Tory immigration plans typically callous

Is it any wonder that MPs are attacking Javid`s post-Brexit immigration plans (Morning Star, 19/12/18)? Not only have they been delayed an extraordinary amount of time, they are, as Diane Abbott says, failing at every conceivable level, and reveal once again how completely out of touch Tory leaders are with the outside world, and reality. They fail "to meet the needs of employers for a stable, skilled workforce", but more importantly they fail to meet the needs of a society suffering massively from the consequences of a callous, unnecessary and deeply damaging decade of austerity polices.

     Allowing in skilled workers with a five year visa will depend on a guaranteed salary of £30,000, over £3000 more than the current national average earnings; it means no entry for those with the much-needed skills for such work as caring, nursing and teaching. In Tory eyes, such people do not bring in trade and business from abroad, do not warrant bonuses, and are of little value to the British economy; low-skilled and low-paid! Since when have earnings in this country have anything to do with skill levels?

So much for solving the teacher recruitment crisis when a newly-qualified teacher can be paid as little as £23,720. Even doctors in their first year of training in hospital earn under that figure! Unsurprisingly, the £30000 amount is apparently being put out for public consultation, presumably so that people actually with a clue, will be able to suggest something sensible.

  Of course, the much sought-after so-called "unskilled" workers can be allowed in, but only for one year, with few rights, no access to benefits, and minus dependant family members. Such stringent rules are presumably to appease those so against free movement of workers, and keen to "take back control of our borders"; however, they provide no answer to the crises in health, caring and agriculture. What makes matters worse is that the Tories clearly have learned nothing from the recent post-Windrush scandals, and are still treating immigrants as numbers to be fed into computers and graphs, with no regard for dignity and self-respect.

Responses to new ideas to solve teacher crisis

Damian Hinds might think the "early careers framework" for teachers is an "ambitious strategy", but as it only states that some new teachers will "receive a two-year package of training and support", and probably even less qualify for a £5000 bonus if they continue to teach for three years, one of the obvious things it lacks is ambition (Schools will no longer be punished for test results, 28/01/19). It`s still not known for which secondary subjects this scheme will apply. 

 What is indisputable, however, is that this does not do anything to reverse years of real terms pay cuts for classroom teachers, to address the acute problem of school underfunding, or to solve the serious workload problem. After years of underpaying teachers in the 1960s Labour governments came up with two pay awards to enable teachers` pay to catch up with other professions and to prevent any crisis in recruitment developing. How about that for an ambition, Mr Hinds?

Richard Adams is right to stress that teachers` workload is the priority which "has to be tackled" if the recruitment crisis in the profession is to be ended, and job-sharing does nothing to address what is now the "biggest issue driving experienced teachers to leave" (Job-sharing is important but so is tackling workload, 26/01/19).

The fact that Damian Hinds finds it "bizarre" that there is a "lower proportion" of part-time "men and women in teaching" than in the economy as a whole typifies the inadequacy of recent education secretaries, who have no experience of working in schools (New plan to stop teachers leaving; fewer emails and more job shares, 26/01/19). 

  Reducing "email overload" is good only as a soundbite, and runs the risk of either offending or worrying parents unnecessarily. Rather than telling teachers not to reply to emails, better to put the technology to educational use and fund schools, so that either family liaison officers can be appointed, or parental contact time-tabled into the working day.

There has been a recruitment crisis in teaching for many years, with government responses totally unsuccessful, most recently with the £22 million being spent on bursaries for trainees who unsurprisingly did not go on to take up teaching posts (Bursaries failing to solve teacher retention crisis, says Labour, 10/01/19). What is needed is a secretary of state prepared to work both with teacher unions to deal with the problems of pressure, pay and workload. Some imagination, too, would not go amiss. How about newly qualified teachers being given exemption from paying back student loans for as long as they work in state schools, with the loan being cancelled after twenty years? How about parents being told to expect only one report a year, written or verbal, with anything extra provided only when necessary? What about scrapping the ridiculous idea that pupils incapable of getting grade 4s in English and Maths at GCSE be forced to resit and resit? How about relying on teachers` professionalism and expertise to monitor pupils` progress, and reduce the need for stress and anxiety- causing examinations?

 Doesn`t sound like rocket-science to me!

Labour`s propaganda thinking is non-existent!

Theresa May did, as your editorial rightly stated, show "contempt for Labour`s democratic procedures" by refusing for a long time, even initially after her withdrawal deal`s humiliating defeat in the Commons, to consult Jeremy Corbyn (Morning Star, 17/01/19). The penny did drop, however, but when she was persuaded that appearance demanded he be invited to talks at Downing Street, Corbyn refused.

  Demanding that a "no deal Brexit" first be taken off the table does appear a reasonable pre-condition for such talks. After all, getting rid of a no deal possibility seems just now to be the one thing, Tory extreme right-wing excepted, which could support a majority vote in parliament. But shouldn`t someone in the ranks of Labour`s leadership have been able to prophesy what the mainstream press and media would make of it? Star readers for sure would have been able to predict the Mail coming up with some rubbish about "Wrecker Corbyn slamming the door"!

  What would have come across better to the public, to the electorate, to the ones who will decide whether Corbyn forms the next government? Corbyn`s supporters will see his point, but the rest of the potential Labour voters probably will not. Corbyn`s position over Brexit is difficult enough, between the rock of Leave voters who cannot be betrayed, and the hard place of Remain voters, whose numbers include the vast majority of new young party members, whose support must be nurtured. Of course, the Tories cannot be trusted, but that is exactly the point some joined-up thinking would have emphasised.

Nothing would have been lost, even risked, and everything was there to be gained; meet with May, make your point, leave the meeting after twenty minutes, and come out to the press and TV cameras, furious that she hadn`t budged on anything. Leave no one in doubt about the prime minister`s stubbornness and who will be to blame when Brexit becomes more of the Brexshit-show it already is.

 The leadership team played their cards badly over the anti-Semitism row, and they`ve done it again here. How many times do they have to be reminded? Winning the election is the priority, and to do that many thousands have to be persuaded! Refusing to meet with the enemy is not the way! Talking, and then exposing their lies and hypocrisy, is far better!

Nonsense about logistical problems

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!

Letters on BBC`s awful treatment of Diane Abbott

Some excellent contributions as usual, but very surprisingly, no letters on the appalling  treatment of Diane Abbott by the BBC (Letters, 21/01/19). I find it hard to believe I was the only Guardian reader to be so incensed by the Question Time programme, and especially after reading about the programme`s warm-up procedure, to be persuaded to write. More perceptive viewers will have had their suspicions aroused about the nature of pre-programme events by the booing of Abbott`s name when announced, and by the loud cheering in favour of a no deal Brexit. There is no doubt the chair, Fiona Bruce, interrupted Abbott frequently, seemingly delighting in the discomfort the panellist was obviously feeling.

  The bias was especially obvious when the extreme right-wing panellist, Isobel Oakeshott, mocked Abbott and Labour for wanting a general election when six points behind in the polls; instead of defending Abbott`s justifiable claim that the main parties were "level-pegging", relying on the evidence provided by numerous recent polls, Bruce immediately interjected with the words, "You`re behind, Diane", causing laughter and sniggering from many audience members, and clearly too, from the Tory panellist, Rory Stewart.

    Apologies are needed, and a stern reminder given about the role of an impartial chair at such events. If the full apology is not forthcoming, Labour should raise the matter with Ofcom. The corporation, with its obvious political bias, its appalling record on tax avoidance, its disgraceful pay policy, and its recent willingness to make over-75s pay for their licences rather than curb its profligacy with public money, is ripe for reform!

Jane Martinson asks that to deal with the problems emerging from the Question Time programme, when Diane Abbott said Labour was "level-pegging in the polls", why can`t the BBC   "admit an error quickly and with grace, and move on", but much more is needed (The BBC should admit its mistake and move on, 28/01/19). Martinson admits "the presenter cannot sneer, as Bruce did", when refuting Abbott`s claim, but the obvious lack of partiality all through the programme cannot be remedied by "basic fact-checking". The anti-Labour bias is all too evident, and there are generally far too many examples of false equivalence given to those speaking objective truth and those making unfounded assertions.

    Quite frankly, the BBC is in need of root-and-branch reform. The programme output often compares unfavourably with its rivals, and its channel-based format looks outdated. Its pay structures still look gender-biased, as well as being over-generous to presenters and managers; why the corporation still has over one hundred managers earning over £150,000, when it is so apparently cash-strapped that it cannot continue to give free licences to the over-75s, beggars belief. Then there is the still-continuing bad publicity over its dodgy tax dealings, particularly its insistence on presenters like Fiona Bruce forming their own companies, to everyone`s advantage, apart from the Treasury`s! The Guardian reported seven years ago that a review was investigating the BBC`s tax avoidance scams (BBC told by MPs to make presenters pay fair share of tax, 05/10/12).

         Martinson`s suggestion that the corporation should be "transparent rather than defensive when it makes mistakes" is not really a solution when problems go much further than a few presenter`s errors, and when so many apologies and explanations are needed for so many mistakes!

Just as there is  a reason for the BBC`s reluctance to release film of the warm-up session to last week`s Question Time, there has to be a reason for it not disclosing "the full pay received by its biggest names" (Disclose stars` full salaries, MPs urge BBC, 23/01/19). As the MPs say, it is ridiculous that the pay of presenters of "programmes made by independent production companies" should be kept secret, especially "when it is all licence fee-payers` money".

 The BBC clearly fears another public backlash, astounded by its continued profligacy, at a time when it is claiming its lack of funds makes it essential for over-75s to pay for their TV licences! Not only should the public be told how much these so-called "stars" are paid, but also how much taxes they pay, and that goes for everyone in receipt of public money!

Dave Puller`s experience in the audience during the recording of a Question Time programme (Letters, 22/01/19) adds impetus to the argument that a "full apology from the broadcaster", as demanded in your editorial, has to be forthcoming (Morning Star, 21/01/19). This should be accompanied by releasing footage of the warm-up; after all, if nasty suggestions about Abbott`s political career were not made, as the corporation insists, what excuse could there be? Failing that, Labour must insist Ofcom look into the matter of Diane Abbott`s treatment on the programme last week, and then add some details to its proposals for reform of the BBC in its manifesto.

      BBC bias against Corbyn and his team is far from new. The Media Reform Coalition`s findings in 2016 about the unchallenged airtime given to their critics during prime-time news reports is just one of many examples, so it is time for Labour to announce some of its proposals. How about a salary-cap for all its presenters and managers set at around £150000? Why does the BBC need to employ over 100 managers all earning over that figure, when claiming to be unable to afford over-75s a free licence? Curbing the BBC`s profligacy with tax-payers` money would be a start.

Management certainly could not cope with the stand made last year  by Carrie Gracie, no doubt because her moral principles proved far stronger than her greed, something which the corporation certainly would find confusing. 

Another idea from the editorial about "electing its board members" sounds eminently sensible, especially as no-one at the BBC seems remotely perturbed by what is going on. Why haven`t they put a stop to the tax avoidance which is well known to have been going on for over a decade

 Last year it also became clear that the BBC was at the heart of yet another scandal, with HMRC investigating about 100 current and former BBC presenters and so-called "stars". The allegations focus on the employees falsely declaring themselves as self-employed, working on personal service contracts, and using limited companies to enable lower rates of tax needing to be paid. The greed of these people, including highly paid Jeremy Paxman, Christa Ackroyd and, interestingly, Fiona Bruce, apparently knows no bounds, but what is emerging from the current tribunals is that the BBC offered such contracts to its presenters, and Paxman even said, according to a report in the Guardian, that "the corporation required him to set one up"! 

     With a general election always a possibility, Labour`s manifesto writers need to get busy!

Learning from Finnishing schools!!

When it comes to education, there is indeed, as your editorial stated, "a lot to learn from Finland" (Morning Star, 14/01/19). It is all too obvious that private schools, with 6% of all children attending them, have far too many places in our so-called "top" universities, and too much influence in the running of the country, especially economically and politically. Measures are clearly needed to redress some balance, perhaps by taxing fees and reducing their financial benefits gained through their charitable status, or by preventing them using lightly regulated examinations like the Pre-Us which include coursework as part of the grading process. 

    The constant use of OECD/Pisa data to "evaluate student performance and make comparisons" with other countries has to stop, especially as these are often flawed, not even based on a common test, but involving students in different countries answering different questions! Increasing pressure to succeed in education is an important reason for the rising incidence of depression in young people, but here at least, there is a relatively simple solution.

   With scandals revealed over public school pupils being able to avoid the more difficult exams, both at GCSE and A-level, examinations causing huge stress and anxiety amongst pupils in the state sector, and universities, desperate to get "bums on seats", offering increasing numbers of unconditional offers, isn`t it time to get rid of the majority of external examinations, and follow the Finnish example of having one pupil performance test only? Teacher assessment has always provided a far more accurate indication of pupils` potential anyway!

May`s "cunning plan"

The "decisive rejection" by MPs of May`s withdrawal agreement does appear to make it impossible, as your editorial says, for the motion to be brought back to the Commons, even "with a few tweaks from Brussels", and "hope for success a second time around" (May`s Brexit deal did not survive contact with the Commons. What will? 16/01/19). A cunning plan, however, could seal the deal for the prime minister: before a second vote on her "tweaked" deal takes place, she should announce to a meeting of her MPs that if it fails again, she will announce a general election. Will the 118 Tory MPs who voted against her be so eager to betray her a second time, with the alternative being the challenge of defending nine years of needless austerity, underfunding health, caring and education, and cutting taxes for the rich? Even Baldrick would know the answer!

Reform of the private schools

Reform of the private schools, as Kynaston and Green suggest, is indeed "long overdue", and some of their proposals, especially relating to taxing fees and reducing tax subsidies, are especially welcome (If private schools are the engines of privilege, isn`t reform long overdue, 13.01.19). It was strange though that they didn`t comment more on the fact that private schools are "working" the examination system, and suggest the probable reasons for it. Shouldn`t parents spending vast amounts of money on their children`s education be worried that most private schools are now opting for Cambridge Assessment`s IGCSE and Pre-U examinations, both allegedly easier, and both including coursework as an assessment option. Pre-U examinations are more lightly-regulated than their A-level counterparts, and have much higher percentages of A*-A grades. With all the resources at their disposal and "especially small class sizes", one would have thought good schools would relish the challenge of newly reformed, and more rigorous, examinations.

 The authors rightly recommend "contextual admissions to universities", but perhaps should have added that the only entry qualifications for our state-funded universities should be A-levels, described by Ofqual as "national qualifications based on content set by the government", which Pre-Us certainly are not, and BTEC`s vocational qualifications. This would have the effect of ensuring that the huge advantages privately educated pupils have over pupils from underfunded state schools do not extend to a different route to higher education. As "6% of the UK`s school population" attend independent schools, banning universities from having more than 6% of their undergraduate intake from the private sector does not seem unreasonable, either!

Why Labour should support a 2nd referendum

It does appear that Labour`s leadership has realised, at last, that a hard, or even no deal, Brexit "won`t just be blamed on the Tories" (Disaster looms. Can MPs act quickly enough to save us? 12/01/19). The large number of Remain voters who voted Labour last time might not be too keen to replicate the act in the next general election, whilst Labour`s Leave-voting supporters will not be happy either with the Norway option, which includes large cash payments and "a commitment to free movement".

  If the only solution is support for a second referendum Labour is right to be wary of the People`s Vote campaign appearing as "a Blairite shadow army". Just as few will ever forget the Tory nonsense about us "all being in it together", plenty of disgust was also registered with too moderate New Labour being "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich". The Labour leadership launching its own second referendum campaign, along the lines of "Labour for Democracy", could prove the answer, taking control of both the message and the messengers, and able to ensure Blair and co. were kept on the sidelines.

    If Brexit were to be overturned, Labour could escape responsibility for free movement`s retention, and losing Leave supporters votes would not be guaranteed. I`m surprised no one has used this analogy to counter anti-democratic criticism and justify a second vote: imagine if a party won a general election by promising to cut all income tax rates by 10%, but after two years had failed to act on the election pledge. Everyone would demand another election immediately, and justifiably so. Hasn`t something similar happened here since 2016?

Hopefully Clarkson is right!

Hopefully, Jeremy Clarkson is right (Clarkson: BBC favours women over men, 08/01/19). If it is true that "male presenters should accept they have no chance of winning jobs at the BBC", the nation should celebrate. The more of the likes of Clarkson, Lineker, Humphries and Shearer who go where their obscene levels of pay are provided by gambling companies paying for advertisements, and not by the corporation`s licence-fee payers the better. 

It`s high time the BBC shed its image of an over-paid boys` club, sorted out its pay structure, with a sensible cap on top earnings, cut down on the number of managers earning over £150,000, currently at well over one hundred, and ended the culture of tax avoidance within the corporation.

Unpublished NS letter on editorial policy

The Leader`s summary of the dire effects of the ideologically-driven austerity measures ends with an admission that this "is not left-wing alarmism" (After austerity, 7th December, 2018). Its conclusion, therefore, seems rather bizarre; the statement that the country is "in urgent need of social and economic renewal" is accompanied by the implication that the reason is that the government is "absorbed by the epic task of Brexit"! Does the New Statesman really believe that if it wasn`t for the 2016 referendum result, a Tory administration would have delivered the transformation required? With no workers on company boards, no "burning injustices" removed, but much underfunding of key services, and budgets favouring the rich, where is there an iota of evidence to support this?

     One also wonders why, in the same edition`s "Editor`s Note", Mr Cowley says that in the light of recent events like "the collapse of the centre-left across Europe", what the UK needs is "moderation". Surely the main reason for the decline of the centre-left has been its support for moderate, laissez-faire policies which have failed to rein in either the excesses of capitalism or the rising inequality?

By all means, "take the New Statesman upmarket", but being free from "the clutches of the Labour Party" does not mean unfair criticism of every one of its policies is required; dismissing its electorally-popular pledges to increase the income tax paid by the rich as "unimaginative" (The tax conundrum, 16th November 2018) smacks of unnecessary bias, when for most voters these proposals look about "the best in context"! "Getting the balance right" requires that left-wing solutions are not always lambasted!

Guardian letter on private schools "gaming" the system

Of course, it`s welcome news that Labour is demanding an inquiry into the ways private schools are "gaming" the examination system, and Angela Rayner is absolutely correct to say that we cannot have an education system "with different rules for the privileged few" (Labour calls for an inquiry into GCSE changes "gamed" by private schools, 31/12/18). The inquiry, however, must go further than looking into what is happening at GCSE level where clearly private schools prefer to use Cambridge Assessment`s IGCSE exams, because they are "less robust". 

   The fact that more and more private schools are opting for Pre-U examinations rather than A-levels is also worthy of investigation. With much higher percentages of A*/A grades, papers set and marked by teachers in the independent sector, and with a more lightly-regulated regime than A-levels, Pre-U examinations, also provided by Cambridge Assessment, could well be another means of giving the privately-educated yet more advantage over the pupils from underfunded state schools "in the race for university places"!

   The general secretary of the Independent Schools Council might well say that private schools have a duty "to ensure their pupils are fully prepared for their next steps in life", but is it fair that those "steps" are so far ahead of pupils in the state sector, when increasingly suspicious methods are being used? 

An "eminently solvable" problem!

What a shame your editorial`s "five ideas" for any government wishing "to make Britain a more equitable place" (Britain can be great again. Here`s how...,30.12.18) did not include the "eminently solvable" problem relating to the ways private schools "game" the examination system to give their pupils "a huge additional advantage" (Exam reforms boost private pupils in race for universities, 30.12.18). Not only are schools in the independent sector able to avoid 30 hours of GCSE examinations, which clearly impact on pupils` "mental health and wellbeing", by choosing Cambridge Assessment`s IGCSE exams "which include coursework", they are also able to inflate their results with "less demanding exams".

    This is only half the story as similar tactics are being adopted in the examinations leading to university entrance. Ofqual describes the newly-reformed and more rigorous A-levels as "national qualifications based on content set by the government", yet the private sector is increasingly avoiding them, preferring to opt for Pre-U examinations, also run by Cambridge Assessment. These examinations have higher percentages of A*/A grades, are more lightly regulated, with Cambridge Assessment, unlike other awarding bodies, not even required to compare similar qualifications when setting a grade level to ensure a measure of consistency. Pre-U examination papers are mostly all set and marked by teachers employed in private schools; late in 2017 the head of Eton admitted to the Commons select committee on education that at least seven of his staff were involved in the setting of exams taken by their pupils.

      How can Britain ever be a "more equitable" place if  the hugely advantaged pupils in private schools are allowed to take a different route to our state-funded universities from pupils in our underfunded state schools?