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!