3 unpublished letters to Guardian

With the Tories` much-vaunted "long-term economic plan" now clearly in disarray, and "deficit reduction targets" about to be missed, one would have thought that such news would at least make the front page of a newspaper claiming to be left-of-centre (New figures reignite fears that Osborne will fail to hit his budget surplus goal,23/12/15). Having won the May election by convincing the electorate that only Tories can manage the economy competently and reduce the deficit, and that Labour governments borrow too much, this administration has already borrowed £66.9bn in eight months, when its twelve month target is £68.9bn.

     Billions of pounds are being denied to the Treasury every year, money which, if used sensibly, could transform our health and education services, as well as providing finance for much-needed improvement of our infrastructure. So when "some of the biggest and most profitable investment banks in the City of London" are found to have paid "little or no corporation tax last year", shouldn`t this be headline news, too (Outrage as top City banks pay almost no tax on £3.6bn profit,23/12/15)? The Tories, after all, supposedly think such tax avoidance is "morally repugnant", and promised years ago to make greedy businesses, like these banks, "smell the coffee".

     The opposition parties in parliament do have a duty to challenge the actions of the government, but arguments and elections will not be won by them as long as the more liberal elements of the press fail to highlight government failures like these. Brilliant editorials are all very well, and it is right to criticise the government for "redefining poverty out of existence", rather than attempting to abolish it, but this government cannot be allowed to brainwash, again, the public with its "competence" and "caring" nonsense. (Christmas illustrates a truth the Tories ignore: money matters,23/12/15).

     Of course it is right, too, to highlight humanitarian issues like the plight of the refugees, but there is a lot of news space on a front page; it is not only Labour`s anti-Corbyn brigade in the parliamentary party who are hindering Labour`s chances of election success in 2020.

 

Your editorial on the prime-minister concludes that "it is time for Mr Cameron to show some steel", but ducking confrontation has, as it admits, "served him well" in the past, and the likelihood of a change in policy in 2016 is slim (The price of party unity has been a loss of strategic purpose,26/12/15). The reason is simple: there is no "steel" to be shown, either by him, or his leader-in-waiting, George Osborne. The latter talks frequently of having to make "difficult decisions", but is it really painful or awkward for a Tory chancellor to cut benefits for the poorest and most vulnerable in our society, whilst shielding his party`s key supporters from the effects of austerity? Claiming tax avoidance by companies and rich individuals to be "morally repugnant", and warning that they will soon "smell the coffee", is easy, when there is no intention of taking effective action, and the Treasury continues to be denied billions of much-needed revenue (Outrage as top City banks pay almost no tax on £3.6bn profit,23/12/15).

    Cameron is an ideal Tory leader, because he has no backbone, and refusing concessions to opponents within the party would, indeed, "be out of character". Deferring a Tory "civil war", whilst he and his chancellor reduce the size of the state, and enrich supporters with cut-price privatisations, is his only strategy. As long as so many voters strangely view this procrastination as "prime-ministerial", there is no reason for a "steely" pretence, especially when myopic opposition parties fail to see the open-goals offered to them.

Bernard Jenkin is right to say that "people in politics" should not be denied an honour "just because they give public service", but what on earth does this have to do with the highly paid Australian, Lynton Crosby (Knighthood for Tories` election strategist undermines honours system, say critics, 28/12/15)?

 Bernard Jenkin is right to say that "people in politics" should not be denied an honour "just because they give public service", but what on earth does this have to do with the highly paid Australian, Lynton Crosby (Knighthood for Tories` election strategist undermines honours system, say critics, 28/12/15)?

 

Holding business to account

"Illegal or unethical practice at the expense of the consumer" is all too common in the corporate world, so it was edifying to see a whole editorial devoted to the subject (It`s time we held big business to account, 20/12/15).Of course, you are right to say that businesses should play a greater role "in calling each other to account", and it would make a pleasant change if the CBI started to take action against its companies failing to pay decent wages, giving obscene bonuses to overpaid executives, or avoiding tax, rather than criticising the government for its apprenticeship plans, and blaming hard-working teachers for employees lacking skills.

     Better information about companies` behaviour, like the European parliament`s "fair tax kitemark", is clearly needed. When the USA faced similar problems of unpatriotic, greedy businesses during the 1930s, Roosevelt came up with "Blue Eagles", which, after a presidential explanation via a "fireside chat", companies could display in their advertising, provided their practice was in line with government policy. To encourage economic growth, and stimulate spending, decent wages, shorter working days and trade union recognition were all deemed essential. If something similar was adopted here, it would not not only provide much needed information for public consumption, and guidance before purchase, it would help provide a more even playing field for business, giving the more ethical companies a better chance of survival in the face of unfair competition from the tax avoiders and low wage payers.

   That "handful of bad companies"which you mention, is fast becoming a "wheelbarrow-full", and the sooner action is taken, the better. With Osborne more often in cahoots with the City than not, few of us will be holding our breath!

Mandelson still wrong!

"Arch-Blairite" Mandelson, rightly described by Momentum founder, Jon Lansman as "desperate", claims 30,000 "real members" have left the Labour party since Corbyn was elected leader, even though membership overall has risen by 180,000 (Morning Star,18/12/15). His definition of "real" clearly veers away from any known dictionary! What he means is that people who never should have been in the Labour party, whose right-wing views saw substance in the Blair years, when huge opportunities were missed to regulate industry and the financial institutions, and when inequality soared, now disapprove of Corbyn`s policies.

 Mandelson is the one who infamously declared that his version of the Labour party was "intensely relaxed" about people getting filthy rich, with results which have been disastrous for our society and economy. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has now provided results of its research, which shows that high pay for chief executives demotivates the rest of the workforce, which then is reflected in productivity levels. Hardly surprising when the High Pay Centre`s research shows that CEOs are being paid 183 times more than their average employee, compared with 47 times in 1998. Median pay for CEOs in FTSE100 companies has risen from £1.4m in 2003 to £3.3m in 2014.

   What the country clearly needs is for the ratio between average worker and boss`s pay to be limited by legislation, and for all boards of directors of companies above a certain size to include workers` representatives, a system good enough to be imposed on West Germany after the war, but seemingly inappropriate for 21st century UK! Over to you, Mr Corbyn.

Oxbridge colleges` intake

The fact that that many Oxbridge colleges still fail to "accept even half of their intake from state schools" is appalling, and, given that both universities have been encouraged to enrol more undergraduates from the state sector for years, legislative remedial action is required (Oxbridge colleges named and shamed for failing to admit disadvantaged students,13/12/15).

      One obvious solution would be to legislate to ensure universities could not take in more than 7% of their intake from private schools, matching the national average. It would mean all universities would be forced to accept more candidates from the state sector, and inevitably, more students from poorer, working class backgrounds. There would be some objections, with some universities complaining about a fall in standards, but there is plenty of research already done, showing how undergraduates from state schools tend to achieve higher degrees, and make more academic progress, than the cosseted, and rather spoilt, students from the private sector. 

      Of course, not all state schools are the same, with some of the selective ones in the more prosperous areas being able to provide a much more "privileged" education than others in less salubrious districts. Television programmes on the subject, with their fly-on-the-wall approach to filming, (or so we are led to believe) have not served the cause of state education well. Whilst they have shown the caring and dedicated side of the teaching profession, and, probably to the horror of Tristram Hunt, the abundance of "character and resilience" amongst the pupils, the cameras never focus on the hugely successful teaching and learning which take place on a daily basis, often enabling 60% plus of the students to gain 5 A*-C grades, and go on to sixth form studies. The programmes give the impression that in all state schools, lessons are constantly disrupted by poor behaviour, and that is simply not the case.

   Undoubtedly, however, examination success is much more difficult to achieve in some state schools than others, often for a variety of reasons. The more "challenging" schools often find staff recruitment a problem, which can lead to the appointment of unqualified teachers, and "promotion" of classroom assistants. In such schools, staff often leave mid-course, which can be particularly damaging at sixth form level, where the subject may have to be dropped at the end of year 12, if no replacement tutor can be found. A-level results may well be affected, which  then impacts on university application success.

Shouldn`t all universities be forced, as so few do it willingly, to take in a certain percentage of their undergraduates from such schools? If pupils can achieve grade Cs and Bs after teacher upheaval, poor leadership, and compulsory cutbacks at their schools, they at least deserve the opportunity to continue their studies at the university of their choice. It might mean university tutors having to spend a little more time in tutorials, and even the end of one-to-one tutorials, but it would also bring some meaning back to the concept of "equality of opportunity"!

Beatle song titles

Funny how at least 15 Beatles song titles can come together in a brief G2 article yesterday. (Science papers - another cite of Bob Dylan, 16/12/15). Don't ask me why but for no one to notice is something else!

      It is correct, is it not? A second time, consecutively, in the Letters page on the same topic is well nigh impossible, or so they tell me (Letters,17/12/15). Why is this? All I`ve got to do is imitate what you`re doing, yes?
       It is, apparently, something you can`t do. That there`s a place for hiding Beatle song titles in a newspaper is incontrovertible, and I want to tell you it`s in the readers` contribution section; in fact, I will. If you want help in this, there`s no need to act. Naturally, I want to be your man, and that`s that! It`s not the end, as if!

     I fell foul of the readers` editor the night before last. I should have known better than to have suggested such a revolution!

      Now here`s a quiz you can do any time. 
 At all Christmas gatherings I`ve got a feeling it will go down well, some joy, some misery. Why?As Tesco nearly always says, because every little thing helps at Christmas. Something to indulge in.
My life history shows many festive occasions need  such party-starters.  I would love you to try to find as many different Beatle song titles as you can, all together, now, or on your own.
    Thank you and good night. That`s all from me.
To you a very happy Christmas.

New Statesman letter on Tory democracy

George Eaton appears surprised by the Tories` "battery of measures to weaken the opposition and to reduce executive responsibility", especially as they entail an all-out offensive against democracy (Politics,11th December). Just because Cameron churns out his mantra about democracy being a "core British value", and its protection abroad being a key reason for intervention, does not mean his government and party give it anything other than token and perfunctory support. Indeed, history reveals how the Tories only ever accepted the 19th century expansion of the suffrage when it was clear that reform acts would reduce the threat of revolution, as in 1832, or possibly benefit them in the polls, as in 1867. Cameron, with his constituency boundary changes, reduced "Short money" and a "new system of individual electoral registration" is simply carrying on a long-held Tory tradition.

     By contending that the government is not repeating Labour`s "error of inaction", Eaton ignores another Tory anti-democratic device; doing nothing to utilise modern technology in the voting procedure also illustrates their desire to limit the level of democracy in this country. When millions use their phones or tablets to vote every week for ballroom dancers or whatever, and when billions of pounds safely change hands in internet deals, government refusals to experiment with online voting, claiming it to be too insecure, beggar belief. Even moving polling booths to city centres, supermarket car-parks or university campuses appears to be too risky, when the only danger clearly is that many more will be incentivised to vote. Democracy, it seems, is only an aspiration for countries under dictatorships, but what does a country effectively become, when its government is intent on limiting democracy, and encouraging only its own supporters to exercise their statutory rights?

Morning Star letter on Saudis and Syria

Of course, the British monarchy and Tory party`s "appalling long-standing" relationships with the Saudis are hindering the government from "pressurising rich Gulf rulers into cutting off funding Isis", and, as Lord Ashdown says, stopping those funds would be more effective than bombing campaigns (Morning Star,25/11/15). Ashdown is also correct to question why Saudi and Qatari plane are not involved in the bombing campaign; he has often asked how will we destroy Isis "by killing more Muslim Arabs with Western bombs"?  The question about why Corbyn has received so much criticism from his own MPs for saying that our recent record of intervention in the Middle East, not to mention our historical one, has "increased the threat to the UK" can only be answered by examining both their motives and their inability to read political opportunities correctly! 

    Labour MPs should be focusing their attention on the Tories, and in particular, Cameron`s refusal to publish a report on the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, because it did not find it a "terrorist organisation" as the Saudis had hoped. The MPs should be asking why the PM ordered the review in the first place, when it was obvious that democracy, that so-called "British value", which led to the Muslim Brotherhood-inspired government was crushed by the Egyptian military. Nothing to do with arms deals, by any chance?

     It is obvious diplomacy has to be the first resort in the Syria problem, especially as the usual justification given for violent jihadism is the foreign policy of the west, with its repeated invasions, interference and killing. The UK and its government should not only learn from its recent actions in the Middle East, rather than repeat the mistakes, but also remember how peace finally came to Northern Ireland.

Turkish foreign policy

Norman Stone is right to say that Erdogan`s recent "adventurism" does, indeed, "amount to an extraordinary departure" for Turkish foreign policy since 1923, but he strangely failed to mention how the events of the late 1870s substantiate his argument about Turkey`s dangerous provocation of Russia (Erdogan`s dreams of empire are perilous for his country,07/12/15). The role of principal thorn in the side of the Turks, then, was taken by Balkan nationalists, particularly after the obscene mistreatment of the Bulgars which brought about Russian intervention to protect fellow Slavs, a situation not too dissimilar from that of today. Russian victory in the ensuing war in 1878 meant Britain, under the Tory Disraeli, sticking her imperial nose in, especially when the San Stephano peace did not suit her own territorial ambitions, and when an international affair looked as though it would be settled without the involvement of the British. Disraeli may have returned home from the Congress of Berlin a hero, but his misreading of the political situation, and understimation of the strength of opposition to foreign intervention, led to the early 20th century Balkan wars, and ultimately the first world war. Historians say how Disraeli "backed the wrong horse", but the lesson, surely, is to stay well away from the betting ring!

New Statesman letter on IS

Quentin Sommerville tells us that after the battles for Sinjar and Kobane, "the absence of IS dead was striking", protected by their "network of tunnels and hideaways" (Into the terror zone, 4th December,2015). This must surely tell us that the bombing of IS-held towns, without massive military support on the ground, can be little more than political posturing. Bombing oilfields in IS-held territory is less effective, too, than punishing those who are buying their oil. What has to be attained first is international and local agreement on the removal of Assad; without this, any action is likely to spawn more hatred of western values.

      An ideology, as it has often been said, no matter how barbarous, cannot be bombed out of existence. Urgently required is for its bloodthirsty and psychopathic aspects to be exposed as essentially non-Islamic, for the ideology`s attraction to decline, and the best way history has shown to achieve this is by putting it on public trial, with worldwide publicity, Nuremburg style. Leading figures of IS need to be captured, and for maximum effect, all lawyers and judges involved should be Muslim. Whilst it is vital that this barbaric monstrosity is revealed to all as a perversion of the Muslim faith, it is also increasingly evident that every delay in the removal of Assad  hinders all possibilities of peace.

Morning Star letter on BBC`s Spoty

Kadeem Simmonds raised some excellent points in his article on the different reactions in the press to Vardy and Fury, the former a "goalscoring, abusive narcissist" and the latter a world champion, bigoted homophobe (Morning Star,03/12/15). Simmonds strangely made no reference to Fury`s inclusion in the shortlist for the BBC Sports Personality of the Year award, or to the possible effect his homophobic comments will have on the public`s voting. No matter how good the sporting achievement, the award does explicitly stress it is for "sports personality", and it`s about time, especially considering how prestigious and coveted the trophy has become, that the media provided us with rather more pertItinent details about all those on the shortlist.

       It would certainly be helpful to know about which of the twelve love their country so much, and are so grateful for the support of their British fans, they live abroad, and pay little or no tax to the Treasury. How many say they owe so much to the time and patience of their teachers, but who nevertheless contribute to the £40bn of unpaid, avoided taxes every year, money which could ensure the provision of better facilities and coaching for millions of young people in this country?  Perhaps the Morning Star could help by publishing the BBC`s shortlist, providing readers with details of the names of the non doms and known tax avoiders? Such action by the press would surely have altered the final result last year!

 

Criticism of the Observer

So "Labour is trapped", and its "aghast parliamentarians are powerless to do anything about it" (There is no obvious escape route from the party`s agonies,29/11/15). When our politicians rush their decisions, without thinking of the consequences, political writers can`t wait to criticise the absence of what they refer to as "joined-up thinking", but isn`t this the crime of which supposedly left-wing commentators like Andrew Rawnsley are now guilty, especially since Corbyn`s election? What did they expect to happen in the Labour party, when, in column after column, they have ridiculed him for having slightly radical principles, and rubbished his policies as "hard left", for actually threatening to reduce inequality?

      What is the point of the Observer, year after year, brilliantly exposing huge profiteering and exploitation, massive tax avoidance and evasion, and untold suffering endured by the millions of less fortunate people here and worldwide, when it greets the election of a politician, with proposals to transform society, with derision? For months, Rawnsley and his ilk have encouraged the Blairite faction, and others with similar Tory-lite policies, to distance themselves from Corbyn and those with a similar "ideological complexion", and now wonders why "his own shadow cabinet" cannot be persuaded by his "unconvincing argument", even though it happens to be the same argument supported by your editorial (The PM failed to make a convincing case for Syria strikes.MPs should say no,29/11/15)!

     Wouldn`t it have been more sensible, especially for a newspaper with such a reputation as yours, to have welcomed Corbyn`s election as an opportunity to present the country with a realistic, alternative government to that of the Tories? Of course, inexperience of leadership would cause problems and, at times, embarrassment, but instead of providing encouragement for MPs to unite, and make the most of Corbyn`s huge popularity in the party, political writers urged rebellion. The fact that the same rebellion could lead us into another disastrous and unnecessary military engagement presumably escaped them!

     How will change and transformation ever come without someone like Corbyn leading the charge? Do the rebels in the shadow cabinet, and their supporters in the media, really believe a moderate Labour can win elections? If Corbyn is forced out, History will most certainly judge 2015 as a year of missed opportunity for Labour, and it won`t be the politicians who are solely to blame.

Morning Star letter on Labour MPs

Of course, as Friday`s excellent editorial said, every MP "should be expected to face peaceful protest", but "personalised abuse or threats" have no place in our political system (Morning Star, 04/12/15). The latter point really does need to be stressed; disappointment at many Labour MPs` voting in favour of the bombing of Syria was shared by all of us, but tweeting abuse and threats only plays into Tory hands. Notice how quickly the mainstream media publicised them, never failing to add to the government`s propaganda about the unelectability of the current Labour party.

    Corbyn`s policies, as the Oldham victory shows, can resonate with a general public, which is clearly and increasingly fed up with the obviously unnecessary austerity measures of the Bullingdon boys, and the 2020 election is there for the winning. The task of winning over the electorate, however, will be difficult enough, without an impression spreading that Labour is divided between Blairites and hot-headed extremists.

     A small number of the right-wing Labour MPs are probably in the wrong party, but the majority can be won round to Corbyn`s way of thinking, and a united front can be in place long before the 2020 election. With the Tories finding it hard to break their habit of U-turning, but refusing to change their main proposal to shrink the state, with the least fortunate bearing the brunt of the effects, Corbyn and his allies must concentrate on analysing the details of every government policy and statement; too often, ministers are allowed to make, and usually repeat, outrageous claims which have not a shred of evidence to support them.

 Far too many opportunities have been missed by Labour in 2015, but there is still a chance for the party, united around its leader and policies, to offer a real opposition to this most duplicitous of governments. Tristram Hunt wrongly moaned about the lack of "character and resilence" shown by pupils in the state sector, but if ever there was a time for Labour MPs of his ilk to display those characteristics, it has to be now! Even worms can turn, especially when they realise how their leader is far more in touch with the voters than they are.

 

    

0sborne`s "hard choices"

Whilst your Leader did describe Osborne`s "hard choices" as "increasingly self-inflicted", and rightly argued that the austerity policies are "political choices" rather than economic necessities, it failed to make the obvious point (Leader,27 November,2015). The so-called "hard choices", which he boasts are now "paying off", are, in fact, the easiest decisions a Tory chancellor can make. Cutting benefits for the poorest and most vulnerable in our society, shielding his party`s key supporters from the effects of austerity, refusing to make the wealthiest pay their fair share, and ignoring the need for financial institutions to be strictly regulated are all default positions for Osborne. What was difficult about selling RBS shares a few weeks ago for £1.1bn less than their real value, just to benefit his hedge-fund friends?

   What would be really "hard choices" would include ones which increase fairness in the taxation system, like a "modest land tax" or an increase in income tax for the wealthy, and which deal effectively with tax avoidance by increasing co-operation in Europe, forcing multinationals to file a single European tax return, and thereby offending the eurosceptics in his own party. How can protecting pensioners, the majority of whom vote Tory, from austerity be possibly thought of as a difficult decision? Joining the majority of EU members in imposing a Financial Transaction tax next January might be judged a difficult decision for him, but only because it would offend many Tory donors. "Hard choices" for Osborne would entail commitments which have the potential to upset Tory voters, something that he is clearly reluctant to do; imposing austerity measures on people traditionally regarded as Labour supporters, or non-voters, cannot be described as such. 

 

Guardian letter on Spoty

 Sachin Nakrani is, of course, stating the obvious when suggesting that Tyson Fury`s remarks about homosexuality and abortion "could count against him" in the voting for the BBC Sports Personality of the Year award, provided, that is, the public knows about them (Gloves are off as Fury and Murray enter fray for BBC Sports Personality award,01/12/15). As it is "widely recognised as being the most prestigious honour" outside the "sporting arena", the BBC`s selection panel, who drew up the shortlist for the award, should ensure it goes to a worthy winner.

     For a start, it would be helpful to know about which of the twelve love their country so much, and are so grateful for the support of their British fans, they live abroad, and pay little or no tax to the Treasury. Perhaps the Guardian could help by publishing the shortlist again, but this time placing asterisks by the names of the non doms and known tax avoiders?

Corbyn right on Syria

Andrew Rawnsley`s default mode is to criticise Corbyn at every opportunity, even to the extent of attempting humour at his expense, with the suggestion that the Labour leader "could maybe parachute in and make a citizen`s arrest" of any lurking "murderous jihadi" (David Cameron will most likely get agreement on taking the fight to Isis,22/11/15). No doubt, many, equally biased, neo-Blairites will have sniggered, but to ridicule Corbyn`s reluctance to accept a "shoot-to-kill" at all costs policy displays as much judgement as that displayed by the Labour MPs voting with the Tories merely to embarrass their own leader.   

     Total annihilation of Isis troops in the Middle East might well be a solution, but only a short-term one, likely to spawn more hatred of western values; an ideology, no matter how barbarous, cannot be bombed out of existence. But its bloodthirsty and psychopathic aspects need to be exposed as essentially non-Islamic for the ideology`s attraction to decline, and the best way history has shown to achieve this is by putting it on public trial, with worldwide publicity, Nuremburg style. For this to happen, Mr Rawnsley, some arrests have to be made!

Review letter on empire

How sad, and sadly typical of this country, that when advice is needed to frame the schools` history syllabus, the person chosen is Niall Ferguson, a "neocon court historian", rather than an expert analyst of primary evidence, like William Dalrymple, who wants the true version of the subject to be taught (Facing up to the past,21/11/15). Until the UK faces up to historical facts, like the "racially inspired genocides" committed in its name in the years of empire, how can it hope to remove bigotry and prejudice from society? The Tate`s exhibition "exploring its artistic legacy" is, at least, a start, but a less duplicitous government would ensure it toured the country!

Priorities of Labour MPs

George Eaton contends that Labour MPs acknowledge many of Corbyn`s "individual policies are popular" but fear the "collective offer is no longer credible", so why doesn`t he criticise them for their obvious cowardice (Politics,20 November)? Not only is their support for the "popular" proposals, like nationalisation of railways, at best half-hearted, and more often minimalist, their refusal to accept that the so-called less "credible" policies actually could become electorally acceptable, given a fair hearing and public debate, smacks of gutlessness and selfish careerism. How can they possibly think that getting rid of Corbyn, and replacing him with a neo-Blairite, will lead to anything but disaster in 2020?

      It`s no good excusing Labour MPs` behaviour by quoting Corbyn`s "record of rebellion", when their disloyalty threatens the very future of the party. Is Corbyn wrong in saying that our recent record of intervention in the Middle East, not to mention our historical one, has "increased the threat to the UK"? Isn`t his anti-austerity stance being proved correct by the obvious failure of the Tories` "long-term economic plan", and Britain now owing the equivalent of 80.5% of a year`s GDP, compared with 69% when Osborne first became chancellor? Isn`t the government`s claim to be representing the working people, when their action and legislation suggest the exact opposite, more worthy of Labour MPs` criticism amd concern?

     With the government gifting the opposition such wonderful propaganda-fodder, it`s obvious what Labour`s priorities should be.

Morning Star letters on HMRC, and Osborne`s excuses

Friday`s feature on the so-called "modernisation" of HMRC, and the creation of more "efficiency" by the decision to "close 137 tax offices and to concentrate their functions on 13 new regional centres", was right to stress how this can only be good news for the tax avoiders and evaders (Morning Star,13/11/15). What makes the news even more disappointing is that HMRC`s chief executive, Lin Homer, and her associates, were given such an easy ride by parliament`s public accounts committee when they were interrogated this week. Admittedly, there was a gentle ticking off for the lamentable customer service and phone calls not being answered, but what about, not only the committee`s report which had already criticised HMRC for its "woefully inadequate number of prosecutions for offshore tax evasion", but also the subsequent excuse, for the eleven prosecutions for offshore tax evasion in the last five years, that exorbitant court costs prohibited more cases?

The committee was fobbed off with dubious and unfounded claims that the amount of uncollected tax in Britain is "no worse than in many other countries", stating the tax gap to be £34bn. This, of course, does not take into account tax evasion, only avoidance. HMRC 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. Setting an example by taking some individuals to court, and letting them face the consequences, and long jail sentences, even if the costs amounted to hundreds of millions, would be more than worth it, as a deterrent to all evaders!

     Government policy, far from publicly condemning all non-payment of tax as "morally repugnant", now appears to have U-turned. Cameron`s worldwide endorsement of Greene King, whose battle to justify a tax avoidance scheme bought from Ernst and Young for 10% of all the tax saved, suffered two defeats in the lower tax courts, and widespread condemnation from MPs, including from the then chair of the public accounts committee Margaret Hodge, suggests the idea of any businesses "smelling the coffee" no longer suits this government. Well, we are over four years away from an election!

Matt Willgress was right to support Ken Livingstone`s view that the Tories` "chaos over tax credits did not happen by accident" (Morning Star,06/11/15).With over 1200 staff employed at the Treasury, including, according to the Independent, eight special advisers costing the taxpayer over £500,000 a year, it is hard to believe that someone didn`t carry out an "impact assessment". Next they`ll be telling us they didn`t know, not only about the steel industry being under threat because of unfair Chinese competition, but that quantitative easing works elsewhere in the world to stimulate economies, so long as banks are not the direct recipients. I don`t suppose the Tories will acknowledge, either, that the Northern Powerhouse is just a wheeze drummed up just before what was thought was an unwinnable election, and which can`t possibly work anyway, when councils are having their government grants decimated, or that tax avoidance measures are also suffering the consequences of sacking thousands of staff at HMRC! There is so much evidence proving that the chancellor knows exactly what he is doing, that any suggestion otherwise beggars belief. Attacking the poorest and most vulnerable appears to be his default mode; he clearly he has no Plan B. 

       Whilst it is not remotely surprising that our beleaguered chancellor took advantage of a meeting with Tory backbenchers on the 1922 committee, and appealed to them for ideas on how the tax credit proposals could be revised, it does come as a shock to see Osborne not making the most of it. Why didn`t he ask for their ideas on stopping the downward turn our economy is taking, with growth at 0.5% and set, according to the chief economist at the finacial data firm, Markit, Chris Williamson, to slow to 0.3% by the end of the year? Bullingdon boy`s only solution is to enrich his friends in the City! Shouldn`t Osborne also have sought advice on HS2, and how to prevent projected costs going over £50bn? 

       What needs to happen now is for Labour`s propaganda team to start shouting Osborne`s failures from the rooftops, starting with his lamentable industrial policy, which has led to steel`s collapse, economic growth stalling, and privatised railways having "clapped-out and overcrowded trains"(Morning Star,30/10/154). Cameron will be too concerned about his own reputation to allow his friendship with Osborne preventing him from sacking him; he is a Tory after all!

"Real" Osborne stood up years ago

At least Tory MPs like Stephen McPartland have dropped the ridiculous idea they were propagating a few weeks ago that Osborne`s mishandling of the tax credits` issue happened because he was ignorant of the massive hardship the cuts would cause, due to a so-called "technical mistake" (I`m speaking up for low-income families:that`s why I`ve become a Tory rebel over tax credits,15/11/15). With over 1200 staff employed at the Treasury, including apparently eight special advisers costing the taxpayer over £500,000 a year, it is hard to believe that someone didn`t carry out an "impact assessment". Of course Osborne knew, so if, as your political editor, Toby Helm, suggests, the country still can`t decide whether the chancellor is a "master strategist" or "political blunderer", it must be almost entirely due to the way his cruel policies are depicted by the press (Master strategist of political blunderer? Friend of the strivers or enemy of the working people? Will the real George Osborne please stand up, 15/11/15).

    Even the reliable William Keegan, whilst listing the "Big Lies", perpetrated by the chancellor, about Labour`s spending causing the banking crisis, the UK`s economic problems having been "comparable to those of Greece", much of the welfare budget going to the "unemployed and feckless" rather than 1.5%, and budget deficit rather than cuts being "a threat to national security", omitted two of Osborne`s whoppers. He and Cameron may spout for all they`re worth about tax avoidance being "morally repugnant" and firms like Google needing to "smell the coffee", but the lack of effectual legislation and prosecutions, and continued job cuts at HMRC, tell a different story. Same applies to the pre-election wheeze that is the "northern powerhouse", which is destined to remain a non-starter as long as government grants to local councils in the north continue to be decimated. 

      The penny should have dropped by now, Mr Helm: the "real George Osborne" stood up years ago!

Lansley`s jobs

The report about former health minister, Andrew Lansley, taking on "three jobs in the private sector" not only speaks volumes about the limited role played by principles in decisions made by our current crop of Tory politicians, but also about the need for reform of rules governing such appointments ( Morning Star,17/11/15). The fact that Lansley is now being paid to advise the drug company, Roche, which maximises its profits from the cancer drugs fund which Lansley himself set up, beggars belief, as does the pharmaceuticals company`s attempts to justify charging £90,000 for a drug to treat one breast cancer patient for a year. Reducing the cost to £60,000 just to enable it to be bought by the fund really does suggest gross profiteering.

   The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments has approved all of his new posts, but insisted Lansley is not allowed to draw on privileged information available to him when in government".There can be very few who do not think that Roche appointed him simply because of what he knows from his time as health secretary, and because he has been key in increasing the "role of the private sector in the NHS"!

Clearly, an obvious need exists for a rule change, at least preventing ex-ministers from taking on related roles, until a minimum of  five years has elapsed since being in government.

 

CBI`s scaremongering a disgrace

The scaremongering about the effects of the government`s "national living wage" by the CBI beggars belief (CBI: Osborne`s living wage is threat to jobs,03/11/15). The outgoing director-general, John Cridland, claims to "have sought to rebuild the reputation of business", but the reality is that the CBI has done nothing to curb either the excessive tax avoidance by its company members, or the greed of the businesses` CEOs. Even though its profits had risen 14% in a half-year, Whitbread recently claimed increasing wages would lead to price rises for its customers.(Whitbread living wage warning raises fear of price rises and job cuts,08/09/15)? As Nils Pratley informed us then, the pay increase "works out at just 0.95% of Whitbread group operating costs", though no similar percentage was offered for the CEO`s pay package, which "soared by 85% to almost £6.4m" last year (Whitbread chief`s pay package soars by 85% to almost £6.4m,09/05/14). The new CEO of Barclays may well claim to want to "transform" the banking culture like his predecessor did, but what sort of example is set to his employees when the boss pockets over £10m a year, including a "role-based allowance" to side-step the EU rules on bonuses(New boss at Barclays promises "trust and integrity" as overhaul continues,29/10/15)?

    Funny how the CBI prefers to describe Britain`s education sytem as "a drag-anchor on the economy", when our current pay structures fail to benefit the economy at all, because wealth is being stock-piled by the rich, whilst the low-paid`s spare spending capacity is almost zero.

Changing the banking culture

Paddy McGuffin`s column rightly praised Corbyn`s tactics at PMQs, which challenges the PM`s "routine of hiding behind empty words" (Morning star,31/10/15).But Cameron is far from being alone!

I notice that the new CEO at Barclays, Jes Staley, has done his homework, informing his employees that the bank must complete both the "cultural transformation of the group", and the "necessary transformation". He clearly knows that his predecessor, Antony Jenkins, on getting the job in February, 2013, in the wake of the Libor-fixing crisis, said in a press conference, "We get it, we are changing the way we do business". He then added that the bank would put ethics above earnings, and unveiled his grand plan, "Project Transform"; this was a management jargon acronym, standing for Turnaround, Return Acceptable Numbers and Sustain Forward Momentum, all designed to restore Barclays` reputation. Unsurprisingly, it failed to prevent the next scandal,  the manipulation of the currency markets with a colossal £3trillion a day of turnover.

   With the greed of the bankers clearly the root cause behind the need for "a cultural overhaul", does Staley really expect his message to get across when his employees read details of their boss`s £10m pay package? Is the obvious lack of ethics in the banking culture likely to change, when the example is set by the CEO? Staley`s obscenely high pay includes something called "a role-based allowance", a device to side-step EU rules on capping bonuses!

     If the CEOs of banks really wanted to reform their "culture", they could start by doing 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" really 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.

New Statesman letter on Osborne`s mistake

Disingenuous as ever, Tory MPs are now, according to George Eaton, making excuses for George Osborne`s mishandling of the tax credits` issue, by claiming he was ignorant of the massive hardship the cuts would cause for "relatively impoverished people", because of  "a technical mistake" (Politics: How the tax credit climbdown humbled a chancellor thought to be at the height of his powers,30 October). With over 1200 staff employed at the Treasury, including, according to the Independent at the weekend, eight special advisers costing the taxpayer over £500,000 a year, it is hard to believe that someone didn`t carry out an "impact assessment". Next they`ll be telling us they didn`t know, not only about the steel industry being under threat because of unfair Chinese competition, but that quantitative easing works elsewhere in the world to stimulate economies, so long as banks are not the direct recipients. I don`t suppose the Tories will acknowledge, either, that the Northern Powerhouse is just a wheeze drummed up just before what was thought was an unwinnable election, and which can`t possibly work anyway, when councils are having their government grants decimated, or that tax avoidance measures are also suffering the consequences of a "technical mistake", that of sacking thousands of staff at HMRC!

 Tories are very keen to repeat the party`s propaganda about having a "long term economic plan", but less enthusiastic about mentioning its results, with economic growth destined to be as low as 0.3% in the next quarter; they must know that such downward trends are inevitable, when the bases of government policy is for the already prosperous to accumulate even greater wealth,  and the spending capability of the working people to be reduced. They certainly have "got too far down the pipe", as Tory MP Stephen McPartland so eloquently put it; sadly, with their policies, the "pipe" in question has to be a sewer!

Historian Ferguson a disgrace

An authorised biography of the Machiavellian, Kissinger, by a historian who infamously sees British imperialism, despite its greed for wealth, land and labour, its use of weapons, massacres, concentration camps and torture, as a force for good, who supported the Republican candidates, McCain and Romney against Obama in the 2008 and 2012 elections, and whose advice on the history curriculum for schools to then Education Secretary Gove was criticised so much by British historians and teachers, should not attract favourable reviews, and Greg Grandin duly obliged (Kissinger 1923-1968:The Idealist by Niall Ferguson,17/10/15).

      A defence of Kissinger`s "war crimes", based on the premise that other policymakers "can just as easily be accused", smacks of disingenuity of the highest order, whilst the absurdity of claiming that responsibility for atrocities and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people should not influence "how we assess his legacy" beggars belief. Somehow, loss of life in so-called "strategically marginal countries" didn`t matter as long as the cold war was won, a point which is not only abhorrent in its substance, but the epitome of selective use of evidence, as it conveniently ignores the fact that the bombing of Laos and Cambodia did not prevent America`s defeat in Vietnam.

 The public have been badly served by historians like Ferguson, who misuse historical evidence, for too long, and hopefully, sales figures of this example of biased history will indicate that the penny has finally dropped.

  

New Statesman anti-bombing letter

Jim Murphy appears to base his argument, that parliament should vote in favour of "RAF raids against Isis positions in Syria", on the idea that Britain`s position in the world hierarchy will be dimished otherwise (For What It`s Worth,23 October). "Conscientious objection", he says, is not a " legitimate posture for a P5 nation", but he fails to explain not only how British bombing will achieve success, but also what that success would entail. In WWII, the Luftwaffe`s bombing failed, and all the subsequent attempts to bomb the enemy "into the stone age" in Vietnam and the Middle East have met a similar fate. Indiscriminate bombing does not decrease resistance, nor the determination of the victims to carry on. The fact that the enemy is prepared to drop a weapon, from hundreds of feet in the air, which has the potential, not only to blow to pieces women and children, but to miss any intended "targets" and hit hospitals and schools instead, only ever increases hatred, and the desire for revenge.      

 Murphy contends that bombing Syria would end the "uncertainty about what Britain means abroad", but why can`t the same be achieved by taking a stance against mass killing? The usual justification given for violent jihadism is the foreign policy of the west, with its repeated invasions, interference and killing. Paddy Asdown, recently, rightly asked how can we expect to destroy Isis "by killing more Muslim Arabs with Western bombs". The solution has to be found diplomatically, not militarily. Does anyone really think that killing every jihadist will solve the problem of Isis or Al-Qaeda?

Guardian letter on Salisbury convention

Matthew d`Ancona asks whether we "really want Osborne`s measure to be overturned by a super-committee of the unelected" (Vandalise tax credit reform at your peril, my Lords,26/10/15). Of course we do, and according to constitutional legislation, the Lords have every right to do so; the Salisbury Convention ensures that Government Bills get through the Lords, even though "the government of the day has no majority in the Lords", as long as the Bill was "mentioned in an election manifesto" (www.parliament.uk). As "plans to cut tax credits" did not appear in the Tories` manifesto, the House of Lords has no choice. It is not the peers who are acting unconstitutionally, but the government, and this point is being ignored by most political commentators.

      Indeed, the peers supporting the measure need to ask themselves an important question about the upper house`s raison d`etre; if it does not check legislation, and hold governments to account, what is the justification for its existence? 

Tory MPs out of touch

Much has been written about Labour MPs being out-of-touch with their constituents in recent months, failing to realise the effects of the "cowardice of so much New Labour thinking", whilst the Tory MPs` myopia has been ignored (Doctors, teachers,the police:our public servants are demoralised,18/10/15). They have been so blinded by their surprise success at the polls in May, they have allowed Osborne, a chancellor obsessed with his own leadership ambitions, to lead them down a disastrous path (Tory MPs in 71 marginals at risk from cuts to tax credits,18/10/15). Will Hutton`s article only skimmed the surface of their other major problem; how many shortages in the public sector will there be by 2020? Can the Observer`s political writers still be so sure that the middle class voters, worried about their children`s health, education and security, will not turn to a Labour party promising a "fit-for-purpose functioning state"?

     Perhaps if the Observer stopped describing Cobyn as "hard left", and instead  viewed the popular re-nationalisation of railways and energy as part of a long-term economic strategy to reduce the massive £93bn annual corporate welfare bill, and stressed how the regulation of private landlords would benefit millions of tenants and aspiring home-owners, as well as the economy in general, Corbyn`s proposals might be seen in a more sensible light. Increasing the income tax rates for the very rich should be seen as essential for the maintenance of the basic elements of our welfare state; insisting on higher levels of corporate tax simply puts the country on a more equal footing with our competitors; offering more than silly "smell the coffee" soundbites, to make individuals and companies pay their fair share of tax, appeals to all but the avoiders themselves.

     As many top economists acknowledge, governments` support for trade unions can help reduce inequality, and improve productivity. Quantitative easing for banks to re-capitalise, to the tune of £375bn, was never seen, even though there was no kickstart given to the economy, as economic madness in 2009, so why should the press describe it  as such now, when the aim is to pay for essential infrastructure projects?  Does the middle ground not want to see increased social mobility? Is there general agreement that hedge funds in the City should be sold taxpayer-owned RBS shares for £1.1bn less than their value at any time, let alone at a time of austerity and belt-tightening? 

   As Will Hutton rightly concluded, "the prime minister and chancellor should beware", especially as the time is nearing when those suffering, because of Tory policies, will not only be Labour or non-voters!

Taking Owen Jones a step further

Owen Jones is right in saying how Labour should play the Tories at their own game, and, "as a top priority", adopt a policy of "message discipline" (Let`s hammer our the anti-austerity message until the Tories` ears bleed,14/10/15). But why not take this a step further, and adopt some of the terminology, too? If Labour also had a "long-term economic plan", it would not only stop the silly Tory game of point-scoring by including the words in their obsequious, so-called questions at PMQs, but enable re-nationalisation of railways and energy to be viewed as essential, if the huge annual £93bn corporate welfare bill is to be reduced.

Jones suggests that the "work penalty" should be mentioned by Labour politicians at every opportunity, but this lets the Tories off too lightly. Viewers/listener/readers need to be reminded, too, of Hunt`s accusation that British people don`t work hard enough, especially perhaps, teachers putting in 60 hours a week, and doctors and social workers fleeing their impossible targets to work abroad. The fact that £375bn of quantitative easing was given to banks to kickstart the economy back in 2010, but doing no such thing, should be in Labour`s armoury, when outlining Corbyn`s plans for funding infrastructure.

    A challenge to the Tory nonsense about borrowing has to be made; a government that supposedly worries so much about future generations` debt is perfectly happy for graduates from ordinary backgrounds to leave university owing up to £40,000, and to encourage young people to take out massive mortgages to get on the housing ladder. One rule for young people, another for governments, even though interest rates have never been lower! 

 Corbyn is popular because he is different; his Labour can show it is different, too, by throwing "every bit of artillery" it has at the Tories` preposterous economic claims.

England rugby:coach not the problem

When Wales failed to qualify for the 1994 World Cup because of a missed penalty against Romania, the manager, Terry Yorath, was sacked. Presumably, Ed Smith would think this fair, Yorath having failed to "shift his focus", even though the "culture" of Welsh football had been improved (Left Field,16th October, 20015)? Often in sport, the bounce of the ball, the oversight of an official, or the superhuman efforts of the opponents can lead to unexpected, and sometimes undeserved, defeat, with inevitably, the manager getting the blame. Coaches don`t miss the penalty shots, drop the passes or take the wrong decision with the goal/line in sight, but the players who do, invariably escape being banished into the international wilderness.

  Smith thinks that if Stuart Lancaster had "demonstrated the qualities of a truly talented teacher" England would still be in the competition, with a chance of reaching the semi-finals, and no talk of replacing him. But is it not true that England`s early exit was not because of bad management, but bad luck? Being in the group with two of the best teams in the world was the result of organisers making the draw ludicrously early; having England`s most talented back injured prior to the crucial game was hardly his fault, whilst the ball`s refusal to behave stupidly as it does 95% of the time, and instead bounce into Gareth Davies`s hands, is ultimately the reason Lancaster is being pilloried now.

     If, indeed, Lancaster did "irritate people", this was not apparent when his team thrashed Wales, France and Scotland, all quarter-finalists, in the Six Nations earlier this year. Fans being fickle is common, but it`s disappointing when the same tendency is shown by respected sports writers. Smith should be concentrating on more worrying and valid reasons for failure, as Tim Wigmore did, when he pointed out that rugby in England is becoming the "preserve of the privately educated" (Observations,9th October, 2015). 7% of the nation`s pupils attend fee-paying schools, but 64.5% of England`s squad did.

Corbyn`s new approach to PMQs

The "calm and collected" approach by Corbyn at PMQs certainly has Cameron "floundering" and long may it continue (Morning Star,15/10/15).

       The originator of "One Nation" Conservatism, Disraeli, appealed to workers in 1875, with his Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, which gave back unions powers they had lost under Gladstone, and which made strike success more likely by allowing peaceful picketing. Perhaps Corbyn could use this fact at next week`s PMQs, stressing the irony of the situation with the Tories` current claims to be the party of the working people, whilst attempting to, as Frances O`Grady recently said, "to cut Britain`s unions off at the knees" (Morning Star,15/09/15)? He could also stress how Germany`s policy of co-determination, with union representatives on the boards of large companies, has both helped boost the German economy, and prevent runaway inequality.

    Corbyn`s "new approach" to PMQs, attempting to reduce its "theatrical" elements, has started brilliantly, and further, simple improvements can materialise, especially if Corbyn`s team check the questions from his backbenchers beforehand, to ensure there is neither repetition nor overlap; no more easy rides for Cameron! Leave the "jack-in-the-box" antics to the Tories, as remaining seated unless asking a question can add much needed decorum, and decrease the impression of an out-of-control classroom, at least on one side of the House! A question about the wisdom of cutting staff at HMRC whilst pretending to be concerned about the "moral repugnance" that is tax avoidance could be followed by letting Cameron know the Opposition hasn`t forgotten his promise to reveal the tax details of his front-bench, even though it was back in 2012. Causing the prime minister considerable and deserved embarrassment should not be too difficult for Corbyn; after all, there is much to be embarrassed about!

Morning Star letter on grammar schools

On a day when news broke about the Tories allowing another selective grammar school to be set up in Kent, it was refreshing to read some common sense about education from Melissa Benn and Lucy Powell (Morning Star,15/10/15).

Tory views of grammar schools have long needed  challenging, if not repudiating. Of course, many working class students achieved success in such schools, and were given opportunities 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".         Results, despite the selection process, were never 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.

 Disappointingly, the penny has yet to drop in all political circles, hardly surprising perhaps, when so few of our opposition politicians are able to respond to Tory propaganda about education, largely because of their own education in private schools. Hopefully, Powell`s promotion will see things change, as clearly the Kent decision could be just the start. At least, we should not see again Tristram Hunt`s nonsense about "character and resilience" being the preserve of the privileged any more!

 

Corbyn can attract middle ground

Cameron`s "bold step on to the centre ground", whilst rightly criticised by some Observer writers for its contrast with years of right-wing policies, has apparently been made possible because "Labour vacated the ground in advance" (Cameron`s vision poses a challenge for Labour,11/10/15). What such an opinion ignores is the actual nature of this "territory". It is a broad area, and whilst Cameron`s anti-union and privatisation policies might appeal to some of its occupants, closer analysis of the parties` proposals, and less adherence to Blairite spin, would offer huge opportunities for Labour. Ellie Mae O`Hagan stressed how Corbyn needs to expose the Tories` "lack of substance", and perhaps a reminder of the pro-union Cospiracy and Protection Act passed by Disraeli`s "One Nation" administration would be helpful, but a more successful tactic would be to emphasise the broadly centrist nature of much of what the media terms his "hard left" proposals (Where Corbyn can attack by being slicker and smarter,11/10/15).

     The popular re-nationalisation of railways and energy should be viewed as part of a long-term economic strategy to reduce the massive £93bn annual corporate welfare bill, while the regulation of private landlords would benefit millions of tenants and aspiring home-owners, as well as the economy in general. Increasing the income tax rates for the very rich is essential for the maintenance of the basic elements of our welfare state, including schools and the NHS; insisting on higher levels of corporate tax simply puts the country on a more equal footing with our competitors; offering more than silly "smell the coffee" soundbites to make individuals and companies pay their fair share of tax appeals to all but the avoiders themselves.

     As many top economists acknowledge, governments` support for trade unions can help reduce inequality, and improve productivity. Quantitative easing for banks to re-capitalise, to the tune of £375bn, was never seen, even though there was no kickstart given to the economy, as economic madness in 2009, so why should it be described as such now, when the aim is to pay for essential infrastructure projects?  Does the middle ground not want to see increased social mobility, or believe that increased bombing of the Middle East by western powers actually increases the possibility of peace in the world? Is there general agreement that hedge funds in the City should be sold taxpayer-owned RBS shares for £1.1bn less than their value at any time, let alone at a time of austerity and belt-tightening?  Do the electorate really want nurses and teachers to be paid so little recruitment agencies have to "scour the globe" because of shortages (School heads trawl the world for recruits as UK teachers quit in record numbers,11/10/15)?

      It is a Tory myth that the so-called "centre ground" is up for grabs, just as the idea that Corbyn`s policies can best be described as "hard left". What is needed is for Labour to be given a fair hearing, and for Tory speeches focussing on "social reform, equality of opportunity and an assault on poverty" to be exposed as the propaganda and political posturing which they most definitely are.

Owen Jones is right in saying how Labour should play the Tories at their own game, and, "as a top priority", adopt a policy of "message discipline" (Let`s hammer our the anti-austerity message until the Tories` ears bleed,14/10/15). But why not take this a step further, and adopt some of the terminology, too? If Labour also had a "long-term economic plan", it would not only stop the silly Tory game of point-scoring by including the words in their obsequious, so-called questions at PMQs, but enable re-nationalisation of railways and energy to be viewed as essential, if the huge annual £93bn corporate welfare bill is to be reduced.

Jones suggests that the "work penalty" should be mentioned by Labour politicians at every opportunity, but this lets the Tories off too lightly. Viewers/listener/readers need to be reminded, too, of Hunt`s accusation that British people don`t work hard enough, especially perhaps, teachers putting in 60 hours a week, and doctors and social workers fleeing their impossible targets to work abroad. The fact that £375bn of quantitative easing was given to banks to kickstart the economy back in 2010, but doing no such thing, should be in Labour`s armoury, when outlining Corbyn`s plans for funding infrastructure.

    A challenge to the Tory nonsense about borrowing has to be made; a government that supposedly worries so much about future generations` debt is perfectly happy for graduates from ordinary backgrounds to leave university owing up to £40,000, and to encourage young people to take out massive mortgages to get on the housing ladder. One rule for young people, another for governments, even though interest rates have never been lower! 

 Corbyn is popular because he is different; his Labour can show it is different, too, by throwing "every bit of artillery" it has at the Tories` preposterous economic claims.

Tory attack on tax avoidance a joke!

The fact that Facebook only paid £4,327 in corporation tax does not simply "add to the debate about how to ensure multinationals make fair tax payments", but reveals yet again the government`s feeble attempts to tackle the problem (Facebook`s £35m staff bonus - and £43277 tax, 12/10/15). Which companies are actually "smelling the coffee" because of their "morally repugnant" practices, as they were warned they would be, by Cameron and Osborne back in 2013, or reeling because Osborne`s "diverted profits tax" is planned to recoup a mere £600m, but not until 2019?

   A government which makes huge cuts in its tax collecting agency cannot seriously be seen as an enemy of the tax avoider, and recent reductions in the numbers of tax inspectors at HMRC have also meant that fewer tax inspections in the construction industry are allowing employers to flout laws on bogus self-employment. The number of inspections in the construction industry has fallen from 5330 in 2012-2013 to 2420 in 2014-5, which means more employers are paying little or no national insurance for the majority of their workers. The number of construction firms fined for such illegal practices has fallen from 57 in 2012-13 to 5 in 2014-5. 

Can we believe anything the prime minister and chancellor say?

 

Unpublished New Statesman letter on Tory conference

Is is not possible that it is not only the Tories who are in danger of becoming too "complacent" before the next election (Politics Column,9th October,2015)? George Eaton seems convinced about the result already, and even about Corbyn`s future as Labour leader. What a shame he didn`t apply some of his astute critical skills to the ridiculous claims made by the Tories at their conference; Sajid Javid, for example, was allowed to insist that "equality of opportunity was the defining metric" without a word about the government`s education policies failing millions of children, and forcing recruitment agencies to scour the world for new teachers.

Similarly, Osborne`s speech was described as "assured", but didn`t I read that he repeated his claim, made previously in a recent New Statesman interview, that his views on politics have changed since becoming MP for a northern constituency? Surely the fact that he represents an area of Cheshire, one of the richest constituencies in the country, was worthy of a mention? A survey by Barclays declared Tatton as "the highest-ranked area outside London and the south-east", with an average income, even then, of £62,350. He`ll be telling us next he`s a man of the people!

  It`s time to start giving Corbyn a fair hearing; that description of him as "hard left" is misleading when his policies are actually what most voters in the so-called "centre ground" support. Lets save the criticism for a chancellor who sells taxpayer-owned shares in RBS for £1.1bn less than their actual value, to hedge funds in the City.

University reform needed

Can anyone truthfully say that the UK utilises all the talent available to it? Of course not, and one of the reasons is the bias shown by the so-called "top" universities to applicants from private schools. The arguments against this is well known; with only 7% of all pupils privately educated, it does not take a genius to see the unfairness, when some universities take in more than 50% of their undergraduates from the private sector.

      One obvious solution would be to legislate to ensure universities could not take in more than 7% of their intake from private schools, matching the national average. It would mean all universities would be forced to accept more candidates from the state sector, and inevitably, more students from poorer, working class backgrounds. There would be some objections, with some universities complaining about a fall in standards, but there is plenty of research already done, showing how undergraduates from state schools tend to achieve higher degrees, and make more academic progress, than the cosseted, and rather spoilt, students from the private sector. 

      Of course, not all state schools are the same, with some of the selective ones in the more prosperous areas being able to provide a much more "privileged" education than others in less salubrious districts. Television programmes on the subject, with their fly-on-the-wall approach to filming, (or so we are led to believe) have not served the cause of state education well. Whilst they have shown the caring and dedicated side of the teaching profession, and, probably to the horror of Tristram Hunt, the abundance of "character and resilience" amongst the pupils, the cameras never focus on the hugely successful teaching and learning which take place on a daily basis, often enabling 60% plus of the students to gain 5 A*-C grades, and go on to sixth form studies. The programmes give the impression that in all state schools, lessons are constantly disrupted by poor behaviour, and this is simply not the case.

   Undoubtedly, however, examination success is much more difficult to achieve in some state schools than others, often for a variety of reasons. The more "challenging" schools often find staff recruitment a problem, which can lead to the appointment of unqualified teachers, and "promotion" of classroom assistants. In such schools, staff often leave mid-course, which can be particularly damaging at sixth form level, where the subject may have to be dropped at the end of year 12, if no replacement tutor can be found. A-level results may well be affected, which can then impact on university application success.

Shouldn`t all universities be forced, as so few do it willingly, to take in a certain percentage of their undergraduates from these schools? If pupils can achieve grade Cs and Bs after teacher upheaval, perhaps poor leadership, and compulsory cutbacks at their schools, they at least deserve the opportunity to continue their studies at the university of their choice.

 

2 Pro-Corbyn letters

It`s not only the Parliamentary Labour Party which can divided up into "optimists and pessimists" (Leader:Corbyn asserts his authority,25th September). I really enjoyed reading Helen Lewis`s piece on what will happen when austerity starts to hurt "the sharp-elbowed middle class", as it pointed to an obvious conclusion (The Politics Column,25th September). The article`s thesis was that the Tories` austerity measures over the next five years would have such dire consequences for professionals like lawyers and doctors, (austerity has been affecting teachers for so long, presumably they don`t count any longer!) Osborne would be prevented from repeating his previous achievement,"cutting public services and still getting re-elected". Imagine my disappointment; I was convinced the conclusion was going to be similar, but actually confessing Corbyn was electable!

       With Osborne`s austerity allied to his cosying-up to the Chinese government, promising a French-owned energy company extravagent bribes to invest in Britain, selling off RBS to his friends in the City at ludicrously low prices whilst insisting every penny counts, and in future almost certainly privatising Channel 4 and most of the BBC, Corbyn`s policies will soon be resonating with millions more. It`s not only Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett`s generation to whom he has given hope!

Around fifteen months ago, Jeremy Corbyn wrote an article for your paper about "New Labour`s chief lieutenant Peter Mandelson", who then, as now, was warning about Labour making "any move to the left" (Morning Star,09/07/14). Corbyn`s reply was that the "tide was turning" and that now was the "time for a radical alternative".

     Corbynites last week will have been delighted to see yet another attempt by Mandelson to return the Labour party into the hands of the routed Blairites  This time the pleasure is compounded, not just for the usual reason that every time this one-time spin doctor tries to tell party members what to do, the natural reaction of most of them is to do the exact opposite, but because he has admitted that Corbyn must be given time. How gracious of him, also, to give up his self-appointed role as lead policy-strategist of the Labour party; he now wants "the public" to "decide Labour`s future", as if they haven`t just done that. Call yourself a democrat, Mr Mandelson?

           Time, and a fair hearing, are all that Corbyn needs. With Osborne making Britain even more of a debtor country, following his deals with human rights-denier, China, and offering a "state guarantee" of another £2bn to persuade companies owned and controlled by the French and Chinese governments to invest in the Hinkley Point nuclear project, Corbyn`s problem of choosing topics for the party conference speech, and for future PMQs, has been eased somewhat. Add to this the government`s dubious silence about the strategy, and the consequent need for debate about it, and you have some very good reasons for the Labour doubters to show some unity for once; the Tories are clearly over-confident, and underestimating the opposition!

     Corbyn`s policy of the British taxpayer taking ownership of the railways will gain inceased popularity, when the electorate discover how much the Chinese already own here, including "a third of the UK passenger train fleet"; it`s up to the Labour MPs to shout such details from the rooftops. They can talk loudly, too, about how, in time of a housing crisis and huge shortage of affordable homes, the Tories are forcing housing associations, which build around 40,000 properties each year, to sell homes under the right-to-buy scheme, and taking on their £60bn of debt. One wonders, too, about which state-owned broadcasting company will buy, probably at a knock-down price, Channel 4, and what that would tell us about the prospects for the BBC.

 All this, and it`s only two weeks since the leadership result was announced; carry on like this for a couple of years and Corbyn will not only be electable, he`ll be a shoo-in

Guardian magazine letter

I like the way your magazine supports Corbyn`s policies, albeit a little implicitly. What better way of condoning higher taxes for the rich could there be than to recommend sensible, intelligent readers spend £89.99 om mini-wellies (Fashion: The edit,19/09/15) and £345 on ladies` trousers (What I wore this week,19/09/15)? Such reminders that some people have more money than they could possibly need are welcome!

 

New Statesman pro-Corbyn letter

Doom, and yet more doom, and all because Labour supporters voted against having as their leader a centrist politician, speaking in soundbites and platitudes, with Tory-lite policies which would change our society of gross unfairness not a jot!  Article after article warning of the party being, in John Gray`s words, "on a course of collapse akin to the Liberal party" nearly a century ago, without a word of praise for policies which would actually reduce inequality (The politics of catastrophe,18 September,2015). Even the piece by Owen Jones failed to redress the imbalance. 

         Neither could your Leader balk the trend, with criticism of the shadow cabinet`s gender balance, and the appointment of John McDonnell "from the ultra left of the party"(The duties of an opposition leader cannot be wished away,18 September). Corbyn has shown he is willing to work with those on the right, so why no mention of the fact that of those so-called "most distinguished MPs", who flounced off in a huff, at least five of them were women, who could have expected to be in Cobyn`s broadly-based shadow cabinet, the two leadership candidates plus Caroline Flint, Rachel Reeves and Mary Creagh. In such circumstances, sixteen posts for women sound pretty good. Anyway, does anyone in the 21st century, apart from writers in the "Westminster bubble", really think "the great offices of state" do not include health and education?

       As for the appointment of John McDonnell as shadow chancellor, was Corbyn expected to repeat the mistake made by Ed Miliband, and appoint someone who could easily be described as being in cahoots with the City? The lack of a single consistent message, because of disagreements between Miliband and Balls, caused considerable electoral damage back in May, and contributed to the electorate`s gullibility over both the causes of the economic crash, and Labour`s economic credibility.

The end of the Labour party is not nigh, and many of Corbyn`s policies deserve wholehearted support. Just because some Labour MPs appear to have lost touch with their constituencies should not mean the New Statesman should follow suit!

Letter against bombing Syria

In his summary of recent military history, to substantiate his argument that "dropping bombs is politically cosmetic", Simon Jenkins surprisingly faile to mention Hitler`s attempts to "blitz" Britain into submission (The dangerous delusion of drone bombs,18/09/15). The Luftwaffe failed, and all the subsequent attempts to bomb the enemy "into the stone age" in Vietnam and the Middle East have met a similar fate. Indiscriminate bombing does not decrease resistance, nor the determination of the victims to carry on. The fact that the enemy is prepared to drop a weapon, from hundreds of feet in the air, which has the potential, not only to blow to pieces women and children, but to miss any intended "targets" and hit hospitals and schools, only ever increases hatred, and the desire for revenge. Jenkins is right to be sceptical about the accuracy of British bombs which have "killed 330 Isis fighters" but "no civilians". What does Fallon take us for?  

     Another argument against bombing of any kind, but also against the "boots on the ground" idea, which Jenkins favours, is that the usual justification given for violent jihadism is the foreign policy of the west, with its repeated invasions, interference and killing. Paddy Asdown recently asked how can we expect to destroy Isis "by killing more Muslim Arabs with Western bombs", but the same can be asked about western intervention of any kind.(Cameron`s refugee plan is pathetic - as is his military one,08/09/15). Whatever happened to diplomacy? Is Syria really, as Jenkins says, "none of Britain`s business", when such a mess was made of the area in the post-war settlement of 1919?

     The solution has to be found diplomatically, not militarily. Does anyone really think that killing every jihadist will solve the problem of Isis or Al-Qaeda?

 

Unpublished Observer letter on Corbyn

For years, the Observer has been railing against governments for their lack of compassion, and their failure to prevent both inequality and tax avoidance rising, whilst also acknowledging that decline in trade union power has enabled employers to pay well below the living wage, and impose zero-hours contracts, and stressing the need for a more ethical foreign policy. So when Labour elects a leader, who promises not to tinker with the system, but to transform it, what happens? The Observer reacts as if the country is on the brink of violent revolution!

Andrew Rawnsley has been putting the case for a Tory-lite leader for weeks, ridiculing the Islington MP for his left-wing policies, and now has the audacity to stress how Corbyn can expect a “massive onslaught” from the “Tory press” in the coming weeks (Jeremy Corbyn should beware his enemies- and even more his friends,13/09/15). Even the editorial, rather than emphasising what a wonderful opportunity Labour now has, to create a society based on fairness rather than greed, on responsibility not exploitation, chooses to continue with the Blairite mantra about “little that is new about his ideas” (Unless Corbyn moves beyond protest politics, he has no hope of gaining power,13/09/15).Taking on the bankers, the tax avoiders and the Rachman-like landlords, all sound “new” to me!

    Predicting electoral disaster five years hence, attributing Corbyn`s victory to the “lacklustre campaigns of the other candidates”, and stressing the need for Umunna, Hunt and co to “work out what the moderate alternative is to Corbynism”, are all ideas which undoubtedly will have appeared in the right-wing press, anxious for the return of feeble opposition to the state-shrinking policies of the Tories. Could it be that the Parliamentary Labour Party isn`t the only left-wing institution losing touch with its constituency?

Unedited New Statesman letter

It was extremely generous of the New Statesman to let George Osborne off so lightly (Ascent of the Submarine,11/09/15). Jason Cowley`s article offered little challenge to the Chancellor`s statements and policies, with, for example, only mild-mannered mention of the railway problems in the Northern Powerhouse project, and no probing about whether the whole idea was "anything more than election rhetoric", as Richard Leese says. A post-May coalition would surely have prevented it remaining on the government`s agenda. One question begging to be asked was how would devolving power to northern mayors help local economies, when Osborne`s government department is slashing local government budgets!

The policies of a Chancellor, who confesses he only relatively recently realised that "not everything in the country happens inside the Circle Line", and thinks there are "Albert Docks in Liverpool", deserves much closer scrutiny.

    Fawning from the obsequious Danny Alexander is to be expected, but his comment about his former boss being "deeply learned" about British history  went unchallenged by Cowley, despite Osborne`s praise for the early 19th century Tories and their dubious responsibility for the Factory Acts. Didn`t Disraeli pass the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act which extended trade union rights, begging a question about current anti-union legislation? Even worse was the failure to question his policy towards tax avoidance, something he regards as "morally repugnant", but which he seems to think will be reduced by cutting staff at HMRC!  Nothing, either, about the current Tory nonsense claiming to be the party of the workers, with the so-called "national living wage" being well below the actual "living wage", especially when tax credits are withdrawn, or about the government`s new definition of child poverty.

      Osborne`s remarks on Labour`s leadership contest, with his preference for the Tory-lite Liz Kendall, were obvious, but unnecessary. A question, on the other hand, about whether he fears, in reality, a more left-wing party under Corbyn, which would provide real opposition to the Tories` state-shrinking, in comparison with the timidity of Labour in recent years, was needed. But why would the author probe in this way when his Blairite opinions lead him to write about Labour stumbling "ever further to the left" in his conclusion?