Who will win over the "left behind"?

As Will Hutton says, the case for remain in a second referendum would be best  made by Labour, but surely not as "the centre of a cross-party coalition" (Labour`s leadership is at rock-bottom, 23.12.18)? In order for this campaign to have any chance of success, it has to put forward believable pledges, something that the likes of Ken Clarke and Vince Cable cannot do. Why should the "left behind" suddenly believe Tory promises  made by politicians who have voted not only for callous austerity policies but investment which by-passes three quarters of the country? Are their pledges any more credible than Johnson`s bus slogans? Tories didn`t tell them in 2016 that over 60% of recent investment in the UK was with EU money, so why believe them now?

       To solve the conundrum, Corbyn has to be reminded of the greater role he promised Labour party members after his leadership election success, and ballot them on a second vote. If he is then unwilling to change the party`s direction, he should be forced to stand down, as without the support from the pro-EU young people of this country, Labour has no chance in a general election. Only a democratically-elected Labour government can make those credible pledges to win over the "left behind" and get us out of a damaging Brexit!

i letter on grade inflation

It seems clear that the real problem of grade inflation in our universities is not that "the proportion of firsts and 2:1 degrees awarded in England has soared" but that too many students from disadvantaged backgrounds are getting them (Hinds urges universities to tackle "serious issue" of grade inflation, 19/12/18). Would such a fuss be made if it was discovered that these awards were mainly going to students who had been educated previously in the private sector? People would argue that it simply proved the worth of public schools!

    What is surprising about the increase in the number of students who "entered higher education with the equivalent of grades CCD" graduating with firsts, when they are likely to have come from seriously underfunded state schools, been taught by non-specialist teachers, and had little opportunity to reveal their true potential? They will simply have shown the resilience and determination which Tory politicians insist only result from a private education!

Ludicrous excuses

It seems ludicrous that a second referendum could not be made an absolute priority, and that "the briefest feasible gap between deciding on such a vote and holding it" is 22 weeks (Perplexing logistics of a second referendum, 15/12/18). Why would the necessary legislation have to take eleven weeks, for goodness sakes? Even allowing 10 weeks for a campaign seems avoidable, given the amount of debate Brexit has engendered over recent months.

    Brexiteers will no doubt seize upon this alleged time factor as an excuse to avoid a second vote, just as they idiotically claim that such a vote is anti-democratic. How can giving the two million young people who have qualified for the franchise since 2016 a chance to decide on their future be against the principles of democracy? Then there is the fairness of giving all those who voted without being told the facts about the effects of a  Leave vote the opportunity to vote again. 

"Complex logistical challenges",  like the anti-democracy arguments,appear to be trumped-up excuses devised by Brexiteers to prevent the Leave decision being overturned, and should not deter Labour members from getting the leadership on board!

A general election first

Your editorial rightly says that our "politicians must not run scared of what`s right", and instead support a second referendum (It`s time for May to put her deal to the people, 09.12.18). Giving in to right-wing propaganda about the "potential for civil unrest" would be cowardly, but holding a people`s vote before a general election has its drawbacks.

     With the purpose being to persuade a significant number of Leave voters to change their minds, two aspects of a second campaign should be straightforward; reminding the electorate of the lies told by Johnson et al about post-Brexit`s economic prosperity, the ease with which new trade deals could be negotiated, and a return to our non-existent "glorious past", when supposedly "standing alone", whilst simultaneously displaying May`s "lose-lose deal" as the best realistically available, should not prove problematic. Difficulties arise, however, when trying to win over those who voted Leave as a "middle finger" gesture to recent governments. Why would they believe a Tory/centrist campaign, which lacked any power to ease the hardship caused by austerity polices, lack of investment, and the fall in real incomes? How could Tory MPs explain that  the large amount of EU investment in our cities was the result of their government`s refusal to put any significant money anywhere other than the south-east? Imagine the effect of incursions by the likes of Blair and Mandelson!

    Having included a second referendum in its manifesto, a recently-elected Labour government, on the other hand, could promise and deliver on the remedies those Leave voters require. Far from a general election achieving "little in moving us forwards", it`s our only hope!

Guardian letter on Oxbridge admissions

The Sutton Trust, when rightly calling for Oxford and Cambridge universities to "make greater use of contextual data in their admissions process" does not go far enough (Eight top schools dominate entry to Oxbridge, 07/12/18). Slim chance of success is not the only reason "high-flying pupils from state schools" are far less likely to apply for an Oxbridge place. Fear of humiliation in an interview designed to trip up all but the best prepared must play a significant role; those interviews must focus more on what the candidate knows, and how knowledge gaps can be filled. If private schools have to rely on "personalised mentoring and university preparation classes", what chance do pupils coming from underfunded state schools, with narrow curricula and often non-specialist teachers, have? 

    So-called "top" universities should not be choosing candidates schooled in their requirements and traditions, but offering opportunities to the genuinely talented, who gain good grades in spite of their backgrounds. It does not require a degree in rocket science to recognise that a pupil with three grade Bs at A-level from a school in an impoverished area probably has more talent and innate ability than a pupil from a privileged background even if A-level and Pre-U grades are higher!

  The trouble is Oxford and Cambridge have been criticised for years for what is plainly a biased admissions procedure, and little has changed; time for Labour to threaten legislation within three years, which would compel all universities to accept no more than seven per cent of their undergraduate intake from private schools.

Guardian letter on use of unconditional offers

Concern about the rise in unconditional offers from 3000 in 2013 to 87,500 this year seems to be centred around how "many students could be distracted from the final year of their schooling" and achieve lower A-level grades than expected (Unconditional offers made to third of university applicants, 29/11/18). What the article failed to mention was the additional stress on A-level teachers, themselves set targets by senior management. Shouldn`t Ofsted be taking universities` action nto account when judging schools and their results?

      The education secretary`s concern should also be focused on how these offers are often being made to students who are unsuitable for higher education, who drop out before the first year has been completed, but who nevertheless will have increased the greedy university`s revenue  by £9000. If Ucas can establish how many students with unconditional offers gained  "A-levels two grades lower than predicted", Damian Hinds can ascertain also how many failed to complete a single year of their university course. Whether he would find it "disturbing" is rather a moot point, as many of these pupils were only taking A-levels because of government underfunding of more appropriate courses. 

      The simple solution is to ban such offers which are simply the lazy way to get "bums on seats", and insist universities make more effort to attract their students, with good teaching, sensible use of resources including the payment for vice-chancellors, and prospectuses which detail all the measures taken to look after students` health and welfare.

Are Labour`s tax plans too moderate?

Paul Mason reckons the country needs a "Marshall Plan on steroids", with a "huge fiscal and monetary stimulus" directed at the "heartlands of poverty and decay", with opposition parties showing "leadership and vision" (A country in a critical condition, 23rd November, 2018). His view was supported by the UN`s special rapporteur on poverty whose recent investigation "exposed the baleful effects of austerity" (Crumbling Britain, 23rd November, 2018). Yet when the shadow chancellor says a Labour government would increase corporation tax to 26%, reduce the 45p threshold to £80,000, and tax at 50% earnings over £123,000, these plans are criticised for being "too unimaginative" (The tax conundrum, 16th November, 2018). 

   I am not sure the majority of the population, whose earnings average around £26,000 would agree. In fact many would see little wrong if  Labour`s proposals went further, with incremental increases imposed on earnings over £250,000 and £500,000, culminating with a 90% tax band on earnings over £1 million. Tory propaganda would claim such taxes curb aspiration but this lacks supportive evidence, as does the so-called Laffer curve which claims higher taxes do not increase revenue. The fact that this was dreamed up by Reagan`s advisers in the 1980s to justify lowering taxes on America`s richest, needs to be publicised more!

t does seem the Labour party, at least in its current guise, cannot win. Your Leader states that the Tory cuts to corporation tax saw "no resulting surge in investment", and adds that "in an era of weakening social trust" and austerity, the Tories still went ahead with tax cuts for the wealthy (The tax conundrum, 16th November, 2018). Yet when the shadow chancellor says a Labour government would increase corporation tax to 26%, reduce the 45p threshold to £80,000, and tax at 50% earnings over £123,000, these plans are criticised for being "too unimaginative"! How much would have been written about Labour missing open  goals, I wonder, if  restoring fairness to the tax system like this had not been pledged?

      Labour`s proposals, however, can certainly go further, with incremental increases imposed on earnings over £250,000 and £500,000, culminating with a 90% tax band on earnings over £1 million. The idea that such taxes would curb aspiration lacks supportive evidence, and can be classed as right-wing propaganda, but this is an area where Labour should be more imaginative. Even the modest increases McDonnell suggests will be attacked in the mainstream media, so Labour needs to get its retaliation in early. Television broadcasts and social media videos could be prepared, with actors playing roles of people in the workforce, explaining how much they earn , how much tax they pay currently, and how much they would pay under a Labour government. With only those earning over three times the national average having to pay  a modest amount more, and only the very rich having to pay lots more, not only would the aspiration myth be destroyed, the fairness of the proposals would be made obvious.

    The "super-rich" may well be "adept at avoiding taxation", but imaginative legislation making both tax avoidance, and advising on it, illegal, banning tax avoiders from any form of national representation,  honours, or from holding public office, would change a few tunes!

Guardian letter on BBC`s profligacy plus 1

According to your editorial, the BBC has "one card to play: the ability to organise the arrangements for the over-75s differently" (The BBC can`t bear the costs of TV licences for the over-75s. A solution has to be found, 24/11/18). What about the rest of its deck? Ending its profligate ways would be a good starting point. Imposing a salary cap on all its presenters, whilst insisting not only on an equal gender pay policy, but also that no employees are paid via their companies for tax purposes, could follow. Which presenter could claim that earning, say £200000 a year, seven times the national average, was insufficient to fund a very pleasant lifestyle? Similarly,  What is the point of a public corporation complaining about the lack of government funding if its pay policies encourage tax avoidance, deny millions to the treasury, and require years of enquiry by HMRC?

    Then there is the matter of management pay; a report by the National Audit Office in 2017 revealed that the number of BBC managers earning over £150000 was still increasing, despite the corporation`s pledge to reduce it by 20%. The BBC website is still, however, listing well over a hundred managers earning above that amount! Perhaps such profligacy could be forgiven if the BBC managers were actually producing the goods, but popular programmes like Bodyguard and Dynasties are increasingly rare, "younger audiences are using the BBC less and less", top sports events are still being lost, and the sorely needed "watch-on-demand" culture is stifled by a fixation with outdated multi-channel broadcasting.

  Let`s not "squander nor diminish" the role of the BBC, but also not  forget its mismanagement!

It appears that the BBC is "currently in discussions with its presenters and is actively engaged with HMRC" to sort out the problems of tax avoidance at the corporation (Hundreds of BBC presenters risk tax investigations, says watchdog, 15/11/18). Presumably this is part of the review the BBC launched when it was first discovered to be paying presenters "through outside companies, in order to reduce tax bills". The trouble is that this review actually began in 2012 (BBC told by MPs to make presenters pay fair share of tax, 05/10/12)!

   The public owned BBC`s disregard for the country`s urgent need for everyone to pay their fair share of tax, allied with its profligacy with licence fee-payers` money, beggars belief. The obscenely high salaries paid to sports` highlights programme presenters and newsreaders, and the gender bias in pay, can be coupled with the less well-known over-generous payment to its managers. Another report by the National Audit Office, this time in 2017, revealed that the number of BBC managers earning over £150000 was still increasing, despite the corporation`s pledge to reduce it by 20%. The BBC website is still, however, listing well over a hundred managers earning above that amount!

    Perhaps some of this could be forgiven if the BBC managers were actually producing the goods, but programmes like Bodyguard are rare, young viewers are not tuning in, top sports events are still being lost, and the sorely needed "watch-on-demand" culture is stifled by a fixation with outdated multi-channel broadcasting.

The public accounts committee clearly has plenty to do, and listening to explanations from the Director-General has to be high on its list of priorities!

Corbyn should consult members over EU

As John Harris says, the "misery and resentment" caused by deindustrialisation in the 1980s and by recent Tory austerity policies were important reasons for people voting to leave the EU, which makes the  absence of anger from the Labour leader, and indeed from the "big unions", about the economic problems Brexit will inevitably cause, difficult to fathom (Brexit is a class betrayal. So why is Labour colluding in it, 19/11/18). 

   Corbyn clearly needs to be reminded of what he said in 2016 after decisively defeating Owen Smith for the Labour leadership: the "huge membership" of the party "had to be given a greater say", and "be reflected much more in decision-making", not least because they are "the people who raise the money, knock on doors, deliver the leaflets, do the campaigning work". It would only take days to organise a membership vote on whether there was satisfaction with current policy on Brexit, or a need to support a people`s vote (Jeremy Corbyn "vindicated" as he pledges more power to Labour members, 25/09/16).

   Increasing democracy in the party goes hand in hand with Corbyn`s leadership, or at least, this is what members were led to believe. Could there ever be a more opportune moment to put it into practice?

Improving Labour`s explanations

Your editorial on education`s underfunding rightly stated that Labour needs to "explain more forcefully" how the true effect of the Tories raising the tax threshold "actually benefits those at the top of the heap" far more than those at the bottom (Morning Star, 13/11/18). This highlights a problem Labour faces continually - the fact that the way policies are interpreted by the media not only distorts the truth, but discriminates against Labour. It means Labour, especially with Corbyn probable favourite to win, has to prepare more cleverly for the onslaught it will face, especially over its tax policies.

         A party political broadcast on the topic, and available on social media, is essential. Rather than have John McDonnell merely explain the policies, and why they are fairer, he could share the spotlight with a number of "characters" with different incomes and different jobs, explaining how much they earn, how much tax they pay now, and how much they would pay under Labour`s new regime. This would show, of course, how the majority of people would be little, or not at all, affected by the changes, except for the examples at the top, the ones earning what most people consider to be "mega-bucks"!

 The main broadcast would only show perhaps four examples, below-average, average, just above and way-above average earners; they could be shop assistants, nurses, teachers, junior doctors and bankers. Too similar to the old Two Ronnies sketch about class? Not really as more videos could be put online at various times, to include a wider range of employment, targeting also CEOs, hedge fund workers, City accountants, but also the under-paid and even zero-hours contracted workers.

    In their brief statements, some could include, of course, simple explanations of how levels change the more you earn, to counter Tory arguments about tax increases leading to a reduction in aspiration. Effect would be maximised if the characters were played by actors like Maxine Peake and Bill Nighy who hopefully would not object to putting Labour`s case "more forcefully" and effectively than the politicians!

Need for a "general referendum"

There were many reasons for the 52% vote in favour of leaving the EU, with scaremongering about Turkey, false promises about NHS funding, and anti-immigration all playing their part. Also important, however, were the government`s austerity policies, and the resulting fall in living standards, allied to the fact that many areas of the UK had been allowed to become investment-free zones! Now that "our real options" over Brexit have become obvious, and support is growing for a "new referendum", questions need to be asked about whether there exist any reasons for Leavers to have changed their minds about their mistreatment by government (Our future rests on parliament recognising there is no good Brexit, 11.11.18)? There certainly hasn`t been any change in government policies which might have resulted in some lives being improved, "burning injustices" rectified, and inequality addressed. They still have to pay huge proportions of earnings to greedy landlords, rely on benefits despite working, and witness the underfunding of schools and hospitals.

      Andrew Rawnsley suggests that with their "boggling political, geographical and economic illiteracy", pro-Brexit politicians think "blame must be assigned elsewhere" (A bad Brexit will not be as bad as the Suez crisis. It will be far worse, 11.11.18), but isn`t there a real danger that is exactly what pro-Leave voters will do, with the EU officials the guilty party?

       The most sensible idea has to be not only allowing the British people an opportunity to "give their verdict" on Brexit, but on this government too, preferably at the same time - a general referendum!

Profligate BBC in crisis

Roger Mosey is right to point out that when younger viewers are clearly not being properly catered for is a "particularly bad time for the BBC to be facing a cash crisis" (Off the Air, 9th November). Saying, however, that the corporation "must bear some responsibility for this outcome" verges on understatement, with the decision to retain multiple channels rather than output on demand a costly management error. 

Mosey omits to mention the fact that there have been so many other mistakes made by BBC bosses, from failing to use the year`s notice sensibly prior to the pay declarations, with the publication revealing obvious gender bias, plus the tax avoiding scandal involving the offer of self-employment contracts to highly paid presenters, to its list of well over one hundred managers earning over £150,000 a year. Public sympathy for its financial problems is unlikely, even if some of the blame lies clearly with George Osborne. The co-author of the current austerity programme damaged society in ways far more serious than cause cash problems for our spendthrift broadcasting corporation!

 It is impossible to have years of profligacy with licence fee payers` money, with massive salaries for mostly male presenters and managers, and low pay for production staff, without whom no programmes would be possible, without eventually receiving a "reputational hammering". 

Keynes was right about peace

"Yes" is surely the answer to the question posed by Margaret MacMillan at the start of her excellent article on the Treaty of Versailles (The consequences of Mr Keynes, 2nd November, 2018). The "brilliant, self-assured British economist" was "right", and "all the assembled statesmen" at the 1919 peace conference "wrong". Even in the context of an angry public opinion spurred on by a right-wing press, determined like Geddes to "squeeze Germany until the pips squeaked", the Diktat`s punishments of land losses, demilitarisation, "war guilt", Rhineland`s occupation, and excessive reparations appear ridiculously harsh and myopic.

     Keynes`s idea of "getting Germany`s economy going again" should not have been treated with such disdain, especially as only seventeen years earlier the British after the Boer war, despite similar media-induced hysteria, and huge suffering on both sides involving atrocities and concentration camps, imposed the lenient Treaty of Vereeniging in 1902. This not only promised self-government to Transvaal and the Orange Free State, but granted three million pounds from the British to repair damage done to Boer lands. Unsurprisingly, South Africa fought on the British side in the first world war!

     Sadly, as MacMillan intimates, "building lasting peace" seems beyond our politicians, but that doesn`t mean it`s rocket science!

i letter on police chases

Will someone please ask police chiefs what they expect to happen when trained drivers in souped-up police cars start to chase stolen cars driven by youngsters, mostly male, at high speeds through built-up areas (Named, father and baby killed after police chase, 12/11/18)? The risk of a crash has to be phenomenally high, and with it serious injuries or worse. Arresting thieves is important, but not important enough to warrant putting lives at risk, so that arrest targets can be met, and policemen can play at being Steve McQueen in Bullitt!

         How many more innocent lives have to be lost before either police chief constables ban them in their areas, or a politician takes notice and starts campaigning to have them banned nationwide?

Education system in need of reform

Jyoti Wilkinson`s excellent article on the failure of academisation rightly condemned school academies for "lowering the pay of the workforce and increasing the pay of management", but ignored another aspect of their behaviour (Morning Star, 08/11/18). Not only does "one of the government`s favourite academy trusts", the Harris Federation, pay ridiculous salaries, especially to its CEO, it is one of the four chains which have the highest number of 15-16 year olds leaving their schools. According to a report in the Guardian, the three other academy chains are Delta Academies Trust based in Wakefield, London based Aldridge Education, and the Inspiration Trust, based in Norwich.

  These academy chains are "off-rolling", with a view to keeping pupils not expected to do well in GCSEs away from the exam room. The effect is that results look better than they really are, and that academies can claim to be improving education!

  Is this any worse, though, than what most private schools do? In the independent sector schools often do not even enter their pupils for GCSEs and A-levels, preferring iGCSEs and Pre-U exams, both run by Cambridge Assessment. The latter have a very high percentage of grade A*-As awarded, far higher than traditional A-levels, explained by the chief executive by the "above average" cohort.

These exams are taken by mainly privately educated pupils, mostly set and marked by teachers in the independent sector, and not subject to the "additional rules" which Ofqual applies to A-levels. Should they be eligible for university entrance, when the government has gone to great lengths to reform "national qualifications based on content set by the government" - in other words, A-Levels? Cambridge Assessment, unlike all the other awarding bodies, is not even required to compare similar qualifications when setting a grade level to ensure a measure of consistency! 

     It is especially worrying to have such significance attached to these lightly-regulated exams after they were involved in a cheating scandal in the summer of 2017. Chief executive Michael O`Sullivan even admitted to the select committee on education that there has been a "sharp rise in the number of cases of exam malpractice" involving his exam board, rising from 269 in 2013 to 719 in 2017!

  Has our education system ever been in more need of reform?

Guardian letter on tax increases

With “a fifth of workers earning below the £9 national rate set by the Living Wage Foundation”, Polly Toynbee’s ideas for “most of us” to pay more tax need a little tweaking. Depending on universal credit should exclude many households from a higher level of income tax, but those with above-average incomes must pay more.

It makes little sense for those earning £49,000 to be paying the same rate as those on £149,000, nor should those earning £500,000 pay the same as those getting £200,000. The Laffer curve was only created to enable Ronald Reagan to lower taxes so it needs to be discredited, and draconian measures introduced to ensure that the rich, for the first time in our history, pay their fair share. Let’s start with a 90% tax on incomes over £1m.

All tax avoidance should be made a criminal offence, as should giving advice to enable it to take place. And of course, VAT needs to be imposed on private-school fees. 

Letter on Hammond`s appalling budget

The Tories` utterly despicable budget this week was yet another example of a callous government at work (Morning Star, 30/10/18). Prioritising tax cuts at a time when public services are at breaking point, and giving another billion to "contribute to the Trident nuclear weapon system" are typical Tory responses when the country`s least fortunate have to rely on charitable donations to survive.

   Having nuclear weapons is no defence against terrorism, and can serve no purpose other than to claim Britain is deserving of a "seat at the top table". What about the real necessity, which, yes, is defence, but against the real enemies?

  How much importance does this government attach to defending our children from ignorance? None whatsoever, judging by the massive underfunding of the state sector, and Hammond`s deeply insulting £400m for the "little extras". Meanwhile uncharitable private schools continue to avoid paying 80% of their business rates because of their charitable status!

 Then there`s the defence, urgently needed, against illness and mental health conditions. Does anyone really believe the generous chancellor has given extra funds "with his fanfare announcement of £4 billion" to deal with the crisis, when the truth is that it is a part of the already promised and insufficient £20bn for the NHS?

     More defence is needed to protect the country from tax avoidance and evasion, but this unsurprisingly is ignored. So too is defending the people against exploitation, both from greedy employers who do their utmost to pay workers as little as possible for as many unpleasant hours as possible, whilst pension funds disappear, and from Rachman-like landlords whose abominable behaviour should be penalised with imprisonment.

   There`s more, of course; defence against global warning, against injustices like the rights lost by trade unionists and pensions lost by women born in the 1950s, against homelessness, against monopolies who overcharge and under-invest, and perhaps most importantly of all, against poverty.

How can you claim to be defending the country when ignoring the most important dangers, selling arms to war-mongering nations, and ripping off the people you are meant to serve?

Hammond is not out of touch with education - it`s deliberate!

Labour`s Angela Raynor is right to criticise the chancellor for his failure to inject serious money into the underfunded state school system, but like Andrew Morris of the National Education Union, mistakenly puts the blame on  Hammond being "desperately out of touch" (Headteachers insulted by Hammond`s "nice gesture", 31/10/18).Tories know the situation very well; it was they who so underfunded schools that teachers would have to be either removed and not replaced, or so badly paid recruitment crises would ensue. Even using the contemptuous term, "little extras", reveals how deliberate is this government`s attempt to undermine state education.

   When headteachers are driven to protest, even Tories in their Whitehall bubbles get the message! The truth has to be that this government does not care about state education, otherwise it would take action to end schools having to close early, reduce staffing and cut subjects. A smirking chancellor making "nice gestures" is again taking us for mugs!

Geoff Barton of the Association of School and College Leaders is right to criticise the chancellor for his failure to inject serious money into the underfunded state school system, but surely the failure has little to do with Hammond`s "complete misunderstanding" (Schools to get £400m towards "little extras", 30/10/18)? Tories know the situation very well; it was they who so underfunded schools  that teachers would have to be either removed and not replaced, or so badly paid recruitment crises would ensue. Even using the contemptuous term, "little extras", reveals how deliberate is this government`s attempt to undermine state education.

   When headteachers are driven to protest, even Tories known for being out of touch and residing in Whitehall bubbles, notice, and know why; they understand perfectly!

In favour of a People`s Vote

Your editorial on Brexit stated that EU rules were responsible for the British people seeing "wages and pensions slashed", and "privatisation and poverty soar", but doesn`t the responsibility for all of these lie with right wing governments, both Tory and New Labour (Morning Star, 21/10/18)? I am as unhappy as the next person about the lack of "direct voter accountability for the key Council Of Ministers or the European Commission", but it is less likely to reform without Britain.

        It is extremely doubtful that May`s government negotiations will result  in "a Brexit in name only"; with preparations for chaos well under way, with the M20 being prepared for its new role as a lorry park, and many union leaders worried about the future of their members` jobs, the British economy is being readied for a hit which will have lasting effect for many years. No doubt financiers will be encouraged to stay with the promise of yet lower taxes for the rich, and less monitoring of tax avoidance!

  Just because some coaches for the march last week were paid for by the likes of the awful Mandelson and Heseltine does not mean the wishes of the marchers should be ridiculed - most of the Leave voters must realise by now that most of what the politicians told them pre-referendum was false, and that there isn`t a "glorious past" of Britain coping wonderfully on its own! Without workers from Europe will the NHS and caring industries be able to exist?

      Yes, the people`s vote in 2016 "must be respected", and it has been, with the result being absolutely nothing like the one 52% of those who participated in the referendum voted for. What if another Tory government results from the next election, austerity is continued, recession occurs and homelessness from evictions treble? We would all  demand another election immediately, to correct a very bad situation, but that would not mean democracy was being disrespected - quite the opposite! Democracy has to be used to benefit the people, to protect jobs, to retain work and food regulations and everything a Tory government cares so little about! Without free trade with Europe, goodness knows with which dictatorships Tory governments would end up doing business!

Guardian letter on grade inflation

It appears logical that having worked on grade inflation at GCSE and A Levels, the government should now announce plans to do the same in the higher education sector (Crackdown on grade inflation at universities, 22/10/18). The "rise in degree outcomes" clearly needs investigation to determine whether it has been caused by "legitimate improvement", or whether the "integrity of the system" is being undermined.

    What is rather less logical, and therefore owing much to political ideology, is why the government is seemingly showing such little concern about the integrity of the examination system being undermined by the obvious grade inflation in Pre-U examinations. With many private schools and some state schools now opting for these examinations instead of A-levels, should there not be a similar "crackdown"?  If the much higher percentages of A*-A grades awarded in all subjects in Pre-U exams than in traditional A-levels does not amount to grade inflation, what does?

End charitable status of private schools

With austerity allegedly ending, and the government desperate for both extra finance and an improved electoral image, it beggars belief why private schools are allowed to retain their charitable status, especially when they do so little to share facilities with the local community (Ministers urge private schools to open pools, 21.10.18). Is it any wonder that only 304 independent schools, out of a total of 603 with their own pools, "share them in some way with state school pupils", when the Charity Commission only requests, rather than demands, them to "report how they are opening up access to their sports and arts facilities"?    Charitable status enables schools in the private sector to avoid 80% of their business rates, denying the treasury of millions of much needed pounds. What is worth more? Adding to the wealth of very rich institutions which only serve 7% of the most privileged children in the country, or providing much needed funds for our public services? For most of us, that`s a no-brainer! ReplyForward

Prerequisites for losing knighthoods

We know avoiding tax on a mammoth scale, living abroad simply for tax purposes, "systematically plundering" your business whilst allowing it to build up pension deficits of £571 million, and directly causing the loss of 11000 jobs are not deemed valid reasons for the removal of  knighthoods (Philip Green: I am not guilty of unlawful sexual, racist behaviour, 26/10/18). Perhaps "serious and repeated sexual harassment, racist abuse and bullying" will be.

 Anyone holding their breath? Me neither!

Letters on Clegg`s job with Facebook

Stefano Hatfield is right to defend the right of politicians to seek work outside parliament when their careers have stalled; as he says, they have "families they need to provide for", and "most are not cynical" (Remember, politics is not a job for life, 22/20/28). Clegg`s cynicism, however, is blatant, sacrificing all liberal principles at the altar of political power when joining with Cameron in the "all in it together" coalition, reducing tax on the rich, and imposing austerity policies on the least fortunate.

 He even, two and a half years into his alliance with the Tories, had the gall to say that it was time to "hardwire fairness into government policies", with no effect whatsoever! If Facebook needs someone respected and principled to lead its defence against the threat of government regulation, they`ve clearly gone for the wrong person!

Nick Clegg might well have been impressed with the seriousness with which Facebook`s chiefs "recognise the profound responsibilities" the company has "to society at large", but whether he is the person to bring about any change is extremely doubtful (I`m joining Facebook to help tech be a force for good, 20/10/18). He was meant to be taking the Lib Dems into coalition with the Tories in 2010 to be "a force" for the good of the nation then, but sacrificed all his party`s principles at the altar of personal power. After two and a half years of breaking his promises and helping the Tories to wage war against the least fortunate with their ideologically driven austerity policies, to reduce taxes for the rich, and do nothing to end tax avoidance, Clegg, as many readers will undoubtedly remember, said with no effect whatsoever, that it was time to "hardwire fairness into government policies"!

    Clearly Facebook needs someone respected and principled to lead its defence against the threat of government regulation, but if Clegg and Osborne were the front-runners, the judgement of Zuckerburg has again to be questioned.

Regulating the regulators

With Sir John Kingman "conducting a review for government" to determine whether the audit watchdog, the Financial Reporting Council, is "fit for the future", and the Competition Markets also investigating the audit market, would it not be an appropriate time to suggest enquiries should be launched into the effectiveness of all so-called "watchdogs" (Business Leader, 14.10.18).

     Will Hutton claims that Ofwat is "getting tougher" and that some of the water companies are now "showing a commitment to their customers" (We let finance rip and flogged our assets - today`s austerity was bound to follow, 14.10.18)! That is hardly encouraging, when we have been told that water leakage increased for the second consecutive year, with nine of the private water companies failing to meet their targets on cutting leakage. After all, Ofwat was set up back in 1989 to ensure consumers were provided with "an efficient service at a fair price". 

  In education the examination watchdog ignores the fact that private schools can avoid the tougher GCSE examinations by entering pupils for Cambridge Assessment`s iGCSE, presumably an easier option. Similarly, many private schools are by-passing A-levels in favour of the same awarding body`s Pre-U exams, set and marked by teachers in the independent sector, apparently regulated by Ofqual, but not subject to the "additional rules" which are only applied to A-levels!

   A survey of the other "watchdogs" would no doubt reveal similar shortfalls, especially as Tory governments are not renowned for their regulation, so it looks like a few more paragraphs are needed in the next Labour manifesto!

Tory propaganda against teachers continues

As Angela Rayner says, the Tories "need to come clean and stop deceiving the public" over their deliberate underfunding of state schools" (Morning Star, 09/10/18). "Using misleading figures on school funding" is simply one way this government dupes the electorate, but lying is only one of its methods.

  Years of cuts have meant inevitably that schools have to reduce the subjects on offer, especially at examination level, and the latest one to suffer is music. The number of schools offering music at A-level has apparently fallen by 15% in two years, whilst research by Sussex University shows that in only 47.5% of schools is music compulsory for 13-14 year-olds, compared to 84% five years ago.

But what does the Local Government Association have to say about this? More cuts are likely because of the "pay rises agreed for teachers"! This is disgraceful use of  propaganda, with the teaching profession becoming yet again the scapegoat for government policy. 

Is it any wonder that there is a recruitment problem in the profession when teachers, who at long last have been awarded a small increase in pay, have to shoulder blame for this government`s callous policies? Ofsted ignores the problems caused by underfunding when inspecting schools, but let us make no mistake where the blame lies, and it`s not with the teachers. Ofsted and the DfE should be praising their efforts, congratulating them on their success, and promising to help reduce their workload. This might not end the recruitment problem, but it would certainly make a change!

Taxing question about the City

If, as your business editor suggests, the Square Mile "is responsible for around £72bn in taxes each year", rather than forgetting the role played by the City in the financial chaos of 2008-9, and the huge debt banks owe to British taxpayers after their bailout, shouldn`t the relevant "taxing question"  be -  how much more profit can the banks hope to make out of the British people? (A taxing question, 11/10/18) Why can`t banks offer mortgages to first time buyers that won`t cripple them financially for years to come rather than having interest rates which guarantee obscene bonuses and massive profits. What happened to the billions given to banks through quantitative easing which was meant to be re-invested in British businesses? Then there`s the small matter of tax evasion, offshore accounts, money laundering, and advice given by financial institutions on tax avoidance! "Star status"?

Isn`t it the truth that the City, in fact, should be contributing far more than "11 per cent of total GDP"?

Ideas to reduce teacher workload

It`s no wonder triple marking is "of particular concern" for teachers suffering from massive work overload (Morning Star, 02/10/18). Whoever thought it a good idea certainly wasn`t teaching in a state school, and probably had no experience of the pressure teachers are continually placed under; neither had the various secretaries of state who keep undermining the work of teachers with their support for an inspection process which bases conclusions on results and data.

     In fact, the amount of time given to marking pupils` work has to be reconsidered at the highest level, and appropriate action taken. It is no good suppressing teachers` pay, doing nothing to reduce workload, and then complaining that too many teachers are leaving the profession, creating an increase in the size of the recruitment problem. Where is the education secretary brave enough to tell all parents of children in state schools that class and subject teachers cannot possibly manage to mark all of the work completed, and that they should take an active role in its monitoring? Where is the prime minister brave enough to give his or her secretary of state 100% support, and risk upsetting parents, particularly middle class ones?

     Expectations of parents in relation to written, detailed reports of their children`s progress and attainment also need government intervention. Once a year is ample, with other reports given verbally at parents` evenings, or when urgently required. The NEU joint general secretary is absolutely right to urge the DfE to give headteachers the "confidence to drop much of the extra work that bogs teachers down", but more is needed. Smaller classes, more teaching assistants and more support for welfare and behavioural issues are all urgently required, but like the creation of a level playing field and equality of opportunity, unlikely in a million years to be addressed by this or any Tory government.

   The section of Labour`s next manifesto devoted to education needs to be both detailed and long!

Guardian letter on unfairness of Pre-U exams

With Oxford and Cambridge universities "still dominated by white, wealthy students, many of whom privately educated", the "transition programme" being introduced by Cambridge does not go far enough (Cambridge sets up £500m scheme to help poor students, 02/10/18). Whilst both universities are willing to accept Pre-U examinations as entrance qualifications instead of insisting on A-levels, which as Ofqual admits are "national qualifications based on content set by the government", it is difficult to judge the relationship between Oxbridge and the private education sector as anything but too cosy.

     Pre-U exams, run by Cambridge Assessment, are "indeed regulated by Ofqual", as stated by the awarding body`s chief executive (Letters, 13/07/18), but as a recent reply to a FOI request revealed, are not subject to the "additional rules" which apply to A-levels. These Subject Level Conditions include that all awarding organisations review "similar qualifications made available by other awarding organisations". The FOI request also disclosed that Ofqual does not collect information relating to the number of Pre-U papers set and marked by teachers in the independent sector.

    Jonathan Wolff rightly complains that "there are no fruitful ideas" from the new universities minister, but doesn`t even mention the two-tiered entry qualification (In his first appraisal, it`s no performance related pay rise for the universities minister, 02/10/18). Having privately educated pupils competing with students from underfunded state schools for the same university places is obviously unfair, but allowing the former to use a different entry route as well, is simply unjust. 

Unpublished Observer letter on Pre-U exams

Barbara Ellen rightly criticised the "two-tier child society" which exists in modern Britain, with financially advantaged "absurdly mollycoddled" (While well-off children are cosseted, we throw poorer kids to the wolves, 30.09.18). What she didn`t mention is how the pampering continues up to university age, with many schools in the private sector now replacing A-levels with Pre-U exams, mostly marked and set by private school teachers, and with very high A*-A grade percentages.

  The examination watchdog, Ofqual, does regulate Pre-U exams, but does not apply what it called in a response to a FOI inquiry, "additional rules", which are only relevant to A-levels; Cambridge Assessment, which runs the Pre-U exams, is not obliged, for example, to review "similar qualifications made available by other awarding organisations" to promote consistency.

    Cosseting rich children reaches heights of absurdity when they are no longer expected to take the same university entrance exams as everyone else. It`s bad enough that children in our massively underfunded state schools have to compete with privately educated pupils for the same university places, but allowing the latter to use a different route is simply indefensible!

i letter on Pre-U exams

Sperlinger, McLellan and Pettigrew are right to say that a "more radical rethink of the form and structure of the higher education system" is essential, but more thought is needed to increase fairness when achievement is considered for admission (Scrap degrees, forget graduation! Study for free! 04/10/18). Making "higher demands" for applications from those attending private schools is fine as long as the same means of gaining the necessary examination grades is used.

   At present far too many private schools are abandoning A-levels in favour of Pre-U exams, which are nearly all set and marked by teachers in the independent sector, have higher percentages of A*-A grades, are run by Cambridge Assessment, itself a department of the university, and are not subject to the same strict regulations as A-levels.

Reform universities by all means, but ending the cosy relationship between our so-called "top" universities and the private education sector must be a priority.

The citizenship test!

Like Sajid Javid, I fail to see any point in a citizenship test which requires knowledge of Henry VIII`s wives, but what I would like to know is what exactly are the "British values" he and the rest of the Tory party think "bind our society together" (Javid to toughen citizenship test, 03/10/18). Judging by the last eight years of Tory rule, they would appear to be a belief in increasing inequality, encouraging tax avoidance, imposing austerity measures on the most unfortunate, allowing Rachman-like landlords free rein to exploit tenants, and decreasing the life chances of all but the richest.

 Everyone should understand "liberal and democratic values", but also that they are neither solely British, nor the ones being promoted by this most illiberal of governments!

Acronym for Johnson!

Every Labour proposal to end austerity and create a fair society is questioned by the media in detail about the funding, yet when Rees-Mogg  says "taxes should be slashed" whilst also stating there should be "extra funding for the health system" and more houses, he is given an easy ride (Party needs "clear message" for voters, insists Rees-Mogg, 02/10/18).

  Similarly Johnson gets away with extravagant promises, and is far too often chummily referred to as "Boris" (Moment of truth for Boris, 02/10/18) when clearly this "former foreign secretary" needs only its acronym to identify him. The report of his childish Trump-like mockery of May in the cornfield, for example (May mocked in field photograph, 02/10/18), would be hugely improved by the addition of FFS!

The nerve of Brown and Blair!

Simon Kelner rightly mentions how Brown and Blair freely criticise Corbyn, but could be easily blamed themselves for "corrupting the soul of Labour" (Corbyn can disarm critics by doing the right thing, 04/09/18). It wasn`t Corbyn`s Labour which invaded Iraq on the most spurious of grounds, nor was it the one in cahoots with the City and big business, de-regulating, and allowing inequality to increase hugely. It is precisely because Brown and Blair ignored the true "soul" of Labour that thousands turned to Corbyn to transform our unfair society.

As for Sacks and Hodge, let us not forget that the former was an ardent admirer of Thatcher, whilst the latter gained kudos for her Public Accounts Committee attacking tax avoiders, whist being the beneficiary of an off-shore trust in Lichtenstein! I have been for a long time very critical of the Israeli government`s inhumane policies towards the Palestinians, and now I am critical of Jews who jump on bandwagons to destabilise Corbyn`s leadership. That does not make me an anti-Semite! I am critical of the right wing press and Tories for the same reasons, too!

Guardian letter on teaching crisis

Lots of excellent ideas for education`s future, from Benn`s "abolition of national tests in years 2 and 6", and a "less prescriptive national curriculum" (Clarion call loud enough to rally even the weariest, 04/09/18) to "abolishing the VAT exemption on private school fees" as suggested by Robert Verkaik (What else should be in a national Education Service, 04/09/18), but no-one had an answer to the obvious question. There is a teaching recruitment problem, and teachers are leaving the profession in droves, so who actually is going to deliver the new curriculum?

  Quite clearly, the job has to be more attractive, with much more money paid to the classroom teachers, and the workload seriously reduced. That means smaller classes, more teaching assistants and more support for welfare and behavioural issues; the recent furore over exclusions highlighted problems that have blighted state schools for years. Marking has to be reduced, with parents having to accept that not all work can be assessed and commented upon. Reports have to be decreased in size, with more reliance on effort and attainment grades, and only underachievement requiring detailed comment.

   As Peter Wilby implies, state interference has been resented by teachers in the past because it has added to workload, and therefore stress levels; legislation decreasing those levels is essential!

Hodge and the BBC

Few Labour supporters will disagree with the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews when she said that the adoption of the IHRA definition "had to be the right call", if only to allow the party to get on with its job of opposing the odious Tory government (Labour party adopts full definition of antisemitism, 05/09/18). Sadly, opponents of Corbyn, in the party and media especially, will still not be satisfied. Margaret Hodge, for example, expressed her disappointment with the party over its issuing of "the short clarification to accompany the adoption of the code", both on Twitter and the BBC`s Today programme when debating with Shami Chakrabarti. Her views were repeated again, at length, on the following 9 o`clock Radio 4 news; Chakrabarti`s, somewhat predictably, were not.

  One is bound to speculate that had Labour accepted the IHRA definition months ago, his opponents would have found some other excuse to attack him, and the BBC would have made it headline news!