Labour must not underestimate Ukip

Even accepting the fact that there will be the inevitable, embarrassing gaffes by Ukip delegates between now and the Euro elections, Farage`s prediction that his party has a good "chance of topping the national poll in those elections" needs to be taken seriously. Few will argue with his claim that the Lib Dems "could face a total wipeout", so with the Tories including so many Eurosceptics amongst their ranks, the real question is whether Miliband has done enough to prevent both disenchanted Labour voters and Lib Dem absconders from voting Ukip. Whilst not denying that some of his policies sound encouraging, there is little evidence to suggest that a future Labour government would provide enough  fundamental change to attract new support. Political commentators tell us how close to City corporations some of the Labour front-benchers are, whilst the coalition`s outrageous education reforms face little challenge from a privately educated spokesperson seemingly determined to out-gove Gove! Some of the most cruel innovations of the government, like the bedroom tax, seem thankfully destined for the proverbial dustbin, but the lack of passion and  anger emanating from the oppostion leadership intimates little other than piecemeal change. Nationalisation and tax increases, apart from the obvious one, are never mentioned, support for legitimate and worthy strikes is shunned, whilst Trident renewal, like payment for HS2, seems about to receive approval.

      A huge protest vote for Ukip is on the cards, with the inevitable admissions by the mainstream parties of it again being "a wake-up call". The sleepwalking Clegg will probably face a leadership challenge, and, possibly, so could Cameron, leaving Miliband embarrassingly having to introduce more radicalism into his policies. A far more sensible approach would be to do so now, before a Farage landslide on 22nd May, and before voting for Ukip becomes dangerously contagious.

     Whilst not wanting to be accused of alarmism, history insists that unpretentious leaders of right-wing parties, with populist and catch-all policies, must not be underestimated, especially after years of poverty, unemployment, deprivation, and political corruption. It does not require a vast imagination to draw some parallels with the German people`s feelings endemic at the end of Weimar Germany and those of the disenchanted in Britain today. Up Hitler`s sleeve was the racist card, and as long as Farage keeps playing his, and hides his private education and City background in the pack, and as long as the Labour leader refuses to ask himself the LBJ question (see previous blogs) a Ukip surge in the polls is probable, with worrying consequences.

 

Labour should promise to tax the rich

       According to a report in the Guardian, Mandelson has voiced his support for Balls`s economic plans, and is confident he will not "give the Tories the economic ammunition they want to base their election campaign on". We have already been informed that some on Labour`s front bench, including the shadow chancellor, are very close to the corporate sector in the City, and such approbation would suggest the rumours are true. Mandelson`s scaremongering , as in the Blairite years, is based on the fallacious idea that Labour will lose the election if they upset the rich! It`s like saying they must avoid annoying the Tories, in case Cameron goes red and calls Miliband "red Ed"!
      Labour must, apparently, not fall into the Tory trap of threatening a "tax bombshell", as if any idea of wealth distribution was the last thing the electorate wants. The Labour leadership will hopefully have learnt from the surge in support for them after the "energy freeze" announcement, and know that radical proposals which are aimed at protecting the consumer, and making the rich pay more, go down well amongst ordinary people who`ve had to endure the impact of austerity policies rather more than the well-off. Income tax increases are necessary if Britain`s 28th position in the equality league table is to improve, and there`s little reason why they should not be accompanied by a Tobin tax on financial transactions and a bank levy.
    Do the vast majority of voters object to the return of the 50% rate for earnings over £150K? Of course not, so why would they object to 45% being paid by those earning  over £100K, or 43% over 75K, not to mention 60% over £200K, 75% over £500K, and 90% over£1m? When the average earner takes home £25K or thereabouts, such temporary measures will attract electoral support because of their fairness.
   Closing loopholes, so tax avoidance becomes less of a problem, must be easier than the coalition`s half-hearted attempts would suggest, starting with tightening up laws, so it becomes illegal to devise, partake in, advertise, recommend, sell or make profit from, schemes which entail the correct amount of tax, according to the spirit of the law, being avoided.
 The opportunity for Labour politicians to form a government does not come often, so why "tinker" when a possible alternative is "transform"?
   

Labour, education, and the LBJ question

      If Miliband asked himself the British version of the LBJ Question - What the hell`s the point of being Labour Prime Minister? would his answer take a moderate tone, with the emphasis on "tinkering with" rather than "transforming" our society? If education is anything by which to judge, I fear the answer is obvious. 

      Opposition to Gove`s unnecessary assessment changes has been feeble, and the response from the new, privately-educated spokesperson to the structural education reforms is unlikely to raise staffroom morale. Neither, unfortunately, will Hunt`s support for Performance Related Pay, which, as the teachers` unions repeatedly insist, is unsuitable for schools; similarly,renewing teaching licences is not required, whilst support for the employment of qualified staff, albeit sensible, seems to be the only "carrot" labour has for state educationalists. Hunt is, as a result of the E-Act shambles, being more vocal about Ofsted needing to be "allowed to inspect the management of academy chains", but a more robust response is required to this chaos in the DfE`s schools policy. 

       When academy chains, or individual sponsors, are seen to be failing to supply adequate education in the schools for which they are responsible, those schools should be returned immediately to the auspices of the local authority, not left in limbo until an "alternative academy sponsor", with, at best, somewhat dubious motives, can be found.

     Isn`t the point of being Labour Prime Minister that he can use the power at his disposal to reverse the misguided policies of previous administrations, and to enact the principles which he and his party hold dear? It`s not good enough to rely on the support of teachers because it will remove Gove, especially, as it seems, Goveism will stay! 

    When told by advisers that he had to be cautious about civil rights, LBJ said, "What the hell`s the point of the presidency?", and proceeded to initiate legislation. He knew it was his chance! Miliband will soon have a similar one.

Need for Fair Pay Commission and maximum pay cap

Recent news relating to renumeration and pay suggest changes are urgently needed. Apparently, the low pay commission is to meet later this year with a view to reviewing the minimum wage. Clearly this review is long overdue; even right-wing coalition politicians like Osborne and Clegg have been arguing for a rise in the minimum wage, admittedly with the election in mind, but also because of popular necessity. The rise, when announced, will undoubtedly be insufficient, as scaremongering about job losses from the likes of the CBI will hold sway. The living wage will still be beyond the reach of millions of workers.

      The truth is that the low pay commission is an anachronism, and what is needed instead is a Fair Pay Commission, which, as the name suggests, can concern itself with the other pressing pay problem currently bedevilling our society; if the country needs a commission to ensure employers do not pay their workers pittance, it stands to reason it also needs one to insist they do not pay themselves too much.With payments of over £1m each to 239 senior executives at HSBC, and an extra £32k a week for the boss, it is clear a maximum wage (or salary, which includes bonuses) has much in its favour:

       It would, no doubt, encourage some bankers and their ilk to seek their obscene fortunes elsewhere, leaving room for banks and financial institutions to employ decent individuals, not obsessed with earning one hundred times or more the national average. The inequality gap would be reduced, and the country could aspire to move up from 28th out of 34 in the equality league table. By paying bosses at the top less, companies could afford to ensure all their workers, directly or indirectly employed, received decent pay, so raising the prestige of so-called less important jobs like cleaners and labourers. Another important advantage of having a cap on top pay is that businesses would save money, thereby encouraging more investment, as well as reducing  the need to pursue either tax avoidance scams or increased "efficiency", which in today`s business jargon simply equates to thousands of jobs being  cut. Its introduction would also assist in the long term in the education process, necessary if future societies are not to be dominated by greed like ours. 

    The same commission could be given the additional task of awarding the Fair Pay Mark to companies which met the necessary criteria, giving the public more information before deciding where to allocate their custom, in the same way the recently launched Fair Tax Mark will do.

     Banks and City institutions show no embarrassment when announcing massive pay increases; on the contrary, they`re giving a two-fingered salute aimed at everyone in the country. Labour has a moral duty to pledge the founding of a new commission and a cap on high pay. Stuff the outrage of the Mail, Telegraph and the City`s minions in the Tory party.

 

 

   

What the hell`s the point of being Labour prime minister?

Gary Younge`s excellent article in the Guardian recently, criticising the Obama regime, rightly repeated LBJ`s question about the purpose of the presidency; if it isn`t to make "transformational" change, what is its point? The same question has relevance for our politicians, and, sadly, the answer is obvious in Cameron`s case; the whole point of his being prime minister has been to shrink the state, with policies of cuts, austerity and privatisation.

   For Miliband, however, the answer would be less clear. Whilst not denying that some of his policies sound encouraging, there is little to suggest that, as in Obama`s America, the "underlying policies, priorities and structures" would be changed. Political commentators tell us how close to City corporations some of the Labour front-benchers are, whilst the coalition`s outrageous education reforms face little challenge from a privately educated spokesperson seemingly determined to out-gove Gove! Some of the most cruel innovations of the government, like the bedroom tax, seem thankfully destined for the proverbial dustbin, but the lack of passion and anger emanating from the oppostion leadership does little to suggest much will change. Nationalisation and tax increases, apart from the obvious one, are never mentioned, support for legitimate and worthy strikes is shunned, whilst Trident renewal, like payment for HS2, seems about to receive approval. There might be some excuse for such passivity in view of right wing media`s hostility, but there can be no denying the large surge in the opinion polls after slightly more radical policies are  promised. What seems likely, therefore, is that a future Labour government will, Obama-like, favour "piecemeal" change rather than the much-needed fundamental reform.

      What the hell`s the point of being Labour prime minister, Mr Miliband, if it`s not to reduce inequality, to defend the weak and exploited, and to support the consumer against the profiteers? There is little point if your government is in cahoots with the City, and your reforms tinker rather than "transform".

 

Clegg`s latest political gaffe

Many commentators attribute Clegg`s decision to challenge Farage to a head-to-head debate on Europe to "sheer desperation", with his party around "eight to eleven points" in the opinion polls. However, this rather misses the point, as this is clearly yet another in a long line of political gaffes by Clegg. He, no doubt, is "desperate" to try and salvage something from his disgraceful role in the coalition, and perhaps even save his position as party leader, but the closer the election gets, the more numerous the mistakes and misjudgements, and the more obvious the lack of principles.       

        Not content with digging a hole for himself in his attempts, late 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 damage 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 which this government has increased and encouraged has nothing to do with him; recently giving his support to 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 now says, "brought a banking collapse and misery and hardship", yet for over 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. Even when standing in for Cameron at PMQs, he has been unable to resist criticising Labour, until, that is, his recent epiphany, which also rebounded badly, with Labour`s insistence on a majority government being their election target.   

      Clegg`s lack of political nous has revealed itself again with the Farage debate. He may attempt to present himself as the "principled champion" of European unity, but as he has sacrificed all liberal principles at the altar of the power-gods, Farage will be the only victor. The career of the duplicitous Clegg could well be over by the time the Euro election votes have been counted!

 

 

Fair Tax Mark: great idea, Labour!

Richard Murphy`s new scheme to encourage a more ethical approach to tax, with the Fair Tax Mark awarded to companies who pay the correct sum, is an excellent idea; companies which are paying the right amount of tax should "stand out", at a time when tax avoidance is denying the Treasury at least £25bn annually. Clearly fed up with the Starbucks of this world, who make huge profits in this country, employ state educated staff who enjoy the benefits of the NHS, sell to publicly-funded customers, and reap the benefits of the public transport and security systems, whilst paying as little tax as possible, the public needs to be able to identify the "exemplars of good practice" and give them their support and custom.

   The idea of being able to identify the businesses whose activities bring benefit to the economy as a whole is not new, and the Labour leader might do well to read some biographies of the other Roosevelt instead, for one of FDR`s more successful New Deal policies was the awarding of the "Blue Eagle" accreditation to companies exhibiting practice akin to what Miliband would call "responsible capitalism". There is certainly a case to be made in Britain for a Fair Employer Mark, which could be awarded to all businesses which allowed all workers full trade union rights, something sadly, some large engineering firms are apparently avoiding, and also one for companies with a creditable apprenticeship scheme. A Safe Employer Mark might be useful for firms where machinery is used or where accidents more likely to happen, whilst the most obvious accreditation could be the Mark for sensible and fair pay, with the living wage paid to all workers employed directly or indirectly by the company, equal rates of pay and opportunities for all workers , regardless of race and gender, and a reasonable pay ratio between the lowest and highest paid, (including bonuses). It could be awarded by the Fair Pay commission, a government body which replaced the badly named low pay commission.

 If Miliband is serious in his efforts to end "predatory capitalism", and to show that Labour is not in thrall to the City unlike the other parties, he and his colleagues should be voicing their full support for the Fair Tax Mark, and thinking seriously about extending it, when in government. A pledge to do so now might well make that possibility more likely! 

BBC and State Education

With its recent publicity being far from flattering, the BBC is in need of a boost; as Alan Yentob says, it is a "brand that is the best of British when it`s good", but rival television companies are clearly forging ahead, and not simply because they can afford more live sports or attract bigger "stars". Relatively inexpensive programmes, on other channels, about poverty and indiscipline in schools have not only attracted millions of voters but also generated public debate. This is an area in which the BBC should be excelling, and could be again, starting with an analytical evaluation of state education; documentaries like the recent "Educating Yorkshire" and "Tough Young Teachers" proved popular and thought-provoking, but tended to focus on poor behaviour, and young teachers`, usually unsuccessful, efforts to remedy it. This one should, in effect, do the opposite.

      With the lack of social mobility currently being a major concern, along with the resulting waste of young talent, especially as there is a bias evident in our society which generally leads to top jobs going to the privately educated, a sensibly focussed television series would change perceptions. By having cameras in a number of state secondary schools, directors would be able to ensure viewers saw what older and retired teachers like me have seen for years, articulate and ambitious young people talking sensibly and coherently in their classrooms, with teachers only having to guide the discussions?  A teacher giving back homework essays might sound boring, but only if the teacher failed to read out some of the best answers, or to request verbal summaries. Question and answer sessions at the start of lessons, when previous work is being recapped, would no doubt prove enlightening to right-wing sympathisers who think not only that real learning only takes place in private schools, but that comprehensive schools fail to challenge, academically, the brighter pupils.The opportunities available to the director would be endless.

     It would be misleading if the programme pretended the challenging behaviour did not exist in comprehensive schools, but there would be little need to focus on it, as viewers would be enthralled by the positive aspects of state education, which the media have denied them for many years. Politicians and writers, who constantly complain about state schools do not, perhaps understandably, spend days in them getting an accurate picture; these programmes would serve the country, and its economy, well, by setting the record straight. Tristram Hunt might even learn from it! (see previous blogs!)

 

100 years of Sleepwalking

Ed Miliband is right to say that Britain "is sleepwalking to disaster because of a failure to recognise that climate change" is the cause of the recent bad weather, but the news hardly comes as a surprise, when it is clear that sleepwalking has, for a while, been the national pastime of our politicians. Just as a recent historical work correctly suggests that early 20th century politicians were in effect sleepwalking their way into the first world war, Miliband highlights only one of a number of disasters the UK seems content to continue to do nothing to avoid.

      Take, for instance, the inequality issue, with the mega-rich able to squirrel their wealth away from HMRC, evade paying for all the services they enjoy in Britain, and no political party daring to suggest even a 5% tax on their trillions, seemingly satisfied with Britain`s disgraceful 28th position in the equality league table of 34 countries. Just like the private rental sector being largely unregulated, the increased poverty ensuing can only lead to social unrest in the not too distant future, especially as social mobility is another object of politicians` somnambulism; can`t imagine why politicians are loath to intervene in the admission procedures of Oxbridge, or to end the dominance of private schools in public life!

  The government might be more awake to the continued privatisation of the NHS,which they are engineering, but the majority of the population seems unaware of the situation. Sleepwalking could apply to the continued misuse of public funds, with billions being spent on Trident renewal, with no possible future use, with all potential enemies cunningly having moved the goalposts,and all because of politicians` posturing and desire to be seen at the "top table". Whilst this happens, of course, they continue to ignore the essentials, like flood defences and air pollution, and the obvious problems this will cause. What about state education? Labour have meekly allowed, with somnambulists` opposition, Gove`s plans for the return to a two-tier system to progress, whilst everyone sits back allowing the Tories to break up the welfare state and to return to a situation, where the role of the state is akin to that of 1948.

 With confidence and trust in politicians at an all time low, will the 2015 election record the lowest turnout ever, with the under 30s responding to Russell Brand rather than Cameron, Miliband or Farage? "Sleepwalking to disaster" could not be more apposite, but, sadly, not enough alarms are ringing! They were loud after World War II and Attlee was bold enough to respond; the lessons are obvious, Mr Miliband.

 

Suggestions to change the banking culture

 If the CEOs of banks really wanted to reform their "culture", they could do the following:

   Ensure all investment bankers do annual work-experience, shadowing for a week a nurse, carer, or state school teacher, to witness at first hand, how compassionate, considerate and patient "best people" are, despite their long hours, working for rewards bankers and their ilk would describe as "chickenfeed". 

   Review their recruitment policy. It is obvious that the schools and universities from where the current batch of bankers come, are not producing the graduates with the "character" and attributes necessary to end both the fleecing of customers, and the production-line of banking scams.

    Alternatively, of course, the government could step in. As tax-paying "shareholders" of RBS and Lloyds, do we not have a right to be angry, and to expect our government to order the necessary action be taken forthwith?

New definition of "efficiency" needed!

Following on from the new definition of "best people" as used by the CEOs of Barclays and RBS this week, ie greedy bankers willing to screw customers, mis-sell products, fix interest rates and launder drug money, for sake of bonus, it is clear that a new one is also needed for "efficiency". According to the online dictionary, it means the "ability to accomplish a job with a minimum expenditure of time and effort", so obviously the Tories and their Lib Dem cronies have assumed cutting jobs leads to more efficiency, because the same result will accrue with less workers. They are able to reach such conclusions as their view of the labouring classes is akin to that of 19th century factory owners, that is, being lazy, they will only ever work hard and accept low pay if under the constant threat of dismissal. Bosses of banks and other major corporations have the same idea, especially as cutting jobs is the easiest way to ensure a massive bonus for themselves at the end of the year, as just witnessed with Horta-Orosio.

        Well clearly, there are numerous examples which prove conclusively that such practices do not make for increased efficiency, and that, in fact, the whole idea is yet another aspect of coalition propaganda, designed to dupe us into accepting the need for a reduced role for the state, and a return to laissez-faire:

     Cutting jobs at the Environment Agency has meant the early devastation caused by flooding was largely ignored, until, of course, it reached the Tory heartland.

     Dismissing workers at HMRC has proved disastrous, with not enough inspectors working to stop tax avoidance and evasion, costing at least £35bn a year.

     Reducing funds for schools and colleges means the numbers of teachers and teaching assistants are less, at a time when the country is supposedly falling behind "in the global race", and standards of education are below places like Finland which actually value their teaching staff, and understand the true meaning of "efficiency".

    How can the health of the nation be improved when the numbers of doctors, nurses, carers and social workers are constantly being cut? How can it be efficient to increase waiting times?

    Does cutting the number of fire stations mean fires are dealt with more quickly? Do tourists find their visits enhanced because there is no-one to ask at the ticket-office?

         Yet when the reputations of politicians are at stake, the opposite rule applies. Take the country`s defence for instance. How can it possibly be efficient to spend up to £100bn on submarines armed with Cold War nuclear weapons to act as a nuclear deterrent, twenty five years after the end of the war? As they would be expected to last a further twenty years, it would be similar to us now still "digging for victory" or having a Home Guard! 

       "Efficiency" has become an excuse to cut jobs and keep wages down, all part of the extraordinarily successful con-trick played by this Tory-led government, but we`ll have to wait a few years, no doubt,before this new definition appears in any dictionary!

 

Hunt gets it wrong again

The news that Tristram Hunt believes "chraracter can be taught" and wants teacher training colleges to "include the teaching of resilience" in their courses, so that young people will be taught how to "bounce back from setbacks", reveals at least two important points.

   The first is that this privately-educated Labour spokesperson for education knows very little about state schools, or the people involved with them. If he spent more time talking to teachers and pupils he would soon see that state schools produce fully-rounded characters, full of wit, compassion, kindness, determination, ambition and aspiration, fully able to analyse and evaluate, and to spot the duplicity of politicians. A Labour front-bencher going through picket-lines of strikers taking industrial action because of their desperate need for a living wage, will not have gone unnoticed.

    Secondly, does Hunt think our state school students do not possess resilience already? Many of them "bounce back" from setbacks in the home every day, not to mention how all of them have had to show resilience in the face of assessment "goalposts" being constantly moved, and their excellent examination results being criticised by politicians from all parties. Then there`s the Education Maintenance Allowance being removed, 6th form courses dropped because of lack of government funding, university fees being hiked, the preference shown by so-called top universities for students from private schools, plus the knowledge that no-one in politics is bothered by this block to social mobility, which means the top jobs are beyond thereach of all but a lucky few from the state sector. If some lack the confidence of their wealthier peers, it will hardly be a surprise, but Hunt`s implication that private schools "teach" character and resilience better smacks of a combination of bias and ignorance.

    It would be helpful if politicians stopped treating education as a football capable of scoring points at the expense of the other parties, and concentrated instead on providing equality of opportunity, praising the excellent work being done by teachers and pupils in our state schools, and building on it.  

"Best people" are not in banking

Banking news continues to disgust, exasperate and confound; another watchdog to turn banking "into a respectable profession", Barclays` CEO to "set out eight new benchmarks", presumably having failed with his first plan to "transform" the behaviour of the bank. and, of course, the bumper bonus payouts, even though Barclays` "underlying profits" fall by £1.8bn. By the end of the year, it is estimated £80bn will have been paid in bonuses since the 2008 crash, and there we were thinking that bonuses helped bring about the financial crisis, because they encouraged investment bankers to take unnecessary risks. 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", and Jenkins actually used these words in his feeble attempts to justify bonuses on the "Today" programme!  By this, Jenkins and other bosses really 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 business plans, analysing the risk potential of SMEs and whether they offer the prospect of benefitting the local economy, but they do need knowledge of how to use deception, to mis-sell products, to fleece customers, to fix interest rates, to hide the laundering of money regardless of its origin, to manipulate foreign exchange rates, and to devise scam after scam.

       These are not the "best people"; many should be in prison, and the least they deserve is the imposition of a very high bonus tax rate, or a cap on their salaries, or both!  The 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 Jenkins said on his appointment, before his bank became involved in yet another scandal, "ethics need to come before profits".

      Perhaps they should be forced, as one of Lambert`s new codes of conduct, to shadow a nurse, a carer, or teacher for a few days, to witness how compassionate and patient "best people" are, despite their long hours, working for rewards bankers and their ilk would describe as "chickenfeed".   

 

 

 

Labour in danger of forgetting basic principles

With state education and the NHS in the same boat, sadly being steered towards disintegration, with a few failings exaggerated and followed by misleading generalisations, by a government intent on downsizing the role of  state, Labour has its work cut out. To make matters worse, the opposition has seemingly forgotten some of its main principles which underpin its very existence.

    What is the purpose of the Labour party if it is not to stand up for the rights of the working people? Is it not essential that it defends the exploited against their employers, the NHS against the privateers, the consumer from the profiteer, the welfare state from the Tories? Arguably, it has done some of these, albeit half-heartedly at times, but protecting the oppressed employees from aggressive bosses has been a massive failure, over a number of years, leading often to the workers themselves having to resort to industrial action. Protesting to the disinterested government about the "cost-of-living crisis" is simply insufficient when Labour could be clearly demonstrating to the electorate that it really is a People`s party, and that it does mean to help ordinary people rather than the interests of the financial sector. One can only assume the reason for Labour`s failure to support strikes is because it fears being branded "socialist", "red", "same old Labour", or whatever, by the Tories and their obedient media friends; it doesn`t want to frighten away those oh-so-important southern voters in the marginal seats, in case they decide to back the Tories again. If they are so unprincipled and gullible, Labour cannot afford to risk losing the votes of workers for their sake; far better to adopt policies which adhere to traditional Labour principles of fairness and justice.

    This has to be a mistake; most strikes occur when all negotiations have failed, or have been refused, and when jobs, pay or pensions are being cut. Are the Labour leaders so afraid of the Daily Mail they cannot turn up at a joint NUT/NASUWT rally to voice their support for teachers in their struggle against the intractable Gove? What did they enter politics with the Labour party for, if it wasn`t to defend state education, support the principle of equality of opportunity, and fend off attacks by Tory ideologues? Don`t the tube workers need their help against the right-wing Johnson and his policies of economic cleansing of London? Miliband should state in the Commons that Labour supports all industrial action, when it is taken in the cause of ending exploitation and restoring fairness; the Tories should not be dictating Labour policies! Does the country really need Labour leaders, who are "well regarded in corporate circles", as Seumas Milne recently described Balls and Umunna, making the differences between the parties glaringly insignificant? How will the rejection of workers who take legal industrial action increase popular participation in democratic politics, supposedly the reason for Miliband`s trade union proposals? Voters have been alienated enough by the expenses fiasco, the broken election promises and the imposition of poverty on the majority of the nation, whilst the rich avoid the little amount of taxes they`re expected to pay.

    The "squeezed middle" classes need economic help too, and many are involved in the strikes anyway'; but the "wealthier" middle need to be told that a new Labour government will do everything in its power to defend all employees from bosses, greedy to attain their bonus targets for increased efficiency by either cutting wages and hours, or increasing the number of zero-hours contracts. or both. If the "suppering classes" of the south-east don`t want fairness "hard-wired into government policies", as the duplicitous Clegg laughingly said back in 2012, they need to face the consequences, one of which will most certainly be Britain`s 28th position out of 34 in the equality league table getting even lower!

Labour`s need to support strikes

Michael Dughers exaggerated claim that Miliband`s recent trade union reforms will "strengthen Labour`s relationship with ordinary working people" is sadly wide of the mark, for fairly obvious reasons.(Guardian,Comment,07/02/14) Whilst risking the loss of millions in funding, Labour offers union members little in the way of compensation for loss of potential influence. Why no pledge to legislate on representation of workers on boards of directors? Such a policy of co-determination was good enough for West Germany in the 1950s, but not, it seems, for Britain in 2015, even though it proved effective in curbing German employers` excessive pay. If Labour is serious in wooing back disaffected supporters, and stopping them being poached by Ukip, this was an obvious method.

     Equally, many workers will not have seen ties with Labour strengthened in recent years if they have been on strike. Sadly, Labour`s policy of denouncing all strikes suggests workers are always wrong when taking such action. Really? Even when employers cut pay and pensions, and refuse to talk, or cut jobs when bosses take home millions for their "efficiency" policies? Are workers wrong to take industrial action when faced with the arrogance of Gove or Johnson?

 If Labour is not the party defending basic workers` rights, and attacking inequality and unfairness, what is its raison d`etre? Why did Miliband and the others enter politics with the Labour party if they did not expect to defend the working class from the exploitation of capitalists, the NHS from privatisation, the welfare state from the Tories? Announcing a few populist policies here and there is not sufficient, when there is a whole society out there begging to be changed!

Bernie Evans

4a Garth Drive

Liverpool

01517246087

07933538657

---

Michael Dughers exaggerated claim that Miliband`s recent trade union reforms will "strengthen Labour`s relationship with ordinary working people" is sadly wide of the mark, for fairly obvious reasons. Whilst risking the loss of millions in funding, Labour offers union members little in the way of compensation for loss of potential influence. Why no pledge to legislate on representation of workers on boards of directors? Such a policy of co-determination was good enough for West Germany in the 1950s, but not, it seems, for Britain in 2015, even though it proved effective in curbing German employers` excessive pay. If Labour is serious in wooing back disaffected supporters, and stopping them being poached by Ukip, this was an obvious method.
Equally, many workers will not have seen ties with Labour strengthened in recent years if they have been on strike. Sadly, Labour`s policy of denouncing all strikes suggests workers are always wrong when taking such action. Really? Even when employers cut pay and pensions, and refuse to talk, or cut jobs when bosses take home millions for their "efficiency" policies? Are workers wrong to take industrial action when faced with the arrogance of Gove or Johnson?
If Labour is not the party defending basic workers` rights, and attacking inequality and unfairness, what is its raison d`etre? Why did Miliband and the others enter politics with the Labour party if they did not expect to defend the working class from the exploitation of capitalists, the NHS from privatisation, the welfare state from the Tories? Announcing a few populist policies here and there is not sufficient, when there is a whole society out there begging to be changed!

Gove`s on another bandwagon

Gove is still employing the same tactics, though clearly not the same people, as he has done from the start of his tenure. He began by jumping on a populist bandwagon about GCSE examinations being too easy, and proceeded, without evaluating the empirical evidence and listening to the experts, to change the assessment procedure to suit his ideological ends. This time it`s a different bandwagon, and has the additional bonus of detracting media attention from his attempts to "politicise Ofsted". Whilst his focus on pre-GCSE examinations will renew fears of a return to selection, his "advice" on discipline coincides conveniently with a popular television series where clearly increased viewing figures have been deemed far more important than accuracy, when portraying education in state secondary schools. If Gove wants to "tear down the Berlin Wall separating private and state schools" he could start by, first addressing the funding per pupil, £6,350 in state schools as opposed to £1,1510 in private day schools, and then impose VAT on school fees!  

   When Gove bemoans the lack of discipline in schools, a memorable interruption by the Speaker at Prime minister`s Questions always springs to mind: "I am really very worried about the conduct of the Education Secretary. In the average classroom, he would have been excluded by now. He must calm himself".(Hansard,13/06/12)

Gove`s behavioural issues

In view of the Education Secretary`s interest in improving behaviour, this quiz question seems appropriate:

QUESTION: 

To whom was the Speaker referring when he had to call "Order" to stop the "Prime Minister`s Questions" session on 13th June 2012, because it was so rowdy, and proceedings were being disrupted? The Speaker`s words were:

"I am really very worried about the conduct of the ............Secretary. In the average classroom, he would have been excluded by now. He must calm himself".(Hansard,13/06/12)

ANSWER:

The Minister who, not content with blaming teachers for pupils` poor behaviour, is intent on reducing their pay with year on year pay freezes, ending the national pay structure of teachers, allowing non-qualified teachers in our state schools, and has even used flawed data to accuse them of failing the children of this country by not raising standards.The same one, of course, who intends to take the examination system back to the 1950s, introduce a two-tiered system of secondary education, and cares not a jot about social mobility.

Who could it be?  Perhaps we`ll soon be seeing him and the other misbehaving MPs collecting the litter outside the House of Commons!

Omissions in Labour`s union reforms

Hopefully, Miliband`s attempts to "allow wider participation" in the Labour party will bear some fruit, but there are two obvious omissions in his proposals. To alleviate the possibly damaging effects to the party`s funding, and to win over the union sceptics, especially at a time when "poverty is set to deepen", a pledge to introduce legislation to ensure worker and union 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! Labour has to do more to address, not only the "cost of living crisis", but the inequality problem, one which is so bad Britain has been recently placed 28th out of 34 in an equality league table of developed nations.

 As the proposals also include "stricter codes of conduct" for MPs, is not a great opportunity being wasted for Miliband`s Labour to support the principle of transparency, and to throw down the gauntlet to the other parties? Let`s have full financial details of all Labour candidates and standing MPs disclosed before the next election; all souces of income, tax details, properties owned, and connections to businesses would both provide necessary information for the electorate, and demonstrate that Labour really is different from the other parties! MPs do need to know "who the union affiliates in their constituencies are", but the need for increased information works both ways.