Labour should be worried about Syriza`s victory

The media`s reaction to the "clear win for left populist party Syriza" in Greece appears to be that the Greek situation is really a very particular one, and that its situation is unique. They support this claim with the severity of its fiscal crisis and its political history, which includes government corruption. However, many countries in Europe actually do fit the bill, and are suffering from similar "fiscal rectitude", which causes hardship for those least able to defend themselves, and for those least responsible for contributing to the economic crash. The support for Syriza must be partly explained by the fact that all Greeks are "not in it together", and this hardly marks Greece out as being different!

     Britain is only one of a number of European countries where the standard of living of working people has fallen since the economic crisis, where respect for politicians from the traditional parties has declined due to unfair fiscal management and financial chicanery, and where polling suggests increasing support for left-wing solutions. The prevalent opinion in the media seems to be that a Syriza victory could lead to "contagion", with similar success likely for anti-austerity parties in Spain and Portugal. What most commentators ignore, however, is the fact that such a victory could well inspire a major surge to the left in Britain, and Labour leaders should be aware that at the moment, they would not be its beneficiaries!

Arrogance and hubris explain inequality

How typical of this wealth-obsessed society of ours that, when a company`s "collapse in profitability" occurs, the " former chief executive" blames the "failure of leadership under his successor". (Leahy blames successor for Tesco`s woes,20/01/15)  Also nothing to do with Leahy, of course, was the huge reputation Tesco gained for its use of aggressive tactics in acquiring land and/or planning permission, its apparent lack of concern for the thousands of local small companies it put out of business, its bullying of farmers and suppliers, shareholder revolts over the obscene levels of executive pay, and the company`s failure to pay a living wage to its employees. Then there`s the small matter of how Leahy, for the majority of his tenure, did not have the stiff competition of discount supermarkets waging a price war against his company.

     Such arrogance and hubris clearly underscore our business system today,and explain, too, the glaring inequality in society. Polly Toynbee and Aditya Chakrabortty both stressed the problem of pay which is so low it leads to tax receipts falling, and increased reliance on in-work benefits.(Inside the National Gallery, a portrait of modern equality,Ghost jobs,half lives. How shadow workers get by in today`s Britain,20/01/15) Toynbee suggests "restoring power to unions", but why not go further and follow the German example of co-determination, which involves workers` representatives in the running of companies, including the determinimg of pay levels? In Germany, despite unemployment levels similar to our own, tax receipts have increased so much, government borrowing is down, and the federal budget has been balanced.(Tax revenues help balance federal budget,14/01/15)

    Is there not, too, a need for a Fair Pay Commission to replace the Low Pay one which has allowed the minimum wage to "fall £1000 in real value since 2008", and an immediate increase in the minimum wage, sufficiently high as to  enable working families to enjoy life without having to resort to taxpayers` supplements? There is also the requirement for an efficient system whereby employers are properly punished for failing to pay this increased minimum wage, instead of measly fines like the £1400 imposed on H&M and other prosperous firms, recently. With higher rates of pay, there would be much less need for the austerity-inspired cuts which most of our political parties have in store for us, especially if allied to these proposals was the restoration of all jobs lost at HMRC under the present government, and the addition of  a thousand more to tackle what Margaret Hodge describes as the tax avoidance "industry", currently costing the country around £35bn a year.

German debts written off but co-determination too

 It was correct of Heather Stewart to write that Germany`s "economic miracle" was made possible by the London Agreement of 1953 which "saw half of the debts it owed to the rest of the world written off", but she surprisingly failed to mention one other, very important factor.(Secret of the "German miracle",18/01/15) The western powers insisted at the same time that the then West Germany also introduce the system of Co-determination, whereby workers` representatives sat on the boards of all large companies. As a result, the pay gaps between employees and bosses were never allowed to increase exponentially as they have done in this country, and it is probably no coincidence that in Germany recently, with Co-determination policies still intact, the federal budget has been balanced. With an unemployment rate similar to that of the UK, the number of people in work has reached a record high, but unlike here, tax receipts have increased, and tax revenues climbed to 270.8bn euros last year, about 2.6bn higher than forecast!

     Sadly, the European response generally has either been to introduce austerity measures or quantitative easing, with the former leading to job losses and pay cuts, and the latter only an option when deflation emerges along with the prospect of anti-austerity parties being elected in Greece, and perhaps in Spain. The European Central Bank does not seem to have learned from the British lesson, intending as it does to "flood the eurozone banking system with money". (So Draghi primes his late, great rocket, but he could end up shooting Europe in the foot,18/01/15) Has it forgotten that the £375bn of QE which went to the banks early on in the coalition`s administration did nothing to benefit the British economy or change the banking culture, was not loaned out to businesses as intended, and probably contributed instead to obscenely high salaries and bonuses?

     Far better for Europe generally, and Britain in particular, to concentrate on increasing the spending power of those more likely to part company with their money, whilst setting limits on the incomes of those being paid obscene amounts, including CEOs, bankers and private landlords.The result could well be  flourishing economies, and societies based on justice and fairness.

Naturally, I`m not holding my breath!

Mantel`s French Revolution

Ignorant of the fact that Feedback would be taking a break over the Christmas period, I not only wrote about how Ian Jack`s review of Boris Johnson`s book on Churchill was not sufficiently critical of either author or subject,(13/12/14) but also how David Kynaston`s excellent essay on social mobility was marred by his failure to understand some politicians` enthusiasm for the return of grammar schools.(06/12/14) Criticism, therefore, of John Mullan`s detailed article on the works of Hilary Mantel because it didn`t emphasise sufficiently her self-indulgence when writing the "compendious,multi-viewpoint fictionalisation of the main events and characters" of the French Revolution, seems churlish. (Amost rare vision,17/01/15) However, I defy anyone attempting to read the 872 pages of "A Place of Greater Safety" not to be begging for Madame La Guillotine to do the necessary with Messieurs Danton, Desmoulins and Robespierre by the four hundredth page!

QE not the answer

Until recently, it was deemed essential for every pupil attending state schools in the UK to know about the factors leading to the rise of Nazism in Germany, before they decided on their optional examination subjects, whilst those choosing History as one of their GCSE subjects clearly had to be given the choice to study, in more depth of course, the rise of Hitler. As a consequence of this, information about the frenzied printing of paper money in Weimar Germany in 1923 increasing the amount of money in circulation, and the resulting hyper-inflation is now well known. If facts like workers being paid twice a day, prices doubling overnight, entire savings being lost, money becoming entirely worthless and a new currency, the Rentenmark, having to be introduced in 1924, are well remembered in this country, imagine how they must have been drummed into the memories of German children. At least, this is the impression we have, so strong have German objections been to solving European economic problems with the 21st century`s version of keeping the printing presses rolling 24 hours a day, quantitative easing. Instead of sensibly using the idea of "parachuting" money into the economy, a measure which could be much more effectively controlled now than ninety years ago, European politicians have resorted to the harsh measures of austerity, hurting the most vunerable in our societies the most, and punishing those responsible for the economic crash the least. 

      However, faced with the prospect of Europe-wide deflation on the one hand, and the election of left-wing anti-austerity parties like Syriza in Greece, and possibly Podemos in Spain, on the other, the ECB is apparently being allowed, in the words of the Financial Times, to "unveil a programme of mass bond-buying next week". Hopefully, obvious lessons will have been learned from the UK, where the £375bn of QE which went to the banks early on in the coalition`s tenure did nothing to benefit the British economy or change the banking culture, was not loaned out to businesses as intended, and probably contributed instead to obscenely high salaries and bonuses.

       Isn`t it typical of the way the world`s economies are controlled by the politicians` capitalist paymasters that the callous and cruel cuts of austerity are seen as the first step, and QE the second, on the road to what they see as economic recovery? Isn`t it ironic, too, that there is an alternative method in existence, one that has been in practice to some extent at least, in Germany, of all places?

       Rather than running the risk of QE simply filling up the overflowing coffers of banks and big business, the UK would be well advised to follow the example set by post-war Germany, where instead of the government being intent on reducing trade union rights, it allows co-determination, which involves union representation in the running of companies, a role which involves setting pay levels for all employees. In Germany, with an unemployment rate similar to that of the UK, the number of people in work has reached a record high, but unlike here, tax receipts have increased. The federal budget has been balanced, planned borrowing has been cancelled and old debts  paid off. Tax revenues climbed to 270.8bn euros last year, about 2.6bn higher than forecast!

      The need for this country to have a sensible pay structure, starting with a minimum wage sufficiently high as to warrant the payment of more tax, and which enables working families to enjoy life without having to resort to housing and other benefits, is obvious. There is also the requirement for an efficient system whereby employers are properly punished for failing to pay this increased minimum wage, instead of measly fines like the £1400 imposed on H&M and other prosperous firms, recently. The Labour party is pledging an £8 an hour minimum wage by 2020, but that doesn`t deal with the immediate problem. With a large increase now, there would be much less need for the austerity-inspired cuts which most of our political parties have in store for us, especially if allied to these proposals was the restoration of all jobs lost at HMRC under the present government, and the addition of  a thousand more to tackle what Margaret Hodge describes as the tax avoidance "industry", currently costing the country around £35bn a year.

      I`m sure QE could solve most of Europe`s financial problems if used sensibly, but the likelihood of that happening is unlikely. Far better to concentrate on increasing the spending power of those more likely to part company with their money, whilst setting limits on the incomes of those being paid obscene amounts, including CEOs,bankers and private landlords.The result could well be a flourishing economy, and a society well on the way to returning to something at least resembling one based on justice and fairness.

Naturally, I`m not holding my breath!

 

 

 

Militarisation of education

It`s not just the "ongoing militarisation of education" which is extremely worrying, but the misguided assumption that state education is somehow inferior to that provided by the private sector, because of a failure to develop "character" and "resilience". (Ready for action: veterans bringing military ethos to schools,22/01/15) Anyone with knowledge and experience of state schools knows that state pupils constantly display the ability to bounce back from setbacks. How often have they had to show resilence in the face of assessment "goalposts" being frequently moved, and their excellent examination results being crticised and challenged by politicians from all parties? Then there`s the Education Maintenance Allowance being removed, 6th form courses being dropped because of lack of government funding, university fees being hiked, and the ever-present preference shown by the so-called top universities for students from the private sector, despite empirical evidence showing how state-educated undergraduates do better at university than students educated at "schools of character", with similar A-level grades.

      They do not lack the courage to continue after being knocked back, and politicians who think otherwise, and sadly this includes Labour`s shadow secretary of state for education, need to pander less to their prejudices; they should spend more time in state schools, and not in the heads` studies, or government meetings either, but in the classrooms.

      What`s happening at St Aloysius in Liverpool looks harmless enough, but the introduction of a "military ethos" into schools on such a dubious premise is not only typical of all educational reforms introduced by this most duplicitous of governments, it is dangerous, especially if allowed to develop and grow under the next government. Some pre-election reassurance on the matter from Labour would be welcome!

 

Independent letter about Churchill

Jane Merrick is mistaken to agree with Paxman about Churchill`s inelectability in the present political climate.(We say we want our politicians to be more human-but we damn them when they are,21/01/15) Of course, Churchill "would never be elected today" but not because "Westminster is so dominated by spin and PR polish", but because we have already far too many right-wing candidates in this year`s election with views which outrage the majority of the electorate? Churchill`s anti trade union views are being duplicated by at least two of the main parties, whilst his views on other races, the female sex, and the usefulness of chemical weapons are probably too extreme for public airing.

    Why would the British people want to cast their votes for the man, who almost singlehandedly increased the fear of the Russians with his "Iron Curtain" speech in 1946 to such an extent it led to the Cold War, and its accompanying nuclear arms race? At a time when foreign policy needs to be based on compromise and caution, when the threat of terrorist attack has to be met with conciliation rather than armed conflict, the last thing Britain needs now is Churchillian aggression.

   Paxman seems to have forgotten that Churchill was "unelectable" in 1945, and the millions, who have benefitted from the NHS and the welfare state since then, have reason to be grateful for the wisdom of the postwar vot

Tories` data chicanery

Surprise, surprise! Another broken promise from Cameron. No, not the "No VAT increase", nor even the "No top-down reorganisation of the NHS", but the pledge to lead "the most open and transparent government in the world". How many weeks did that last?

         The point is that this government has been so adept at making false promises and claims, it is difficult to believe anything Cameron, Osborne and co. say. For instance, many will remember back in May 2013, that Iain Duncan Smith was reprimanded by the UK Statistics Authority when he used incorrect figures to promote the effectiveness of the coalition`s benefits cap on getting people back into work. The figure of 8,000 employed was seen as one of many "ad hoc" figures which was "unsupported by the official statistics published by the department", but it didn`t prevent either the government painting a picture of feckless "scroungers", unwilling to work until the state stopped subsidising them, or the hateful gutter press filling their front pages with lies. The claim that 878,000 dropped their claims for sickness benefits rather than face the new medical assessment was also untrue. As Frances O`Grady rightly said at the time, only politicians "with weak arguments need to make up" their facts!

       Back in 2011, Boris Johnson, unsurprisingly, was criticised by the chair of the UK Statistics Authority for misusing figures "to publicise the success" of his transport policies in London, and told, in no uncertain terms, to "comply with the Code of Practice as a matter of principle"; the use of dubious figures, Johnson was told, was undermining the public`s faith in data used by politicians.

          Another arch-exponent of untrustworthy figures is, of course, Michael Gove. Not content with basing much of the evidence for his wholesale and totally unnecessary transformation of the examination system on his own misuse of data, he also criticised our state education`s standards by using the famous Pisa results, comparing educational standards across the developed world. The only trouble is that these are themselves flawed, not even based on a common test, but on different students in different countries answering different questions! Having been reprimanded by OECD for the misuse of data, Gove, in March 2013, suggested "survey after survey" had revealed "disturbing historical ignorance" amongst pupils. However, a Freedom of Information request indicated that there had been only one properly conducted poll, and the others "amateurish and politically biased", including one carried out by Premier Inn!

      As if we needed more evidence of this government`s duplicity regarding tax avoidance, figures revealed this week show yet more proof that the speeches about "smelling the coffee", and it being "morally repugnant" is sheer hypocrisy. A parliamentary committee`s report criticises the number of "off payroll" arrangements in the public sector. These are where individuals have their salaries paid to a company, in order to avoid the higher income tax, and instead pay the much lower corporation tax. The government promised to clamp down on the practice in May 2012, when it was disclosed that around 2400 of these arrangements existed; hardly rocket science you would think. Nevertheless, the National Audit Office identified 2214 still in existence in 2013-14. So much for the clamp down! 

     Of course, there are many , many examples; Jeremy Hunt has been found to be wanting in terms of accuracy when it came to announcing NHS waiting times, and forced to withdraw his claim that NHS spending had risen in real terms in 2010 and 2011, whilst the Chancellor has been found guilty of attempting to mislead the public over deficit reduction, as recently as last month. In January 2013 Cameron said the coalition was "paying down Britain`s debts" when the national debt had risen from £811bn to £1.1trillion! There are too many for these to be judged as mistakes; it`s clear they are obvious attempts to mislead us, and all government statistics must be viewed suspiciously.

   Unemployment down, we are told, but how many figures fail to include those who are not receiving unemployment benefit because of government imposed sanctions, not because they have found work? Thousands of new businesses created, but how many actually employ workers? Then there`s the inflation figures. We know how rules were changed so pensions rose only at CPI rates rather than the RPI rates which are usually a percentage point or so, higher, because they include housing costs. A very low CPI rate of 1% allows the government to claim, again falsely, that real wages are rising, but the average pay figures include the huge rises of the very high earners! The RPI figures raise eyebrows too. Don`t we read every week about private tenants being forced to pay massive increases in their rent, or face eviction, as with the recent New Era estate case? Aren`t rents paid to fat cat landlords, often for accommodation in appalling condition, sometimes so high tenants spend 40-50% of their total income on rent? If these huge increases were factored into the RPI calculations, could 2% really be accurate? Real wages rising? I don`t think so.

 With so much data chicanery being used, it`s hard not to reach the conclusion that politicians take us all for mugs, and think we`ll believe anything. Let`s hope the May result proves them wrong/.  

Tory policies now on the extreme right

Why on earth didn`t Blair and Mandelson stress how far to the right the Tories have moved in the last five years, rather than making very dubious points about Miliband being too left-wing for the voters and the unsuitability of the mansion tax? After all, was David Cameron choosing his words carefully, when he recently told Tory MPs that Britain was "on the right track"? Even though his government has missed most of its economic targets, he was probably correct, but only in the political sense! Too many Tory policies now resemble those history has often condemned under extreme right regimes, which no doubt explains Tories` reticence to discuss them!

      Cameron is well on the way to meeting his objective of shrinking the state to pre-war levels, reducing government expenditure on welfare, and reducing tax rates for the rich. So for him to say that the country is on the "right track" becomes less ambiguous when he is actually referring to a direction further away from the left, and whilst his statement, of course, was aimed to placate his party critics, it can only be bad news for the majority of the people.The other parties must ensure the electorate fully understands the nature of this Tory party, and how far to the right it is taking the country. Comparisons with extreme right-wing, nationalist parties, both of the past and present, are neither irrelevant nor impossible.

      Tory treatment of the less fortunate in our society is well documented, with welfare cuts, the infamous "bedroom tax" and failure to stop exploitation just a few of the examples of how inequality has not increased simply because the rich have become richer. Unemployed have been forced to take jobs on zero-hours contracts, thousands are forced to resorting to foodbanks for survival, whilst very few employers are taken to court for paying less than the minimum wage, and even fewer private landlords face any penalties for charging obscenely high rents for squalid accommodation. Government excuses for failing to raise the minimum wage to a level approximating a living wage abound, whilst businesses continue to make excessive profits. How typical are these of the policies of extreme-right governments, intent on suppressing freedom and hopes of equality of opportunity?

     With working people`s standards of living in decline, a common policy adopted by extreme right-wing is to attack the workers` defenders, the trade unions; consequently, not only is there constant jeering and criticism in the Commons on the government side whenever unions are mentioned, plans are afoot to make strike action almost impossible with new laws in the next parliament. There`s no need to attack unions` offices and buildings, 1930s- style, when legislation can render workers` representation ineffective.

      Neither do Tories care for democracy, in another example of emulating the extreme right of history. Just recently laws on election expenditure were changed without discussion in Parliament, and instead of encouraging democracy with easy-access polling booths in city centres, supermarket carparks and university campuses, and even investigating the possibility of electronic voting, Tories continue with traditional methods, knowing millions of new voters could only mean Tory defeat at the polls. In the meantime, secret talks on the proposed transatlantic trade and investment partnership between the EU and the USA could mean multinationals suing sovereign governments on the grounds that their profits are threatened by government policies. Is this what the electorate voted for in 2010? Of course not, but that doesn`t stop the Tories from continuing their extreme right-wing agenda, or deter them from their privatisation policies.

        Justice, another area where  intervention by extreme right wing governments is traditional, has witnessed the Tory-dominated coalition government ending legal aid, whilst also aiming to scrap the Human Rights Act and pull out of the European human rights convention. Prison and police understaffing  has reached dangerously low  levels, suicides in prisons have reached increased exponentially, and involvement in CIA rendition is well known.

      Right-wing governments, without fail, spend more than is healthy on defence, and whilst shrinking the state has necessitated cutting numbers in the armed forces, billions are spent in maintaining what they insist on calling a nuclear deterrent, the Trident missile system, when everyone is aware that, not only would the nuclear weapons be launched only with American consent, but that they are anachronisms in a world facing huge terrorist threats and minority dissatisfaction. Nationalist policies, whether they concern anti-immigration issues, or provocation of weaker countries like Greece, over the recent "lending" of the Parthenon marbles to Russia, abound in Britain as in all countries with governments on the extreme right spectrum.

     Then there`s education, and the insistence on teaching nationalist history, often at the expense of historical accuracy. Where have we seen that sort of thing before? And taxation, ensuring the rich pay less, avoidance by big business continues, and the poor pay a greater proportion of their earnings than the rich through indirect taxation, something set undoubtedly to rise under another Tory government, is another example. In fact, the list grows ever longer with every month that passes, and every policy the Tory party adopts.

    "On the right track", Dave and George? Too right! And too dangerous for my liking!

Morning Star letters on TV debates

Cameron really does take us for mugs. Are we really expected to believe that his sudden show of solidarity with the Green party, over their exclusion from  the TV election debates, has anything to do with his sympathy for the so-called "minor parties"? (Morning Star,09/01/15) Is it really "surprising support" as Luke James suggested, or is there, as would befit such a duplicitous prime minister, an ulterior motive? Cameron`s unexpected concern for fairness over the debates` participants, and his apparently saying that "you can`t have one minor party without having another minor party" doesn`t really wash, coming as it does from a Prime Minister whose government will go down in history as one of the most callous and cruel administrations of the modern era. He is, of course, running scared, knowing that having to answer difficult questions in front of millions of viewers, and without the bawling racket he can rely on during PMQs to drown out his inadequate responses, is likely to be embarrassing, and moreover, lose his party votes. A question about whether reducing government spending to levels last seen in the 1930s is the best way to move the country forward would make for an interesting start!

 It is difficult to reach another conclusion, as the alternative involves crediting the prime minister with an unusually high level of political astuteness. Having the Greens on the TV debates would, in fact, be a wise move for the Tories, as the Greens` policies are far more radical than those of Labour, and could possibly reveal Labour solutions as being rather too similar to those of the Tories for comfort. Green policies to re-nationalise the railways, to introduce a wealth tax, and end both austerity and Trident may be a little too far to the left for the current Labour leadership, but there would be millions of viewers very happy to hear them promised, regardless of the party making them!

i letter on free speech

Simon Kelner rightly argues that "if society is to function", the right to freedom of speech must be accompanied by "responsibilities". (I am not Charlie and the same goes for most of us who support freedom,14/01/15) Of course it is right to ridicule politicians and celebrities, the more the better as far as I am concerned, but when it comes to lampooning religious beliefs which have been held for centuries, which form the backbone of peoples` lives, and which provide security and solace to millions, there is an essential need for respect. It`s not as though there aren`t sufficient idiots around to target!

 At a time when extremists and fundamentalists are keen to display their anger, the need for tolerance, as Kelner says, is evident, and it can only have the desired effect when it "works both ways". Air attacks and bombings in the Middle East will not end the conflict, any more than invasions, as history tells us repeatedly. Ending hostilities with Isis, Al Qaeda and the Taliban will only be achieved after peaceful talks and compromise on both sides, and these are made less likely with every insult, and deliberately offensive cartoon, to Islam. 

 

Cameron "running scared" over TV debates

It took many years of persuasion for the UK to get its first televised general election debate, a full fifty years after the famous Nixon/Kennedy debate which ushered the genre into American politics. Even the dramatised, and idealised, West Wing debate, featuring Jed Bartlet`s successor, Matt Santos, vying with the Republican candidate, Arnold Vinick, could not influence the stuffy regime of British politics to step into the 21st century. At least, not until 2010!

      It was then that the opposition seized their moment, with the Labour government in trouble, and their leader deeply unpopular and unlikely to impose his personality on the nation weeks before the election. For the Tories, of course, things did not go as planned, and instead of Cameron being able to show his economic credentials and prime-ministerial qualities, the series of debates had a result, even the most experienced of political commentators failed to predict. Indeed, it still is hard to fathom, given the general disgust felt for the duplicitous Lib Dem leader now, how Nick Clegg emerged as victor from the debates, so much so that a new term was added to the political lexicon, albeit briefly - "Cleggmania"!

      Perhaps the experts should have been able to predict it? After all, hadn`t the first ever televised debate revealed how "style" might matter more than "substance"? It was said after that those listening to the 1960 debate on the radio thought Nixon had come out as victor, putting forward, as they heard, detailed answers and lucid explanations; they hadn`t seen him sweating so much under the lights of the television studio that his perspiration washed off the make-up covering his five o`clock shadow, giving him a decidedly villainous look. Those watching their TV screens put Kennedy way ahead; his youthful good looks and well practised manner of looking straight at the camera when answering, won the day, and probably the election a month and a half later.

       In 2010, the effect of Clegg`s sudden and somewhat unexpected popularity ended Cameron`s hopes of an outright victory, and it`s clear he and his henchman Osborne are not keen on repeating the same mistake. Their sudden concern for "fairness" and the refusal to take part in televised debates this year, because the Green party is not being given the same recognition as Ukip, must rank, as Andrew Rawnsley wrote in the Observer, as "one of the most terrible excuses in political history". Cameron must know that, although he has managed for five years to obfuscate and garble his way through answers, he might not get the same gentle treatment in the debate as he gets when appearing on the Marr Show. Similarly, he would not be able to rely on a wall of deafening noise behind him, as he does at Prime Minister`s Questions, enabling him to fudge, and completely avoid answering the questions put to him. He is clearly, as his opponents rightly suggest, "running scared", keen to avoid the inevitable embarrassment a few, well directed questions could cause. The majority of the millions watching would welcome the opportunity to hear the prime minister attempt to justify such callous acts as the Bedroom tax, the tax giveaways to the rich, and the reduction of government spending to levels last seen in the 1930s.

    Furthermore, Cameron also knows that, given a few minutes to speak without interruption, Miliband could well display those decisive characteristics, which tend to desert him when faced with a bacon sandwich, as well as coherently outline the more popular of Labour`s policies, which much of the media tend to ignore. Then there is the fact that debates often spur more people to use their votes, something which the Tories are obviously against; if they wanted to encourage more participation they would insist on polling stations being situated in town centres, supermarket carparks or university campuses. As all the parties, bar the Tories, want the debates to take place, they should be doing their utmost to make them happen, starting with pressurising the broadcasters to include the Greens, and so calling Cameron`s bluff.

   The truth is, though, that televised debates before general elections, among the leaders of all the political parties with representation in the Commons, should be written into the statute books, and enshrined as part of the constitution. Unpopular prime ministers should not be allowed to devise spurious pretexts to duck out of them. The electorate have a right, not only to hear politicians justify their policies, but also to see them squirm when they fail.

  

Morning Star letter on Labour policies etc

Sadly. it`s not just the "vague policies" which are preventing Labour building up a massive lead over the Tories, architects-in-chief of the most callous and cruel British government in modern times. (Morning Star, 06/01/15) Prevarication and short-sightedness also are playing significant roles. Not having made a decision on tuition fees by now is unforgiveable, not only because the current £9000 is exhorbitant, and leaves graduates with mortgage-size debts that many will fail to repay, but because student votes, and those of young people in general, could well prove crucial in ridding the country of this obnoxious government.

    Similar myopia comes to the fore again with Labour`s reluctance to show boldness over private rents, preferring a cap on future increases to a complete reappraisal of the present situation, with its failure to back the EU`s financial transaction tax, and, of course, with its failure to recognise the electoral potential of pledges on the nationalisation of public utilities.

    As for the recognition of Palestine, the Labour leadership must know that fudging the issue by pointing to the "party`s votes in favour of statehood in a non-binding Commons debate" will not suffice. Even a pledge to enter into immediate diplomatic negotiations on taking office, or to call for new initiatives on the Middle East problems, would at least have the appearance of having a positive policy.

   The election is there to be won, and the Tory nonsense about their "competence" being preferable to Labour`s "chaos" should be easily defeated, but still not having definite strategies on key electoral issues in place by now smacks of carelessness in the extreme!

 

Independent too harsh on the Greeks

Greece may well be "a global problem", as the Independent`s editorial said, but the suggestion that the "determination and self-sacrifice" of the Greeks do not match German "generosity" was a little wide of the mark. (Editorial: Into the abyss,07/01/15) With overall unemployment at over 25% in Greece, and youth unemployment a massive 60%, as Hamish McRae states, the "social and human cost of austerity" has been extreme. (Greek exit from the EU could be imminent, for better or worse,07/01/15) Did these young Greeks really have anything to do with causing the worldwide economic crash?

 Rather than predicting how a Greek exit from the eurozone would lead to "contagion" taking hold, and huge sums having to be "made available to the likes of Portugal and Spain", two other countries whose people are fed-up to the back teeth with austerity imposed from Berlin, would it not be more sensible to suggest alternative measures? Most obviously, why not have "unprecedented printing of money by the ECB" now, rather than after another cisis? Germany`s insistence on refusing to allow quantitative easing because of her hyper-inflation of 1923 has to be overruled, and should have been five years ago; anyone with an ounce of economic brain knows sensible QE will prevent deflation and kick-start economies. Funny how back in 2008 the German government saw nothing wrong with providing its banks with "a generous £390bn rescue package of recapitalisation"! (The hidden history of the crisis,07/01/15)

    Instead of kicking the Greeks when they`re down, perhaps it would be more appropriate to suggest the new British government returns the Parthenon marbles? What a boost that would be, not only to the Greek tourist industry, but to the concept of European countries co-operating together, for their mutual benefit! 

 

letter to Observer on the "teacher vote"

As Daniel Boffey rightly observed, the "competition for the teacher vote is hotting up", largely as a result of Nicky Morgan apparently listening to teachers` concerns about workload. (Ofsted inspectors must "stay out of politics",says Labour,04/01/15) This became evident, too, from reading the article by Tristram Hunt.(Let`s give all our schools the freedom they need to thrive,04/01/15) Whilst it did skip the problem outlined in your editorial about the "privileged access children from more affluent backgrounds have to the country`s best state schools", thankfully there were some more welcome omissions, also.(We all want the best for our children; the state must help ensure we get it,04/01/15) Is it possible that Hunt`s recent calls for the regular re-licensing of teachers, the introduction of Performance Related Pay, the infamous oath, and the idiotic idea that only private education provides pupils with "character and resilience" have been dropped, and are not under consideration for inclusion in the Labour manifesto? One can only hope so.

 Shame Hunt failed to mention the need for Gove`s unnecessary assessment reforms to be repealed, or that private schools offering the local comprehensive a few Latin lessons a week is not worthy of a tax rebate, but perhaps, that would be asking too much? He`s still not spending enough time in state schools with teachers; otherwise he would not have failed to miss an opportunity like this, to praise them for their commitment, hard work, superb results and excellent teaching!

Yet more duplicity and desperation from Clegg

It seems Lib Dem duplicity knows no bounds. Judging by a recent article for the Independent, "Look beyond the fringe parties, and anchor Britain in the centre ground",07/01/15, Nick Clegg`s  clearly expects us to believe that this country journeyed "from economic ruin to economic recovery" between 2010 and 2015? Tell that to the millions of workers on zero-hours contracts who have to rely on taxpayers` subsidies to pay their exhorbitant rent, and the millions more who have seen their real wages fall year on year. Even more ridiculously, Clegg says that the country not only experienced this so-called "recovery", but did it "whilst sticking together". He really does take us for mugs!

     What exactly are the "shared sacrifices" that the wealthy have made? Paying less income tax, and their companies having to contribute less corporation tax, don`t sound too difficult, especially when the coalition has done next to nothing to quell the unquenchable thirst of the rich for tax avoidance! Clegg even criticises Labour for "more and more borrowing"! As Deputy Prime Minister, he was complicit in the coalition borrowing £157.5bn in the last five years, with billions more on the cards, compared to the £142.7bn borrowed by Labour in its thirteen years in government! Presumably, as mere voters, we aren`t supposed to notice such things?

   He even has the gall to say that only the Lib Dems "can be counted on to defend the values of British liberalism", such as "fairness". Not only did Clegg sacrifice all liberal principles at the altar of political power in his rose-garden deal with Cameron, he seems to have forgotten that it was he who said, with no effect whatsoever, two and a half years into the coalition, that it was "time to hardwire fairness into government policies"!

   The British electorate must not be treated with such disdain by politicians; there has been enough deception and double-dealing since 2010 to last many life-times! 

Memorising facts a much-needed skill?

Tony Hancock, in his famous "Half-hour" on the radio, asked whether Magna Carta had any significance, and had "she died in vain?" This clearly would have upset the schools minister, Nick Gibb, not to mention a certain Michael Gove,but I`m not convinced that memorising historical facts correctly, all British, is one of the "skills that employers demand" because they are "vital to a modern global economy", as Gibb stated in a recent article in the Independent newspaper. (The getting of knowledge) Is evaluation really an "amorphous skill" when it can be shown how its acquisition enables students to analyse, distinguish truth from propaganda, and detect when information is being asserted rather than backed with empirical evidence. 

   It`s obvious why Tory and Ukip nationalists want to see it banished from the classroom, but most of us prefer the idea of pupils reaching conclusions after scrutinising the evidence, not learning by rote. 

 

Social mobility`s decrease has little to do with “character and resilience”.

Social mobility`s decrease has little to do with “character and resilience”.

With state education having improved exponentially since I started teaching in the 70s, it is sad to see it being still treated like a political football, and even sadder to witness Labour doing much of the kicking. Gove, with his bigoted and ideological  ideas on the subject, was expected to ignore the empirical evidence, and didn`t disappoint; more hard-working and committed teachers than ever before, better trained and qualified to deal with the youth of modern Britain, with improved results at GCSE and A-level, could not prevent the Tories, with their unprincipled and blinkered Lib Dem allies, complicit in all things Cameron, from attempting to undo the good work of the last twenty years. Gove`s assessment reforms aimed at undermining achievement in the state sector, removed the creation by experienced educationalists of a more level examination playing field, and attempted to decrease social mobility even further by extolling the virtues of private education through superior examination results.

  The initial response from Labour was muted, and more was expected following the promotion of Tristram Hunt to the shadow education post. In fact, there has been a deterioration, with his ludicrous ideas on the need for teachers to be re-licensed every so often, his support for Performance Related Pay, and, of course, the teachers` oath. Not content with recently making a speech which, whilst intending to criticise private schools for failing to improve their relationships with state schools, actually ended up implying teaching in the private sector was superior per se, Hunt and other experts in "think tanks" now ascribe the decrease in social mobility to state school pupils lacking "character and resilience".

     Anyone with knowledge and experience in a state school knows that state pupils constantly display the ability to bounce back from setbacks. How often have they had to show resilence in the face of assessment "goalposts" being frequently moved, and their excellent examination results being crticised and challenged by politicians from all parties? Then there`s the Education Maintenance Allowance being removed, 6th form courses being dropped because of lack of government funding, university fees being hiked, and the ever-present preference shown by the so-called top universities for students from the private sector, despite empirical evidence showing how state-educated undergraduates do better at university than students educated at Hunt`s "schools of character", with similar A-level grades. They do not lack the "courage to continue" after being knocked back, and politicians who think otherwise need to pander less to their prejudices, and instead, spend more time in state schools, and not in the heads` studies or government meetings either, but in the classrooms! It is nonsense to think that social mobility will increase, and more top jobs will go to state educated graduates just as soon as state school teachers learn from their “betters” in private schools, and teach “character and resilience”.

   The pre-Gove level playing field on assessment needs to be returned for a start, if any politician in the next government is serious about increasing social mobility. Hunt`s opinion on the priority given by the Oxbridge colleges to applicants from the private sector is that the latter  perform better in the interview situation, so sees advice on this issue from teachers in the private schools as being essential. Yet more nonsense! With 7% of pupils in this country attending private schools, the solution is simple; legislation is needed to prevent any university having more than 7% of its undergraduates from the private sector. There was a time in the not so distant past when equality of opportunity mattered in the Labour party; proving that it still does now would not be electorally disastrous!

 Of course, remedies like the Sure Start centres of Blair`s government, and the ending of unpaid internships, will help too, but as long as the  universities are allowed to pander to their prejudices, social mobility will continue to decrease.

Morning Star letter on dealing with private rental sector

The news that Tories admit that "placing limits" on private rents was the "last thing" their government would do speaks volumes, not only about what they think about ordinary people`s problems, but also about their support for landlords exploiting their tenants.(Morning Star,03/01/15) Promises to control rents from the Labour party are certainly better than nothing, but at a time when many people are spending 40% or more of their earnings on private rent, is capping the amount the landlord can increase the rent by a suitable solution, and is it enough to win the votes of Generation Rent?

     Opponents of the cap will no doubt stress how it will increase rents at the start of the tenancy contract, or reduce the amount of repairs landlords undertake, or even drive landlords out of the business altogether and worsen the housing shortfall. As if! Like the bankers have left the country because of laws limiting their bonuses!!

    The answer has to be a more radical solution, as rents are already too high, and many properties are in such bad condition they should not be rented out at all. Labour needs to be bolder and challenge this new generation of Rachman impersonators. All rented properties need to be inspected urgently, and banded, so that only a certain amount of rent could be charged for the properties in certain bands. For many this would mean a big reduction in rent. Landlords will not walk away from easy profits and instead will be forced to improve the quality of their rented accommodation. Students would be included, too, so their halls of residence, as well as the private houses and flats they rent, would be inspected. Furthermore, all tenants would then have more money to spend, thereby benefitting the economy as a whole.

   Come on Labour, take on these "fat cat" landlords, and give millions a good reason to vote for you.

Guardian letter: Labour`s poor reaction to local government cuts

I suppose I should have known better, but I fully expected Saturday`s edition to include news of an angry reaction from Labour leaders to the announcement by local government minister, Kris Hopkins, that the "latest round of multibillion-pound cuts" to local authorities` funding was a "fair financial settlement". (Council leaders say breaking point is near,19/12/14)  What can possibly be "fair" about a settlement which sees over 90% of the councils facing cuts in their spending of up to 6.4% being under Labour control, whilst the ones receiving increases are over 90% in Tory hands. The situation is worsened, of course, by the fact that one has to suspect, with this government`s record of duplicity, that the figures are more likely to be nearer the 8.8% average, as suggested by the the group representing local government heads, making a total of 40% cuts since the coalition took office.

     Admittedly, Hilary Benn did accuse the government of cutting funding for "socially deprived cities in the north" disproportionately, but that barely merits the term, "opposition". Why can`t the Labour leadership realise that it is, above all else, unfairness that annoys and antagonises the British people, and that these cuts are just another example of the government`s discrimination. There can`t even be many Tories who honestly believe that rich areas like Wokingham should be getting a better deal than impoverished urban areas further north, but still Labour`s reaction is muted. Such stifled reaction goes some way to explain why Labour`s lead in the polls, after almost five years of unjust and prejudiced government, is only by a slender margin, rather than the double digit one it should be. Why aren`t Miliband and co. at least as angry as they were over a misguided tweet recently, or perhaps even more so? For goodness sakes, this is about people`s quality of life deteriorating, about inequality increasing, and children`s futures being jeopardised; lets see some anger and passion!

Letter against right-of-centre ideology

Will Hutton is right, both to blame many of our recent problems on "right-of-centre thinking", and to suggest that Britain needs to take "a long, cool look at itself".(Right-of-centre ideology has lost us a war and much more besides,28/12/14) He blames Bush`s war on terror on the right`s "reflex reaction" to punish with yet more viciousness, but isn`t the same principle applied whenever a right-wing government has the opportunity? Doesn`t our coalition`s callous attacks on the least fortunate in our society reflect a form of "punishment" for them requiring welfare and therefore, the rich`s taxes? Aren`t the cuts and pay freezes in the public sector simply revenge for such services being necessary in the first place?

     What Hutton omits to include are the dangers which accrue when right-of-centre ideology leads to politics at the behest of business, when regulations are seen merely as hindrances to profit; workers become exploitative pawns, and when media becomes the servant of  the profit-driven private sector, the truth gets distorted. Your business leader actually stated that workers are "better off" because of "falling unemployment, lower inflation and a higher minimum wage", without mentioning zero-hours contracts, reliance to the tune of an extra £900m on tax credits, and the huge fall in real earnings incurred since 2010. (Challenging party games ahead as Greece threatens to set off another year of crisis,28/12/14)         Similarly, another column warned of the dangers of UK companies being taken over by foreign businesses, without mentioning the cause, Britain`s low corporation tax, eighteen points lower than in the USA, leading to these "tax inversion deals". (Miliband needs a pill for headaches posed by foreign takeovers,28/12/14) The Labour leader wouldn`t have to worry about them, if he had the courage to ditch right-of centre Blairite solutions, and promised to raise corporation tax here to levels comparable with those in the rest of the so-called developed world. A re-think on Britain`s "great power pretensions" would not go amiss either!.  

Tories "on right track"? Too right and too dangerous!

Why on earth didn`t Blair stress how far to the right the Tories have moved in the last five years, rather than making his very dubious point about Mliband being too left-wing for the voters? Was David Cameron choosing his words carefully, when he recently told Tory MPs that Britain was "on the right track"? Even though his government has missed most of its economic targets, he was probably correct, but only in the political sense! Too many Tory policies now resemble those history has often condemned under extreme right regimes, which no doubt explains Tories` reticence to discuss them!

      Cameron is well on the way to meeting his objective of shrinking the state to pre-war levels, reducing government expenditure on welfare, and reducing tax rates for the rich. So for him to say that the country is on the "right track" becomes less ambiguous when he is actually referring to a direction further away from the left, and whilst his statement, of course, was aimed to placate his party critics, it can only be bad news for the majority of the people.The other parties must ensure the electorate fully understands the nature of this Tory party, and how far to the right it is taking the country. Comparisons with extreme right-wing, nationalist parties, both of the past and present, are neither irrelevant nor impossible.

      Tory treatment of the less fortunate in our society is well documented, with welfare cuts, the infamous "bedroom tax" and failure to stop exploitation just a few of the examples of how inequality has not increased simply because the rich have become richer. Unemployed have been forced to take jobs on zero-hours contracts, thousands are forced to resorting to foodbanks for survival, whilst very few employers are taken to court for paying less than the minimum wage, and even fewer private landlords face any penalties for charging obscenely high rents for squalid accommodation. Government excuses for failing to raise the minimum wage to a level approximating a living wage abound, whilst businesses continue to make excessive profits. How typical are these of the policies of extreme-right governments, intent on suppressing freedom and hopes of equality of opportunity?

     With working people`s standards of living in decline, a common policy adopted by extreme right-wing is to attack the workers` defenders, the trade unions; consequently, not only is there constant jeering and criticism in the Commons on the government side whenever unions are mentioned, plans are afoot to make strike action almost impossible with new laws in the next parliament. There`s no need to attack unions` offices and buildings, 1930s- style, when legislation can render workers` representation ineffective.

      Neither do Tories care for democracy, in another example of emulating the extreme right of history. Just recently laws on election expenditure were changed without discussion in Parliament, and instead of encouraging democracy with easy-access polling booths in city centres, supermarket carparks and university campuses, and even investigating the possibility of electronic voting, Tories continue with traditional methods, knowing millions of new voters could only mean Tory defeat at the polls. In the meantime, secret talks on the proposed transatlantic trade and investment partnership between the EU and the USA could mean multinationals suing sovereign governments on the grounds that their profits are threatened by government policies. Is this what the electorate voted for in 2010? Of course not, but that doesn`t stop the Tories from continuing their extreme right-wing agenda, or deter them from their privatisation policies.

        Justice, another area where  intervention by extreme right wing governments is traditional, has witnessed the Tory-dominated coalition government ending legal aid, whilst also aiming to scrap the Human Rights Act and pull out of the European human rights convention. Prison and police understaffing  has reached dangerously low  levels, suicides in prisons have reached increased exponentially, and involvement in CIA rendition is well known.

      Right-wing governments, without fail, spend more than is healthy on defence, and whilst shrinking the state has necessitated cutting numbers in the armed forces, billions are spent in maintaining what they insist on calling a nuclear deterrent, the Trident missile system, when everyone is aware that, not only would the nuclear weapons be launched only with American consent, but that they are anachronisms in a world facing huge terrorist threats and minority dissatisfaction. Nationalist policies, whether they concern anti-immigration issues, or provocation of weaker countries like Greece, over the recent "lending" of the Parthenon marbles to Russia, abound in Britain as in all countries with governments on the extreme right spectrum.

     Then there`s education, and the insistence on teaching nationalist history, often at the expense of historical accuracy. Where have we seen that sort of thing before? And taxation, ensuring the rich pay less, avoidance by big business continues, and the poor pay a greater proportion of their earnings than the rich through indirect taxation, something set undoubtedly to rise under another Tory government, is another example. In fact, the list grows ever longer with every month that passes, and every policy the Tory party adopts.

    "On the right track", Dave and George? Too right! And too dangerous for my liking!

Cameron and Cridland`s end-of-year reports

Far too much has been made of Blair`s supposed wisdom on electoral issues in recent days, so much so, in fact, that the media played down two end-of-year reports, from Cameron and the CBI boss, John Cridland. 

      Cameron really does take us all for mugs! His new year message  suggests voters "face a stark choice" between Tory "competence" and "chaos" if they are not elected. His definition of "competence" is rather different from mine, as he seems to think missing targets on the deficit, increasing borrowing whilst ensuring millions of workers earn so little an extra £900m has to be found in tax credits to supplement wages, and having tax receipts £54bn less than Osborne`s prediction, all add up to proficiency! Then there`s the small matter of tax avoidance, still rising to over £35bn a year, with the government`s solution being to reduce the number of inspectors working at HMRC!

Tory desperation is clear for all to see, but pretence at economic expertise is all they can offer, as their main policy of shrinking the state, and taking government expenditure back to levels last seen in the 1930s, is hardly a vote-winner either! Labour, indeed, should be "poised to take Downing Street in a walk next May", especially if they made more of the fact that the Tories invariably carry out the wishes of their chief allies and bankrollers, the CBI.

     Not content with overseeing businesses which refuse to invest the £500bn they possess in the economy, the boss of the CBI now sees fit to inform the country, in his end-of-year message, how to run its education system. As if interference in education from politicians wasn`t bad enough! Hopefully, everyone will remember that his sole aim is to maximise the profits of all the companies he represents, and cares nothing for the general well-being of the people. This explains why he wants to see more trade deals signed in the EU and less "lifestyle regulation such as the working time directive". In other words, bosses should have free rein to exploit their workers, and to increase the length of the working day. With taxpayers now having to find an extra £900m in tax credits to enable the low-paid to survive, what a pity he doesn`t concentrate on emphasising how all companies should be paying at least the living wage to all employees, or ending their tax avoidance policies, currently costing the country at least £40bn a year, or even bosses taking a cut in pay.

   Voters need to be made much more aware of Tory duplicity and the CBI`s intentions for the workers; Blair`s idiotic intervention made this less likely too!