger of becoming obsessed with the belief that good results in our schools can only be achieved by the appointment of what Nick Clegg calls "top talent", in other words "oustanding headteachers" and "ambitious deputies". (Clegg wants champions league of headteachers in schools, 24/10/13) It`s accompanied by the other dubious idea that such people must get "substantial pay rises", as we all know that teachers, like nurses and social workers, only joined the profession for monetary reward, and will only make a real effort for their pupils if the financial inducement is sufficient!

    Good leadership is, of course, essential in all schools, especially as the head has overall responsibility for discipline, but it is the work done in the classroom which determines academic improvement and the examination results. Hunt`s recent support for Performance Related Pay was, therefore, all the more disappointing as it revealed that Labour has started to believe the Tory propaganda. So it was good to see that the Guardian, in its "In praise of ..." section, not only acknowledged the excellent work of the staff at Thornhill community academy, but the fact that there are many teachers "out there who really should be national heroes". My one complaint about the "Educating Yorkshire" programme is that it concentrated on, presumably with viewing figures in mind, the more difficult children, and ignored what also happens in comprehensive schools with GCSE results like Thornhill`s: children handing in homework, discussing literature amongst themselves, writing essays in silent classrooms, analysing and challenging sources, evaluating data, speaking a foreign language etc, not just because a truer picture of the whole school would emerge, but politicians would learn that Goveism is not based on factual evidence, and historian, Tristram Hunt, should really know better!

Switching bank accounts,19/09/13

Switching our current accounts has become easier, and according to the government, this is good news, as there will be more competition on the high street. Within seven days, apparently, the switch can be completed, all standing orders and direct debits sorted, and everyone better off. Haven`t we heard that before? We only have to look at the energy companies to realise that "more" does not mean "better" deals for the consumers.

The big four, Lloyds Banking Group, RBS, HSBC and Barclays, hold 75% of our current accounts, and as we know their important role in bringing about the 2007-8 crash, and the subsequent economic mess, it`s a chance for us, the taxpayer and customer, to show our disapproval. More good news is that the so-called challenger banks, the likes of Santander, Halifax and Marks and Spencer, are making special offers to entice us, because they know once we`ve signed up, the chances of us switching again are slight; after all, haven`t we been with our present bank for years, perhaps since our student days, or since our parents recommended theirs?

           We may as well make the switch,if only to make a point, but you can bet all is not as it seems; we are talking about banks, after all.How many people are attracted by better than average savings rates, only to find this includes a "bonus" rate, which soon disappears once they`ve got our hard- earned cash? The chances of us, the plebs, getting similar treartment with these deals are high. The most ethical of the banks is, apparently. the Co-operative Bank, but sadly,recent news of this bank`s troubles will not act as an incentive, despite assurances that current accounts are absolutely safe.

           Transparency is not the banks` strongest point either; how many Lloyds customers might feel attracted by the deal at Halifax, but not realise that the latter is owned by the former! The Post Office has incentives, but how many of its new customers will realise that its owners are the Bank of Ireland?

            Of course, the banks make their biggest profits from the "socially useless" activities by their investment sectors, but that doesn`t mean profits are not also their main motive with our current accounts; whatever money we give them , they will invest or lend out at a huge profit, and that`s the point, No matter how many banks are on the high street, their sole purpose is to make a profit out of us, their customers.The hundreds of thousands the banks have spent on advertising their new "products"indicate how much money they expect to make.The big 4 can become the big 8 or 10 but as long as they are privately owned, by shareholders expecting dividends, and run by individuals who know the size of their bonus depends on the profits they can screw out of us, the banking culture will remain unchanged, and the unadulterated greed will still be prevalent. Will the Bank of Ireland, or Tesco, or Virgin, or whatever bank really offer customers better deals, higher savings rates, more loans to small businesses, cheaper mortgages to first-time buyers, all in order to kickstart the economy? Of course not, the needs of the shareholders will take priority.

            It`s probably still worth giving a switch a go; these newer and smaller banks weren`t the ones mis-selling insurance policies, money-laundering drug dealers` wealth in Mexico, or fixing the Libor rates, so, at worst, it`s a protest, and there may be some cash benefit in it. However, only a state-owned bank, one whose primary objective is not the shareholders` dividend, the avoidance and evasion of as much tax as possible, nor the investment banker`s bonus, can act as a realistic "challenger", and can attract sufficient customers away from the mainstream ones. Labour should be doing everything in its power to delay the privatisation of RBS;  the myth that more privately-owned banks on the high street, offering more current accounts, will make a difference needs to be exposed.

Labour`s dilemma,24/09/13

Polly Toynbee may think Labour`s "dilemma" is whether to copy "Osborne`s incredible" policies to gain "economic credibility" but there is another, and probably more serious, one.(It was Iron Balls` best shot, but are the voters listening?24/09/13) "No extra spending in the first year" may calm City nerves, but it leaves Labour open to the criticism from an already cynical electorate that there is too little difference between them and the Tories.

Toynbee in the past has correctly written that the reasonably well-off, like her, have unfairly escaped most of the government`s austerity measures, and dealing with this could provide Labour with the headline policy it needs to win people`s confidence in its ability to combine balancing the books with the element of justice seen to be lacking in coalition remedies. Taxing those earning between £65K and £149K at 45% can be justified on the basis of fairness; how can it be right that people earning just over £40K , and struggling to make ends meet, are taxed at the same level as the rich? In fact, as a temporary measure, a sliding scale of tax rates could be introduced, starting at, say, 60% for those earning over £200K and working downwards.

The risk that the support of high earners, needed to win the marginal seats, may be lost has to be countered with arguments based on social justice, the fundamental justification for the party`s existence, and an essential ingredient of any country thinking itself civilised. The nonsense that it cannot be afforded has to be refuted; if the wealthy don`t agree with the concept, let them come forward and admit it!

omissions from conference speech,25/09/13

Although both Freedland`s article and the editorial noted "there were omissions" in Miliband`s speech, but neither highlighted what can only be described as mistakes.(Red Ed dares to talk over the heads of the Tory press, Labours new energy,25/09/13) The relationship with the unions was a subject for brevity and humour, when it was much more appropriate to show support to the Royal Mail workers, and Labour`s opposition to the endless and ridiculous stream of privatisation. It was an opportunity, too, to woo back the teaching unions, not only disgusted with Gove`s attempts to turn back  the educational clock for pupils and teachers, but with the lack of support from the Labour front bench. The failure to include repealing "Goveism", Miliband might yet live to regret!

Also of great concern was the failure to attack the Tories` key ally in all things Cameron, Clegg, even though his disingenuous speech at the Lib Dem conference exemplified political chicanery at its worst. This can only mean Miliband has a possible coalition in mind, when most Labour supporters find the idea totally abhorrent. 

    If "social justice" is really at the heart of Labour`s policies, as it should be, the opportunity to introduce fairer income tax bands was scorned, and so the usual criticism of Labour being unable to balance the books will undoubtedly continue. Of course, there were some encouraging signs, and the idea that the state, under a Labour government, will be used to enforce some price freezes, and to control some of the corporate greed, so rife in the last decades, is to be praised. But where was the promise, or even a threat, to take into public ownership uncooperative energy companies, provide social housing, and end Trident?

The suggestion that Miliband is "too leftwing for Britain" not only borders on ludicrousness when his speech included so little that could be defined as "socialist", it also serves as a reminder of how far to the right the media has shifted!

Labour`s industrial policy,27/09/13

Your editorial asks how the Labour party can develop an industrial policy which will not only encourage "good behaviour", but also simultaneously be  different from the gesture at fairness made by the Tories and the Lib Dems.(Talking loud,saying something,26/09/13) Martin  Kettle points out that Miliband, rather than putting himself on the "side of small businesses, against big ones",would do better to "focus far more" on what makes a good business, and send out an unambiguous message to the electorate.(The book that matters to Miliband is not McBride`s,26/09/13)

      A start can be made by outlining the main requirements of a "good" business, which the Mail and Murdoch press cannot refute: a living wage to all employees, and no bonus culture; correct amount of corporation tax paid; young people employed and trained, with effective apprenticeship schemes. Companies which abide by these "rules" would pay 20% corporation tax, as opposed to the 30% paid by the rest.   

        Clarity is the key, and when allied to transparency, will be a far more effective electoral tool than discussions about "progressive capitalist programmes". There could not be a better time to launch such a policy, when the government is busy with its objections to fair energy prices, the bonus cap and the legality of Europe`s financial transaction tax, and its selling to its City backers, of taxpayer-owned banks and Royal Mail. The country needs to be reminded that what this coalition government believes in is alien to the beliefs of the majority of British people!

advice on conference speech,22/09/13

Your editorial correctly states that Labour "needs to worry about the present and the future", not the past.(The future not the past, 21/09/13) There is a real need for the party  to commit itself to provide a well- housed, socially mobile population and a fair society, and that should form the basis of Miliband`s conference speech. Until we have a clear commitment from Labour to the providing of more social housing, a fairer tax system, a pledge to repeal the majority of Gove`s madness, and to maintain a level of social ownership, even if it means re-nationalising Royal Mail, the country will continue to be run for the benefit of the banks, their highly paid employees, and their shareholders. The recently acquired 40,000 mortgages for the buy-to-rent brigade, a dire, unforeseen consequence of the Help to Buy scheme, will mean, not only profit to private landlords and the continuance of high rents for people mostly ill-equipped to pay them, and, of course, more taxpayers` money in the form of housing subsidies going straight to profiteers` pockets, but also yet more government money going to the banks. There has to be a period of re-equalisation, where the gap between rich and poor is reduced, or the result will inevitably be a form of "economic apartheid"; living wages have to be the norm, so that the profit-making corporations actually pay for their labour themselves, and don`t have them subsidised by the British taxpayers, which, hardly surprisingly, rarely includes them.

      Instead of offering it to the banks, the cheap money governments can currently get their hands on could be offered to local councils directly, in the form of long-term, no interest, mortgages, with the strict proviso that heavy penalties would be incurred for breaking any assurances given; the money would only be available on a ring-fenced basis, for social housing only, after the councils had detailed how and where it would be spent, how many homes would be provided, and assurances that no "green" areas developed or sold. The lower rents charged for such social housing would undercut the exploitative private landlords, forcing them to reduce their rent, and also make the buy-to-let industry less profitable; we need to return to the 80-20 split Miliband referred to in June, with increased spending on "bricks and mortar". The fact that half-a-million people live in appalling conditions is a shameful indictment of recent governments` attitudes to the less fortunate; Clegg was right to say we need to "hardwire fairness" into our policies, but he said it three years ago!

    The current government found £375 billion for the banks, with no significant improvement to the economy; the creation of at least one million council-owned homes seems cheap at

pay day lenders,23/09/13

The work being done in Glasgow by the city`s council puts the government, the opposition and, indeed, the rest of the country`s local councils, to shame. (Credit unions in Glasgow push out paydaylenders as city tackles personal debt crisis,22/09/13) The work being done to "tackle the burgeoning instant loan industry" in Glasgow raises some obvious questions: why hasn`t the downright evil activities of "Wonga and its lookalikes" been challenged by our elected representatives in Westminster, people we have charged with the protection of the most vulnerable in our society? Why isn`t it a priority for Labour, especially as strong action against these charlatans can only result in greater electoral support, as all decent folk will agree that the obscenely high profits generated by the payday lenders are morally abhorrent, cashing in, as these so-called businesses do, on the poverty and suffering of the weakest in society?

         An obvious start would be to ban these companies from advertising on television and in newspapers, and that would include TV companies being refused permission to broadcast any sport involving the promotion of payday lending, and then look to promising legislation to deal with their dubious practices. Should it be legal to charge interest often in excess of 5000% APR,or to double, treble etc. rates when payments are missed? Could it not be possible to limit by law the interest rates charged by money-lenders, something like the basic rate plus x percent? Couldn`t business rates for such companies, and why not include betting-shops here, be four or five times higher than for decent firms?

         Doesn`t the whole issue illustrate the need for Labour to be promising not just a business bank, but a nationalised one, which can have branches devoted to helping local companies in need of loans, and individuals in need of short-term help? The unions are right, of course, to demand better pay, and there is certainly an urgent need to raise the minimum wage up to the levels at least of the "living wage", but a priority,too, is to get rid of  these parasites!

chemical weapons, 27/09/10

Good news that the United Nations Security Council has agreed on the text of a draft resolution on ridding Syria of chemical weapons.Whether this can be a start to meaningful negotiations to end conflict in the Middle East is debateable, however, as the whole world is aware of the possession of nuclear weapons by Israel, and that country`s determination not to allow any other country in the region to have them.

 There is another matter which can only serve to encourage distrust, and that is, of course, the position of America, and her foreign policy, which supports Israel, no matter what.

According to the respected journalist, George Monbiot, in an article for the Guardian earlier this month, America`s hypocrisy can know no bounds. The details of chemical weapon use by America in Vietnam is well known,especially that of agent orange and napalm, but how many people are aware of more recent events? Monbiot tells us that in 1997 the US agreed to decommission "the 31,000 tonnes of sarin,VX,mustard gas and other agents it possessed within ten years"; surprisingly this didn`t happen , and in 2012 "it claimed they would be gone by 2021"!

 Israel also not only used the chemical weapon, white phosphorous, as a weapon in Gaza, it also "refuses to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention". Both Russia and America are keeping the pathogen for smallpox "in cold storage" in order to "develop defences against possible biological weapons attack"!

Naturally, our wonderful government cannot be kept out of the discussion, for didn`t it allow for chemicals known to be essential in the production of sarin to be sold to Syria?

How the so-called leaders can sit down together and display deep concern and even anger when a country uses such awful weapons, and still keep their faces straight, is beyond understanding. For goodness sakes, Labour, keep out of this madness, and pledge to scrap Trident straightaway, with the hypocrisy and secrecy of other countries being stated as one of the main reasons

Tories at election time:what are they like?28/09/13

Don`t you just love election time? It`s when politicians wake up; Miliband comes up with policies for which ordinary people have been waiting months, if not years. Clegg, of course, has to pretend he and his "lickspittle allies" of the Tories had nothing to do with tax reductions for the rich, the bedroom tax, destruction of the welfare state, university fees` hike, privatisation of anything that moves and such like; presumably, he was too busy ensuring fairness was "hardwired" into government policies?

 As for the Tories, there is news that a group of them, backed by Eric Pickles, wants their conference to support  a six-point pledge which includes promises like raising the minimum wage and cutting fuel duty! They suddenly want to position themselves "as the workers`party"! You couldn`t, as is often said, make it up. After years of freezing wages, cutting benefits and jobs, doing nothing about the lack of regulation of rents, energy prices, the banking bonus culture, and tax avoidance by their City friends, and introducing policies of privatisation which can only mean further job losses, they wonder why they have "failed to appeal to working class voters, northern urban voters, ethnic minority voters, and people outside Tory heartlands". They cannot be serious. Now we are expected to believe that they care about ordinary people`s welfare, and want to raise wages and cut prices. What on earth do they take us for?

Lab-Lib Dem party, 11/10/13

With Miliband and Balls at the helm, and the Daily Mail waiting on the wings,the Labour party has changed, but, sadly, not in the way Miliband`s Marxist father would have liked; New Labour may be in a long overdue decline, but its replacement may as well be called the Lab-Lib Dem party!

 The evidence for this is clear to see, starting with Miliband`s conference speech; despite Clegg having given him so many reasons in his speech the previous week to go on the offensive, with his spurious claims that he and his cronies, complicit in most things Cameron, had prevented the Tories from passing right-wing legislation, Miliband refused to take the bait. Instead, we hear of some centre-left policies, albeit welcome ones in the form of ending the bedroom tax and freezing the prices of greedy and profiteering energy companies. We are told, too, of a proposal to introduce a mansion tax, an idea originally from the Lib Dem party! The message is clear! The Labour party is filling the vaccuum left when the original Lib Dems sold their soul to the Tory-led coalition. By doing this, of course, it appeases the "suppering classes" of the marginal south-east seats, and paves the way for a coalition with Clegg, should he and his power-at-any-costs companions.

What we didn`t hear at the conference, and in the weeks since, is even more revealing. If Miliband had spoken out against the Royal Mail privatisation fiasco, and pledged the party to re-nationalisation after the election, the City fat cats would not have been so keen to dip their greedy paws into what always should be seen as a public-owned institution.

Clearly, price-freezing energy prices, again a centre-left populist move, didn`t go far enough; the announcement by SSE of an 8% price rise this week, no doubt merely a harbinger of more to come from the other 5 energy companies, shows the need for nationalisation as the only means of stopping endless greed.

Of course, this would seemingly be a step too far for this Miliband, too worried by assertions from the likes of posh-boy Osborne that he was part of a "communist plot". If he, with his background, cannot defend himself against such obvious idiocy, he is in the wrong job.

Even with the united teaching unions carrying out industrial action and demonstrations against Gove`s attempts to create a two-tiered education system and a non-qualified "profession", Miliband stays silent. His shuffling of his shadow cabinet was welcome, but will the teachers` optimism be raised by the appointment of Tristram Hunt as shadow spokesperson for education. Will he be seen at any of the demonstrations? Of course not.

 Nothing, either, on moves to a more progressive and fair tax system; we hear opposition against the tax reductions for the super rich, but why should the very rich escape scot-free from any increase? Aren`t people earning three times the national average deemed to be rich by this Labour party? Isn`t there a real case to be made for a new income tax band of 45% for the £75-149,0000 earners? Of course there is, but it`s not going to happen.

How can it, when Miliband`s party is one dedicated to being centre-left and more Lib Dem than Clegg ever was?

eligibility to play for England, 11/10/13

Interesting how Garth Crooks thinks Wilshere has no objections to someone representing England as long as he came "as a child-whose parents lived here, paid taxes". (England and the English", 11/10/13) Shouldn`t our national teams, in all sports, be made up of people who pay their full and proper share of taxes, not just have parents who do so? They all talk of how proud they are to represent their country, but if it doesn`t run to paying the correct tax so that it can actually be governed in a way that benefits the whole population, such pride is not worth a great deal. In fact, the same should apply to all who are appointed to represent this country, whether it be in politics, the judiciary, or the civil service!

Criticism of Guardian`s editorial 15/10/13

In an editorial a few months ago you rightly pinpointed Labour`s main mistake, in that it wastes too much time trying to show the government  how to "do the wrong policy better", rather than explaining why "it`s wrong in the first place".  (Perils of gut instinct,16/07/13) Yet in today`s leader you describe Tristram Hunt`s "acceptance of the essentials" of Gove`s free schools project "a good call"! (Labour`s hunt for answers, 15/10/13) You may be nearer the truth with your observation that free schools have "captured the political agenda out of all proportion to their influence", but that has undoubtedly been caused by the media`s tendency to concentrate on the educational needs of the middle class, compared with the relatively small attention it pays to the damaging effects of Gove`s curriculum and assessment changes on the pupils of more working class origin. Thank goodness for Peter Wilby, who at least acknowledges the need for Labour to provide "a clear alternative". (Dear Tristram Hunt ..., 15/10/13) His proposal to withdraw the charitable status from private schools would benefit the Treasury with the resulting payment of VAT on school fees, whilst forcing universities to enroll at least 85% of their intake from state schools seems generous, in view of the fact that only 7% of our children attend private schools, but dominate our more highly regarded universities.

 Hunt,an historian, will know that there is little or no evidence to substantiate Gove`s spurious claims about the quality of education currently being delivered in our state schools, and he needs to be vociferous in his support for the teaching profession; after the last four years, it`s the least Labour should be offering them!

London`s economic apartheid

Economic apartheid, with cleaners, teachers, nurses and doctors bussed into the capital every day, is the not-so-long term inevitability facing London, unless something changes. (London can become home only to the rich, 20/10/13) With "many of London`s citizens becoming involuntary exiles", following the government`s policies encouraging "economic cleansing" of the areas of London the rich deem suitable for them to invest in, and perhaps inhabit, new policies are urgently required. The recent attempts by Osborne and Johnson to allow "Chinese banks to trade in London through branches" (George Osborne in China-wide-eyed, innocent and deeply ignorant, 20/10/13) will only lead to yet more London property falling into greedy, foreign millionaires` hands.

Your editorial`s tax proposals make sense but don`t go nearly far enough; even the IMF opines that this country`s rich have escaped lightly during recent austerity years, and Britain is clearly seen by the world`s rich as "easy pickings". Indeed, the "unsayable" needs to become "sayable" not only about privatisation, but about tax rates, and it`s Labour who needs to be doing the "saying"! If energy prices are deemed "freezable" for twenty months, why not house prices and rents? Compulsory purchase of empty properties should be considered too, as should a new sliding scale of income tax, starting with a new band of 45% for £75-140,000 earners, 50% 140K+, 60% 180K+ etc. ( Similar variations could apply to corporation tax, with the lowest rates for companies paying correct amounts to HMRC, and living wages to their workforce, viable apprenticeship schemes etc).

For a city mayor and government to allow such a situation to develop in London is shameful, but hardly unexpected, given their backgrounds and ideology; for Labour to fail to respond now would be a disgrace! 

Why vote Labour?

As democtratic socialists, what we want to see is British state ownership of energy, utility and rail companies, as opposed to Tory policy of foreign state ownership of them. We want fairness for all workers, a progressive tax system to pay for Britain`s health services, education and security. So why on earth would we vote Labour?

  Ever since his election, Miliband has been terrified of being labelled "red Ed" by the right wing media and government, with the result that we have witnessed three years of dithering, with the occasional highlight - conference speeches, anti-Murdoch stances and a pledge to freeze gas and electricity prices. In the meantime, Cameron and his cronies have been busy, destroying the welfare state and privatising everything that moves! The British people deserve more from the party created to uphold the rights of the ordinary people.

 The final straw for many of us, I`m sure, came last week with the announcement from the privately-educated Tristram Hunt that Labour policy was to support Performance Related Pay for the teaching profession, only days after he had backed free schools. To have the Labour spokesperson for education firstly agreeing with many of the tenets of Goveism, and then showing absolutely no understanding whatsoever of how the state education system works, says a great deal about the state of the Labour party. Whatever happened to equality of opportunity? Teachers understand how it is impossible to attribute a pupil`s success to one person, so why can`t they? Presumably, the absence of most Labour MPs and candidates from all the recent teachers` rallies means that certain workers` votes are being taken for granted, and it certainly does not stop there.

  Where are the policies aimed at fairness? A pledge to restore the 50% income tax band  for those earning £150K+ does not go far enough, as even the International Monetary Fund acknowledges that the rich  contribute far too little. A sliding scale, starting at 45% for the wealthy earning over £75K, and rising to 60%, a rate even Thatcher tolerated, does not seem unreasonable.

    News that the Co-operative Bank has been hi-jacked by US hedge funds means there is now an even greater need for a state-owned bank; the banking culture, with its Performance Related Bonuses,still has greed as its driving principle, yet Labour still rejects a Tobin-style tax on financial transactions. Has it not moved on at all from the City-grovelling days of New Labour? Even if it has, it`s being too secretive about it!

  So many fair policies cost nothing, but still Labour shies away. If honours can be stripped away from child abusers, why not from tax avoiders? If companies pay little or no tax, or refuse a living wage to their workforce, why award them government contracts? An ethical foreign policy and an end to Trident seem such obvious promises but never see the light of Labour`s day.Why not extend the principle of price freezes to homes and rents, rather than just borrow policies from the Lib Dems? Just because the election is likely to see a fully deserved collapse in Lib Dem fortunes doesn`t mean Labour has to fill the centre ground vaccuum with policies carefully designed not to offened the marginal seats` middle classes.

  Even as news broke of the Grangemouth disaster, Miliband did not raise the issue in Prime Minister`s Questions, thus showing yet more disregard for people who should be Labour voters, but who will probably now find themselves inclined to become more nationalist.

Of course, many left-leaning Labour MPs deserve support, but they are too few in number to influence policies, which at the moment are not dissimilar enough from those of the coalition.Is it worth voting Labour just to get more of the same?

 

PRP and Labour

The news that the governors of Wellington academy offered the then principal a £20,000 bonus "for good performance", weeks before "record grades" at A-level, GCSE grades which according to the Department for Education, "were not good enough", and the principal`s sacking, exemplifies all the problems associated with academies and Performance Related Pay.("You stand up when I enter the room", 22/10/13)

       Tristram Hunt`s support for free schools was bad enough, but when he spoke in favour of PRP on Question Time last week, the hopes of thousands of British teachers for improvement and fairness in an education system under a Labour government will have been dashed. When will politicians start to understand that it is blatantly unfair to reward the head for a school`s improvement, when he or she is already generously paid far more than the classroom teacher, and when the actual learning of the "improved students" took place under the auspices of many different teachers? Should an A-level teacher with ten A* pupils be rewarded when someone else was the reason for the students` determination to succeed, another teacher of the same subject was the "inspiration" lower down the school, or that the student`s real improvement in reading and understanding resulted from teaching in the primary school? Also, another factor adding to the unfairness, as we can see in the Wellington example, is that the judgement of the governors who decide on the PRP is often questionable. Miliband needs to "do a Clegg", over-ruling his subordinates, and come out with an educational policy which is fair to both teachers and students; after the last four years of shambolic Goveism, it`s the least they deserve.

Tories and China

It is  probably right to say that Britain cannot afford to ignore the market which has become the motor of global growth, but whether we need to stoop so low with the grovelling that we witness from Osborne and Johnson in China is hugely debateable, on a number of counts.

       How embarrassing to see representatives from the 7th richest country in the world making outlandish promises to Chinese banks, without the knowledge of the Prudential Regulation Authority! Are we really so desperate to "make a fast yuan" that little or no  regulation of their banks in our country is the only carrot we can offer? As if there isn`t enough corruption, mis-selling, Libor fixing, and now global currency price manipulation already  involved in City activity!

       The hypocrisy of this government is limitless, with Theresa May`s "hostile environment" greeting the poor and destitute immigrants, whilst welcoming arms await wealthy Chinese. Human rights` violations, air pollution and workers` exploitation, all at the heart of the Chinese economic "miracle", get brushed under the carpet, as long as British politicians can boast, on their return, of increased foreign investment. Why run the risk of offending other potential investors in our nuclear industry by offering the Chinese such ridiculously high prices? It is not as though the Chinese nuclear industry is renowned for its strict regulatory system, and safety issues have caused problems there, with, for example, public demonstrations preventing the building of a processing plant in Guangdong earlier this year. Why is it okay for foreign governments to own chunks of British industry, when our own government privatises everything that moves? 

A sensible taxation policy in Bitain, as recently mooted by none other than the IMF, which taxes the rich at higher levels which they can easily afford, would enable a nationalised and properly funded nuclear industry to do the job more cheaply, but, of course that would offend the source of Tory party funds, the people whom Osborne, when wearing a different hat, describes as the country`s "wealth creators"!

In the coming months the Tories will be emphasising their patriotism with the World War One commemorations, but their willingness to sell Britain, in the form of our industries, our mail and rail services and even our houses and land to the highest foreign bidder, knows no bounds.Just like their hypocrisy!

On the one hand we hear how Britain needs austerity measures and foreign investment, on the other how Johnson describes the obscene £250,000 a year he earns from the Telegraph for his weekly column. "Chicken feed"!

Labour and tax

Polly Toynbee is partly right when she says that "hope has to be Labour`s answer", because for many of us, the only hope is that Labour can develop some election-winning policies, and change this country into one whose society and economy are based on fairness. (This job needs the thickest skin in the shadow cabinet, 22/10/13) Labour need "not be lax"; in fact, they can be tough as they like, but on the correct targets, bankers and their still-as-ridiculous-as-ever bonuses, tax evaders and avoiders, and energy companies and their blatant profiteering. No government contracts to companies either avoiding the correct amount of corporation tax, or failing to pay a "living wage", will do for starters. The minimum wage must be raised immediately, and the income tax bands revised to be both fair and to please the IMF, who now think the rich are under-taxed. Those earning three times the average income must be seen as wealthy , and taxed accordingly, with a sliding scale rising to at least the Thatcher-era level of 60%,  to ensure fairness ensues; the so-called Laffer Curve must be dismissed for what it most certainly is, a ploy by right-wing economists to excuse the rich from paying their fair share.

 If Miliband can gain justifiable kudos from a pledge to freeze gas and electricity prices, why not extend the principle further to private rents, and house prices, to prevent the inevitable "bubble" and the continuation of what must be seen as the "economic cleansing" of central London.If Rachel Reeves is "Labour`s best hope for shifting the national conversation", she and the rest of the shadow cabinet had better start talking!

 

Laws and Hunt

When we hear that a Lib Dem minister has said in the Commons that a member of the shadow cabinet has "stood on his head", normally the first response is one of disbelief, especially when the minister in question is the previously disgraced David Laws. The words "kettle" and "black" spring to mind. However, when he is referring to Tristram Hunt and Labour`s free school policy, one has to admit, albeit grudgingly, that he has a point.

       The opposition keeps forgetting that its primary role is not to amend and change this Tory-dominated government`s policies, but to offer alternatives, based on fairness, and in education, equality of opportunity as well, and sadly, it appears that Hunt is not up to the task. His appearance on this week`s Question Time revealed a man more in tune with Goveism than with the very reasonable complaints of the teaching unions, and his support for Performance Related Pay, with his failure to understand both its unfairness and impracticalities, will have done nothing to raise the hopes teachers may have, for state education under a Labour government. 

     "Why should teachers bother voting for Labour in the next election?" is perhaps the essay question Miliband should be setting as homework for his shadow cabinet this week, with the added instruction that the answers must analyse the evidence available. The inevitable brevity of the responses should send a chilling message to the Labour leadership. Can they really afford to run an election campaign which offers absolutely nothing to the teaching profession, and runs the risk of industrial action escalating under a new government? 

 The appointment of Hunt, whose lack of empathy with both teachers and the system of state education must have been realised beforehand, appears to be another indication that the Labour leadership has swallowed totally the Tory propaganda perpetrated by Gove, Laws and their minions. Didn`t Gove`s lack of evidence appall "ace-historian" Hunt? Didn`t his misuse of data suggest to the Labour leadership that ideology, rather than facts, formed the basis of Tory attacks? Could it be that this Labour party has given up on equality of opportunity and social mobility? It certainly looks like!I

Miliband into Clegg, Labour into Lab Dems

Whilst there will be much support for the view expressed by the anonymous letter writer in the Guardian  that there is little point in electing "Labour just to get Tory policies with different spin"  the idea that Miliband "seems to be turning into Blair" is wrong. Anticipating the electorate`s reluctance to trust the Lib Dems again, the Labour party`s leadership seems hellbent on filling the vaccuum they will leave, with Miliband morphing into Clegg. The adoption of centrist policies, often, as with free schools, mere adaptations of government proposals, means that Labour sees more value in winning support from the swing voters in the south-east`s marginal seats than in pursuing left-wing ideas to help the working class and promote a society based on fairness and equality of opportunity. Miliband`s conference speech included no mention of nationalisation, nor of increased income tax for the rich, which now even the International Monetary Fund leaders support, nor, even more tellingly, any criticism of the Lib Dems for their complicity in this government`s destruction of the welfare state. With their support for Lib Dem policies like the mansion   tax, there is a real danger of becoming insufficiently different from the other parties; instead of " improving"  government policies, as Tristram Hunt seems intent to do, Labour should be proposing alternative ones. If they don`t, they may as well change their name to the Lab Dems!

Labour and education

In my experience of teaching in state schools, most students supported teachers` industrial action, albeit for a variety of reasons, so it was especially pleasing to read the article by sixth-form student, Seamus Jennings in the Morning Star. What a shame no articles in support of the teachers` struggle against Goveism appear forthcoming from the Labour leadership. How they can think any teachers in the state sector will vote for them in the 2015 election beggars belief, especially when the new, privately educated, front bench Labour spokesperson for education sees fit, as his first task in post, to voice approval of free schools, Tory vehicles for the dismantling of the state system of education!

An effective Labour opposition would be offering alternatives, not tidying up Tory ideology-inspired proposals to take education back to the divisive, two-tiered system of the 1960s. Of course, it`s sensible to insist no schools will employ unqualified teachers, but why stop there? In order to achieve a measure of equality of opportunity in post-Gove education, Labour should be proposing to:

Restore all Sure Start centres, and re-install the Education Maintenance Allowance, funded by increasing the tax band for £80-149000 earners to 45%.

End the nonsense of classifying private schools  as charitable foundations, so that fees will be eligible for VAT.

Increase social mobility by promising legislation to ensure no university, however elitist it may now be, enrols more than 7% of its students from the private sector, in line with current percentages attending fee-paying schools.

Review all of Gove`s assessment and curriculum reforms, and restore AS levels.

 These would suffice for starters, but sadly, Mr Hunt not only seems to be reading from a different menu, he`s clearly at a different restaurant!

Labour and government contracts

It`s hardly rocket science but at least, it could be the start, and who knows where some joined-up thinking from the Labour party could land us? Not only your editorial (Who pays the price for our cheap goods, 13/10/13) with its mention of "levers such as procurement", but also Rachel Reeves, whose  admission that future government "contracts could be living-wage contracts", (Labour will be tougher than the Tories on benefits, pledges party`s new welfare chief, 13/10/13) show, at last, some attention to the allocation of government work. We`ve heard similar  from this government before, albeit with no action taken, and undoubtedly will again as the election approaches, so Labour needs to be prepared to go further. At least, no contracts either to tax evading and avoiding companies, or to those with inadequate and poorly funded apprentice schemes. What about companies who pay obscene amounts to CEOs, and those with ridiculous bonus schemes? Financial institutions which have been involved in mis-selling, money laundering and Libor fixing? You rightly say that all hopes for a "radical overhaul of rules" and "reshaping of capitalism" have long since died, but that is because we have been lumbered with a government, dominated by a party dependent on City funding, with no intention of doing anything which might reduce profit. If we continue to honour company chiefs who avoid paying the correct amount of tax themselves, or whose companies pay minimum amounts of corporate tax, how can we expect improvement, or a fair deal for their employees? A Labour party with bottle would promise to tackle the problem head on,and gain votes by doing so!