More Danish envy

As if jealousy of Denmark`s television dramas isn`t bad enough, now we find more reasons for envy. It appears the Danes are fortunate enough to have, within their coalition government, a political party refusing to be swayed by promises of future influence and power. The fact that the Socialist People`s party has left the ruling coalition over Goldman Sachs`s purchase of a 19% share in the state-owned energy company is something which we Britons can only regard with awe and admiration. A political party in a coalition government not only standing by its principles, but refusing to agree to the sale of a company owned by the people of Denmark to a greedy, tax avoiding, multinational bank, is the stuff of British dreams! Just think, if we had a principled, junior member in our coalition, how different things would look: Royal Mail would not have been sold, let alone undersold by £3,2bn, welfare cuts would not have hurt the weakest, tax reductions would not have benefitted the obscenely rich, education would not be heading for a two-tiered system, and the NHS would be safe from privatisation. How they still have the nerve to call themselves Liberal Democrats, when every vestige of liberalism has been betrayed, is beyond belief.

University reform to aid social mobility

Both Fiona Millar ( The Sutton Trust`s "radical"  idea for schools is anything but, 12/06/12) and Roger Brown  (Social mobility: the waffle and hypocrisy, 12/06/12) correctly identify the main reasons for social mobility, the predominance of the middle class in the "top" universities, and the continued existence of private schools with their charitable status and VAT exemption. Is not a sensible solution therefore, as only 7% of pupils are privately educated, to impose a similar percentage limit for the intake of new students at all universities? With Oxbridge and co. no longer dominated by the rich, the invidious practice of dismissing interviewees because of their background, accents and other "contextual data", would end, as would both the "stratification" in the education system which is so insulting to, not only Roger Brown, but to most people employed in education, and the social networking and "jobs for posh boys" mentality which precludes the majority from so many professions.Whilst such an idea would appall, no doubt, the likes of Gove and Clegg, would not its adoption by Labour show that there was a political party in Britain intent on ending the stranglehold the rich have on this country, and actually prepared to put its money where its mouth is?

Historians and WWI

Historians are not helped when governments refuse to release evidence covering some of the most important events of the last 160 years or so, (see Hidden Archives, Oct 2013) but they still have a lot to answer for. It is good, nevertheless, to see that even right-wing historians like Niall Ferguson can reach obviously sensible conclusions about Britain`s entry into World War One, even if reaching them happened to coincide with the publication of his new book. He is right to state Britain`s participation was unnecessary, and that, of course, dismay should be felt because the "leaders, not just of Britain but of the European states" made such horrendous decisions to rush into war, when precedents, such as the Congress of Berlin and the Algeciras conference, proved that diplomacy of sorts could prevent military conflict in Europe.
     Sadly though, Ferguson cannot betray his political leanings for long; "catastrophic" effects for Britain, indeed, but not because the war`s cost limited our "military capability" in the inter-war period, nor because of the loss of "aristocratic officers", nor even the fact that "many, many skilled workers" died. The first world war was an unequivocal disaster, firstly because it devastated the lives of millions of families throughout the world with the loss of loved ones, regardless of their class, colour or skills, and secondly because it gave the politicians another opportunity to illustrate their short-sightedness and greed in the peace negotiations, with more dire consequences, many of which still being witnessed today.
       It`s clear that historians have done the world a huge disservice over World War One; had they concentrated on the willingness of rulers and politicians to sacrifice the lives of the common man for the sake of pride and reputation, and on how ordinary people can be enthused for war by an unscrupulous press, perhaps lessons could have been learned?

Bankers' bonuses:what a con!

 How ridiculous that the RBS top executives seem to expect, first, our gratitude for "foregoing their bonuses", when the bank is reporting losses of £8bn for 2013, and then our agreement to the other senior staff  having bonuses of 200% of salary, in case, "they get upset and leave"! The idea that bonuses helped bring about the 2008 crash because they encouraged investment bankers to take unnecessary risks must have been mistaken. Silly us!
      What we are always told is that banks have to pay obscene amounts of money in order for them to "stay competitive in the global market", and attract the "best" people. By that they mean people prepared to put making profit for the bank at the top of their priorities, regardless of the welfare of their customers, or of the requirements of the economy. They don`t have to possess skills like evaluating  SMEs and whether they offer the prospect of benefitting the local economy, but they do need knowledge of deception, to mis-sell products to customers,to fix interest rates, to hide laundering of money, regardless of its origin, to manipulate foreign exchange rates, and to devise scam after scam.
  These are not the "best" people; they deserve only the imposition of a very high tax rate, or a cap on their salaries, or both! "Best" people in banking, as in all other fields, do not have to be perfect, but they should be aware of, and grateful for, the taxpayers` generosity, and show some morality, at least, in their business dealings. As the CEO of Barclays said early last year, before his bank became involved in yet another scandal, "ethics need to come before profits".

Equality of Opportunity? Not with this government!

 Whilst Nick Cohen in the Observer is right to question whether Clegg has "the right to call himself a liberal", if he cannot "support a polite protest" against the BBC, the answer has long been all too obvious. Clegg and the rest of his party abandoned liberalism the moment they joined forces with the Bullingdon "posh boys".

       Take, for example, that bastion of the liberal creed, equality of opportunity. Within months of the coalition being established, the Lib Dems had agreed to a huge rise in university fees and the ending of the Educational Maintenance Allowance, soon to be followed by them giving wholehearted support to Gove`s assessment reforms, and his ultimate objective of a two-tiered system of secondary education. Is it any wonder a recent report placed Britain bottom of 12 developed OECD countries in a social mobilty league table, or another placed us 28th out of 34 in an equality one? But not a word from Clegg on changing the system, where the country`s top jobs are dominated by the privately educated, despite only 7% of the nation`s children actually attending private schools.

      Gladstone rather ruined the old liberal idea of laissez-faire, with the Tory, Disraeli, having to legislate in the 1880s to provide for better housing, safer food and increased rights for trade unions, so why the Lib Dems have given their support to every single cut and privatisation measure the Tories have introduced is a mystery, as it must be to all the party`s supporters. So many vulnerable people have been left unprotected, and so many workers exploited, not even paid the minimum wage, let alone a living one! Calling for an increase in the minimum wage now, 15 months before possible humiliation in the general election, simply won`t wash!

      Belief in  freedom of speech is being tested by the Maajid Nawaz case, but the duplicitous Clegg can say what he wants: greed, he now says, "brought about a banking collapse and misery", yet for three and a half years he has towed the Tory propaganda line and blamed Labour policies for the crash! How can they continue to call themselves "Liberal Democrats" when all liberal principles were long ago sacrificed to the power-gods?

 

Predictable objections to 50p tax

It`s noticeable that all the objections to Labour`s proposal to raise the top level of income tax are coming from people who will actually have to pay it, and that the objections themselves are mostly absurd. Take for instance the objections made to the proposal, by the 24 company leaders in their knee-jerk letter to the Telegraph:  it is a "backward step" and will "discourage business investment in the UK". Didn`t we hear almost exactly the same words when they were faced with paying their employees a minimum wage? What is more disappointing, therefore, is Balls`s reaction; rather than standing up to such alarmist nonsense from the obscenely rich, he meekly admits to the rate`s temporary nature. 

    Why not point out that, as Labour Chancellor, he would address the disturbing fact the Britain is currently 28th out of 34 in the inequality league table, by not only increasing taxation on the income of the rich, but on their property and land too? Whilst on the subject, he should be promising to tax unearned income, especially that of profiteering landlords, whose rent increases have hurt not only the tenants but the Treasury as well, through increased pressure on the housing benefit bill.

     Rich tycoons are quick to object when faced with a small increase in their tax bill, but see nothing wrong in paying wages so low their workers have to claim benefits to make ends meet. Most of them, it seems, see nothing wrong, either, in hiring unscrupulous accountants to devise scams to ensure the payment of the correct amount of tax is avoided. Even in Thatcher`s day the top rate of tax  was 60%, and with today`s state-owned health, education and transport provision in need of extra resources, Labour should have had the bottle to pledge such a level this time.

Labour should not even think of coalition with Lib Dems

The Independent was absolutely right to criticise Clegg for his "lamentable" handling of the complaints against Lord Rennard, but it does beg the question: why has it taken so long? Cameron and Osborne frequently resort to U-turns, as we`ve seen recently over the minimum wage, when they know they face a real possibility of election defeat,but they can`t hold a candle to Clegg in his efforts to stave off electoral humiliation. Not content in digging a hole for himself with his attempts, last year, to defend the honour of politicians in the wake of criticism from Paxman, he then had  the temerity to front the coalition`s attack on Boris Johnson for his "greed is good" speech; Cameron`s patsy to the last. He attacked Johnson for suggesting "we should give up on a whole swath of fellow citizens", without seeming to realise that is exactly what he and his coalition colleagues did by giving their support to Gove`s examination changes, which in the long term will lead to a two-tier system of education! It`s hard to believe the Deputy Prime Minister seems unaware of the hurt his government`s austerity policies have caused, but this is the same man who, after three years of being in  government, declared it was time to "hardwire fairness" into policies! He continues to talk as if the inequality this government has increased and encouraged has nothing to do with him; supporting the living wage is all very well but has he instigated any policy to make it compulsory, and why not two years ago? "Greed", he says, "brought a banking collapse and misery and hardship", yet for three and a half years he`s joined in with the Tory propaganda blaming the Labour government`s spending and borrowing for causing the problems. 

     Now, we have him passing the buck, lacking not only principles, but leadership too, over the Rennard affair! How anyone could even think of voting for his party, with him at the helm, is amazing; how Labour could be thinking of a coalition with him, fifteen months before the election, is beyond understanding! Even Harriet Harman has said that talks of a deal with them, over 15 months away from the election, is nonsense; in my opinion, it would be equally nonsensical 15 hours after the election. Just because the Lib Dems have sacrificed their principles to the power-gods doesn`t mean Labour should not hold on to theirs!

Multiculturalism not the reason for war-weariness

How typical of this duplicitous coalition government that its Ministry of Defence thinks the main reason for the "growing reluctance" in this country "to see troops deployed on the ground in future operations" is multiculturalism. How disingenuous to suggest that because fighting is more likely to be either against Muslims, or in countries whence many people, or their families, originally came, is more likely to be the reason for Britain`s war-weariness than the lack of trust for politicians. Does not the seemingly endless daily roll-call of dead soldiers on the news recently, or the undertaking to send our soldiers into unwinnable and unecessary wars, or Britain`s position in world affairs as America`s poodle, at her beck and call to appease her rightwing bias and warmongering defence industry have rather more claim as reasons to "reject foreign conflict"? Sadly, the article suggested that the army`s struggle to recruit regulars and reservists had more to do with "falling unemployment" than with a distaste for unjust conflict.

      As Seumas Milne rightly said recently, it`s clearly time for "transparency and accountability" in everything connected with foreign affairs. Hopefully, Labour will see this as an opportunity to introduce into the debate the necessity for an ethical and independent foreign policy, devoid of cold war rhetoric, let alone nuclear weapons!  

 

 

NHS deserves better press

So much news about the NHS appear in our papers and media these days, varying from shortage of doctors in Wales  to hospitals closed to visitors due to viruses in the wards; is it any wonder that NHS staff morale is falling? Sadly, however, only very rarely are there items which actually praise the health service. This, it seems to me, is very odd, as personal experience, and indeed, that of friends and family, could well suggest that the majority of people in this country, in one way or another, have reason to be grateful for care provided by the NHS.

My family were overwhelmed by the wonderful care and consideration shown by the carers and end-of life team in the final days of my 96 year old mother-in law last year; nothing was too much trouble, and everything was done in a way to ensure her final moments at home were peaceful, and her passing was, as Jule Myerson recently wrote, "as good as" we could "imagine a 21st century death to be".

 Other readers will, no doubt, have had similar experience, but that is not the impression of the NHS which most of the press and media are keen to give. The truth is, as we have seen over many years, that Tory propaganda concentrates on constant fault-finding in the state-owned institutions like the NHS  to justify their privatisation, with the so-called failings often the inevitable result of job and financial cuts made by the government itself! Individual examples of failure are highlighted to give misleading impressions of the institution generally; huge media coverage follows, with the BBC often at the helm, leading to hysterical and alarmist conclusions, empirical evidence ignored, inaccurate data quoted repeatedly, with, of course, the costs to the taxpayer exaggerated. Only recently, the leaders of ten NHS organisations called for a "more measured view of how the NHS performing, only for the next day`s news to be dominated by yet more criticism by the "former GP" and "senior conservative" Liam Fox, whose claims like "detriment to the patients" and "huge amounts of waste" seized the headlines. Remember Tory annoyance with the opening ceremony of the Olympics? The NHS is a main target for privatisation, with the process already started, and the overall aim being further reduction in the size and role of the state, and a mouth-watering pre-election promise of tax reductions to gullible voters.

    The people`s love for, and reliance on, the NHS demands it be supported. Let`s hear that support now, and not just from Andy Burnham; the Labour party needs to shout it from the rooftops, before the Tory and Ukip propaganda machines spread even more bile in the build-up to the European elections. As Myerson says, our experiences of NHS care ought to be "known about, appreciated and even celebrated", and now is clearly the time to do it!

 

 

Labour and RBS

 Good to read that the eminent economist, Ha-Joon Chang, is suggesting 81% taxpayer-owned RBS, and 33% state -owned Lloyds, should be told to "direct more lending to small businesses", but I was disappointed not to see in his article any mention of the idea of putting "ethics before profits". This was one of the targets the CEO of Barclays set for his bank when he was appointed, long before the recent allegations regarding manipulation of monetary exchange rates. That does not mean, however, that it could not be a target for RBS,especially as governments can "tell RBS what to do". Chang tells us it may be years before new "challenger" banks emerge, so why not have a mostly-nationalised RBS becoming the "ethical" bank on the high street, attracting customers because it was acting in the best interests, not only of the customers, but of the country`s economy. With neither the need to maximise profits, nor the desire to avoid paying the proper level of corporation tax, its top priorities, RBS could offer better deals, as well as providing the necessary branches for regional banks, so admired by Labour leaders. Also, by attracting customers away from the established banks, it would force them to mend their ways, change their culture of greed, and to start employing people to run their businesses and investments with decent values and principles, rather than with appetites for obscene wealth. Who knows, it could even affect the way the large accountancy firms do their business? I noticed the ones involved in helping Chinese "top military and political leaders" squirrel away their vast amounts of cash in British owned tax havens, claimed their actions "complied with appropriate law and ethical codes"!

 

Politically, it is a good idea for Labour to pledge capping bankers` bonuses, but as Chang says, even if they were either legislated out of existence, or so heavily taxed as to become relatively worthless, their removal would not change the banking culture and prevent the scams, like mis-selling, interest fixing and money-laundering.; a nationalised RBS, being told what to do, might! 

 

Private schools hinder social mobilty

 It is clear education is going to play a prominent role in the election strategies of the main parties over the next sixteen months, but sadly, with a privately educated spokesperson for education at the helm for Labour, there may well be little to distinguish between them. Hunt has already run the risk of losing the support of teachers in the state sector by foolishly advocating the adoption both of Performance Related Pay, and of a licensing system which suggests his opinion of teachers is too Gove-like for comfort.

       The message from the private sector, via Seldon`s report for the Social Market Foundation, is that social mobility can somehow be enhanced by "affluent parents at popular state schools" being charged "fees of up to £20,000". They already pay taxes, don`t they, whilst the rich who send their children to private schools pay no VAT on the fees!

       More money spent on schools, however, is an obvious solution, but it has to go to all schools, with more pay for classroom teachers urgently needed, and more graduates encouraged to join the profession and teach in state schools. One thing is certain: that money has to be raised by making the tax system fairer, with the well-off, the rich and the obscenely rich being forced to pay more.

      The private sector has nothing to teach the state sector, as recent examination results have proved. Of course, when state schools` results approach those of private schools, the establishment, in the form of a Tory government, takes action, and the rules for assessment get changed, as we saw last year. 

     State education, like the NHS, has to be protected and supported, and it is the duty of a future Labour government to do so. 

Inequality in UK a disgrace!

The news that Britain "now ranks 28th out of 34 countries in the equality league table" is appalling, and something which should become a major election issue in the next sixteen months. Cameron, Osborne and Clegg may have suddenly become very concerned for the low-paid, but it is clearly Labour`s responsibility to propose some major redistribution of the country`s wealth, and it could make a start by restoring some of the trade unions` lost power; promising legislation to ensure workers` representation at boardroom level would at least restore an element of collective bargaining. If it was sensible for West Germany to adopt this policy of co-determination in the early 1950s, it`s surely about time Britain did, in the 21st century!

      Pledges on minimum wage levels might be sufficient for the Tories, but the inevitable response from employers, anxious to maintain profit levels, will be more part-time and zero-hours contracts, and, no doubt, a greater determination to cheat the taxman. Unscrupulous and unregulated landlords will be eager to share in their tenants` pay rise by increasing rents, so Labour`s "joined-up" thinking on these issues is essential. Similarly, promises to increase taxation need not be shirked, as long as they are based on a return to fairness; even in Thatcher`s day, top levels of income tax were 60%, and there are few arguments, economic or ethical, against the present need for top rates to be higher. Fear of losing the support of the "squeezed middle" should not be a problem, as those around average incomes or below pay enough taxes already. Rich, who enjoy the benefits of the country`s taxpayer- funded health, transport and security systems, but who avoid paying their fair share should lose all honours and representative positions.

     Ally a progressive tax policy to a determination to root out avoidance and punish evaders with imprisonment, and not only would Labour start making headway on the road to less inequality, it might even win the election!

 

State schools,like the NHS, need Labour`s support

John Harris`s article could not have come at a more appropriate time, as it is clear education is going to play a prominent role in the election strategies of the main parties over the next sixteen months.(What exactly can private schools teach the state sector?20/01/14) Sadly, however, with a privately educated spokesperson for education at the helm for Labour, there may well be little to distinguish between them; Hunt has already run the risk of losing the support of teachers in the state sector by foolishly advocating the adoption both of Performance Related Pay, and of a licensing system which suggests his opinion of teachers is too Gove-like for comfort.

       The message from the private sector, via Seldon`s report for the Social Market Foundation, is that social mobility can somehow be enhanced by "affluent parents at popular state schools" being charged "fees of up to £20,000". Presumably this money would be spent by the schools reducing class sizes and hiring more qualified teachers, thereby increasing the gap between themselves and the less "popular" schools? Decreasing the education opportunites for the less well-off as a way to "enhance social mobility" is a new one on me!

       More money spent on schools, however, is an obvious solution, but it has to go to all schools, with more pay for classroom teachers urgently needed, and more graduates encouraged to join the profession and teach in state schools. One thing is certain: that money has to be raised by making the tax system fairer, with the well-off, the rich and the obscenely rich being forced to pay more.

      In answer to Harris`s question, the private sector can teach nothing to the state sector, as recent examination results have proved. Of course, when state schools` results approach those of private schools, the establishment, in the form of a Tory government, takes action, and the rules for assessment get changed, as we saw last year. State education, like the NHS, has to be protected and supported, and it is the duty of a future Labour government to do so. 

 

Labour needs to help private tenants

The news that a large proportion of the council houses bought under Thatcher`s Right to Buy scheme are now owned by the Buy to Rent brigade, and the fact that the same sort of people were the ones who took most advantage of the coalition`s Help to Buy scheme, make it very important for Labour to develop decisive policies in this area. People on benefits being refused rental accommodation, housing benefits going straight into the pockets of profiteering landlords, and rent increases way above inflation all make it absolutely essential for Labour to act, especially as they need to regain lost support in view of a possible resurgence of Tory fortunes before the election. A register of all landlords is totally insufficient!

   Four  ideas for starters:

a) As private rents are universally acknowledged to be too high, the imposition of a rent cap does not go far enough. First requirement is that all rents be returned to 2010, possibly earlier, levels, and then capped at,say,10% above the social rent levels in the area.

b) No houses on the market, either renovated or just built, to be sold to anyone not prepared to make it home for themselves or children; in other words, not for renting out to tenants.

c) All monies gained by landlords from rents higher than 10% above social rent levels to be taxed at 100%.

d) All local authorities to have a team of property inspectors to check all housing being privately rented.

             If Labour cares about the cost of living crisis, about the recent revelation that Britain is now 28th out of 34 in the equality league table, and about restoring an element of fairness into our society, then it must give serious consideration to these ideas.

Why would anyone vote Lib Dem?

    The Independent is absolutely right to criticise Clegg for his "lamentable" handling of the complaints against Lord Rennard,  but it does beg the question: why has it taken so long?  Cameron and Osborne frequently resort to U-turns, as we see this week over the minimum wage, when they know they face a real possibility of election defeat,but they can`t hold a candle to Clegg in his efforts to stave off electoral humiliation. Not content in digging a hole for himself with his attempts, last month, to defend the honour of politicians in the wake of criticism from Paxman, he then had  the temerity to front the coalition`s attack on Boris Johnson for his "greed is good" speech, Cameron`s patsy to the last. He attacked Johnson for suggesting "we should give up on a whole swath of fellow citizens", without seeming to realise that is exactly what he and his coalition colleagues did by giving their support to Gove`s examination changes, which in the long term will lead to a two-tier system of education! It`s hard to believe the Deputy Prime Minister seems unaware of the hurt his government`s austerity policies have caused, but this is the same man who, after three years of being in  government, declared it was time to "hardwire fairness" into policies! He continues to talk as if the inequality this government has increased and encouraged has nothing to do with him; supporting the living wage is all very well but has he instigated any policy to make it compulsory, and why not two years ago? "Greed", he says, "brought a banking collapse and misery and hardship", yet for three and a half years he`s joined in with the Tory propaganda blaming the Labour government`s spending and borrowing for causing the problems. 

     Now, we have him passing the buck, lacking not only principles, but leadership too! How anyone could even think of voting for his party, with him at the helm, is amazing; how Labour could be thinking of a coalition with him, fifteen months before the election, is beyond understanding! 

More joined-up thinking needed

With the domestic news increasingly dominated by the "cost of living" debate, it`s disappointing to see that both current solutions, albeit, in the right direction, appear to have involved so little joined-up thinking. 

      Even if the size of the mainstream banks was successfully capped, would the  new so-called "challenger" banks offer higher rates of interest for savers, or cheaper loans to SMEs; privately owned banks have one aim, and one aim only, to maximise profits for shareholders, and it doesn`t matter whether they are achieved by avoiding tax or mis-selling to the public! Does anyone really believe Richard Branson has set up Virgin Money so that customers can get a fairer deal, or that Tesco`s bank doesn`t aim to make as much money as possible? Will new banks change the culture of banking so that "ethics come before profits", as the CEO of Barclays laughingly said, back in February,2012, before his bank started interfering with monetary exchange rates?  

        A far better response from Labour would be to pledge to increase the bank levy, to impose a massive bonus tax, and to propose RBS be transformed into a proper nationalised bank, in which people can actually trust. This would have the additional electoral benefit for Labour of dissociating itself from the City, and would make the necessary statement that Labour is fundamentally different from the Tories. It would also not only provide a real "competitor" bank the high street needs,but also the branches where regional banks, so admired by Labour leaders, could do business. By attracting customers away from the established banks, it would force them to mend their ways, change their culture of greed, and to start employing people to run their businesses and investments with decent values and principles, rather than with appetites for obscene wealth.

Opposition to the sale of any fraction of RBS should begin immediately; failure to do so will inevitably lead to a similar fiasco as the one witnessed recently over the under-selling of Royal Mail and a £2bn loss to the taxpayer. 

     Even the other proposal, the idea of raising the minimum wage to £7 an hour, is insufficient on its own; rent and price rises will inevitably follow, more employees will see their work become part-time, or be placed on zero-hours contracts, and companies` determination to maintain profit margins will ensure they seek more ways of avoiding tax. The Tories probably realise this, hence their suggestion, but whether Labour have is more debateable. Miliband is wise to focus on cashing in on the public`s outrage, but he needs to remind voters, too, that taxes will have to rise, but also that tax is the price most people willingly pay for a civilised society; if the rich have to pay their fair share, so be it! 

 

 

UK`s defence policy is shameful

Good news at last! Apparently, the UK is no longer in a position to be a "full-spectrum defence partner of the United States". Presumably the country will be dragged no more into pointless and unwinnable wars which exist entirely to satisfy the needs of the American defence industry, and those of popularity-seeking presidents? Does anyone in this country, apart from our own defence lobby and diehard Tories, really want to spend such a large proportion of taxpayers` money on remaining "a first class player in defence", when the cash could be spent on improving health, education and welfare provision? 

      The right questions are clearly not being asked, especially about the necessity for the Trident nuclear weapons programme, and the possibilty of sharing defence responsibilities with our EU neighbours; where is the enemy upon which we wish to deliver devastation ten times worse than dropped on Hiroshima? Is it not likely to be an enemy of America against whom the US would order such destruction? One would at least expect a Labour leader, desperate to show how different his party is from the others, to be putting forward views suited to the requirements of the 21st century rather than those of the 1950s. However, the one important question is whether we should have "the fourth largest defence budget in the world", when living standards are falling, and foodbanks multiplying? Cameron might like to boast about it, but at a time when disability benefits are being cut, and care for the elderly is reaching crisis proportions, I personally find it shameful.

    In pre-Iraq days, Labour used to aspire to an ethical foreign policy, and although Blair ruined the idea, it should not be off the drawing board still. If the country wasn`t wasting billions on unnecessary weapons and wars in efforts to stay on the top-table of global players, it might be able to act more effectively in helping Syrian refugees, and set a moral example for others to follow. A pledge to ban the use of drone attacks would not go amiss.The days of being America`s poodle should have long gone, and with the Tories being as intransigent as ever, a window is clearly opening for Labour. Sadly, I`m not holding my breath. 

  

Outrage about banks (longer version)

So Labour`s plan to "undertake long-term structural reforms", to show they can be trusted with the economy, involve a "cap of some sort" on the size of banks, and "introduce greater banking competition".Brilliant! After months of discussion and planning , the new policy Labour has devised for the economy is the same as the "increasing competition on the high street" one adopted by the Tories! As if the new so-called "challenger" banks would offer higher rates of interest for savers, or cheaper loans; privately owned banks have one aim, and one aim only, to maximise profits for shareholders, and it doesn`t matter whether they are achieved by avoiding tax or screwing the customer! Does anyone really believe Richard Branson has set up Virgin Money banks so that customers can get a fair deal? Will new banks change the culture of banking so that "ethics come before profits", as the CEO of Barclays laughingly said, back in February,2012, before his bank started interfering with exchange rates?

       Labour strategists still don`t appear to get it, unlike the majority of the rest of the country, who are keen to make the financial sector pay for the economic problems caused by the 2008 crash.This is the one aspect of populism which Labour should support, and leave the others, immigration caps and welfare cuts, to the right-wing parties.

         Do Labour leaders think the electorate is ignorant of the £375bn of quantitative easing given to the banks, of the fact that this money was not loaned to businesses to kickstart the economy, ignorant too of all the scams, from mis-selling PPI and laundering Mexican drug money to fixing interest rates and manipulating exchange rates, of the huge profits banks make and the huge bonuses paid for "socially useless" work, and for increasing their "efficiency" by sacking staff and paying counter staff little? A far better response from Labour would be to pledge to increase the bank levy, to impose a massive bonus tax, and to propose RBS be transformed into a proper nationalised bank, in which people can actually trust; profit would not be the sole motive, but any excess profits could be earmarked for spending on the NHS, for example. This would have the additional electoral benefit for Labour of dissociating itself from the City, and would make the necessary statement that Labour is fundamentally different from the Tories. It would even not only provide a real "competitor" bank the high street needs,but also the regional banks so admired by Labour leaders. Also, by attracting customers away from the established banks, it would force them to mend their ways and to start employing people to run their businesses and investments with decent values and principles, rather than with appetites for obscene wealth.

Opposition to the sale of any fraction of RBS should begin immediately; failure to do so will inevitably lead to a similar fiasco as the one witnessed recently over the under-selling of Royal Mail and a £2bn loss to the taxpayer.       

       Labour should be cashing in on the public`s outrage, and pledging policies which benefit society as a whole, not just the top 2%. It needs to remind voters that "tax is the price paid for civilisation", and that if the rich have to pay their fair share, so be it!

 

 

"Outrage" needed about banks too (letter)

So Labour`s plan to "undertake long-term structural reforms", to show they can be trusted with the economy, involve a "cap of some sort" on the size of banks, and "introduce greater banking competition". Brilliant! After months of discussion and planning , the new policy Labour has devised for the economy is the same as the "increasing competition on the high street" one adopted by the Tories! Labour strategists still don`t appear to get it, unlike the majority of the rest of the country, who are keen to make the financial sector pay for the economic problems caused by the 2008 crash.This is the one aspect of populism which Labour should support, and leave the others, immigration caps and welfare cuts, to the right-wing parties.

     Do Labour leaders think the electorate is ignorant of the £375bn of quantitative easing given to the banks, of the fact that this money was not loaned to businesses to kickstart the economy, ignorant too of all the scams, from mis-selling PPI and laundering Mexican drug money to fixing interest rates and manipulating exchange rates, of the huge profits banks make and the huge bonuses paid for "socially useless" work, and for increasing their "efficiency" by sacking staff and paying counter staff little? A far better response from Labour would be to pledge to increase the bank levy, to impose a massive bonus tax, and to propose RBS be transformed into a proper nationalised bank, in which people can actually trust; profit would not be the sole motive, but any excess profits could be earmarked for spending on the NHS, for example. This would have the additional electoral benefit for Labour of dissociating itself from the City, and would make the necessary statement that Labour is fundamentally different from the Tories. It would even provide the "competitor" bank the high street needs, and by attracting customers away from the established banks, force them to mend their ways and to start employing people to run their businesses and investments with decent values and principles, rather than with appetites for obscene wealth.

    As Martin Kettle tells us, the economy may not be the deciding factor in the next election anyway, but "fairness" could well be.All the more reason, then, for Labour to share Toynbee`s "outrage", to pledge policies which benefit society as a whole, not just the top 2%. Labour needs to remind voters that "tax is the price paid for civilisation", and that if the rich have to pay their fair share, so be it!

Labour`s cowardice inexcusable

I`m not holding my breath, but a penny might possibly drop, and Labour leaders might actually grasp the fact that when some passion and anger were shown by them, over the greed of the energy companies, their ratings in the polls rose. The opposite is now the case, because, as Polly Toynbee rightly says,they appear to have lost their "outrage". Instead of passionate speeches and articles denouncing the despicable state of affairs in housing and renting, supporting the much maligned NHS, promising to redress the unfairness in our taxation system, attacking Gove`s attempts to destroy comprehensive education and Cameron`s UKIP-like policies on immigration, and defending the weakest and poorest in our society, what do we get? An article in the Telegraph which "makes a pitch for soft Tory voters", and carefully avoids placing too much blame on Cameron, and an interview in the New Statesman which opens the door for a coalition with the duplicitous Clegg, sixteen months before the election! Such cowardice is inexcusable, and will see the inevitable fall in the polls.

 The assumption appears to be that nothing must be written or said which might offend the "suppering classes" in the marginal seats, as though none of them dislikes the fraudulent bahaviour of the financial institutions, tax reductions for the super rich, inflated house prices and rents which prevent their children ever affording decent housing, not to mention the dismantling of the NHS. Principles, as we have seen all too often in recent years, clearly are not deemed important when there are votes to be won, but just because Cameron breaks promises galore, and Clegg suddenly, after four years in office, thinks fairness important, does not mean Labour should be similarly lacking in decency.Sadly, however, Miliband`s promise of a party different from the others seems as distant as ever. 

 

Praise for NHS but not from Tory press

Although not the main focus of her article, Julie Myerson`s mention of the "extraordinary kindness, intelligence and sensitivity" shown by the NHS staff when dealing with death and bereavement, is not something widely portrayed by today`s media. My family, too, were overwhelmed by the wonderful care and consideration shown by the carers and end-of life team in the final days of my 96 year old mother-in law last year; nothing was too much trouble,and everything was done in a way to ensure her "final moments" at home were "peaceful", and her passing was "as good as" we could "imagine a 21st century death to be".

 Other readers will, no doubt, have had similar experience, but that is not the impression of the NHS which most of the press and media are keen to give. The truth is, as we have seen over many years, that Tory propaganda concentrates on constant fault-finding in the state-owned institutions like the NHS  to justify their privatisation, with the so-called failings often the inevitable result of job and financial cuts made by the government itself! Individual examples of failure are highlighted to give misleading impressions of the institution generally; huge media coverage follows, with the BBC often at the helm, leading to hysterical and alarmist conclusions, empirical evidence ignored, inaccurate data quoted repeatedly, with, of course, the costs to the taxpayer exaggerated. Only recently, the leaders of ten NHS organisations called for a "more measured view of how the NHS performing, only for the next day`s news to be dominated by yet more criticism by the "former GP" and "senior conservative" Liam Fox, whose claims like "detriment to the patients" and "huge amounts of waste" seized the headlines. Remember Tory annoyance with the opening ceremony of the Olympics? The NHS is a main target for privatisation, with the process already started, and the overall aim being further reduction in the size and role of the state, and a mouth-watering pre-election promise of tax reductions to gullible voters.

    The people`s love for, and reliance on, the NHS demands it be supported. Let`s hear that support now, and not just from Andy Burnham; the Labour party needs to shout it from the rooftops, before the Tory and Ukip propaganda machines spread even more bile in the build-up to the European elections. As Myerson says, our experiences of NHS care ought to be "known about, appreciated and even celebrated", and now is clearly the time to do it!

Licensing teachers: nonsense!

Even Michael Gove eventually rejected the idea of licensing teachers on the grounds that it would add to an already overburdensome administrative system in schools. Only a privately educated Labour spokesperson for education could succeed in providing teachers with one reason for agreeing with the worst Education Secretary in modern times!

     Presumably Hunt has accepted hook, line and sinker  the coalition propaganda about state education, promulgated yet again in another TV series, which clearly is set to ignore the best aspects of comprehensive schooling, and to focus instead on trainee teachers` failure to discipline effectively challenging behaviour? Exciting television viewing, perhaps, but hardly a reliable enough source of evidence for a trained historian?

    Hunt clearly still has not grasped the fact that this Tory-led government has an ideological agenda, aimed at a two-tiered sytem of education, whilst privatising as much as possible. State schools are now providing such a good education, Gove had to change the examination system to reduce the amount of success achieved. Schools are full of enthusiastic, "motivated" and extremely hard working teachers,who are "passionate about their subjects"; well-prepared lessons,which inspire and challenge  the most hard working set of schoolchildren the country has ever had, abound, with more lessons observed, teachers appraised and learning assessed than ever before, not to mention the role played by Ofsted. Hunt has already gone on record in supporting Performance Related Pay for teachers, a system that all teachers see as totally unfair and impractical, and now he is proposing this licensing scheme! Does he not visit state schools, talk to teachers, parents and pupils, and have meetings with union leaders? Teachers have been driven to distraction, even resorting to strike action, by non-stop criticism and attacks from Gove for nearly four years, and now this; teachers and students deserve better. It makes one wonder whether Labour actually wants to win the election!

 

Letter to Guardian re Lab/LibDem pact

Your editorial rightly praises two Lib Dems for proposing, albeit belatedly, a "motion on digital rights" to their party`s spring conference, but excuses to commend the party, generally, are clearly few and far between. (Digital drumbeat,10/01/14) This makes the news that Labour is contemplating a possible post-election pact with them all the more alarming; Steve Bell`s portrayal of Clegg as a used condom accurately sums up the present situation, and suggests Boris Johnson has more political awareness than Balls! 

   Have Miliband and Balls forgotten the role the Lib Dems have played in supporting the Tories in their quest to impose poverty on the majority of the people, and shrink the state back to levels last seen in 1948? Just because they suddenly have discovered sympathy for the low-paid, and are currently vying with  the Tories over minimum wage proposals, does not mean Labour should be seeing them as potential allies. Would not a Lab/Lib Dem coalition spend most of its time undoing the work of the previous government, repealing laws which only entered the Statute book because of Lib Dem votes? If that isn`t the focus of a future Labour government, there can be no reason for voting for them! How can they possibly forget Lib Dem duplicity, from student fees to their total acceptance of Tory propaganda, particularly the abuse poured on Labour for apparently causing the 2008 crash, a point made most vociferously by Clegg when stepping in for Cameron at PMQs recently?

    The truth appears to be that, with their policies showing more signs of a cautious,Disraelian approach than an aggressive one, with more than a hint of Attleeism, Labour leaders are again pandering to the middle ground. This does nothing to set them apart from the other parties, does nothing to divorce themselves from the influence of the City, and nothing to regain votes they have undoubtedly lost to Ukip.The increase in support Labour received after the energy price freeze announcement, which of course, the Lib Dems criticised, seems to have taught them nothing about the desire in the country for boldness; talk of a coalition with the Lib Dems, sixteen months away from the election, is sheer cowardice.

TV`s sensationalist programmes tow the government line

Owen Jones`s criticism of Channel 4`s "miserable programme", Benefits Street, and of programmes of a similar nature, which use "unsympathetic examples" and where poor people are portrayed "in the worst possible light", was spot-on.(Independent,08/01/14) Sadly, such "sensationalist programmes" are not confined to focussing on the unemployed and low-paid; there are others which "airbrush out the reality", especially when it comes to education in the state sector.

   The coalition government since 2010, aided by the right wing press, has been constantly criticising state schools, with the clear aim of creating its own justification for, not only the reform of the examination system, but the creation, in the long term, of a two-tiered system, and a return of grammar schools. Hence, TV programmes which tow the populist line are commissioned, and we have a preponderance of documentaries about comprehensive schools, like "Educating Yorkshire" and now the recent "Tough Young Teachers" on BBC3, which not only highlight the worst aspects of school life, but ignore the best. Do cameras ever linger on the classes where behaviour is impeccable, where all homework has been handed in, and where the focus is on learning? No, of course not, but that is the reality of what happens in most lessons! Instead, we watch disruptive behaviour, low sets failing to grasp basic mathematical concepts, and pupils, previously excluded from other schools, causing problems for teachers. The government propaganda is therefore reinforced, the misleading message underlined. The truth, that education in state schools has never been better, teaching quality, because of detailed preparation of lessons and the enthusiasm and determination of the teachers, is of the highest order, which even Ofsted is forced to admit, and that a huge majority of lessons are orderly, with pupils respectful and on-task, is ignored.

Owen is right; rejecting the truth "has been encouraged by our political leaders", but that does not mean television should pander to their wishes. It`s time to concentrate on reality!

 

 

Too much Disraeli,not enough Attlee!

When Miliband first embraced the principles of a 19th century Tory prime minister, the public reaction was not the expected one of dismay; after all, Disraeli had witnessed the evils of a two nation society, divided into "haves" and "have-nots", and taken action. When the opposition leader allied his creation of "One Nation" Labour with attacks on predatory capitalism, the centre-left awaited policy details with cautious optimism, which was seemingly justified with the energy price freeze proposals.

     However, the news that another Disraelian principle has been adopted is more alarming.Soon after giving companies and bosses the option to pay a living wage to employees, with some tax relief the reward, rather than the pledge of legislation  to enforce it, came the proposal to give local councils permission to deal with the increased numbers of FOBTs as they see fit, when it was the same councils who allowed the betting shops to dominate many high streets in the first place. This is nothing less than the "permissiveness" which prevented Disraeli`s government of 1874-80 from providing anything other than "window-dressing", rather than pragmatic reform. It`s true that a small percentage of local councils, like Birmingham`s with its slum clearance, took positive action, but most, given the choice not to rock any capitalist boats, didn`t, and Disraeli lost the 1880 election; it was left to the 20th century Liberal government to make a significant difference, with a fledgling welfare state.

    This is not what most people either want or expect from a future Labour government, and neither is cosying up to Clegg and his cronies; what next, grant multinationals the right to donate taxes,like the coalition apparently does, or allow banking regulators to continue fining banks pittance, as totally ineffective punishment, for their scams and interest rate fixing? Policies designed to offend no-one might come under a "One Nation" umbrella but, as many opinion polls indicate, will not satisfy the majority of the electorate, so if the aim is not a majority Labour government in 2015, it needs to be declared as such.

    Our corrupt and unfair society is ripe for change, but it needs an opposition party with bottle, willing to adopt aggressive policies to change the banking culture and a taxation system which benefits the rich. The "new approach" at PMQs might have "worked well for Miliband", but if he`s got so little to propose, what is the point of being able to hear it better? A little less of the feebleness of  Disraeli, and rather more of the boldness of Attlee, is required!

 

Election and minimum wage

The race is clearly on: which of the two "champions of low-paid workers", the Tories or Lib Dems, will succeed, with their support for increasing the minimum wage, in winning the votes of the working people?  A general election is not on the horizon, by any chance? What idiots do they take voters for, after spending four years in power enforcing poverty on the majority, whilst enriching City friends? Remember how Clegg, after 30 months of delivering austerity to the country, said in 2012 that it was then time to "hardwire fairness" into government policies? Amazing what thoughts of Ukip success in the Euro elections, and a Labour victory in 2015, can do, especially when leadership changes will be in the offing! When the CBI chief sees the need for improvement in workers` pay, an election bandwagon suddenly presents itself. Suddenly, they care!

       Labour certainly needs to be more pro-active in this area, what many observers might consider their own territory. With both Tories and Lib Dems obviously struggling to retain their traditional voters, with political principles in the run-up to a general election mattering even less than usual, and with Clegg already facing what appears to many as a leadership challenge from Cable, Labour must pledge immediately a substantial increase in the minimum wage, up to at least living wage levels, and inflation-index linked, thereby "stealing the thunder" of Osborne`s March budget and the LibDems` so-called "fairness agenda", and setting out its stall as the party of the people, not the City.

        One question would still remain, however: is the raising the minimum wage, even to living wage levels, whilst obviously being a start in the improvement of the standard of living of many, sufficient on its own? Will it not, for example,merely lead to employers taking on more part-time staff on zero-hours contracts, large companies like supermarkets and online suppliers not only raising  prices but becoming more determined to find loopholes in tax legislation, and will not exploititative landlords be more inclined to raise rents further, in the knowledge that their tenants` income has risen?

    Hopefully, Jon Cruddas`s committees have been doing some joined-up thinking on these issues, so some sharing of their conclusions with the electorate, from the Labour leadership, would be welcome.

 

Gove`s "history" should not be taken seriously

The obvious fact is that the Education Secretary, who denounces historians, because they disagree with his naive ideas on the first world war, for "denigrating patriotism" and "supporting left-wing myths", is being taken too seriously; Gove is merely an arrogant politician, intent on imposing his ideology on the centenary commemorations, totally unqualified to debate history with academics. 

   How dare he have the impudence to challenge the views of historians, many of whom having devoted much of their lives to studying and teaching 20th century history,when he lacks not only qualifications in the subject, but as well as detailed knowledge, a basic understanding of how history works? Presumably his 2.1 degree in English did not provide him with the skills necessary to dispute the works of expert historians? The basic point which he clearly does not understand is that history is a matter of interpretation, and that historians can be experts in their field of study, yet reach different conclusions, and the first world war is no exception.There are many differing views on the causes of the war, but that does not mean all are wrong, bar one, which appears to be Gove`s view, or that those who support the varied viewpoints are upholding "left-wing myths". A traditional view may have to give way eventually, when revisionist historians` views take precedence, often after new research has been undertaken, or when new evidence has been unearthed, but that is not the case with WWI, and anyway, it does not mean that the earlier interpretation should be binned, and certainly not rubbished, in typical Gove-like fashion. The recent judgements, supported by Gove, on the role played by General Haig, for instance, are by no means watertight, as there is plenty of evidence supporting alternative conclusions.

     The rigour now in A-level history is such that Gove would fail to get a top grade in the subject, as his "coursework" in the Mail recently revealed important skills to be lacking; substantiating statements with factual evidence, evaluation of a wide range of sources, and showing explicit understanding of relevant issues all were missing. A-level students working on the option I have been involved with recently, have to show "clear and consistent understanding of the nature of historical debate" and the ability to "assess the relative merits of differing interpretations" with a "convincing,well supported judgement" (Mark Scheme for HIS4X,AQA); I know of many students who have achieved this top level, but sadly, our Secretary of State for Education does not even come close

Letter to Guardian on NHS

Whilst there is probably little doubt that "people with long-term medical conditions" are causing immense problems for the NHS, one has to question both whether their number will "overwhelm" it, and the wisdom of using the exact word spoken by Dr Martin McShane in your headline (Soaring cost of long-term care threatens to "overwhelm" NHS, 04/01/14) Of course, you want to stress the urgency of the situation, and are right to do so, but is it not also important to discuss problems facing the NHS in a measured and considered way, without alarmist headlines, leading to knee-jerk reactions, such as ones Paddy Ashdown has clearly witnessed? (Mood in Britain is frightening,04/01/14) The Tories and their Lib Dem puppets have already started their dismantling of the NHS, and will be looking to exploit such problems to further its aim of privatisation.With the coalition`s "economy with the truth" now reaching legendary status, it has become almost impossible to determine the difference between reality and propaganda,and we already know how this government proceeds with its privatisation programme, concentrating first on constant fault-finding of the state-owned institution for "justification", with the so-called failings often the inevitable result of job and financial cuts made by the government itself! Individual examples of failure are highlighted to give misleading impressions of the institution generally; huge media coverage follows, with the Mail, Express and even the BBC at the helm, leading to hysterical and alarmist conclusions; empirical evidence is ignored, and inaccurate data quoted repeatedly, with, of course, the costs to the taxpayer exaggerated. Remember Tory annoyance with the opening ceremony of the Olympics? The NHS is a main target for privatisation, with the overall aim being further reduction in the size and role of the state, and a mouth-watering pre-election promise of tax reductions to gullible Tory voters.

    This is not to deny the existence of problems within the NHS, but they are both inevitable given the longevity of "geriboomers" and the action of an unsympathetic government, and solvable, with public and future government support. Labour needs to step up its support now and not just from Andy Burnham; the whole party needs to shout it from the rooftops, before the Tory and Ukip propaganda machines spread even more bile in the build-up to the European elections. The country does not want the NHS privatised, as there is so much evidence, from railways to energy, that privatisation simply leads to the desire for profits taking precedence, to so-called "efficiency" leading to job cuts, and to needs of shareholders having priority over consumers.It would mean the end of the NHS as we know it!

 

 

Labour and infrastructure

 

How ridiculous is it, as Patrick Collinson rightly says, that out of an infrastructure budget proposal of £100bn this government proposes to spend a mere £3.5bn on housing over the next four years? One can only hope that the election prevents such a situation reaching fruition, but also that Labour comes to its senses and sees that spending over £50bn on reducing train times for a few businessmen, or something like £100bn on a new runway in London, when Gatwick is under-used, is simply wasteful. It`s not just in London, where exhorbitant rents are being pocketed by greedy landlords, and where these "high rents are subsidised by housing benefit", and Labour would be ignoring an electoral boost if it were not to pledge "a cap on rent". Such a cap will be made even more indispensable, should a similar promise be made regarding the living wage, for landlords will be anxious to reap this new harvest! Thousands of newly built or newly re-vamped houses need to be built, mostly for councils to rent out; affordable houses to be sold should only be available to buyers willing to sign a no-rental contract! Councils could send details of their housing plans to a new Housing Ministry, which would decide on funding distribution. Railway and airport development could still take place, but with the emphasis on improvement rather than expansion.

    The late18th, early 19th century scheme for public money used to help the low paid which Collinson mentions, the Speenhamland System, not only provoked agricultural riots in 1816 and 1830 in the areas where it was most entrenched, its cost also persuaded the government to pass the infamous Poor Law Amendment Act in 1834, which brought with it the workhouses.The results of its 21st century equivalent need not be so disastrous, but action is needed urgently, and would be electorally popular; how many voters want their taxes subsidising the wages paid by their vastly profitable, local supermarket, or subsidising the rents paid to wealthy landlords?

 

More on NHS

Whilst one has every sympathy with the over-worked midwife who could not cope with "working regular 13 hour shifts", it is clear where the blame lies. The Royal College of Midwives is right to condemn the government "for failing to act on warnings" that more midwives are needed, but such failure by the coalition is beginning to look deliberate.The Tories and their Lib Dem puppets have already started their dismantling of the NHS, and will be looking to exploit such problems to further its aim of privatisation.With the coalition`s "economy with the truth" now reaching legendary status, it has become almost impossible to determine the difference between reality and propaganda,and we already know how this government proceeds with its privatisation programme, concentrating first on constant fault-finding of the state-owned institution for "justification", with the so-called failings, as is the case with midwifery, often the inevitable result of job and financial cuts made by the government itself! Individual examples of failure are highlighted to give misleading impressions of the NHS generally; huge media coverage follows, with the Mail, Express and even the BBC at the helm, leading to hysterical and alarmist conclusions; empirical evidence is ignored, and inaccurate data quoted repeatedly, with, of course, the costs to the taxpayer exaggerated. Remember Tory annoyance with the opening ceremony of the Olympics? The NHS is a main target for privatisation, with the overall aim being further reduction in the size and role of the state, and a mouth-watering pre-election promise of tax reductions to gullible Tory voters.

    This is not to deny the existence of problems within the NHS, but they are both inevitable, given the increased longevity of the population and the action of an unsympathetic government, and solvable, with public and future government support.

 

 

Gove and WWI

 We must all congratulate Sir Richard Evans for hitting back at Gove`s "ignorant attack" on "his analysis of the conflict".How dare Gove, with his schoolboy and ideologically-inspired view of World War One, insult an historian, knighted for the knowledge and understanding of 20th century history, revealed in his superbly crafted and diligently-researched works?

    Gove has also frequently complained that film and TV comedies like Blackadder have left the British public with little understanding of the war, as if teachers used them as an evidence-base for facts, rather than a source for whetting appetites, and increasing interest in the topic. His complaint couldn`t have anything to do with more government-inspired tampering with history, could it, nothing to do with our perception of the privately-educated, largely clueless, officers, the "donkeys", making mistakes, repeating failed tactics time and time again, and actually causing thousands of deaths? Why, it might even reflect badly on our present privately- educated politicians and officers, who seem as keen as ever to spend billions of taxpayers` money on preparation for future, needless wars!

 As Professor Sheffield says, it can be argued that "it was a war against aggression", but that does not mean, like nearly all wars, World War One could have been avoided, had the politicians in power not included amongst them people intent on increasing their own country`s economic power at the expense of that of their rivals.Isn`t that the basic reason for modern wars? The "just cause", as we know from the Iraq war, tends to be added as an afterthought, to persuade the populace.

 There can be little doubt, that after an elementary education consisting largely of the 3Rs and a smattering of nationalist history, which taught the inferiority of all other races, including that of the increasingly "barbaric" Germans, mainly as they had the audacity to be building a powerful navy at the time, the youth of Britain were conned into volunteering for war by a government promising to have them home for Christmas!

   21st century experience in Britain tells us how governments still use information and data, often inaccurate, to support their own agendas, and it was ever thus in 1914. Wars can be avoided when the people and their representatives know the facts, and are aware of the consequences; Asquith`s Liberal government knew both the likely duration of a war with Germany and her allies, and its basic format, trench warfare, leading to a war of attrition. Wouldn`t it be far more preferable for people to be given the facts about the first world war, rather than governments` sanitised and politicised versions?

Joined up thinking needed on living wage

The arguments for not only greater  punishments and larger fines for employers not paying the minimum wage, but for the minimum wage to be increased up to living wage levels, are coming thick and fast, and are welcome.When the CBI chief sees the need for improvement in workers` pay, the situation has to be serious, and leads inevitably to further points needing to be addressed.

     One is that Labour needs to be more pro-active in this area, what many observers might consider their own territory, as there is a danger that the other mainstream parties might upstage them. With both Tories and Lib Dems struggling to retain their traditional voters, and with political principles in the run-up to a general election mattering little, Labour must pledge a substantial increase in the minimum wage. It could even be on the cards for Clegg to do this, given his party`s sudden concern for workers` welfare, and demand for £100,000 fines for employers not paying it.Miliband needs to get in some populist announcements on the minimum wage, higher taxes for the rich, and positive action against the City`s tax avoiders and evaders, before campaigning for the European elections begin.

    The other point is that raising the minimum wage levels, whilst obviously being a start in the improvement of the standard of living of many, is not sufficient on its own. Will it not, for example, lead to employers taking on more part-time staff on zero-hours contracts, will large employers like supermarkets and online suppliers not become more determined to find loopholes in tax legislation, and will not exploititative landlords be more inclined to raise rents further, in the knowledge that their tenants ` income has risen? In view of the news about the massive pay hike for some university vice-chancellors, perhaps it`s time to consider a salary cap, or at least a three year freeze on all salaries over £100,000?

    Hopefully, Jon Cruddas`s committees have been doing some joined-up thinking on these issues, so some sharing of their conclusions with the electorate, from the Labour leadership, would be welcomed.

Labour and NHS

Isn`t it typical of this government that as soon as the leaders of ten NHS organisations complain that there is never a measured view of how the NHS is performing, Liam Fox, a "senior Conservative" and a "former GP", sticks his oar in with yet more criticism. "Health indicators lagging behind other countries", "detriment to the patients", and "huge amounts of waste" are just three of the usual criticisms he and fellow Tories have been using in interviews, articles and other media outlets since the 2010 election, and some even before. What this is, as we have seen over many years, is all part of the Tory propaganda which concentrates on constant fault-finding of the state-owned institution to justify its privatisation, with the so-called failings often the inevitable result of job and financial cuts made by the government itself! Individual examples of failure are highlighted to give misleading impressions of the institution generally; huge media coverage follows, with the BBC often at the helm, leading to hysterical and alarmist conclusions, empirical evidence ignored, inaccurate data quoted repeatedly, with, of course, the costs to the taxpayer exaggerated. Remember Tory annoyance with the opening ceremony of the Olympics? The NHS is a main target for privatisation, with the process already started, with the overall aim being further reduction in the size and role of the state, and a mouth-watering pre-election promise of tax reductions to gullible Tory voters.

    There are certain aspects of populism, such as immigration and welfare cuts, Labour would do well to steer clear of, but the maintenance of a state-owned health service is a different matter altogether. Just as the widespread abhorrence of the activities of the City institutions, with their mis-selling scams, interest fixing and tax avoiding schemes, can reap electoral rewards for Labour, providing it has the bottle to take decisive action, so the people`s love for the NHS demands it be supported. Let`s hear that support now, and not just from Andy Burnham; the whole party needs to shout it from the rooftops, before the Tory and Ukip propaganda machines spread even more bile in the build-up to the European elections. The country does not want the NHS privatised, as there is so much evidence, from railways to energy, that privatisation leads to the desire for profits taking precedence, to so-called "efficiency" leading to job cuts, and to needs of shareholders having priority over consumers.It would mean the end of the NHS as we know it!

 

 

Labour and the banks

Yet another example from Labour revealing its policies to be too similar to those of the Tories for comfort. When the banks pay billions less in tax than predicted by Osborne, Labour`s response is to argue that "its bank bonus tax would have been better at raising more money". They still don`t appear to get it, unlike the majority of the rest of the country, who are keen to make the financial sector pay for the economic problems caused by the 2008 crash.This is the one aspect of populism which Labour should support, and leave the others, immigration caps and welfare cuts, to the right-wing parties.

     Do Labour leaders think the electorate is ignorant of the £375bn of quantitative easing given to the banks, of the fact that this money was not loaned to businesses to kickstart the economy, ignorant too of all the scams, from mis-selling PPI and laundering Mexican drug money to fixing interest rates and manipulating exchange rates, of the huge profits banks make and the huge bonuses paid for "socially useless" work, and for increasing their "efficiency" by sacking staff and paying counter staff little? A far better response from Labour would be to pledge to increase the bank levy and to impose a massive bonus tax as well!

    As predicted, the EU`s cap on bonuses have led to a huge hike in many bankers` salaries, with, for example, senior staff at Goldman Sachs in London getting £2.7m in 2012, and those at JP Morgan a mere £2.0m As a result,  Labour should be considering an income tax rate of around 70%, similar to the one in France, on all earnings over £1m. As Polly Toynbee rightly says,Labour needs to remind voters that "tax is the price paid for civilisation", but that it does not necessarily have to be unfair. Letting banks and accounting firms off the hook definitely is, taxing the rich is not, and the sooner Miliband says so, the better!

 

2014 political scenarios

So, according to Steve Richards, "Cameron has not got as much to offer Clegg" in 2015 if there was a hung parliament after the election, as there was in 2010.(Independent, 31/12/13) Really? Okay, so there`s nothing like electoral reform or Lords reform, but so what? There is still the offer of deputy PM, and clearly, that will suffice, as Clegg has shown no determination whatsoever to cling on to liberal principles,reneging on student fees, social mobility, equality of opportunity, and fairness in taxation. His recent outbursts suggest little more than desperation, with the criticism of the Gladstone era coming to mind, "too little,too late".

   What Richards also fails to mention is that Cable is more likely to be in the Lib Dem driving seat, as Clegg`s failure to regain the confidence of voters is likely to be evident after the Euro elections. Also Cable has already started his leadership bid; not content with jibes like Tories "in a panic over immigration", he`s questioned the wisdom of selling off the state-owned blood plasma company, and commented on London "draining the life out of the rest of the country". Always more perceptive than Clegg, although that clearly does not take a lot, Cable looks like he`s putting himself forward as the man Labour might like to deal with, if necessary.

   A worse scenario, ignored in the article, is the one where the Euro elections not only see off Clegg, they place the Tories in third place behind Labour and Ukip, requiring Cameron to make a Tory-Ukip electoral pact, guaranteeing Ukip seats in Parliament. Labour also, is in danger of losing votes to Ukip, which makes it essential Miliband comes up quickly with some concrete ideas to win back disillusioned working class votes, and the way to do this should not include Tory-like "tough on" welfare and immigration proposals. Going on the attack in the one other area of populist politics available to Labour strategists is far preferable; by making the rich pay a fair share in a progressive tax system, by imposing strict regulation and punishment, where necessary, on the banks and other financial institutions, and by passing legislation to reduce the ridiculous "tax gap" of £35bn, Labour could improve its chances of outright victory in 2015. Even if it failed, it would still have its principles intact, which is more than can be said for the other parties!