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!