Guardian letter on media and Tories

Andy Beckett is absolutely right to say how the "media`s impulse to take incoming Tory premiers at their word" is echoed by the "inclination of many voters to trust Tory governments", but this is hardly a surprising phenomenon (Incompetent Tories are kept in power by our deference, 26/12/19). In fact, the public`s "deference" for Tory governments is stimulated by a myopic media which refuses in the main to study the relevant evidence,

   May`s first speech as prime minister, for example, was heralded by many in the media as, in Beckett`s words, "a new Conservatism crystallising", but there is nowhere in our history which supports the notion of Tories ever "fighting against the burning injustices", doing anything to prevent white working-class boys being "less likely than anybody else to go to university", or, when it comes to taxation, "prioritising not the wealthy", but ordinary people. Beckett is rare amongst journalists, even those so-called "left of centre" ones, in admitting that there is plenty of "evidence to the contrary". May escaped censure in the media for what were obviously outrageous promises, and amazingly, so does the serial liar now residing on Downing St. His repeated claims to be a "one-nation Conservative" were challenged in the Guardian by Michael Heseltine (Boris Johnson has no right to call himself a one-nation Conservative, 12/09/19), but the fact that Heseltine`s own definition of the concept, "governing for rich and poor, young and old, black and white, north and south, so clearly excludes all Tory administrations, even the one led by the originator of the term in the 1870s, from being worthy of the description, constantly escapes media attention.

     Britain might well be "mesmerised" by the Tories, but there is an obvious reason for it!

Letters on the honours system

The "political honours system", as exemplified by Theresa May`s latest offering, and as your editorial correctly states, is little more than "corrupt patronage", offering Johnson a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate his "one-nation" credentials (Boris Johnson could make Britain fairer by slashing his powers of patronage,30/12/19). Although the 2004 report by the select committee on the honours system includes many excellent ideas like "radical simplification" and "clearer criteria", to which now must surely be added one which precludes anyone partaking in any tax avoidance schemes from receiving any awards, it does not go far enough. 

      With very highly paid celebrities and presenters being awarded honours for their "services to" entertainment, sport and such like, a fairer system could offer a public service award. Anyone, for example, who has worked in public service for perhaps 35 years could receive an honour, and be allowed to place the post-nominal initials, PSA, after their names. This could include everyone from MPs to nurses and teachers.

  Faiza Shaheen has every right to be angry about there being so many "flagrant injustices", like the awarding of a knighthood to the man responsible in part for reforms which the UN has deemed a "violation of human rights" (Arise Sir Iain, your welfare reforms have shamed Britain, 30/12/19). Replacing knighthoods with PSAs seems sensible "one-nation" politics to me. Time for Johnson to put his money where his mouth is!

Yet another example demonstrating the unsuitability of Theresa May for the top position in government.(Rocketman Elton propelled into orbit where few have gone before, 28/12/19). It`s all very well giving knighthoods to unpopular politicians like "the primary architect of the cruel universal credit system", but surely she should have learned that it is the duty of outgoing prime ministers to "draw up and approve" an honours list which also includes well known tax avoiders? It is, indeed, as the head of British motor racing feared, a "major oversight" for Lewis Hamilton to have been overlooked (Arise Sir Lewis Hamilton? Head of Motorsport UK calls for knighthood,21/12/19), He has all the necessary requirements, skill, success, earnings of many millions, and lives abroad for tax reasons. Let`s hope Cummings has the sense to advise Johnson to do the right thing  next time!

Apparently, the head of British motor racing`s governing body thinks it would be a "major oversight" if Lewis Hamilton "is not recognised with a knighthood" in the forthcoming honours list, but isn`t it time that payment of tax began to play a role in the granting of the highest honours this country bestows (Arise, Sir Lewis Hamilton? Head of Motorsport UK calls for knighthood, 21/12/19)? When someone, regardless of skills, attributes or success, makes the decision to live elsewhere for tax reasons, he or she should immediately be barred from any of the country`s major awards. For far too long, top honours have been given to celebrities, sports stars and businessmen whose main concern has been wealth aggrandisement, rather than paying towards the services which enabled them to take advantage of the opportunities afforded them..

    Monaco resident, Lewis Hamilton, so "proud to be a Brit" we are told, yet, according to the Panama Papers, used an Isle of Man scheme to buy his £16.5m private plane in order to avoid paying VAT (Passionate fan Hamilton looks to England for his inspiration, 22/06/18). This so-called "role model for underprivileged children" opted to take a "two-day break" in Greece rather than attend Formula One`s London parade two years ago, thereby disappointing thousands of his fans (Lewis Hamilton unrepentant for missing Formula 1 event days before home Grand Prix at Silverstone, 13/07/17).

  Allowing tax avoider Philip Green to retain his knighthood was bad enough; giving one to Hamilton would be akin to giving tax avoidance the chequered flag. Sadly, with this government, "Sir Lewis" looks a racing certainty!

Changing the manager

Charles Gains argues that Labour "not only needs a new manager but a new style of play" (Letters, 22/12/19), He can only mean the end of left-wing attacks, with the team probing much more from the centre. With the previous manager having lost the dressing-room ages ago, the team must realise that if they`re going to win anything in the coming season, they have to pull together, all playing from the same team sheet! If, as seems likely and as Peter Muchlinski writes, Johnson fails to deliver on his "one nation" promises, and Labour are faced with "an open goal", they will also need depth on the front bench.

    The Conservatives will play dirty, avoiding hard tackles and interviews, knowing that the conversion of their mainstays, Johnson and Cummings, from hard right wingers into creative centre midfielders, is unlikely to be a game-changer; Johnson is lying too deep and too often, whilst the rest of the team are prone to own goals.

  For me, it`s a no-brainer. Attacking down the left is still essential, but with a manager who knows the importance of strategies involving the whole squad. Asking questions of the untried Tories` defence at the despatch box could be crucial, especially if action replays are televised. Out of Europe, perhaps, but for this Labour team, the game is far from over!

Unpublished Observer letter on media bias

Your analysis of Corbyn`s "momentous defeat" rightly mentioned  "lack of leadership over Brexit" and problems with the leader himself (Corbyn was not the leader to address Labour`s decline. It can`t make the mistake again,15.12.19). In such a wide-ranging analysis, surely all factors have to be considered, and that means media bias has to be included.? It is a fact that Labour`s leadership team  endured endless criticism from the media as soon as Corbyn took over from Miliband, whose own election defeat in 2015 can be attributed in part to media bias. Pages and pages in the press have been devoted to character assassination of Corbyn, with not only the right-wing newspapers to blame. Writers like your sister paper`s Freedland and Behr, as well as your own Rawnsley and Cohen, have all taken part in a media exercise to demonise Corbyn`s character and history. It is totally disingenuous to ignore the role of the media in persuading, for example, such people as the voters interviewed in Sedgefield that Corbyn lacked patriotism (In Blair`s old seat, the regulars agree: "Corbyn doesn`t understand us here", 15.12.19)!

      The BBC`s changing of video footage to avoid embarrassing Johnson, its omission of favourable items for Labour, like the Friends of the Earth`s green manifestos` analysis, from the main news outlets, and the palpable difference between the interviewing styles used by presenters, especially on the Today programme, for Labour and Tory politicians, are just some examples of yet more anti-Labour bias. Emily Maitliss`s verbal assault on Barry Gardiner on Newsnight was so obviously not "impartial", it leads one to wonder whether an Andrew Neil interview with Johnson was ever on the cards!

      The Labour party and Corbyn were undoubtedly the major losers in the election, but the integrity of all aspects of the media, with very few exceptions, ran them a close second!

Johnson "accommodating" Labour leave areas?

Katy Balls may well be expecting Johnson to use his "newfound freedom to accommodate the Labour leave areas that have gone blue", but even his victory speech outside No.10 lacked any reasons for such optimism (Johnson is able to forge a new centre ground, 14/12/19). "Unite and level up" seems to be the next meaningless slogan, but where is the evidence that Johnson`s "one nation Conservatism" is any different from that of his predecessors ("The country deserves an end to talking about Brexit", 14/12/19)?

      For such a belief to take effect, Johnson would have to offend too many of his traditional supporters, like landlords and builders, but how else can lives improve for all those millions living in rented accommodation, or wanting to buy affordable homes? Even the well publicised NHS promises to have 50,000 more nurses and 40 new hospitals have already failed all scrutiny tests. "Better schools", also mentioned in the speech, require massive cash injections, with far more than a little pay boost needed to end the teacher recruitment crisis; "safer streets" demand more than simply replacing the numbers of policemen cut under recent Tory administrations.

 Corbyn probably promised too much, but Johnson, surrounded by a cabinet dominated by the co-authors of the frightening "Britannia Unchained", and by advisers whose only strategy appears to be based on lies and scrutiny-avoidance, will promise little of substance, and provide even less!

Trouble with Justice secretaries (2 letters)

Kenan Malik`s thoughtful and detailed article on the subject of redemption contrasted sharply with the knee-jerk response from the government to the London Bridge killings, and in particular with the associated electioneering which followed.(Redemption defines a civilised society. We must not forsake it, 08.12.19). In fact, one is tempted to wonder whether any similar analysis of evidence about, for instance, whether "such programmes" as the healthy identity intervention "actually work" takes place at all within the confines of government.

Clearly, none of the recent seven Tory justice secretaries understood that their misguided policies  failed completely to lessen the chances of radicalisation taking place in our prisons, or even that their austerity measures led to the conditions which have produced so many violent jihadists. 

          This problem is compounded by the fact that the position of secretary for justice is viewed by Tory politicians merely as a temporary stepping-stone on the route to "higher" government positions, and by prime ministers as a job for the least competent of loyal supporters. Hence, the position was held by Chris Grayling from 2012 to 2015, Gove, trying to resurrect his career after being sacked for antagonising the teaching profession, 2015 to 2016, followed in quick succession for periods of less than twelve months by Truss, Lidington and Gauke.  The trend appears to be continued with the present incumbent, Robert Buckland, seeng fit to defend on the Today programme the prime minister`s appalling attempts to make electoral gain after Usman Khan`s attack, but it is obviously a trend which demands curtailment..

 Until the job of justice secretary is viewed as one of the most important in government, and is given to a politician determined to hold the position for at least three years, in a government which acknowledges huge funding is required to support a policy formulated after detailed cross-party talks, there is little chance of terrorism or prison radicalisation ending. Such an expert would be aware that removing all reasons for terrorism to grow in the first place would have to be one of the top priorities.

      Well said, Kenan! Redemption is indeed the "mark of a civilised society", but another one, also, is electing a leader who believes in giving all offenders the opportunity of rehabilitation!

Jeremy Corbyn is right to say that "cuts to public services has led to authorities struggling to effectively tackle terrorism", but hopefully he also realises that more is needed than increased spending.

Clearly, none of the recent seven Tory justice secretaries has understood that their misguided policies have failed completely to lessen the chances of radicalisation taking place in our prisons, or even that their austerity measures led to the conditions which have produced so many violent jihadists. 

          This problem is compounded by the fact that the position of secretary for justice is viewed by Tory politicians merely as a temporary stepping-stone on the route to "higher" government positions, and by prime ministers as a job for the least competent of loyal supporters. Hence, the position was held by Chris Grayling from 2012 to 2015, Gove, trying to resurrect his career after being seen as "evil" incarnate by the teaching profession, 2015 to 2016, followed in quick succession for periods of less than twelve months by Truss, Lidington and Gauke.  The trend appears to be continued with the present incumbent, Robert Buckland, seeng fit to defend on the Today programme the prime minister`s appalling attempts to make electoral gain out of the London Bridge attack, but it is obviously a trend which Labour must seek to end.

 Until the job of justice secretary is viewed as one of the most important in government, and is given to a politician determined to hold the position for at least three years, in a government which acknowledges huge funding is required to support a policy formulated after detailed cross-party talks, there is little chance of terrorism or prison radicalisation ending. Such an expert would be aware that removing all reasons for terrorism to grow in the first place would have to be one of the top priorities.

Election like a football match

With Corbyn "vowing to tackle him personally" after Trump`s remarks about the "silver platter", for me this general election campaign is increasingly like watching the match, with the result on a knife edge even in the final third (Corbyn ups pressure over NHS as Trump rows back, 04/12/19). On the right we have Conservative City, aptly named because of the team`s close connection with the financial institutions, and on the left, not so aptly named, Labour United. To be very honest, this one could go down to the wire, especially if both sides stick to their game plan. Labour`s putting in a good shift, giving 110% with their promising attacks on the left, but manager Jezza Corbyn knows they`ve got to be hitting the target from there.  All this talk about losing the dressing-room is, for me, a non-starter. They know if they`re going to win anything, they`ve got to pull together. It`s a long campaign, but it`s the next rally or debate that matters at this moment in time, and the depth of the squad on the back bench will be crucial.

      The Tory defence, meanwhile, is wobbling, with the apparent conversion of their mainstays, Bozza Johnson and Dom Cummings, from right wingers into creative centre midfielders, taking time to adjust to the pace and physicality of a general election. Avoiding hard tacklers like Neil is  key.. They`re also weakened, because Johnson is lying too deep and too often, and half the team have had to be taken off before half-time, for fear of giving away too many own goals.

With the country clearly split down the middle over the one big issue, and any more points dropped by Labour  in the polls it has to be a no-brainer. Jezza`s always got it in his locker, and promising a referendum on VAR can win them the contest. A people`s vote on giving control back to the men in the middle has to be, for me, a game-changer!

The Andrew Neil interview with Johnson

Andrew Neil`s interview with Boris Johnson, as imagined and summarised by Bernie Evans. 

 As Neil is chair of Press Holdings Media group, which owns the Spectator, he would definitely not ask about the hugely anti-Semitic columns written by Taki during Johnson`s time as editor. He does, however, have a reputation to uphold so the interview might well have proceeded like this.

AN: Will you apologise, prime minister, for repeatedly lying to the British public, saying that you will "Get Brexit done" in months? You know full well that having a withdrawal agreement passed in parliament will lead to many more  years of further negotiation about European trade deals.

BJ: Get Brexit done! That`s what, um, this election is all about, and, um, my government ...

AN: Will still be working on trade deals with the EU in the years to come. Now let`s move on.
A supposedly well educated person like yourself should surely be able to detect hypocrisy, but you still manage to be a big critic of, and highly offensive to, single mothers. You blame them, and these are your words,  for "a generation of ill-raised, ignorant, aggressive and illegitimate children", yet you fathered a child when married to another woman. How many children, exactly, have you managed so far?

BJ: Andrew, the British public, um,  want to know about,um, policies, not,um, private stuff like that.
AN: Not even about whether you spend Christmas with your children, opening presents with them, listening to the Queen`s speech, and so forth?
 BJ:  Andrew, of course not.
AN: What? You don`t do that?
BJ: I was, um, referring to the, um, other...Listen Andrew, when I say that I`m going to do something, I achieve overwhelmingly what I set out to do.

AN: The garden bridge over the Thames wasn`t exactly "achieved overwhelmingly", was it? You`re very good at wasting the public`s money, aren`t you?

BJ: That`s ridiculous. I have never....

AN: Thousands and thousands on the bridge, then there`s the £218,205 spent on the water cannon for crowd control, not to mention , was it £100,000 given to support the company owned by your then mistress Jennifer Arcuri?  A billion on the No Deal arrangements! 

BJ: That`s all, um, in the past now Andrew, and what I want to, um, pledge to...

AN: You`re here to answer questions, prime minister. It`s not a party political broadcast. You don`t have a very high opinion of ordinary British people do you? Your father thinks they "lack basic literacy". Your Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary and International Trade Secretary co-wrote a book in 2012 in which they described British workers as "among the worst idlers in the world". You must agree with them or you wouldn`t have given them such important positions? Are you going to claim you didn`t know about the book, "Britannia Unchained", and that you will sack them immediately for holding such views or will you apologise to all British workers?

BJ: Andrew, I can`t, um, be held responsible for....

AN: Will you apologise to the British people for misleading them over recruiting 50,000 more nurses? That was a lie, wasn`t it? 18,500 of them intend to leave the profession! I ask you again. Will you apologise?

BJ: Now look, um, Andrew, um old chap. What I meant, um,  to show was ...

AN: That the NHS is far from safe in your hands?

BJ: Why would we sell off the NHS, um,  to Americans when....?

AN: Because you will be desperate for a deal and accept any demands Trump makes. NHS and chlorinated chicken? Let`s move on.

Why haven`t you paid the Iranians the £400m debt owed from an arms deal in 1975? As foreign secretary you promised you would, to help bring about the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, but you didn`t, even though it`s seen as the biggest reason for her imprisonment in Iran.  Are you going to apologise to Nazanin`s husband and young daughter?

BJ: Now look, Andrew. What, um,  I meant to say, um, was that....

AN: Isn`t this typical of the true Boris Johnson, saying or doing  anything to get you off the hook, and hope that everyone forgets in a little while? That`s what happened when you refused to take part in Channel 4`s debate on climate change, isn`t it? Are you going to apologise to David Attenborough who called your refusal "shameful"? Why didn`t you attend? Is it because your party came 4th in a Friends of the Earth league table, scoring a measly 5.5 compared to Labour`s 33, and you know the vast majority of voters, especially those under 30, want a government which will reduce global warming?

BJ; That`s, um, a ludicrous assertion, Andrew. My, um, government will ...

AN: Really? As ludicrous as you saying you were against austerity?

BJ: After the um, Labour government had, like they always do, um, crashed the economy, and...

AN: You`re presumably referring to the world banking crisis, which incidentally, your chancellor of the exchequer helped to cause by selling derivatives when he worked at  Deutsche Bank.

BJ: Andrew, Tory governments have, um, always...

AN: Seen women as a weaker sex? That`s why you refuse to give those women born in the early 1950s the money they are most certainly deserve. You`ve criticised Labour for pledging over £50bn for this but you, with your expensive education, must have some grasp of economics, and know that with financial multipliers, a large proportion of that money will come back to the Treasury in the form of taxation. Now, I ask again, will you apologise to these women, and while you`re at it, to all single mothers ? Why don`t you just apologise to all women, prime minister, for your misogyny. And all black people and Muslims for your racist comments? In fact, just about everyone in the UK. You`re not fit to be their prime minister, are you?

BJ; Oops, is that my phone? Excuse me, Andrew but I must take this. (Listens. Whispers "Thanks Dom. Owe you one"). Sorry Andrew, Top secret emergency Have to go.

Johnson and the antisemitic Taki

Unsurprisingly, "Labour has seized on the remarks" made by Johnson in his collection of journalism entitled "Have I got Views for You", published in 2006 (Johnson: "Children of working women likely to be unloved hoodies", 05/12/19). What is surprising, however, particularly in view of all the claims of antisemitism made against Corbyn, is that they have not made more of the fact that apparently it is not only women and working class people for whom our prime minister "has nothing but contempt". When editor of the Spectator between 1999 and 2005, Johnson employed Taki Theodoracopulos, whose regular columns were packed full with antisemitic and pro-nazi bile. One particularly nasty column prompted the then owner of the Spectator, Conrad Black, to remark that its "venomous character" was "worthy of Goebbels".

  Yet Johnson`s failure to sack Taki for writing such bigotry, let alone allowing, as editor, its publication never gets a mention. Labour should not be relying on anyone else to expose to the voters Johnson`s close links to an obvious racist. Even in the unlikely event of an interview with Andrew Neil taking place, this would not be brought up, as Neil is chair of Press Holdings Media group, the current owners of  the Spectator. In the last week of the election campaign, Corbyn and his team have  nothing to lose; make it public and demand an apology from Johnson!

Labour must attack; no one will do it for them!

Few could have put it better! Marina Hyde`s assertion that "someone`s got to start asking these questions" soon is right, but the trouble is that there are so many unanswered about Johnson, as well as ones about the number of children he has fathered (It`s no time to pussyfoot around on PM`s children, 29/11/19). As she says, there is no point in Corbyn or Swinson hoping "other people will push the point home" for them. Even if Johnson faced up to a televised session with Andrew Neil, the latter is hardly going to ask him about the antisemitic columns written by Taki and published when Johnson was editor of the Spectator!

     Rather than adopting damage limitation tactics, "trying to save vulnerable heartlands", Labour have to go on the offensive. "Saying the same message everywhere" is clearly not regaining or winning voters in sufficient numbers, but it would be an absolute tragedy if Labour lose without ever challenging the Tory leader on his personal issues. Tories will be immensely relieved if no TV or radio interviewer gets the chance to ask about his lack of  parenting responsibility, his links with Arcuri and the public money he allocated her company, or, of course, his lies.

Corbyn and his team have to turn every question by the media into opportunities to criticise Johnson, but this can be achieved by implication. For instance, by stating how many children he has, how often he sees them, and what they mean to him, the onus is placed on the prime minister to do the same. 

     When the subject of taxation comes up, Corbyn could make public his latest tax return. This would show how he did not have any other interests which gave him financial gain, how he paid all of his taxes in full, with no accountancy tricks to deny the Treasury of much-needed revenue, and, moreover, how he could afford to pay more taxes, as his manifesto proposes. What is being inferred is obvious, and voters will expect at least some comment from Johnson on whether he would be prepared to follow suit.

     Ally all of this to exposing the lies about "getting Brexit done" in a few months, and at least, some voters might have second thoughts. Swinson isn`t wrong about everything!

Why would the BBC ask us?

Sadly, nothing even "fairly magical" happened when BBC radio decided to "talk to the general public" about Johnson becoming leader of the Tory party last August (Long Read: "Mind if we talk to you for a minute?" 03/12/19). When a very nice lady with a microphone approached us, my wife immediately said that surely she wasn`t going to ask us about Johnson, and carried on saying how we should all leave the country immediately. Then as the microphone moved towards me, panic set in. Had she given me five minutes I could have written two sides of A4 on the subject but with no time, I blurted out that the BBC certainly wouldn`t broadcast what I had to say, and called Johnson a "lying toe-rag", badly retold something Mark Steel had said about him being chosen by the viewers of "Antiques Roadshow", and finished about him being a "disgrace".

    We didn`t think much more about it until a friend later told us she recognised our voices in the Radio 2 news! We listened to PM and they played it again, in its entirety, but with "toe-rag" sounding like "toad"! No problem with that, but to  this day we cannot understand why the BBC would ask people in Liverpool, of all places, for their opinions on Johnson. What on earth did they expect? They must know why Johnson dare not set foot in the city!

Labour can`t win: Unpublished letter to Observer

Whilst Nick Cohen limited himself, in his article on Gove, to one snide anti-Corbyn comment in the concluding paragraph (In his deceit and cynicism, Michael Gove is the embodiment of the age, 24.11.19), Andrew Rawnsley could not resist devoting over a third of his writing, in a piece ostensibly criticising the Tories for lying about resolving the Brexit issue, to censuring Corbyn (There`s no more deceptive slogan of this campaign than "get Brexit done",24.11.19). 

       The Labour leader simply cannot win. If he opted for Remain, he would undoubtedly be accused of being anti-democratic, ignoring the referendum result, and running a huge risk of alienating Leave voters and losing key seats; if he came out on the Leave side, it would be seen as a "great betrayal". Yet when Corbyn adopts "a neutral stance", Rawnsley ridicules him, ignoring the fact that the aim is to unify the country rather than compound existing divisions!

     Rawnsley also asks why the EU would "engage seriously with a Labour government" when its leader is non-committal, but the real question is "why wouldn`t they?". They don`t want to lose such an important trading partner as the UK, and would surely welcome negotiating with a government not dominated by "ultras wanting a bare bones free-trade deal", but one in support of a customs union and alignment with the single market.

    Presumably, in the pre-polling day edition, Rawnsley and Cohen will urge us to abstain, thereby handing the election to the Tories? They can certainly do little more to persuade readers of this left-leaning paper to give up on Labour!

Media and Tory manifesto

Can you imagine the media reaction if Labour had published a manifesto so vague and contrary to previous pledges as the Tory one (Johnson promises 50,000 extra nurses as cautious manifesto is revealed, 25/11/19)? How can voters, let alone journalists, take seriously a promise to hire 50,000 more nurses when 18,500 of them will be made up by "encouraging existing nurses not to leave the profession"? Had Labour`s manifesto included such an outrageous claim, it would have been on all the front pages!

     Similarly, rather than accuse Johnson of lying in order to win the Tory leadership contest, when promising "to increase the higher-rate income tax band to £80,000", its absence from the Tory manifesto merely warrants as a proposal "which appears to have been dropped"(Static proposals are light on tax reforms, 25/11/19)! The untruths seemingly never stop, and undoubtedly there will be more. Remember how ten days before the 2015 election, and the polls were indicating a close result, Osborne suddenly promised a "Northern Powerhouse"? They are still talking about it, and most likely still will be prior to the next election.            It`s called "taking us for mugs"!

Expose the Lib Dems

Your editorial rightly states that the "Tory tactic is to make this election exclusively about Brexit is shared with the Lib Dems", but isn`t that because neither party has anything else to offer "Morning Star, 12/11/19)? They can hardly tell the voters to look back at their records over the last ten years!

   Labour`s leadership team has made an error of judgement on this. Support should have been given to Jo Swinson over her complaints about not being included in some of the televised election debates. Had Corbyn spoken out immediately on her behalf, he could have appealed to all those who think her badly treated, and scored valuable electoral points, supporting the right of his opponents to a democratic voice, and such like.

    The sad truth is that Labour will lose many votes to the Lib Dems in the election, so the more important reason for getting their leader in a TV debate is that Corbyn can take the opportunity to expose her past voting record, her involvement with the callous austerity measures of the Tories, and her support for zero hours contracts. The more voters know about her political views the better! Can she explain, for example,  why she thinks "caution" is needed before an increase to the minimum wage is granted, or why she is opposed to forcing companies to reveal their gender pay quotas? 

     Winning the election is the top priority for Labour; it cannot afford simply to rely on the popularity of its policies, and has to take every opportunity to expose all weaknesses in the opposition!

Article on Labour`s taxation policies

Boris Johnson has already made it clear that the Tories have nothing to offer at this election other than misguidance about their Brexit deal. Feeble and confused promises about the NHS and schools suggest they still intend, if voters allow them, to shrink the state back to levels last seen in the 1930s. What Johnson and his cronies, both in the party and in the media, will be offering in shed-loads is criticism of Labour`s policies, particularly the ones relating to tax, but with planning and a united approach, taxation could become a key element in a Labour victory.

With Britain now the biggest player in the tax haven game, and losing at least around £30-40bn a year in lost tax revenue, Corbyn and his team must realise that bland promises about tackling tax evasion and avoidance will not suffice; voters have heard this many times from all parties with no real effect, so in order to have an impact the Labour manifesto should include precise details which then have to be repeated at every opportunity by every candidate.  He or she should have the exact same figures to hand, from how much is lost every year in the UK to how many tax inspector jobs in HMRC will be created after the Tory and Lib/Dem cull in the coalition years.

        McDonnell has already promised "the most comprehensive plan ever seen in the UK" to tackle the problem, with legislation necessary to force tax transparency on UK crown dependencies to reveal the owners of companies hiding assets. More voter-friendly policies can be added. Should the distinction between tax avoidance and evasion be ended, with both being made criminal offences? Similarly should it not be illegal to make financial gain from advising on, or creating, avoidance schemes? The honours system is clearly in need of reform generally, but  ensuring no tax avoiders, or people working in companies avoiding tax, are included in the various honours` lists might be useful, and thought can be given, too, to whether tax avoiders should be able to hold any public office or be eligible for any form of national representation. Most definitely, with the news that almost three-quarters of companies given major contracts by recent Tory governments have operations based in tax havens, Labour should  promise that all such companies will be refused any government contracts. Finally, a pledge that all Labour cabinet members will make their tax returns public would not go amiss either!

   Then there are the proposals on income and corporation tax. Labour`s proposals to increase the rates of income tax on the top 5% of earners will be attacked, with ludicrous claims that the changes will ruin the economy, actually reduce the amount the Treasury collects, and dash the hopes of aspirational young people. Utter tosh, of course, but the likes of the Mail and the Telegraph will have a field day! Labour candidates will have to be ready with their prepared responses. For a start, this nonsense centres around the so-called Laffer curve which was dreamt up to justify Reagan`s tax cuts, and which modern economists like Thomas Piketty have been rubbishing for years. Labour`s candidates could do worse than remind voters that under Thatcher, between 1979 and 1988 the top rate of income tax was 60%! Did that end aspiration? Worth remembering too, is the pledge made by Johnson when campaigning to be Tory leader; he promised to raise the higher-rate income tax threshold to £80,000 from £50,000, meaning those earning £80,000, for example, would save £3000 in tax. It would cost, moreover, £9.6bn a year, and lead to more government borrowing, just to benefit the well-off, the ones earning three times the national average. All Labour candidates should learn the next figure off by heart: average income in the UK is £26,400!

         Hopefully, Labour will have ready for all social media outlets available, responses from nurses, junior doctors, teachers and such like saying how the income tax rises will not affect them, with a few bankers and businessmen saying how much they earn and how much more they will pay. This would have even more effect if a few well known actors could play the roles, emphasising how little effect the tax increases would have on almost everybody. Similar publicity about the proposed VAT to be levied on private school fees will do no harm either. Waiting for the Tory propaganda machine, oiled this time by the duplicitous Dominic Cummings, to get its act together is not a wise electoral tactic, so Labour must, to use the rugby metaphor, "get its retaliation in first".

     Tories will claim a corporation tax increase to 26% on company profits will be disastrous, economic chaos will ensue, causing businesses to leave the country in their hundreds, with thousands of jobs lost  The Labour response should be quite clear; the Conservatives` reduction of corporation tax did not attract new businesses from abroad, nor has there been a surge in investment, whilst countries like Germany, Japan and France have far healthier economies even though their rate of corporation tax is around 30%. Instead of paying CEOs and directors obscene amounts plus bonuses for "performance" even if that entails job losses and lower productivity, companies need to be paying their fair share of tax, to ensure they continue to benefit from the government investment in health, education and transport.

       Dealt with sensibly, with all candidates and members of the leadership team well prepared and using the same, correct figures and details, taxation policies can prove a vote-winner in the December election.

Johnson`s one-nation Toryism

Andrew Gamble argues that Johnson, by "siding firmly with the Brexiters" and "reshaping" the cabinet and parliamentary party, is aiming to replace Conservative Remain voters with "Labour working class Leave voters" (Adapt or die: how the Tories kept power in centuries of pragmatism, 03.11.19). Presumably, with Cummings at the helm, the thinking is that by relentless repetition of dubious facts and downright untruths, most of the public can be persuaded to accept Johnson as a "one-nation" Tory.

     Disraeli, the originator of the Conservative "one-nation formula for government",  had similar hopes: by claiming to want to "elevate the condition of the people", he aimed to forge an alliance between the Conservative party and the working class males who had the vote. Like Johnson, he treated voters as mugs, and was removed from office in the 1880 election after his "reforms" were seen for what they really were, window-dressing! Johnson and Cummings are in grave danger of underestimating voters in the same way!

        If, as Michael Heseltine recently wrote in the Guardian, "one- nation" Conservatism is about "governing for the whole country", its existence recently has been confined to election propaganda (Boris Johnson has no right to call himself a one-nation Conservative, 12/09/19). Pouring money into the south, doing next to nothing either to ease the plight of the poor and black people, or to prevent tax avoidance and evasion whilst reducing tax for the rich, all typical of government policy since 2010, are not exactly "one-nation" criteria, and Johnson`s sudden and duplicitous Damascene conversion should fool no one!

Observer letter on Osborne

Your editorial last week was way too lenient on George Osborne (Celebrate the end of austerity. But the new cash must be spent wisely 10.11.19). Admittedly, he did have "important support" from the International Monetary Fund and the OECD when he declared in 2010 that austerity measures were "the only way to bring the deficit under control", but by January 2013, things had changed significantly.

It was then that the IMF`s chief economist Olivier Blanchard, told the then chancellor of the need for a "reassessment of fiscal policy", less than two months before the March budget (Austerity plan is failing, IMF tells Osborne, 24.01.13). His recent work on fiscal multipliers had shown him the devastating effects tax and spending cuts were having on the wider economy, but did the arrogant Osborne take any notice?

        What we saw was the growth forecast for 2013 halved, and debt as a share of GDP to increase from 75.9% to 85.6%, whilst government department budgets were to see cuts by 1% in each of the following two years, £11.5bn further cuts earmarked for 2015-6, corporation tax cut to 20%, and the !% cap on public sector pay extended for another two years.

  Osborne deliberately ignored expert advice, and continued with his callous austerity policies, so that now billions have to be spent to "repair pretty much all of the fraying fabric of public services, infrastructure, amenities and welfare provision". Most certainly, history will not forgive Osborne; December`s voters should not forget, either, which parties and politicians supported Osborne in his duplicitous scheme!

Appeal to Guardian to expose BBC

Rather than showing Johnson getting his timing wrong at the Cenotaph and then placing his wreath upside down, the BBC for its Breakfast programme dug out some old footage from 2016 of Johnson with a green wreath and no gaffes! Of course, this was later claimed to be a "production mistake", but can anyone imagine the same happening if it had been Corbyn making the errors? As your editorial rightly says, during election campaigns, "reliable information matters more than ever", and it would appear that it is not only the "cavalier tactics" of the Conservative party and tabloid press which create the "fake news" (A doctored Tory video and dubious claim reveal a cavalier attitude to truth, 11/11/19). By all means, "remorselessly expose" the BBC whenever its obvious bias leads to a distortion of the truth.

Examination system`s "forgotten third"

How refreshing to read the interview with Sir Tim Brighouse, and actually be able to find agreement with so many ideas on education (Morning Star, 29/10/19). Naturally, I liked his ideas that exams should be "nationally set, internally marked and externally moderated", especially in view of the way the private schools are avoiding the newly-reformed GCSE and A-Level examinations.

   Brighouse`s views on the curriculum, that it should affect the "hearts and hands" as well as the minds of the young, were spot-on, especially as governments appear to have forgotten about the third of school pupils who are unable to gain grade 4 GCSE in Maths and English examinations every year.

The general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders described the fact that 190,000 young people "fall short" of grade 4s as a "tragedy" but the real sadness lies in them being  regarded as "failures". With so much attention on results, and so much publicity given to successful students, the depth of despair and demoralisation experienced by this "forgotten third" should be sufficient for any government, especially one claiming "one nation" status, to rethink both its examination and inspection policies. Judging schools almost entirely on their examination results has forced most of our underfunded state schools to devote totally insufficient resources to pupils unlikely to gain grade 4s.

       Whilst there has been justifiable concern about talent being wasted because of very bright working class students not being given the opportunities afforded by the so-called "top" universities, the plight of 35.6% of our young people  rarely gets a mention. The policy of forcing them to repeat the exams until they are "passed" is simply Dickensian!          These pupils do have skills, however, so one alternative is for examinations be devised for them which allow these skills to be exhibited and rewarded. Without a properly funded education for the non-academic pupils, these would undoubtedly be deemed, like the old CSEs, to be inferior. As Brighouse says, the current system is "designed to fail a third of pupils".

        Labour has much to write in its election manifesto on education, but remembering the "forgotten third", and funding a suitable curriculum for them, should be high on the list of priorities!

Response to Freedland

If Jonathan Freedland really wants to know how Jews "can vote for Corbyn", could I respectfully suggest he read recent articles by some of his co-columnists at the Guardian (Many Jews oppose Brexit, but how can we vote for Corbyn? 09/11/19)? He could start with Gary Younge`s excellent piece which compared the views of the empathy-free zone that is Rees-Mogg with those of the Labour MP Russell-Moyle (In moments of candour, the real choices become clear, 08/11/19), before moving on to Marina Hyde`s description of our "verbally incontinent" prime minister (Lurching and rambling, the man in charge has lost control, 09/11/19).

     All those not voting Labour in next month`s election must realise they risk giving power over the UK for five years to the country`s most duplicitous politician, whose word cannot be trusted, and whose policies will  increase the huge inequalities and injustices currently existing in our society. If Freedland wants tax avoidance to flourish, the NHS and schools to continue to be underfunded, for the number of food banks and homeless on our streets to multiply, and for the lack of regulation to enable more Grenfell-like disasters, not voting Labour is the obvious choice. If he goes down that route, can he please tell us, so that I for one can avoid reading anything he writes again!

Guardian letter on tax avoidance

Nicholas Shaxson`s article on the scale of tax avoidance globally, and the harm it inflicts, is a timely reminder for Labour on how taxation should be at the heart of its election campaign (To defeat the world`s crooks, shrink the City, 29/10/19). With Britain, as he says "the biggest player in the tax haven game", Corbyn and his team must realise that bland promises about tackling tax evasion and avoidance will not suffice; voters have heard this many times from all parties with no real effect, so in order to have an impact the Labour manifesto should include precise details which then have to be repeated at every opportunity by every candidate. He or she should have the exact same figures to hand, from how much is lost every year in the UK to how many tax inspector jobs in HMRC will be created after the Tory and Lib/Dem cull.

McDonnell has already promised "the most comprehensive plan ever seen in the UK" to tackle the problem, with legislation necessary to force tax transparency on UK crown dependencies to reveal the owners of companies hiding assets (UK and territories are "greatest enabler" of tax avoidance, 28/05/19). More voter-friendly policies can be added. Should the distinction between tax avoidance and evasion be ended, with both being made criminal offences? Similarly it should be illegal to make financial gain from advising on, or creating, avoidance schemes, whilst the honours system is in need of reform to ensure no tax avoiders, or people working in companies avoiding tax, are included. Most definitely, with the news that almost three-quarters of companies given major contracts by recent Tory governments have operations based in tax havens, Labour should  promise that any such companies will be refused any government contracts. Finally, a pledge that all Labour cabinet members will make their tax returns public would not go amiss either!

A reminder for voters

The Star`s editorial mentioned that Labour would fall into a "Tory trap" if it fought this forthcoming election "as just one of the contending parties of Remain", but this isn`t the only one to avoid (Morning Star, 29/10/19). Not only did the cancellation of the budget mean the Tories` fiscal plans don`t get an official airing, but the updated growth forecasts and health check on the public finances are kept from public scrutiny. The last time Cummings was given the opportunity to lead a campaign, he ensured the nation was inundated with nonsense about  billions going to the NHS, and millions of Turks arriving in the UK. Without the economic data, which accompany each budget, similar duplicity can be expected prior to the general election.

       A Cummings-dominated Tory election campaign will dismiss the claims, from the likes of the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Resolution Foundation, that the economy is currently close to the point of recession, as another Project Fear. Agreeing to support a December election before accurate figures on the economy are published will sadly see opposition parties playing into his hands!

   On the brighter side, the election gives Labour the opportunity to remind voters what the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Trade Secretary think of them. Raab, Patel and Truss in 2012 described British workers in their jointly written "Britannia Unchained" as "among the worst idlers in the world"! A few thousand posters wouldn`t go amiss!

Pre-U Scandal: full article

With private schools` abolition now gaining increased support, there is yet another aspect of their provision which needs close examination. Some of the press have taken notice of the fact that most schools in the independent sector have chosen to ignore the newly reformed GCSE examinations, preferring, for obvious reasons, IGCSE examinations, for their already highly privileged pupils. What is being ignored, however, is that A-Level examinations, the accepted route into higher education for nearly all state school students, are also being avoided.

Three FoI requests have revealed that, whilst there is much less regulation involved, pupils entering the examinations preferred by private schools have almost three times as much chance of getting A*/A grades than from A-Level entry!

The recent scandal involving examination-cheating at Eton and Winchester revealed the existence of examinations taken by privately-educated students, equivalent to A-Levels but not the same, and whose grades are recognised by universities as entrance qualifications. Called Pre-Us, they include questions set by teachers in the private sector.

The exams are run by Cambridge Assessment International Education (CAIE), a part of Cambridge University. Answering questions before the Commons’ Select Committee on Education in 2017, Simon Henderson, the headmaster of Eton, admitted that seven of his staff set papers for exams taken by their own pupils. It was further revealed that CAIE is not a member of the Joint Council for Qualifications, the organisation which is responsible for examination regulations and inspections. The exams watchdog, Ofqual do not even include the CAIE when reporting on malpractice! Not one member of the Committee thought it necessary to delve deeper and ask why a clutch of elite public schools prefer Pre-U exams to A-Levels.

On the Pre-U website, Winchester College recommends these examinations because they ‘are very liberating for teachers’. Certainly, they ‘liberate’ staff from the indignity of their students’ results being compared to those achieved by state school students in like-for-like conditions. Having taught A-Levels for over forty years in such comparatively unliberated institutions, I knew nothing about the existence of such examinations, and I doubt if many teachers in state schools realise that their students are competing for top grades and university places with privately-educated pupils whose grades are earned according to different standards. 

An FOI request to the Department of Education for a breakdown of 2017’s Pre-U results, subject by subject, enables a comparison with A-Level results. History was the most popular Pre-U examination with independent schools, with 745 pupils entered for this rather than A-Level. Of those, 451 were awarded distinctions, the equivalent of A*/A grades; that’s 60.5%, compared to 23.4% gaining the same grades at A-Level. For English Literature, 74.9% received the equivalent of A*/A 

grades at Pre-U, compared to the A-Level percentage of 24.8%. The Physics figures were 65.8% compared to 29.6%, Maths 67.7% as opposed to 41.8%. In the less popular subjects, the percentages of top grades were even more remarkable, with an attainment rate of 82.6% in the Spanish Pre-U compared with 34% at A-Level, and Music 78.6% compared with 19% at A-Level.

      

In October 2017, David Lammy revealed how both Oxford and Cambridge, recipients of over £800m of taxpayers’ money each year, consistently enrol around 80% of their intake from the top two social classes, with more offers being made to pupils from Eton than to students on free school meals across the whole country. The number of ethnic minority students accepted is so low that Lammy concluded there has to be ‘systematic bias’. Meanwhile, Oxford makes more offers to applicants from five of the home counties than to the whole of the north of England.

Such figures speak for themselves, but only tell half the story, when the UK’s most prestigious schools train their students to sit exams that systematically evade the kind of standardisation and regulation that supposedly allows for the comparable evaluation of aptitude in any given subject. A Freedom of Information request recently revealed that in the academic year 2017-18, there were 125 undergraduates with three or more Pre-U qualifications but no A-Levels at Oxford and Cambridge, and 1075 students with a combination of three or more A-Level and Pre-U qualifications. As well as further squeezing the chances of pupils from underprivileged backgrounds and underfunded schools, the figures indicate a permanent minority whose route to the country’s top universities is beyond public scrutiny.

I sent a Freedom of Information request to Ofqual asking what measures were taken to ensure Pre-U exams were regulated to the same degree as other examinations. Ofqual, I was informed, does ‘set rules that apply to all awarding bodies and all regulated qualifications, including the Pre-U’, and awarding organisations have to ‘make an annual statement confirming the extent to which they have complied’ with them. There are, however, ‘additional rules for A-Levels’, as they, unlike Pre-Us, are ‘national qualifications, based on content set by the government’. These rules are called Subject Level Conditions, with Condition H3, for example, insisting that all awarding organisations, when setting a level of attainment, review ‘similar qualifications made available by other awarding organisations’ to promote consistency. Why, I wonder, is this not a prerequisite for the Pre-U exams?

I also asked about the number of Pre-U papers set and marked by teachers from the independent sector and was told that Ofqual ‘does not collect this information’. My last enquiry related to how Ofqual ensured Pre-U results and grading were comparable with A-Level results and grading, and whether Ofqual standardised marked papers from the different awarding bodies to guarantee consistency. The response was that Ofqual does not ‘make such comparisons’.

So Ofqual does indeed ‘regulate’ Pre-U exams, but not in the same way it regulates A-Levels; if both exams are accepted as university entrance qualifications, shouldn’t the exam ‘watchdog’ be equally stringent with both? Shouldn’t the Commons Select Committee on Education now have more questions for the chiefs of CAIE and Ofqual? And isn’t it time that the assumption that the attendees of elite public schools really are brighter than the rest of us was tested on a level playing field?

Ending corporate greed

One would have thought that any UK government, anxious to increase revenue, would refuse contracts to those companies which had their "operations based in tax havens" (Majority of firms with state contracts "not paying fair tax", 20.10.19). Sadly this is clearly not the case, and the researcher at the thinktank Demos makes a valid point when saying that  public procurement is "pretty much the best opportunity the government has to demonstrate what a good British business looks like". 

  Perhaps, however, an even better opportunity might arise if Roosevelt`s 1930s policy was adopted, and amended so that not only the government but the whole of the British public would know where to do their "shopping". FDR instigated the Blue Eagle awards, for companies which were seen to be acting in the best interest of America, not just their shareholders, and which could then be used in stores and in advertising.

  A similar scheme in this country could be devised for companies which put the following policies into practice: paying their taxes in full, adopting sensible pay ratios to end short-termism and outrageous bonus schemes, and to ensure all workers received at least the living wage, using zero-hours contracts only when advantageous to employees, introducing co-determination with workers` representatives on company boards, and having functional  apprenticeship schemes. Government could of course also include criteria relating to their green targets.

    Demos said there was "a need for new measures", including "minimum standards for public procurement", but why not apply those standards to all of our companies, and award accordingly?

UK politics and media moved to the right

Nick Cohen is right to say that "yesterday`s BNP manifesto is today`s Conservative party platform", but it is not only politics in the UK which has moved to the right (Brexiters` adoption of war language will stop Britain from finding peace, 13.10.19). Is it really only the far right`s journalists who, as Cohen states, see "sinister forces conspiring against their own country"? Was Harold Wilson, who introduced Capital Gains tax, raised income tax to 83% for top earners and added an extra 15% on unearned income, renationalised the steel industry and increased the spread of comprehensive schools, described as "hard left" and pilloried by the mainstream press in the way that Corbyn has been? Of course not. Sadly, the press appears to have moved in the same direction as the Tory party!

     Andrew Rawnsley  rightly criticised the Tories for extravagantly promising "the largest annual increase in public spending in 15 years and tax cuts on top", but he could not resist having a go at Labour as well (Labour and the Tories promise to lavish us with gifts, but who will foot the bill? 13.10.19). By all means question how both parties are going to pay for their pledges, but at least acknowledge that, unlike the Tories, Corbyn and McDonnell have already committed to increased income tax for the well off, a rise in corporation tax to a level more compatible with the rest of the world, and various increases in VAT as in private school fees. There`s also another Rawnsley omission, tax avoidance, which costs the country at least £30+bn a year, and about which next to nothing has been done by Tory governments, except cutting by thousands staff at HMRC working to prevent it! Labour at least is keen to reduce it, something that the Tories have never really believed in.

    Criticism of Labour backed by evidence is fine; criticism which ignores the evidence is biased!

Labour MPs must vote against Johnson

The key point about the Brexit deal being hatched by Johnson is that it has first and foremost to meet the needs of most of the ERG (British workers will pay the price if Johnson is allowed to do this deal, 17/10/19). As your editorial pointed out, for that group of right wing Tories, the "very purpose of Brexit is liberation from a regulatory yoke", meaning labour rights, food and environmental standards and even financial regulations, feeble as they are, designed to control the worst excesses of capitalism, will all stand little chance of survival in a post-Brexit country controlled by Johnson.

     This is the task Labour faces, that regardless of what many voters think about freedom of movement and Brussels interference, leave supporters have to be persuaded that Johnson`s Brexit is nowhere near the one they voted for in 2016. It has to be opposed, as Owen Jones states, by all Labour MPs (Labour MPs who vote for a Tory deal must lose the whip, 17/10/19). Failure to do so means that they are indeed betraying "the most basic reasons their party exists". All anti-Corbyn bias, the  reason for so many of the divisions within Labour ranks, has to be forgotten, and all Labour MPs must unite against this duplicitous prime minister, or resign. Johnson`s oft-repeated claims that he leads a "one nation" Conservative party must not be allowed, as Cummings intends, to even begin to enter the social consciousness. Every Labour MP has a duty not only to denounce the notion at every opportunity, but to reject any deal supported by the majority of the ERG!

Unpublished letters on betrayal of the Kurds

One can understand why, after "Donald Trump`s decision to abandon Syria`s Kurds",  the elderly Kurdish man describes the action as a "betrayal" ("Betrayal is a bitters taste". Kurds` anger at Trump as bombs fall, 11/10/19). The truth is, however, that the US is not the only government which is guilty of betrayal. The Kurdish defeat of Isis was not done simply so that America could be safer, and its economy protected,  but that the whole world, including the UK, would no longer have to face such terrorism. All of the main powers should be doing everything in their power to get the Turks to stop their attacks. 

     We are told the British government are "calling on" Turkey to reconsider, but why isn`t it demanding the UN to take more action, threatening the ending of Turkey`s membership of NATO, stopping the supply of all military equipment and tools to the Turks until all action is called off, or even leading the EU in protesting and warning of economic sanctions? The  UK government sent warships when Iran took retaliatory action over an oil tanker, but when thousands of innocent Kurdish lives are at risk, it does next to nothing. A huge debt is owed to the Kurdish people by us all; simply blaming the idiot in the White House is not enough!

Strangely, in his otherwise excellent article on Trump`s "betrayal of the Kurds", Jonathan Freedland fails to mention one very important point (Trump`s deal with Turkey will have lethal consequences, 12/10/19). Trump is not alone!  By its failure to force Erdogan to withdraw his troops, the world, or at least its main powers, is also guilty of betrayal. Instead of the usual ineffective response, "calling on" Turkey to reconsider, the UN, Nato, the EU, and the British government should be demanding an immediate end to attacks. At the very least Turkey`s membership of NATO should be suspended, and all supplies of military equipment and tools to the Turks stopped. 

      The  UK government sent warships when Iran took retaliatory action over an oil tanker, but when thousands of innocent Kurdish lives are at risk, it does next to nothing. A huge debt is owed to the Kurdish people by us all; more than anyone, their soldiers are responsible for the reduced threat of organised terrorism in the west. Yet, when Trump effectively gives a green light for the "ethnic cleansing" of Kurds in northeastern Syria, other governments appear unwilling to do anything to stop it. Shame on them!

Criticising Uefa to be done with caution!

The disgusting behaviour of the Bulgarian football fans showed no sign of abating after the "announcement was read out over the speaker system", and a walk-off by the players might have had more effect, particularly in the long term (England match halted twice over racist abuse, 15/10/19). No doubt Uefa`s sanctions against the Bulgarian football union will be increased, with perhaps 15,000 of the 46,340 seats "closed off as punishment" next time, but the UK`s response to racism is often equally ineffective.

     Ian Wright might well be "proud of what we are doing at the moment", but as John Barnes recently wrote, "racism cannot be eradicated from stadiums until it is eradicated from society", and the UK is a long way from achieving that ("I was seen as the voice of reason on race. I haven`t changed",14/10/19). Those responsible for Leave.EU`s deeply offensive xenophobic tweet last week were allowed to get away with their racism with a deletion and feeble apology, the propagandists` equivalent of 1000 stadium seats (Banks says sorry after Leave.EU`s xenophobic Merkel tweet, 10/10/19)! Why was no action taken against the pro-Brexit campaign group, when the guidance for Crown Prosecutors over Part 111 of the Public Order Act of 1986 when dealing with incitement to racial hatred, defines the latter as "hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins"? For an offence to be committed, it has be be "threatening, abusive or insulting", and it has to be "likely in all the circumstances to stir up racial hatred". Just like the Bulgarian fans,  Leave.EU`s anti-German meme was inciting racist hatred. Throwing stones at Uefa from inside our British greenhouse is not necessarily the wisest action!

One Nation Toryism? When? (2)

William Keegan rightly points out "the absurdity of the so-called One Nation future Johnson promises", but after almost 10 years of unnecessary austerity aimed primarily at society`s least fortunate, is it not time to question whether such a thing as "One Nation Toryism" has ever existed (Brexit only belongs to the lawless "party of law and order", 06.10.19)? Not in this century certainly, with Cameron`s policy of "lower taxes, especially for the more prosperous", almost certainly to be copied by Johnson if given the chance, whilst massive cuts to health, caring and education budgets simply display callous indifference.

      If, as Michael Heseltine recently wrote in the Guardian, "one nation" is about "governing for the whole country", it would appear to have only ever existed as a piece of election propaganda (Boris Johnson has no right to call himself a one-nation Conservative, 12/09/19). Pouring money into the south, doing next to nothing either to ease the plight of the poor and black people, or to prevent tax avoidance and evasion, disqualifies practically all 20th century Tory governments from deserving a "One Nation" description. Even Disraeli, who was the first Tory prime minister to describe himself as such, was more concerned with his reforms being "window dressing" rather than methods of properly reducing the wealth gap, and he was deservedly rejected by the working class electorate in 1880.

    If history teaches us anything, it`s that "One Nation Toryism" exists only, in Keegan`s words, as a "monstrous lie", an oxymoron if ever there was one!

Tory propagandist Mark Wallace is probably right that the "Get Brexit done" message constitutes a "compelling message" for many voters, but the idea that "people are susceptible " to the "do it and move on" message is both questionable and patronising (This government is just doing its job, 15/10/19). Are we meant to forget all the hardships imposed, particularly on the weakest in society, in the last 9+ years by these Tories and their pro-austerity allies, the Lib Dems? Who can ever forget their ridiculous "all in it together" slogan which they spouted whilst simultaneously cutting taxes for the wealthiest, and imposing pay freezes on the majority?

     Clearly they are still at it; taking the electors for mugs is their speciality. In the post-Queens`s speech debate, Johnson and his fellow Cummings-primed cronies repeated their new mantra, that they`re all "one-nation Conservatives"! Michael Heseltine, not a renowned Tory lefty, recently described the myth that is one-nation Toryism as "governing for the whole country"! Surely that disqualifies all recent Tory governments from having a claim to the description? Even Disraeli, 19th century Tory prime minister and the first to describe himself as such, only attempted "window dressing" reforms rather than ones which improved lives, and was duly rejected by the electorate in 1880. Voters were not gullible then, and they won`t be deceived by such insulting nonsense now!

Unpublished letter on Thomas Cook Affair

Your Business leader said that the chair of the business select committee, Rachel Reeves, "should not be too obsessed with her idea that the downfall of Thomas Cook appears to be a sorry tale of corporate greed" (Thomas Cook was brought down by incompetence, not boardroom greed, 29.09.19) The only reason given is that, although figures like the £35m paid over the last 12 years to the "past three chief executives look appalling", they need to be "treated with care", because out of Frankhauser`s "notional £8.4m haul", about £4m of that was in shares which are now worthless! Of course "incompetence and hubris" played their part, but obscene levels of pay without any requirement for the company to make long-term improvement explain this, and almost all of the recent corporate collapses.  It`s all been heard before, how a company goes bust after not only ridiculously high payments to the chief executive and other directors, bonus payments based on so-called "performance", but also after the accounts have been signed off by the auditors. The Commons` business, energy and industrial strategy committee repeats its disappointment and outrage with regularity, and as the Leader says, usually provokes "grovelling apologies", but nothing changes, and workers lose their jobs and security on a monotonous basis.

  Corporate greed was at the heart of the 2008 crisis, but the bonuses, tax avoidance, short-termism and lack of proper regulation in banking, accounting and business have continued unabated. Thomas Cook issued two profits warnings last year, revealing its debts then were £1.2bn, having also to write off £1.1bn spent on  its 2007 acquisition My Travel. Allied to this was the fairly obvious threat to its future profitability provided by online bookings and more competition from companies not so reliant on 20th century practices. None of this prevented Thomas Cook from continuing to pay out millions in "performance related" bonuses, and in 2017 and 2018 resuming the payments of dividends to shareholders!

     As long as none of the directors and auditors "do a Cummings" and fail to turn up for the hearings, the committee`s inquiry should be reasonably enlightening, but little else. Some of the protagonists might appear in the headlines for a few days, but as already has been proved, "naming and shaming" doesn`t work. Former employees might well "deserve to hear" explanations, but guarantees against future companies being mismanaged by greedy executives would be more welcome. Only legislation can create the transformation in the UK`s business practices which is so obviously needed! 

Guardian letter on Coe

How can Sebastian Coe`s remarks be taken seriously (Coe launches remarkable attack on BBC and Logan, 03/10/19)? Not only does he defend the indefensible and attack BBC presenters of the World Athletics Championships in Doha for rightly commenting on the practically empty stadium, he criticises the lack of "the more insightful stuff around the events". He clearly has never watched the presentation, where the insightful remarks on running, throwing and jumping make the so-called "punditry" on football programmes laughable.

As president of the IAAF, he must take much of the responsibility for the games taking place in such an unsuitable country. Surely a better policy would be to deny countries with limited human rights and gender equality the right to hold major sporting events until they reform? By all means question why Logan`s earnings from the BBC are way lower than Lineker`s, but by making such ill-informed remarks, Coe simply makes us question his judgement even more!

"A-Level playing field"? No way!

Your paper rightly criticised universities for "not differentiating between the rigorous GCSEs compulsory in the state system" and "less demanding" IGCSEs taken in the private sector, but the fact that the newly reformed A-levels are also being avoided in many independent schools is strangely ignored (Easier exams benefit private school pupils, 25.08.19). If the priority is, as the chair of the Commons education select committee says, "a level playing field", the reasons private schools are opting for Pre-U examinations have to be investigated. That these examinations are run by Cambridge Assessment, which is also responsible for IGCSEs, makes the matter rather more pressing, as does the fact that they are mostly set and marked by teachers in the independent sector. Are privately educated pupils so much brighter that something like over 60% of those entered for Pre-Us can expect A*/A grades, compared to 25.5% for A-levels?

    In the academic year 2017-18,there were 125 Oxbridge undergraduates with three or more Pre-U qualifications but no A-levels, and 1075 students with a combination of three or more A-level and Pre-U qualifications. After the Guardian-exposed cheating scandal of 2017, both the head of Eton and CEO of Cambridge Assessment were briefly questioned about examinations by the Commons education select committee, so one wonders why it has taken so long for Halfon and Powell to conclude that "those in private schools" have an "unfair advantage"! It certainly looks like more answers are now needed, and the committee could start by asking the following:

         If Pre-U exams are not easier than A-levels, why do so many private schools and some high-achieving state schools favour them?

            How many of last year`s Pre-U examinations were set/marked by teachers currently working in the private sector? Eton`s head admitted at least seven of his staff were involved in 2017. Are measures in place to ensure examination topics and questions are as difficult to predict as those at A-level?

             One would hope, if there is to be "public trust in the examination system" as Ofqual`s chair desires, that checks are made to ensure an A* graded Pre-U exam paper is of the same standard as an A* A-level paper, demonstrating the same level of skills, knowledge, and detailed analysis and accuracy? My FoI request to Ofqual revealed that there are "additional rules for A-levels", as they, unlike Pre-Us, are "national qualifications based on content set by the government". These rules are called Subject Level Conditions,with Condition H3 for example, insisting that all awarding organisations, when setting a level of attainment, review "similar qualifications made available by other awarding organisations" to promote consistency. Presumably, this is not required of Pre-Us? 

    Having privately educated pupils competing with students from underfunded and understaffed state schools for the same university places is obviously unfair, but allowing the former to qualify using a different entry route simply compounds the problem!

Betting on a general election?

Stephen Bush outlined how there is "sufficient time", despite the prorogation, for parliament to legislate to prevent a no-deal Brexit (A week to stop no deal. No excuses, 30/08/19). That might well be true, but the opposition groups should not expect an easy ride. As soon as they began to form plans for legislation last week, Cummings moved forward the intention to suspend parliament, so you can guarantee he has his next move already worked out.

     What`s the betting, if it looks like the opposition`s bill might succeed, Johnson will call an election to take place before October 31st? Cummings is probably planning the campaign now, with Johnson standing as the man of the people, the only politician capable of carrying out the referendum`s result, and defeating the anti-democracy and anti-Brexit fearmongers!

  We can only hope there are some capable of joined-up thinking in the ranks of the opposition groups, being able to predict what might happen, and to match Cummings!