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.