NS letter on a Centrist party

Paul Mason says, probably correctly, that the "vast majority of Labour MPs" mainly just want to "be armed with policies they can sell on the doorstep" (Another voice, 24th August, 2018). This begs a question relating to the actual policies "Corbyn`s most trenchant critics" would be advocating when promoting their new centrist party (Leaving Labour, 24th August, 2018). Presumably they would have rejected Corbyn`s plans to nationalise railways and energy, increase taxes for the rich, and to end austerity, ideas which have proved to be popular, and revert to the Tory-lite promises which cost Labour so dearly in the elections of 2010 and 2015?

 Whatever their choice, the "Fair Oak Farm participants" will only succeed in putting a smile on Tory faces. What would be written on the side of Umunna`s electoral bus? "Vote for me, and guarantee another ten years of Tory rule"?

Centrist govt not the answer

John Harris bemoans the fact that "our new political culture has superseded the dominance of what some call centrism", and argues that the welfare state and the "post war education system were basically the work of centrists" (With no centrist path our politics will completely lose its bearings, 27/08/18). It was that education system which designated at least 75% of our children to a largely inferior education in secondary modern schools, a situation which was remedied by the more left-wing, Anthony Crosland. The "centrist" Blair government might have created the minimum wage, but set at such a low level it did nothing to decrease inequality or the pay ratio. "Centrist" Cameron is praised for the "equal marriage" legislation, but his hugely damaging and unnecessary austerity policies, which amongst other things, destroyed the "centrist" creation, Sure Start, conveniently get no mention. What sort of governments created the housing, care and teacher recruitment crises?

  This country neither needs nor wants "centrist" policies, which, with their lack of regulation, do lead to "financial crashes", as Harris acknowledges, tenant and worker exploitation, and scant regard for the work done by state employees. What it does need is an end to the rip-off culture which all governments in the last forty years have encouraged, and a move towards a fairer and more just society, starting with increased taxation for the rich, and more state investment and involvement in transport and energy provision. Does Harris really believe a "centrist" government would do any of those things?

NS letter on Today programme

Roger Mosey`s insistence that the reason for the loss of 839,000 listeners to the Today programme is its persistence with "its new obsessions around the arts, country life and daily puzzles" is as myopic as the programme editor`s claim that "the state of our politics", in particular Brexit, is to blame (Off the Air, 17th August, 2018). Does it not occur to them that the fact that listeners are aware of the vast sums paid to the presenters, who then show outright bias in their interviews, has to be an important +NSfactor? 

      With real wages falling and public opinion moving to the left, chummy interviews with the likes of Gove and Hammond by presenters on £400000 a year contrast sharply with the short shrift given to arguments propounded by Corbyn supporters. Too often, concerns of ordinary people, the effects of austerity and need for income tax increases are ignored. Abrasive, interruption-packed interviews, requiring answers in far more detail, particularly financial, are the norm for politicians and union leaders from the left, and in recent weeks, there has again been a definite pro-Israeli bias. Mishal Husain`s interview with Lord Sheikh this month focussed on the latter being wrong to attend the conference in Tunisia in 2014, because the conference`s title included the words, "In the light of Israeli aggression"! That it was in September, 2014, after the death of 2,220 Gazans, 1492 of them civilians, in July and August, was seemingly  irrelevant.

     I fear the "compromise on impartiality", which Mosey mentions, has been made already; hopefully, Kamal Ahmed will realise it, too.

Britain`s responsibility to protest

If, as your editorial states, this country has "a particular responsibility" to protest at the "wave of repression" that has broken out across Zimbabwe, because of Britain`s former position as a "colonial power", the government is going to have its work cut out (Britain has a duty to tell new leader that repression must end now, 12.08.18). Rather than selling arms to the Saudis, and kowtowing to the Israeli government`s every whim, Britain should be interfering with all its might, to end both the slaughter of civilians in Yemen and the continuous undermining of Palestinians` rights. Isn`t that its duty, in view of the role it played in creating the problems developed in the area when it was the dominant imperial power there?

    Another part of the world is having over half its population humiliated and insulted every day, but the silence of the protests from Britain, again that area`s "former colonial power", is deafening. Trump can be as racist and misogynist as he wants, but the government`s policy remains one of embarrassing deference. Just because the buffoon of a foreign secretary has gone, does not mean the policy itself has improved. Flexing its muscles in Zimbabwe might tick some boxes in Whitehall, but it would be little compared to what a government with any sort of ethical foreign policy should be doing.

Beatle-song letter to NS

Don`t ask me why but if there`s a place for analysis of the Beatles` enduring popularity, it won`t be long before, if the editor will let it, be in the New Statesman (Ticket to write, 10th August, 2018). At any time at all, almost every little thing about "the greatest entertainment phenomenon of the 20th century" can be examined through their songs. I`ve got a feeling you`d have to be a little child not to know something about these boys. What goes on when editorial teams come together will never get back to the readers, but I want to tell you that a regular Beatle feature would make a change from articles on economic misery and revolution, money shortages and the role of the taxman. If you need any help, you know my name!

Praise for New Statesman

Many New Statesman readers like myself will have been delighted with last week`s edition. Notwithstanding the Leader column giving encouragement for a "red Ukip" party, the article on Faiza Shaheen was seriously uplifting (The Chingford Corbynite, 10th August, 2018). Not only is she aiming to defeat the Johnson apologist and personification of "the cruelty and harshness" of Tory austerity, Iain Duncan Smith, she stands for the values and principles which appeared lost to the Labour party until recently.

    Then Grace Blakeley offered a detailed explanation of not only how the financial institutions caused the 2008 crisis, but why "reining in finance" is necessary to fund the country`s current account deficit ("Bargain basement" Britain isn`t working"). Her substantiated support for "tougher regulation" allied with "more and better taxation" and increased government investment shows how Labour`s economic policies, when explained and argued properly, can win them the next election. Further clarification on how the proposed increases in taxation will only affect the wealthy, ie people earning over three times the national average, is needed, and, of course, more sensible analysis of policies in the press. Hopefully the New Statesman will show the way!

i letter on Pre-U exams

We are assured by Ofqual that students who have taken the tougher A-level examinations this year "will not be at a disadvantage compared with previous years" (Exam grades adjusted for reforms, 14/08/18). The worry is, however, that they will be at a disadvantage compared with students, mostly from private schools, who take Pre-U exams instead of A-levels. These exams are marked and set by teachers in the private sector, and last year had far higher percentages of students gaining A*/A grades.

Influence of pro-Israeli lobby

Like many Labour supporters, there are times when I also want to "pick up the party", and "shake it to its senses", but the huge coverage of the anti-Semitism row should remind us all of how strong the pro-Israeli lobby can be (Antisemitism: Corbyn and the crisis that won`t go away, 05.08.18).

     In 2006 the Guardian printed an article comparing what was then happening in Gaza with apartheid in South Africa; a Dispatches television programme broadcast five years later showed the then Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger admitting he was subsequently visited by a Jewish deputation, and warned that his paper was encouraging antisemitism! Rusbridger asked, quite naturally, for evidence to support such a ridiculous claim, and rightly stated that it was a disreputable argument to say criticising Israel was anti-Semitic.

      The BBC`s reporting of Israeli actions in Gaza led to the corporation backing down to pro-Israeli lobbying, and refusing to broadcast an appeal for humanitarian aid for the people of Gaza, an appeal which went out on both ITV and Channel 4.

      One could argue that Corbyn`s team should have predicted the opposition which their refusal to adopt all 11 examples of antisemitism outlined in the IHRA code would provoke, especially in the right-wing media. On the other hand, who would have forecast the influence  the alliance of the pro-Israeli lobby, with its determination to limit criticism of Israel`s expansionism at the expense of the Palestinians, and the right-wing parliamentary Labour group, with its resolve to replace Corbyn, seems to have on the left-leaning Sunday newspaper of our choice?

Progressive left and education

It is difficult to disagree with Melissa Benn`s opinion that the "progressive left" needs to "kickstart an honest public debate" about how this country might develop a "better, fairer model" of education (Our schools are broken. Only radical action will fix them, 08/08/18). Ending the "stubborn silence" that exists on the relationship "between selective and private schools and the often beleaguered state system" is essential, but there also needs to be discussion on the very close connections between the independent sector and our state-funded universities. Should the latter, for instance, accept Pre-U examinations as valid entry qualifications when these exams are set and marked mostly by teachers in private schools, and have far higher percentages of A*/A grades than A-levels, the exams taken by the vast majority of state school pupils? 

    A "common" and fair system is impossible as long as the playing field`s unevenness is allowed to increase by a government intent on maximising only the potential of the few.

Unconditional offers 1,2,3 &4

Kenan Malik rightly sees the huge rise in unconditional offers by universities "just wanting to put bums on seats" as the inevitable result of government policy introducing "market forces into education", but doesn`t mention the often dire effects this has on schools (The penny finally drops - universities are businesses, 29.07.18). Under pressure from an inspection service ever watchful for downward trends in results, senior management apply similar pressure on teaching staff, usually by attaching A-level target grades on 6th form pupils, based on their GCSE results. When the pupils in receipt of these guaranteed university places not unsurprisingly relax efforts and fail to achieve target grades, who gets the blame?

     Is it any wonder teacher training places remain unfilled, and that there is a shortfall of around 30,000 classroom teachers this year? As Malik says, if you want to improve education, "you don`t turn universities into supermarkets", but you don`t treat teachers as second class citizens either!

Is it any wonder there has been "a fall in overall satisfaction" with our state-funded universities (Morning Star, 28/07/18)? Value for money is hard to see when the third term of the year is practically non-existent, the numbers of lectures and tutorials ever on the decline, and the greed of vice-chancellors rivalling that of a FTSE 100 chief executive. With students` mental health issues on the increase, the underfunding of welfare support is a downright disgrace.

    Ally all of this with the failures of Oxbridge`s admissions procedures, and the inevitable under-representation of black and northern students, not to mention the ridiculous favouritism shown to public school pupils, with them even being allowed to use Pre-U grades as entry qualifications instead of A-levels, and the result is a higher education system seriously in need of reform.

     With universities eager to get "bums on seats", as the universities minister, Sam Gyimah, so eloquently put it, and grab as many of those £9Ks as possible, they are now increasing massively the number of unconditional offers they are making to applicants, clearly without any consideration of the consequences.

  Imagine the pressure on over-stressed and over-stretched teachers when a quarter of their A-level class switch off because of their guaranteed university places. Will Ofsted judge their schools sympathetically when results drop? Of course not!

Readers rightly expressed anger at the huge rise in unconditional offers being made to students before they take their exams, but surprisingly there was nothing referring to the effects, often devastating, on results (Letters, 31/07/18). The original article did mention some students with guaranteed places "underperforming against their expected entry grades" (Sharp rise in unconditional offers prompts calls for reform at universities, 26/07/18), but not the knock-on effects. With teachers under more and more pressure from senior management to improve results, and Ofsted keen to make judgements on schools based mainly on data and results, the existence in 6th form classes of pupils refusing to push themselves to achieve their potential increases teacher stress levels hugely.

     Until unconditional offers are banned, school data will inevitably reveal numbers of pupils who fail to live up to the expectations arising from brilliant GCSE results on the increase. Is it any wonder "20% of teacher training vacancies at secondary level are unfilled" (Too much pressure, 31/07/18)?

The large increase in number of students receiving unconditional offers, "from 2,500 five years ago to 58,000 this year", has rightly led  the University and College Union (UCU) to call for a "complete overhaul of university admissions (Sharp rise unconditional offers prompts calls for reform at universities, 26/07/18). Your editorial last year mentioned the "hidden profit motive" which encourages universities to "recruit as many students as possible paying top whack" (The market in higher education,08/12/17), which prompted my letter warning of the despair unconditional offers inevitably cause teachers keen to maximise their pupils` potential.

    If ever the "overhaul" takes place, it is to be hoped that the question of university entry qualifications is also included; it cannot be fair for public schools to use different exams from A-levels when the provider of Pre-U examinations is not affiliated to the Joint Council for Qualifications like all other awarding bodies.