Sunday 31 August 2014

Cameron`s holiday policy best option

With Lynton Crosby advising Cameron to avoid television debates in the build-up to the election, it seems an eminently sensible political move by the Prime Minister to strive to become "one of history`s most fearless vacationers", as Catherine Bennett described in the Observer last week. Back in Downing Street, he is likely to be asked about his policies, which can only lead to embarrassing answers, and consequently, further slumps in the opinion polls. With so many crises in the Middle East, questions would be directed towards his foreign policy, and waffly rhetoric attempting to disguise the "follow America`s lead, support Israel but criticise all other terrorism" answer would not go down well.
         Questions of a more domestic nature, with further public sector strikes in the pipeline, and more trouble brewing around welfare reforms, the NHS, and prison conditions, will cause as much consternation. Obfuscation will be Cameron`s first resort, hiding the true policy of taking the state back to levels last seen in 1948! Adding snippets about a low wage economy, zero hours` contracts and reduced taxes for the well-off would only add to his woes.
      Staying "no more than a few feet away from a rock pool" might well be his only hope!

Saturday 30 August 2014

Guardian letter on social mobility

Sadly, Tristram Hunt`s analysis of the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission`s report is flawed.(Report condemns "closed shop" of Britain`s elite,28/08/14) The report does not show that "the coalition was failing on social mobility". On the contrary, a government which, immediately on coming to power, scraps Education Maintenance Allowances, then triples university fees, passes school assessment reforms which disadvantage children from poorer homes, cut funding for Sure Start Centres and libraries, and appoints the majority of its Cabinet from the likes of Eton and the Bullingdon club, has succeeded in achieving its objective. As the Report says, this "social engineering" has created the "elitism so embedded in Britain today".
     Should a government determined to increase social mobility ever gain power, it would have to restore the pre-2010 level playing field in GCSE and A-level examinations, end not only as Owen Jones says, "the charitable status for private schools", (A racket for the uber-privileged,28/08/14) but also the exemption from VAT on private school fees, as well as properly attacking the tax avoidance industry which enables so many of those fees to be paid. University fees have to be reduced, and a cap placed on charges for halls of residence, whilst the Oxbridge domination will only be ended by legislation, as these universities have long shown themselves unwilling to change. How about a law which only allows any university to recruit 7% of its undergraduates from private schools, in line with the national figure? As long as universities favour privately-educated applicants, money will beget money.

     Lastly, that government would require an Education Secretary from neither private school nor Oxbridge!

Labour policies towards reducing the pay gaps

This Tory-dominated coalition government clearly thinks there is nothing wrong with CEOs and City-types getting paid obscene amounts of money, whilst the real "wealth creators" often earn so little, their pay has to be subsidised by the taxpayer. Of course, to appease their wider range of supporters Tories and Lib Dems, compliant in all things Cameron, had to devise a policy which, whilst giving the appearance of creating the means for controlling pay, was nothing of the sort. Giving shareholders binding votes on pay, coupled with a touch of transparency, has had no effect whatsoever; the pay gap between bosses of the country`s biggest firms and their employees has tripled over the past 15 years, with FTSE 100 CEOs receiving in total renumeration 143 times that of the average employee in their firms. Is it any wonder that in a recent equality league table, Britain was 28th out of 34 developed nations?
     Labour has developed promising policies on raising the minimum wage but there is clearly room for action at the other end of the pay scale!
     Some of the figures are so disgusting, they beggar belief; for example at Compass Group, which employs many cooks, cleaners and security staff, and where the average pay is £13,000, the boss received £5.5m last year, 418 times more than this staff! When compared with average earnings generally, the top 100 executives earn 174 times more! Increases have been huge in recent years, not because of the chief executives` improved performance, but, as the director of the High Pay Centre, Deborah Hargreaves, says, "because they are able to get away with it". Primark workers and customers will be interested to learn that whilst average pay is £14,500, the CEO pocketed 361 times more, £5.3m, whilst over at Whitbread the pay gap amounted to 415 times.
     This, of course, is scandalous, and Labour policy-makers should be wary of ignoring the situation; effective action would have universal support. A number of initiatives have been suggested, and there is certainly room for some radical thinking. Having worker representation on companies` renumeration committees had the desired effect in Germany for over fifty years, so the policy of co-determination needs to be considered, as does perhaps, a cap on the pay ratio, as in John Lewis where it is 75:1? However, the determination such companies show in avoiding tax and evading bonus regulations suggest other ideas are needed.
     What about merging the High and Low Pay Commissions into a Fair Pay Commission, which would include trade union representatives? If there is a set ratio, any company found to be exceeding it to be barred from government contracts; this might well include G4S, the company which botched its Olympic security contract, but still makes millions from government work. Can you believe that when G4S joined the FTSE 100 in 2007, it paid its workers so little, it dragged the average pay down from £31,00 to £27,000?
On the other hand, companies which met the set ratio, and paid at least a living wage to all employees could be rewarded with a Fair Pay logo to be used in their publicity and advertising.(A Fair Tax one, if correct corporation tax paid!) That sort of encouragement for "responsible, non-predatory capitalism" is well in line with current Labour thinking. What isn`t is to attack predatory capitalists with higher taxation, along Piketty lines, whilst de-bunking the Laffer curve myth at the same time, but a Labour government, with a mandate from the voters, could justify such action later, if the inequality gap continued to increase.
    Tackling excessive and exhorbitant pay would not only be popular, it would also send out the  message to the electorate that Miliband`s Labour is on their side, different from the other parties, and intent on creating a fairer, more just society.
   

Wednesday 27 August 2014

Disingenuity at the Institute of Directors

On the one hand, Simon Walker of the Institute of Directors says he wants companies to be run in the "interests of stakeholders broadly", and on the other,asks "For whom is this institution being run?" when complaining that Barclays` bonus pool was "three times as large as the total sum of dividends paid to shareholders". (Why the bosses` union is speaking out against excess pay in the boardroom,19/08/14) The disingenuity is obvious, and Nils Pratley is mistaken to assert something`s "got into the whiskey" at the Institute.
   It seems nothing has changed in the thirty plus years, since Milton Friedman argued that a company`s sole obligation was to its shareholders.If there was stakeholder capitalism in this country, businesses would be showing more concern for everyone involved, not just those at the top, and the Institute would be criticising Barclays for its mis-selling of products to its customers, its Libor-fixing and recent reduction of Isa savings rates, with "those with Loyalty Reward Isas the worst affected"(1.6m Barclays Isa savers face interest rate cut,07/08/14) It would be complaining, too, that with the CEOs of the FTSE 100 companies now taking home "on average 143 times more than their staff", pay for all employees was far too low, and that a large pay rise would not only benefit the economy as a whole, it would simply be fair!
Clearly it`s time both for the High and Low Pay Commissions to be merged into a Fair Pay one, and for a government to be elected which actually represents the people, not just its friends in the City!

 

Friday 22 August 2014

Crisis in prisons; urgent action needed

The shadow justice secretary, Sadiq Khan, recently wrote on the LabourList website that prisons can be improved, and repeat offending reduced, "through education, training and tackling underlying health problems". Of course, that approach is far preferable to the typical government response which ignores, Gove-like, expert opinion from such people as the Chief Inspector of Prisons, bans relatives and friends from sending books to prisoners, and pretends there is no crisis, when it`s blatantly obvious there is. Labour`s objective of reducing the number of prison inmates by limiting repeat offending is an admirable aim, but does little to solve the current problems requiring immediate solutions.
    Overcrowding and staff shortages, both the direct result of this government`s policies, are now important factors in the rising numbers of prisoners taking their own lives; this isn`t ignorant conjecture, or even my admittedly anti-Tory view, but the opinion of none other than Nick Hardwick, the Chief Inspector. The fact is that in the year up to March, there were 88 suicides in our prisons, a rise of 52 on the previous year, with self-harm increasing to 23,478 a year. Are such appalling figures acceptable in a civilised society? Of course not, but there is no acceptance of responsibilty from Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary.He has attributed recent increases in prison inmate numbers to "a number of factors", including, can you believe, "the increased number of convictions for historic sex abuse"! Labour should be not just be complaining about the horrific conditions and over-crowding, they should be shouting from the rooftops, before the prisoners do!
 Often prisoners are locked up in their shared cells for 23 hours a day, leaving next to no time for showers, exercise, education or work. The cells look nothing like the official wide-angled photographs; walls can almost be reached by two outstretched arms, table at one end, an unscreened toilet at the other, with a bunk bed at the side. It`s not difficult to imagine how degrading such conditions will be, or how there could be anything less conducive to rehabilitation.
   Government policies have simply made matters worse: since 2010, 18 prisons have been closed, the numbers of prison staff have been cut by 30%, whilst the number of inmates has been allowed to rise to just under 86,000. A number of prisons has been handed over to private companies, including Serco, which has dubious records of performance, including the infamous involvement in overcharging for tagging criminals, some of whom deceased! HMP Doncaster, run by Serco, has been heavily criticised recently for locking up inmates in cells without electricity or running water, and having four times higher levels of violence than in other jails.Some "extremely violent" incidents, according to inspectors,had been referred to the police!!
  G4S, the other security firm involved in the tagging scandal, and the one notorious for its botched Olympics` security contract, was barred from bidding for government contracts for six months. Since the ban was lifted in April, the company has had its contract renewed to run the Rainsbrook secure training centre for 12-17 year olds!
   Despite being "passionate about the delivery of education to offenders", the privately-owned welfare to work provider, A4e, has pulled out of its £17m contract to deliver education to 12 London prisons. The reason will not come as a surprise: it couldn`t run the contract at a profit!
  Labour must act quickly. Even at present rates, over 50 prisoners are likely to die by their own hands before there can be a change of government, so urgent action is vital. As much publicity as possible must be generated by the Labour press team, demanding the government admit its policies have failed, that private companies, concerned only for their own profits, cannot be risked with such an important task as the rehabilitation of our thousands of prisoners, and the re-opening of closed prisons. Judges and magistrates must be told that a prison sentence is not always the most suitable of punishments, and that in certain, obvious cases, it is the wrong one. 
    Cutting the cost of the prison service, like that of education or health, does not save the taxpayer money, even in the long run. Labour has to accept this, and devise its strategy accordingly. Fair-minded voters will accept this, and the others will vote Tory or Ukip anyway!
 


 

Reform of business rates:LabList article

 With Labour leaders increasingly getting criticism from its left wing for being a little too close to big business and the City, despite Miliband`s repeated claims to be against "predator capitalism", and offering tax breaks to all firms paying the living wage to their employees, perhaps it`s time for the Opposition to remember its leader`s promise? If Labour is to offer a real alternative to the other parties, clearly different from them as Miliband pledged, some radical ideas are essential, and there is clearly an opportunity opening in relation to the rates paid by businesses to the local councils? After all, what if the firm to be offered the tax break is actually well known for its avoidance of corporation tax?
     With business rates currently "calculated via a complicated formula", and leading industry figures "demanding sweeping reforms", it seems an ideal moment for Labour to suggest the introduction of different rates for different types of business. This could be utilised as a weapon in the war against "irresponsible" capitalism, with the 2015 Labour government legislating to allow councils to impose different bands of the tax, similar to the council tax system, but with councils working in cahoots with HMRC and the government. For example, rates could be lowered for the companies which pay both the correct amount of corporation tax to the Treasury, and the living wage, at least, to all of their employees.

     For the many businesses which refuse to pay either the living wage or their fair share of corporation tax, despite enjoying all the benefits tax brings to the local communities and to their employees, why not ensure the business rates they are forced to pay are sky-high? This could include the multi-nationals which claim exemption from most of the country`s taxes because they assert their businesses are not based here. If, as in Amazon`s case, the rates for massive warehouses went into the multi-millions, some justice, at least, could be seen to be done, in view of the fact that in the tax year 2013-14 it paid £4.2m in tax, despite UK sales reaching £4.3bn. But there are plenty of others to which the same principle can be applied, all reaping the benefits of this country`s security, transport and education services  but refusing to accept responsibility for their retention.
    Companies and individuals avoiding tax mean there is a tax gap of at least £35bn every year, and some tax experts like Richard Murphy, reckon it is much higher. With the NHS in dire need of extra resources, and some companies clearly intent on paying as little as possible to the Treasury, some drastic and radical measures are needed. Is not a change to the calculation of business rates worthy of discussion, especially as election manifestos are yet to be finalised?
  Business rate calculation could even include the nature of the business itself. Is there not a strong case to deter betting shops and payday lenders in their constant invasion of our high streets? In poorer districts, especially, a large increase in the business rate for such firms could act as a much needed hindrance to their expansion.
      Labour insists that whilst it is not anti-business, it does not support "business-as-usual", so perhaps a radical change to the setting of the business rate could be seen as a possible method of initiating a culture-change in the business sector?

Monday 18 August 2014

letter explaining low wages

It can be of little surprise to anyone, let alone a "mystery to the best brains of Threadneedle Street", that unemployment and wages are in decline. When so little regulation exists, enabling employers to pay below the minimum wage whilst over-rewarding at the top, leaving many of the real "wealth creators" to rely on government subsidies to pay their extortionate private rents, when people are driven by government cuts to accept jobs on zero-hours contracts, or when 408,000 more become self-employed, mostly as a last resort, the "uncertainty about why the recovery doesn`t feel like one" diminishes somewhat. Even if the Chancellor has "prodded the Low Pay Commission" into increasing the minimum wage a little, it is still well below the level of a living wage, and as long as that particular commission retains that name, the problem will persist. Two of the first things a Labour government should do is change its title to "Fair Pay Commission" covering the earnings of those at the top of the pay scale as well as at the bottom, and allow trade union representation to sit on it.
 As for the notion expressed by the UK economist at ING Financial Markets that the forthcoming increase to the minimum wage will "be the catalyst for broader wage increases", it must be remembered that such financial expert opinion has always maintained that the "trickle down" effect justifies paying obscene amounts at the top, and that the Laffer curve prevents taxing the rich more.Such nonsense has been not only been de-bunked by Piketty, it has led to the most inequality seen in this country since Victorian times!

Friday 15 August 2014

Dearth of politicians` understanding about education

My dismay at the ridiculous news about "children in nappies" being taught "British values" was augmented by reading the response from the "Labour source". (Toddlers must learn British values -Morgan",08/08/14) That the Labour party`s view is that the "most important thing in education" is "delivering a world-class teacher in every classroom" speaks volumes about the dearth of understanding of education`s current needs.
      What education needs is well-trained teachers, who are given the resources necessary to maximise the potential of their pupils. Teachers need to work in the knowledge not only that a "level playing field" exists for all of their students, but that they themselves are appreciated by the society they serve, suitably rewarded for their efforts, and that, if inspected, they obtain fairness in judgement, and constructive advice if needed. They need to know, too, that the Secretary of State is aware of the problems involved in modern teaching, has the experience and expertise to solve them, and meets regularly with teaching union representatives to ensure solutions are practical, and further industrial action unnecessary. After a sixty hour working week, teachers do not expect or deserve media reports of ignorant politicians` criticisms.

    Ofsted chiefs and sacked Secretaries of State may gloat in having reduced teachers` morale, but disillusioned and over-worked teachers will not be working to maximum efficiency until politicians "get real"! Praise and encouragement do not only work to raise pupils` achievement levels. "World class teachers" are not the product of election manifestos!

Guardian letter on tax receipts

With "tax receipts 3.5% lower" in the first three months of the financial year compared with 2013-14, Larry Elliott concludes that "Britain is becoming a Del Boy nation".(Del Boynomics -when work and tax doesn`t add up,11/08/14) The option for the government to employ more tax inspectors is not supported as "low-level tax evasion is large", but what the government is actually doing is reducing the number of inspectors at a time when it declares that all tax avoiders must "smell the coffee". Could the "efficiency savings" of £235m at HMRC last year have something to do with the reduced sums arriving in the Treasury`s coffers? The number of HMRC staff in enforcement and compliance fell by 1529  in the years 2010-12, and the trend still continues, with another 2000 jobs currently under threat.
           All the "morally repugnant" rhetoric and such like is clearly all a pretence, deliberately achieving little so that friends in the City and in the corporation boardrooms, can continue to fleece the rest of us. It has done next to nothing about tax havens where trillions are squirrelled away, rather than paid to the Treasury; the British Overseas Territories, according to War on Want, together "rank as the most significant tax haven in the world, ahead of even Switzerland. The reality is that there is no income tax, corporation tax, sales tax, wealth tax or any other direct tax in the Cayman Islands, the British Virgin Islands account for 40% of the world`s offshore companies, and Bermuda remains Google`s favourite tax haven".
         The focus now is on Greene King, whose "purely artificial" tax avoidance schemes are now to be "considered by the court of appeal".(Brewer`s appeal court hearing,11/08/14) The scheme in question was bought from Ernst and Young for 10% of the tax saved, The fact that Ernst and Young, one of the "Big Four" audit firms, along with Deloitte, Price Waterhouse and KPMG, is allowed to "market" such devices and be paid according to the amount of tax avoided, is deplorable, and in any decent society would be criminalised by the government. The success of the scam depended, according to the QC representing HMRC, on "certain accounting treatments", (Guardian,02/12/13) and Greene King`s accounts were signed off by auditors from Ernst and Young!

          Not only is it time to end the practice whereby representatives from this so-called "Big Four" sit on Treasury committees advising on tax structures, it`s time to punish them, alongside their clients, in the courts. It`s not just banking that needs a culture change! 

Thursday 14 August 2014

LabourList article on Miliband being a shoo-in

 Both Patrick Wintour of the Guardian, and Steve Richards of the Independent have both recently written respectively, that the "Labour poll lead seems to be defying gravity". (One year to go, and there is still all to play for,06/05/14) and that it is a mystery "why the Conservatives are not well ahead in the polls", when "the economy is growing" and Miliband has to endure a "media onslaught".(Cameron will lose the battle of ideas firing 1979`s bullets,28/07/14)
     The truth is, of course, that there is no mystery: people know that this Tory dominated government`s claims about the economy`s resurgence and there being more people in work than ever before are spurious, especially when so many jobs are part-time, with zero hours contracts and low pay, and increasingly desperate people resorting to their "last refuge", self-employment. New research is actually indicating that real earnings,by May next year, will have declined by 2.3% since the start of the coalition`s administration, the biggest fall since the 1874-80 government; irony of ironies, that was the government of Disraeli, the PM who coined the term, "One Nation"!
     Do the voters being polled need reminding that the same government is responsible not only for the destruction of the welfare state, with a declared intention to take the state`s role back to 1948 levels, but the running down of the NHS, leading inevitably to its future privatisation, the selling off of the country`s assets at knockdown prices, the obscene tax benefits for the rich and the 28th position in the equality league table Britain now holds, the taking of education back to the 1950s, the ending of the Education Maintenance Allowance, and decreasing social mobility? Have the banks been regulated, have bonuses been stopped, is there a housing bubble, are private rents out of control? People are clearly afraid of what a Tory government might do if it were given a free rein for another five years.
      How can respected political analysts like Wintour  write that "logic suggests Cameron must win" the election when it is far more plausible to believe that if Labour`s propaganda machine gets its act together, and reminds the electorate of the cruel and grossly unfair policies adopted since 2010, Miliband should be a shoo-in! With Tories like Letwin hinting that a flat rate of tax might be an option in the future, and Osborne preferring a further reduction in the top rate to 40%, Labour only has to demonstrate clearly how both ideas favour the rich, to score further political points. A Tory-dominated government bribing the well-off in the build-up to an election will hardly come as a surprise!
       It can also remind the electorate of the promises made by Tories in the build-up to the 2010 election; "no frontline cuts","no top-down reorganisation of the NHS", and "no VAT rise" spring to mind, whilst there was no mention of tax cuts for the very wealthy, or the privatisation of parts of the health service or of Royal Mail. We were not told how state schools would be forced to accept academisation or face financial difficulties, or that university fees would be trebled. We were informed that tax avoidance was "morally repugnant", but not that Tory funds would be boosted by donations from the CEOs of companies like Vitol, which paid 2.6% tax on profits of $846m last year. Suddenly we are expected to believe that Tories are really concerned about the economic future of the north, that gender equality, despite the preponderance of multi-millionaire males in the cabinet, is one of their priorities, that fracking will not be allowed in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, and that their so-called "tough regulation" of the banks will see a culture-change! According to Luke Hildyard, deputy director of the High Pay Centre, most people will be amazed that rules clawing back "bonuses for cheating, conniving and reckless speculation" have not been put in place years ago.; talk about "locking the stable door after a very large pig has bolted"!
     Tories will continue with the nonsense about Miliband`s  "weirdness", even though their leader is Cameron, and until a few weeks ago, Gove was being touted as a possible future party leader.
     No, Messrs Wintour, Richards and co. there is nothing logical about a Tory win in the 2015 election; far from it, but a well organised and carefully planned propaganda programme, reminding voters of Tory, lies, failures, and duplicity as well as Labour`s proposals for a fair and just society, must be a priority.

 
Bernie Evans 

LabourList article on Labour and tax avoidance

The dictionary definition of "rhetoric" is "language designed to have persuasive effect, often lacking in sincerity", and we`ve certainly been inundated with bucketloads of that since the last election. Of the hundreds of examples emanating from government spokespeople, the two which are possibly most memorable are the description of tax avoidance by Osborne as "morally repugnant", and Cameron`s instruction to all tax avoiding companies, back in January 2013, after the news broke about Starbucks paying next to nothing in corporation tax, despite huge profits, that it was time for them to "wake up and smell the coffee".
   Strange then, that there seems to be little correlation between their repugnance and their supposed determination, with the "tax gap" still admitted to be £35bn a year, and reckoned by many to be possibly double that, and the job cuts still ongoing at HMRC, where so-called "efficiency savings" of £235m were made last year, with another "cull" now leading to another 2,000 job losses. Historically, each tax inspector raises for the Treasury at least two to three times his/her salary in tax, often many times more, so how can it possibly make sense for a government intent on increasing revenue, to reduce their number? The number of HMRC staff in enforcement and compliance fell by 1529  in the years 2010-12, and the trend still continues. 
      More recent news hardly inspires confidence in this Tory-dominated government`s anti-avoidance policies. When the Tory party accepted £550,000 donation from the CEO of Vitol whose company paid 2.6% global tax on profits of £846m, the cat was very plainly out of the bag, compounded by Cameron`s appointment of the ex-head of tax avoiding Google`s European division to the House of Lords. The internet company famously paid £11.6m to the Treasury in 2012, despite generating £3.4bn of business in Britain.
      Tax avoidance, then, is clearly an area which Labour should be exploiting before the election, and it does have a policy which states rules will be tightened and loopholes closed, sensible but hardly headline grabbing, and certainly not likely to win over the "floating" voters, or those abandoning ship for Ukip.
     A self-funding start could be made by Labour promising to reinstate a few thousand tax inspectors, and attacking the Tories and Lib Dems for their abject failure to rid the country of what Margaret Hodge described as an "industry". Having representatives from the Big Four accounting firms on Treasury committees drawing up tax rules does not appear overtly sensible, when the same firms make many of their millions by advising businesses on their "tax efficiency"; indeed, as with the ongoing Greene King case, the accountant`s fee was 10% of the taxes successfully avoided!
     Policies with popular appeal, likely to grab attention, are not the result of rocket-science thinking, but they do require a non-avoidance guarantee from Labour leaders, MPs and election candidates. A refusal to grant government contracts to known tax-avoiding firms is a no-brainer, whilst a pledge to award no honours whatsoever, to individuals either connected to such firms in any way, or avoiding tax on a personal basis, would be a vote-winner. Indeed, legislation could be promised which prohibited such contracts and awards; if avoiding tax is not illegal, benefitting from it in these ways could become so!
    Companies which pay their fair share of corporation tax, on the other hand, could benefit from a government award, with a logo for publicity purposes, enabling the consumers to make more knowledgeable choices. FDR used a similar technique to develop "responsible capitalist" practices in 1930s America. Such an idea could then be extended to companies paying a living wage!
    It stands to reason that no-one working for the government, or indeed, representing the country in any capacity, should be allowed to do so if found to be tax-avoiding; that would involve a massive culture change that will take some time to reach fruition, but Labour have five years! The BBC may have to bring in some new presenters and programme hosts, and even reduce its number of sports pundits, new companies might have to be considered for government work, but it would be all in the national interest. No-one forces rich individuals to take accountants` advice; they know exactly why taxation has to be levied in a civilised society, and are quite willing to utilise the benefits taxation brings, like transport and security, even if choosing to exclude themselves from state education and health services. Therefore consequences have to be faced when caught depriving the nation of valuable assets.
    The country is regularly touted as the 7th richest in the world. In 2013 UK corporations were sitting on a cash mountain of £750bn cash mountain. Admittedly, tax avoidance and evasion are worldwide problems, and governments need to co-operate fully if the "industry" is to be ended, but that does not mean a government determined to limit the sum not paid into the Treasury`s coffers can make a difference. If a few feathers are ruffled along the way, so be it; if a few MPs and judges are forced into early retirement, and a few honours have to be returned, perhaps a few athletes and sportspeople no longer eligible to represent their country, so what, as long as there is extra money for the government to spend on much needed services like the NHS? As the 18th century American rebels nearly said, "No representation without taxation"!

  Culture changes do not happen overnight, and not in isolation from other major developments, especially in education, social services and the financial sector, and in this country they don`t happen at all without the backing of the government. Labour can be that government, and it can increase its chances of winning the 2015 election by reiterating the fact that tax avoidance is a crime against society, and declaring war against it.

LabourList article on Labour and Trade Unions

 Six million people, 1 in 10 of the population, and a considerably bigger proportion of the electorate for the forthcoming general election, are members of a trade union, a fact seemingly easily forgotten by the Tory front-bench. The latter, not only Cameron at PMQs but also his acolytes in the Conservative party, churn out the same mantra so often and regularly, about Miliband and the Labour party being at the behest and in the pay of the unions, especially Unite and Len McCluskey, that it is approaching self-defeating levels. For a party behind in the polls, with its most recent track record being to impose austerity and poverty on the least fortunate whilst giving tax reductions to its rich followers and largely ignoring the tax avoidance "industry" that is especially prevalent amongst its friends in the City, this has to be a mistaken policy, and Labour should be planning to capitalise on its rival`s misjudgement. 
      Whilst Labour will accept that the influence of trade unions in the workforce is nowhere near what it was, it should accept its links with them, and emphasise their shared objectives. "One Nation", a term coined originally by the Tory PM Disraeli because of his disgust with the existence of a society of "haves" and "have-nots", and now adopted by Labour, indicates acceptance of the idea that we all work together for the benefit of our economy and society. Even Disraeli passed laws to strengthen the industrial action unions might have to take, and his Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act legalised peaceful picketing. Labour`s leaders must not be ashamed to admit that they share many of the same aims as the trade unions of today. 
       How many voters agree with the huge rise in inequality which has taken place under this Tory-dominated coalition? Being placed 28th out of 34 in an equality league table of developed countries cannot be a source of pride for anyone. Not only do countries with less inequality tend to have more economic growth, they also have a stronger, more influential trade union presence. When the newly-formed West Germany was given its economic "freedom" in the early 1950s, the so-called Powers insisted that it adopt a policy of co-determination, thereby ensuring union representation on the boards of major companies. As a result, bosses` pay was kept under control, the gap between rich and poor was limited, and today, co-determination is viewed by historians as a major factor in creating West Germany`s "economic miracle"!
        Are there any decent people in this country who support the idea of so many employed people being paid so little, they have to rely on taxpayer-funded subsidies to pay their rent? Working people willingly pay taxes to fund the NHS, schools, transport and security, but not to enable businesses to increase their profits by paying low wages! Labour shares the union aim of raising the minimum wage and ensuring all get paid a living wage; it`s part of the cost-of-living  issue that needs serious and immediate attention. If the Tory response is that Labour is merely obeying the wishes of the "union barons", which they certainly will, the reply has to be that its policies have the support of every fair-minded person in the country.
     Another shared aim has to be for a fairer and more progressive taxation system, so the Ukip policy of having a top rate of income tax for high earners of 40% has to be rebuked. Even the IMF has publicly stated that the rich in this country could and should be paying more! When Labour announces its policy pledging a 50% top rate, an explanation that all of the earnings below £150,000, six times the national average, are taxed at lower rates, is needed; the Tory "lie-machine" gives a very misleading picture of the effect of higher tax, always failing to mention that even Thatcher saw the need for a 60% tax rate! A few advertisements in favour of Labour`s tax policies in the "red tops", complete with explanatory diagrams,similar to the ones which appear in the papers the day after budgets, would be beneficial.  
      Do trade unions want their members forking out up to 70% of their earnings on extortionate rents to profiteering private landlords? No, and neither does the Labour party. Are unions pleased that, when the "tax gap" is at least £35bn a year, yet more job losses are planned at HMRC? No, and neither is the Labour party. So many of the party`s policies match the aims of our 21st century trade unions, it is ridiculous to think that a quiet denial of the union link`s existence is needed. On the contrary, with so many votes at stake, and with a leader keen to show "empathy" with the working people, the opposite is required. Trade unions always have been a force for good, as even Disraeli recognised, and they still are.

           Labour has announced its pre-election policies, which, like those of the trade unions, have the creation of a fairer society as their main objective. Don`t be ashamed of that, Labour! Shout it from the rooftops! If the party leadership cannot counter the inevitable Tory nonsense about "policies written by Unite" and such like with the obvious replies about the influence of the City, big business and even the pro-Israeli lobbies on Tory policies, then some reshuffling may be required!

Wednesday 13 August 2014

Tory policy on Gaza

It took over three weeks of unabated murder and war crimes, the deaths of 1800 Palestinians and countless numbers of injured and displaced Gazans, but at least Baroness Warsi finally did the right thing and "stormed out of office over David Cameron`s morally indefensible position" on the Israeli attack. (Morning Star,06/08/14) Labour, of course, was "quick to show its support" for Ms Warsi, but it had taken until last Saturday for Miliband to declare unequivocally that Israel`s military actions were "wrong and unjustifiable".The question which has to be asked is: "how many UN protected schools and hospitals have to be shelled before action becomes wrong?" Is there a red line? Two or three okay, but above that "unjustifiable"?
     Very revealing was Osborne`s comment on the Warsi resignation; according  to him, it was "disappointing and unnecessary"! So, no matter how strong principles are, taking action because of them is needless. This explains why tax avoidance, which he described as "morally repugnant" has not been tackled by this government!
    Pathetic attempts by Tory politicians to describe Israeli actions as anything other than "disproportionate" were matched by Cameron`s reluctance to say anything remotely anti-Israel. Fear of upsetting rich Tory donors and supporters of the Tory party is the obvious reason for this, especially as party funds prior to the election are low. They all remember, of course, the "opprobrium poured all over" Hague and Cameron when they had dared called Israel`s action in 2006 in Lebanon "disproportionate"! 

    However, now that his rival, Boris Johnson has muttered some inanities on the subject, real action fron the PM is expected!  No doubt, he`ll cut short his holiday and announce some extra aid for Gaza, whilst making sure he does absolutely nothing to offend his pro-Israeli paymasters!

Monday 11 August 2014

Give every child a chance! De-bunk the grammar school myth.

 Right-wing propaganda tends only to be questioned when Labour challenges its figures, as was the case recently when the House of Commons Library corrected Cameron`s NHS waiting times. All too often, even when politicians like Gove, Duncan-Smith and Jeremy Hunt are rebuked by such bodies as the UK Statistics Authority for utilising incorrect data, their "message" gets through. This certainly seems to be true when support is given for  grammar schools.
         A recent article in the Guardian covered the conference of Young Independence, the "Farage Youth" wing of Ukip. (Guardian,04/08/14) Quotes like "Support for grammar schools brought me to Ukip", and "I believe in grammar schools" from delegates, clearly with no personal experience of such schools, revealed how important it is for Labour to de-bunk the myths surrounding them. This becomes even more pertinent when examining Gove`s assessment reforms, as many believe the end result of the education idealogue`s changes would be requests from academies to change dramatically their entrance requirements, with obvious results: schools with only 20% of their pupils capable of examination success will be forced to adopt less rigorous curricula, whilst schools with 80% will force out the minority so they can concentrate on changing their status to grammar schools and topping spurious league tables. Equally important, perhaps, are the results of a recent YouGov poll showing 13% of 18 to 24 year-olds with intentions to vote Ukip in next years general election; as Conor Pope and Mark Ferguson have both written in recent Labour List pieces, Labour`s failure "to deal with the Ukip threat" could lead to "disaster".
         The grammar school myth can be challenged on a number of grounds, but especially on social mobility, examination success and teaching quality.
         Of course, many working class students achieved success in such schools, and were given opportunites of advancement, but how many were denied one, and instead, given an inferior education in a secondary modern, because a test at the age of 11 had designated them as having no potential? In comprehensive schools, created in the knowledge that students` intelligence and potential continue to develop after 11, all pupils get an "opportunity". The fact that social mobility has decreased under this government has nothing to do with state schools, and everything to do with the blinkered and biased view taken by employers and universities to the privately educated.
        Grammar schools` examination results were not as good as they should have been; in my two-form entry grammar school, half of the pupils were immediately written off and put into the B stream, where the teachers were even less enthusiastic, the subjects, naturally, "less academic", and the results woeful. Imagine what they were like in the secondary modern schools! Even where there were excellent grammar schools, 80% of the children were denied the chance to gain decent results, and in educational terms, largely written off. In comprehensive schools, improvements in results, caused by the hard work of teachers and pupils, have led to Gove`s assessment changes. His reversion to memory tests, abandonment of coursework and resits, and re-instating of end-of-course examinations are all indications of Tory unhappiness with the success of non-selective schools.
        As for teaching standards, there can be no comparison; in the grammar schools of the 50s and 60s, discipline largely was based on corporal punishment, lessons were boring, and teachers too reliant on dictation and copying, whilst the schemes of work, lesson planning and inventive approaches in our current state schools all reflect the huge improvement that has taken place, in the last 25 years or so, in teaching quality, a fact even supported by Ofsted! 
        With the election ever nearer, it becomes more apparent that Ukip is going to hinder Labour`s chances of a majority, so every aspect of their policies has to be challenged. Ukip promises to bring grammar schools back, and Cameron is so desperate he might even do the same. It`s imperative for Labour to de-bunk the grammar school myth; they denied millions an opportunity and benefitted very few. Comprehensives and their teachers have to be supported by Labour. They give every child a chance!

 

Response to ConservativeHome`s support for Cameron

So ConservativeHome thinks that Cameron was right not to criticise Israel over its onslaught against Gaza, because to do otherwise would have shown him to be a "follower, not a statesman". Presumably, it is statesmanlike to stand by your allies and continue to sell them arms, regardless of the thousands of needless deaths they cause, and the war crimes they seem to commit? How Cameron`s refusal to speak out against Israeli atrocities, because of a fear of offending some of his party`s main donors, can be classed as "statesmanlike" beggars belief!
      Being a "statesman" must also entail allowing your party to accept huge donations from known tax avoiders, whilst claiming to the public that tax avoidance is "morally wrong", and also claiming in your election manifesto that there will be "no NHS top-down reorganisation" and "no VAT increase", whilst doing the exact opposite when given the chance. Hopefully, the electorate will have a different definition of "statesman" in mind from the Conservative one, and act accordingly, in May 2015.

Saturday 9 August 2014

4 Letters on Israeli attacks on Gaza

Warning families to move because of impending attacks, and then shelling their new refuge was correctly described by Ban Ki-moon as "outrageous and unjustifiable", but as the Blitz demonstrated in WWII, bombing civilians only increases their determination to carry on. Gaza will continue to resist, so giving Israel the "reason" it needs to attack.
  Israeli tanks firing on the school at Jabaliya has rightly been called "a possible war crime by the UN", and "a source of universal shame", but increased outrage against Israeli action has no effect. (UN:bombing is a source of universal shame",31/07/14)  
   As diplomacy flounders, the only solution has to be the immediate deployment of a UN peacekeeping force, and our cowardly politicians should be shouting it from the rooftops!

 
David Loyn`s argument against Giles Frazer`s "call for emotional reporting" appears to be based on the idea that "emotion is the stuff of propaganda", and is contrary to the "rules governing impartiality in news programmes". (Reporting without tears,04/08/14) Has he not been tuned into the BBC in recent weeks? its correspondents have completely avoided describing Gaza`s military occupation, the 8 year blockade, or even the colonisation by Israel of the West Bank, which according to the Oslo accords of 1993 is supposed to be where an independent Palestiniam state is to be sited. Ignoring such facts vital to an understanding of the current invasion can hardly be described as "impartial", any more than leading the news with the story of the one "missing" Israeli soldier, when over a hundred Gazans had been killed in the preceding 24 hours!
       Did Loyn not notice that on 31 July, the Today programme discussed whether the assault on Gaza had a legal basis, not with legal experts or UN officials, but with two Israelis, one, although listeners were not informed, an ex-Israeli army colonel, Pnina Sharvit Baruch, and the other, as presenter Montague said, was "a spokesman for the Israeli government in the nineties".
      Compared with this "impartiality", give me Jon Snow`s passion any day!

Not being "truly anti-semitic", in the eyes of the movie studio CEO, Ryan Kavanaugh, I must be one of the "most ignorant people", because of my belief that Israel has been attempting to carry out "genocide" in Gaza.(Movie boss attacks stars` anti-Israel letter,06/08/14) I do not deny that Israelis should have the right to defend themselves, or use the Iron Dome system, designed for that purpose. but no-one in their right mind can see the destruction in Gaza, and read about the numbers of killed, injured and displaced, and then describe the action as "self-defence". A nation does not defend itself by ignoring thirty three UN notifications about a school, packed to the rafters with homeless Gazans, and then shelling it!
 If anyone has been defending themselves, it has been the Palestinians, from Israeli colonisation as witnessed in the West Bank, which according to the Oslo accords of 1993 is supposed to be where an independent Palestiniam state is to be sited, and in the seven year blockade which prevents free movement of goods and people. 
    With the Gazan economy on its knees, what justification could Israel possibly have in blocking Qatar`s offer to provide payment of Gaza`s public sector workers? Was that self-defence, too?
 
So ConservativeHome thinks that Cameron was right not to criticise Israel over its onslaught against Gaza, because to do otherwise would have shown him to be a "follower, not a statesman".(The Opinion Matrix, 08/08/14) Presumably, it is statesmanlike to stand by your allies and continue to sell them arms, regardless of the thousands of needless deaths they cause, and the war crimes they seem to commit? How Cameron`s refusal to speak out against Israeli atrocities, because of a fear of offending some of his party`s main donors, can be classed as "statesmanlike" beggars belief!
      Being a "statesman" must also entail allowing your party to accept huge donations from known tax avoiders, whilst claiming to the public that tax avoidance is "morally wrong", and also claiming in your election manifesto that there will be "no NHS top-down reorganisation" and "no VAT increase", whilst doing the exact opposite when given the chance. Hopefully, the electorate will have a different definition of "statesman" in mind from the Conservative one, and act accordingly, in May 2015.

Tuesday 5 August 2014

WWI commemoration 2/2

The trouble with the First World War`s commemoration is that its driving force is a government with its head stuck firmly in 20th century sands.It sees history and education with the eyes of a 1950s grammar schoolboy, heroic and nationalist, white and British, and pretty similar, in fact, to the history learnt by the young men, soon to be volunteering in their thousands to fight "for king and country", in the early years of the last century.
  However, it has to be said that, up to now at least, the commemorations have not been as overtly political as feared. We have not seen the awful mayor of London, dressed in khaki, and inviting Joe Public to visit the city`s newest tourist attraction, the WWI Theme Park. Not yet, at least, but there`s still time!
  The truth is, however, the commemorations have not been used as the social and cultural bonding tool they have the potential to become.
 Is it not true that at least 95% of this country`s adult population know something about the war and the slaughter in the trenches of the western front? However, how many know of the sacrifices made by the two million Africans serving in the war as soldiers of labourers, or by one million Indians, or 140,000 Chinese? Then there`s the roles played by the Vietnamese and the Maoris, the Tunisians and Moroccans; fighting did not only take place on the western and eastern fronts, but in Africa and the Middle East too, briefly venturing into Central Asia and the Far East. Families were devastated on the colonial homefront too, simply because just as the war was caused by imperial rivalry, so the fighting was carried out by the inhabitants of those rival colonies.More needs to be done in schools, but the education must not stop there. Prime-time TV programmes would help, as would articles in all newspapers; there is a debt which needs paying, and it certainly hasn`t been paid in the last 100 years.
 Increased knowledge of such details could help to encourage social harmony, whilst simultaneously challenging the right-wing nationalism espoused by Ukip and such like, and exposing the hypocrisy of the coalition government with its sudden emphasis on "fundamental British values". Since when have individual liberty, mutual respect and religious tolerance, to name but three of those named, been the preserve of the British? Racial intolerance could well be on the rise in many parts of the country, and a serious examination and commemoration of all who fought in both world wars would play an important part in underminimg it!


New banking regulations not enough to change culture

With the announcement last week of an eighteen month enquiry into banking practices, and now the Bank of England`s "introduction of a tough new regulatory regime" sceptics will no doubt think that, yet again, the electorate is being conned by the government into believing, as the election approaches, that everything possible is being done to prevent the banks continuing their "conspiracy against the public".                   After all, not only has the Bank`s Governor taken an awful long time, during which banking scams like Libor fixing and foreign exchange rate "manipulation" have been well documented and publicised, to "point the finger" and "hint at criminal charges", the Deputy Governor has recently complained that the relatively large fines banks face for the "leaching" of their customers will undermine their efforts to recapitalise!  We are frequently warned that such regulation risked "pushing talent and investment overseas". As if!
    Of course these mega-rich, City types won`t leave. Where else could they employ their tax-avoiding skills, enjoy the fruits of living in their very own tax-haven, and be paid lottery-type salaries and bonuses? Where else could they buy property giving them minimum 10% annual profits, and then let it out at extortionate rents, giving them more opportunities both to exploit ordinary people, and to avoid paying their fair share?
     Sadly, they won`t leave, and take their skills abroad, where they could hone their ability to devise scams like Payment Protection Insurance. Why, they could even go to Mexico and launder drug money, as HSBC famously did, until caught out! 
    We`ve been hearing for years how these self-professed "best people" will leave the country if bonuses are stopped, pay is lowered, and regulations imposed. The fact that they are still here speaks volumes about the way recent governments have pandered to their every whim! It`s time to call the bankers` bluff!

       Aditya Chakraborrty in the Guardian recently de-bunked the argument that more competitor banks are the solution with the question: "what is the point of having more competitors if they`re all doing the same thing?" And when the Barclays CEO, most famous for saying with a straight face that his bank would put "ethics before profits", states on Radio 4`s Today programme that his preference is "self-regulation", the real "culture-change" the Guardian`s editorial requests only seems possible with a radical proposal. Given eight years to implement the Vickers report`s recommendations on "ring-fencing", the chairman of HSBC wants more time, and complains of the "unprecedented" demands on his staff - unbelievable!

     A bold Labour party has to summon up the bottle to pledge that the 81% state owned bank, RBS, will become a People`s Bank, with lower profit margins, more attractive interest rates, and trustworthy employees, to attract millions of customers away from the other banks, enabling it to lend more to small businesses. Sadly, I`m not holding my breath on that one, but at least Labour should do everything in its power to prevent another part of RBS being privatised before the election!

Sunday 3 August 2014

Observer Letter on Miliband and election

If Andrew Rawnsley is willing to acknowledge that Ed Miliband "may well be right" when he said that "ideas are the most underrated commodity in politics" and that "decency and empathy the most underrated virtues", why does he continue to write on a regular basis about the Labour leader`s "flaws"? (Ed Miliband`s lack of popularity is nothing to do with his photo-ops,27/07/14) Wouldn`t it be more sensible for him to concentrate on the important issues facing the electorate next May? It`s all very well to mention the "conspiracy" to focus on bacon-butty eating and such like, "between the Tories and their mates in the right-wing media", but to write so frequently about "the Ed Miliband problem" gives it an unmerited gravitas.
     "Decency and empathy" in politics certainly are worthy of discussion before the election, especially as both have been so notable by their absence during this government`s tenure. Would it not be worthwhile to remind readers of broken Tory promises like "no frontline cuts", "no top-down NHS reorganisation", "no VAT rise", and, just for a change, compare them with Miliband`s stance against Murdochism and the energy companies? Then there`s the duplicity of both ruling parties, with Liberal principles sacrificed at the power-altars, and "caring Conservatism" seen for clearly what it was, merely an election gimmick. Is it such a good idea to take state intervention back to 1948 levels, which is a Tory ambition? More discussion is needed on the pitfalls of privatisation, the need for progressive taxation and a de-bunking of the Laffer curve, along Piketty lines.In fact, having an election based on principles and policies might be the very thing to get all of the electorate interested, and voting!

     One hundred years after the gutter press prepared the British people for an unnecessary war, it`s now telling them that Miliband is unelectable; we do not expect similar messages from the Sunday newspaper of our choice.

Saturday 2 August 2014

Ignore media: Ed M should be a shoo-in! (LabourList article)

Both Patrick Wintour of the Guardian, and Steve Richards of the Independent have both recently written respectively, that the “Labour poll lead seems to be defying gravity” and that it is a mystery “why the Conservatives are not well ahead in the polls”, when “the economy is growing” and Miliband has to endure a “media onslaught”.
The truth is, of course, that there is no mystery: people know that this Tory dominated government`s claims about the economy`s resurgence and there being more people in work than ever before are spurious, especially when so many jobs are part-time, with zero hours contracts and low pay, and increasingly desperate people resorting to their “last refuge”, self-employment. New research is actually indicating that real earnings,by May next year, will have declined by 2.3% since the start of the coalition’s administration, the biggest fall since the 1874-80 government; irony of ironies, that was the government of Disraeli, the PM who coined the term, “One Nation”!
Do the voters being polled need reminding that the same government is responsible not only for the destruction of the welfare state, with a declared intention to take the state`s role back to 1948 levels, but the running down of the NHS, leading inevitably to its future privatisation, the selling off of the country`s assets at knockdown prices, the obscene tax benefits for the rich and the 28th position in the equality league table Britain now holds, the taking of education back to the 1950s, the ending of the Education Maintenance Allowance, and decreasing social mobility? Have the banks been regulated, have bonuses been stopped, is there a housing bubble, are private rents out of control? People are clearly afraid of what a Tory government might do if it were given a free rein for another five years.
How can respected political analysts like Wintour write that “logic suggests Cameron must win” the election when it is far more plausible to believe that if Labour`s propaganda machine gets its act together, and reminds the electorate of the cruel and grossly unfair policies adopted since 2010, Miliband should be a shoo-in! With Tories like Letwin hinting that a flat rate of tax might be an option in the future, and Osborne preferring a further reduction in the top rate to 40%, Labour only has to demonstrate clearly how both ideas favour the rich, to score further political points. A Tory-dominated government bribing the well-off in the build-up to an election will hardly come as a surprise!
It can also remind the electorate of the promises made by Tories in the build-up to the 2010 election; “no frontline cuts”,”no top-down reorganisation of the NHS”, and “no VAT rise” spring to mind, whilst there was no mention of tax cuts for the very wealthy, or the privatisation of parts of the health service or of Royal Mail. We were not told how state schools would be forced to accept academisation or face financial difficulties, or that university fees would be trebled. We were informed that tax avoidance was “morally repugnant”, but not that Tory funds would be boosted by donations from the CEOs of companies like Vitol, which paid 2.6% tax on profits of $846m last year. Suddenly we are expected to believe that Tories are really concerned about the economic future of the north, that gender equality, despite the preponderance of multi-millionaire males in the cabinet, is one of their priorities, that fracking will not be allowed in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, and that their so-called “tough regulation” of the banks will see a culture-change! According to Luke Hildyard, deputy director of the High Pay Centre, most people will be amazed that rules clawing back “bonuses for cheating, conniving and reckless speculation” have not been put in place years ago.; talk about “locking the stable door after a very large pig has bolted”!
Tories will continue with the nonsense about Miliband’s “weirdness”, even though their leader is Cameron, and until a few weeks ago, Gove was being touted as a possible future party leader.
No, Messrs Wintour, Richards and co. there is nothing logical about a Tory win in the 2015 election; far from it, but a well organised and carefully planned propaganda programme, reminding voters of Tory, lies, failures, and duplicity as well as Labour’s proposals for a fair and just society, must be a priority.

Troop deployment in Gaza

Enough is enough! It is apparent that the Israelis do not want peace and that the "IDF will expand its attacks" to continue the slaughter of innocent children, regardless of the hundreds of protests around the world.   At the current speed of operations, Gaza and its people will be totally obliterated. With the Gazans, like so many beleagured groups in the Middle East, having nowhere to go, the world has to step in, and the only thing which will stop Israel is the immediate deployment of troops.
       Although the response of the BBC has improved in recent weeks, largely because of the mountain of criticism there has been about its biased coverage, its correspondents still avoid describing Gaza`s military occupation, the 8 year blockade, or even the colonisation by Israel of the West Bank, which according to the Oslo accords of 1993 is supposed to be where an independent Palestiniam state is to be sited. It is clear, therefore, that the BBC is not going to initiate, let alone lead, a worldwide media campaign against the destruction of Gaza. Also, America and the EU countries are not going to impose meaningful sanctions against Israel, so the only solution lies with the United Nations.    
         UN troops have to be deployed immediately, to protect the aid workers and the Palestinians from the non-stop onslaught. Nothing else will stop the Israelis! The war-weariness of all countries, especially of those recently involved in unnecessary wars, has to be countered by the urgency of the situation, and the imminent loss of thousands of young lives. Leaders and politicians can wring their hands as much as they like, and cowardly refuse to admit that the Israeli action is "disproportionate", but if they don`t demand an immediate meeting of the Security Council, which then has to order the deployment of troops, they will be as guilty as the warmongers.Which country would dare use its veto to block the action? Would Israeli tanks fire shells at schools surrounded by the blue-capped soldiers of the UN? Will anything else stop them? They might stop in two weeks but thousands more will have died by then. Some might be tried in two years for war crimes, but how does that help Palestinians? 
      Ban Ki-moon was right to refute America`s call for further investigation into the attack on the UN school in Jabaliya, noting that the Israeli military received the school`s coordinates 17 times! Warning families to move because of impending attacks, and then shelling their new refuge can only be described as "outrageous and unjustifiable", but when the UN secretary general demands "justice" he needs support. 

    The lack of action to stop these murders begs two questions: Do we have politicians in the world with the bottle to stand up to the Israelis?
 What is the point of the United Nations?