Tory diplomacy belongs with Palmerston!

British history has seen many examples of British politicians lacking diplomatic skills at crucial moments, often leading to unnecessary conflict as, for example, the wars in 1899, 1914 and 2003 testify. The deployment, however, of four Royal Navy armed patrol vessels with the "power to halt, inspect and impound all EU fishing boats" in UK waters must rank alongside the most idiotic of Britain`s blunders (Navy ships may be sent to protect UK waters, 12/12/20). At a time when the Brexit talks are on a knife-edge and when a deal, which can minimise future economic disaster, is still possible, trust between the politicians is of the essence. Military threats of this nature, reminiscent of the gunboat diplomacy favoured by the likes of Palmerston, can only do even more damage to the country`s reputation as a reliable and trustworthy partner, and sadly, this time, there is no chance of the House of Lords condemning the action, as it did in 1850! In those days, of course, free trade was valued, not only for its economic benefits, but for its role in keeping the peace between nations, and the latter became one of the main arguments forwarded by Cobden and Bright in the movement to repeal the Corn Laws. There is probably little possibility in 2021 of errors of the magnitude of the 1904 Dogger Bank incident taking place, when British trawlers were mistaken by the Russian Baltic Fleet for ships belonging to the Imperial Japanese Navy, and fired upon, but with the present government in charge, you just wouldn`t bet against it! With "Palmerstonian nationalism" taking precedent over peaceful diplomacy, anything is possible!

Tories gaming the system!

Andy Beckett is absolutely right when he says that the non-Tory reaction to "the brazen gaming of our political system" by a succession of Conservative governments is to "feel appalled, frustrated or helpless" (Is Brexit the end of the game for Tory rule-breakers? 11/12/20). This is not only because the Tories are seen as "Britain`s natural rulers", due largely to the constant emphasis of such by the majority of the mainstream media, but by a fear by opposition parties of appearing too radical and arousing criticism from that same media. Tories "game the system" in more ways than Beckett had space to mention: they impose ten years of callous austerity but lower tax rates for those earning incomes over five times the national average, and claim everyone is "in it together"! Their fiscal legislation ignores the avoidance schemes and off-shore havens where their supporters have investments; the strict regulations they impose on public examinations do not apply to exams taken in most private schools, enabling their pupils to continue their long-enjoyed domination of our most prestigious universities, and consequently, the top jobs! They can even vote for a totally unnecessary war, as in 2003, and know the ire of the media`s majority will be targeted elsewhere! Brexit will not end the "Tory disdain for rules", but the problems inevitable in the coming months might, at least, embolden the Labour party`s leadership into adopting a more radical

Wealth tax insufficient on its own!

Whilst there is little economic need to start repaying the national debt, a wealth tax in a society "that is calling for a fairer social settlement" can certainly be justified, especially after years of callous austerity policies which have widened the inequality gap hugely (Who wants to tax a millionaire? The UK is short on options, 10/12/20). The real tragedy lies in the fact that the UK, the 6th richest country in the world, needs to raise billions "to support small business and help poor neighbourhoods" just as much, and in the same way, as Argentina, a country whose economy does not even figure in the world`s top twenty! A wealth tax alone, however, might well raise £260bn, as the Wealth Tax Commission says, but much more could be raised by chasing tax avoiders and evaders efficiently, increasing capital gains tax to income tax levels, increasing council tax rates on high-value properties, and increasing income tax levels incrementally up to 90% for earnings over £1 million. All of these could be implemented immediately, without affecting spending on the high street in any way, and, no doubt this one-nation Conservative government of ours is contemplating their introduction at this very moment!!

Eurosceptic mythology still around!

Rafael Behr`s point about "Eurosceptic mythology", and how Brexit would provide the "freedom to do things that Brussels had never stopped Britain from doing", is a valid and relevant one (In truth, there was only ever one road out of the EU, 09/12/20). An excellent example was given by the then chief secretary to the Treasury, days before becoming chancellor in February, earlier this year; Sunak claimed that as free ports are not allowed in the EU, Brexit enabled the UK "to unleash this potential in our ports". Unfortunately for him, on the same day the European Commission announced that the EU`s free ports, all 82 of them, were "aiding the financing of terrorism, money-laundering and crime" (EU cracks down on free ports for role in corruption and crime, 11/02/20)! It seems that since January 10th, authorities across the EU have been urged to take extra measures to identify suspicious activities at the ports as a result of the "high incidence of corruption, tax evasion and criminal activity"! Even in this week`s PMQs, Johnson was still alluding to Britain`s Brexit-enabled ability in 2021 to establish free ports! Presumably the British people are expected to believe that if these free ports are set up in the UK, standards on security, safety, workers` rights and the environment will not be compromised. Johnson`s government, like its predecessors since 2010, treat the UK`s citizens as mugs, and indeed, most recently as its reduction of overseas aid indicates, raving Faragists, How ironic that at a time when the prime minister has, as Behr says, "borrowed heavily against Britain`s reputation" for being "level-headed", and "reliable", he is incapable of being either!

Starmer and Brexit

There are, as Polly Toynbee says, too many risks attached to Labour voting for Johnson`s "economy-wrecking deal" for Starmer to do anything other than order his MPs to abstain (Johnson`s deal will spark a war in his party, 08/12/20). Allowing the government`s obvious divisions to widen, and its leader`s hold on the party to weaken, is clearly a sensible way forward for an Opposition racked with its own unity problems. Starmer`s opportunity for a "speech of a lifetime" must, most certainly, not be wasted, as long as it includes all the ingredients appropriate for a leader who won his position electorally by promising to carry out much of his predecessor`s manifesto. By focussing on this, pointing out all of the Tories` 2016 unredeemable pledges, and adding assurances to oppose not only any deregulation following Brexit which threatens workers` rights, safety and security, but any moves towards a return to austerity, he could yet prove himself capable of unifying his party. Increasing the distance between Labour and the Tories, whether over Brexit, the economy and the north-south divide, or basic domestic policy is now more important than ever. ,

"Levelling-up" cosmetic only, as it always has been!

John Harris is absolutely right in saying that "levelling-up remains a matter of political cosmetics", with both his excellent article (The vaccine brings hope. But for many, the crisis will last, 07/12/20) and Helen Pidd`s report on the recent findings by IPPR North showing how there is no evidence to indicate that the government`s supposed policy of "reducing regional differences" is having any effect whatsoever (England`s inequalities deepening and "should be wake-up call to PM"). This is hardly unsurprising when the ideas of a "Northern Powerhouse" and the"leveling-up" programme were both introduced only to win votes prior to the 2015 and 2019 elections respectively, rather than become the basis of a domestic policy intent on lasting change.What is surprising, however, is that the Labour leader is so quiet on the subject. One would have thought that having upset so many of his party with not only Corbyn`s suspension but his lack of decisiveness generally, the Tories` failure to deal positively with the north-south issue would provide Starmer with an ideal opportunity to create at least a semblance of a united front. History shows us that when a Conservative government makes a big deal about being a "one-nation" administration, the result is inevitably cosmetic only. In Disraeli`s case the reforms were described by historians as "window-dressing", and there is clearly no reason for modern historians to reach a different conclusion for Johnson!

Government insults teachers yet again!

It would be interesting to hear why ministers actually think that the giving of "advance warning of examination topics" and permission to use "exam aids" will be "of greatest benefit to those who have suffered most" (Students in England to be told exam topics next year, 03/12/20). These changes, coupled with "more generous grading", will, of course, be advantageous to all pupils, so the ones who have missed the least face-to-face teaching, with the most privileged home backgrounds, and from schools where staffing problems have had least effect, will still receive the highest grades. What Williamson is, in effect, doing is two things; firstly, he is displaying what few other experienced educationalists are prepared to do, and that is showing total faith in the fairness of the UK`s examination system, when it is guided by norm-referencing in the grading procedure, and is different for most pupils in the private sector. Secondly, by refusing to acknowledge that moderated teacher-assessed grades would be the fairest way out of the Covid-related dilemma, the education secretary exhibits his lack of trust in the judgement and professionalism of the teaching profession. Given the immense stress and mental health issues caused by the GCSE and A-level examinations, Williamson has missed a wonderful opportunity to start a process which could provide all pupils with a broad and balanced education, with an assessment programme based on fairness, and allowing all pupils to realise their full potential.

Govt intervention in universities is needed

David Feldman is right to criticise the education secretary for his threatening letter to universities which promises to remove funding and the power to award degrees from institutions which "do not share his faith in the efficacy of the IHRA working definition" of antisemitism (Universities should not be told how to fight antisemitism, 02/12/20). Such poorly thought out action is typical of both Williamson and the Tory government. This is not to say, however, that interference from the secretary of state in some aspects of the way the UK`s universities are run should not be forthcoming. A start can be made to eroding the "mosaic of harms and harassment" endured by racial and religious minorities in our universities by a serious revision of admissions procedures. Universities should have to accept the so-called "privilege cap", which would limit the proportion of students accepted from private schools to the national figure of 7%. This would force universities into adopting contextual admissions policies, and making more room for talented pupils from the underfunded schools, from underprivileged families and from economically deprived areas, whose potential remains seriously untapped. Oxbridge`s insistence on interviews hardly helps matters! Could there be a more effective deterrent to getting able pupils from working class backgrounds to apply to Oxbridge than the thought of an hour-long grilling by academics? Test their ability after three years of their higher education, not after eighteen years of being disadvantaged! Antisemitism is not the only example of discrimination in universities which needs government intervention!

Labour and overseas aid

It is not the first time the words "astonishingly callous" have been used to describe an action taken by this Tory government, but they are particularly apt when reporting its abandonment of the pledge to "spend 0.7% of GDP on aid" (Breaking our pledge on aid spending doesn`t make Britain shrewd - just small, 30/11/20). The decision becomes especially galling when it`s considered alongside the stated reason for doing so, that "Britain could not afford it" (Cutting overseas aid in the name of fiscal prudence is nonsense, 30/11/20)! As Larry Elliott tells us, retaining the 0.7% level would cost the Treasury "an additional £3bn to £4bn" a year, at a time when the cost of servicing the debt has fallen exponentially, and when the Bank of England`s quantitative easing programme has delivered over £800bn since 2009, taking up a third of the national debt, with the bonus of no urgent requirement to pay it back. Tories are playing a very dangerous game if they think of the British electorate as raving Faragists, and with Labour in need of at least some semblance of unity, decisive action by Starmer on this issue would be sensible. As support for Johnson`s three-tier system is apparently "not unconditional", isn`t this a great opportunity for Starmer to gain the moral high ground, especially if he used some of Andrew Mitchell`s "likely impacts" in his argument (Johnson seeks to mollify rebels before Commons vote on tiers, 30/11/20)?

Tax the supermarkets

Labour`s belated calling on the government to block "foreign takeovers of British firms" is to be welcomed, but there are plenty of other areas relating to the economy which the Opposition needs to address. The news that the discount retailer B&M is clinging to its £38m from the Treasury even as it pays a £250m special dividend to its shareholders, highlights the fact that the Treasury`s Covid-support programme has been handled appallingly. The receipt of state aid such as loans, grants and, as in the case of B&M and other companies allowed to trade during the lockdowns, relief from business rates, should have been subject to certain conditions.These could have included withholding dividend payments to shareholders, guaranteeing reduced pay ratios, ending obscenely high bonus payments to CEOs, and curtailing involvement in all tax avoidance schemes. According to the real estate adviser Altus Group, the UK's supermarkets will have benefited from almost £2bn in business tax breaks this year, and unsurprisingly, all have enjoyed record levels of profit and paid millions to shareholders. Tesco, with tax savings of £585m paid out a £315m to shareholders last month, whilst Sainsbury`s, saving £498m, are now following suit. No doubt next year, there will be bonuses for managers and CEOs of all supermarkets in the UK, and for what? Selling food to a nation when all other shops are closed on government instructions! Far better, even than paying back the millions to the Treasury, would be to award significant pay rises to all supermarket employees, from shelf-stackers to warehouse staff, delivery drivers to workers on the checkouts, the people who, along with NHS workers, really did keep the country going! It would have the additional bonus of pressurising our measly government to award pay rises to key workers in the public sector! Failure to introduce the pay rises should be met with the imposition of an immediate windfall tax on all supermarkets!

Head of MHRA

After reading Archie Bland`s article, many Guardian readers will be asking is whether June Raine, the head of the medical regulator, MHRA, is the right person to be "assessing the vaccines that are supposed to end the coronavirus crisis" ( Woman with final say on which vaccines we can use, 28/11/20). Spending years as the MHRA`s director of "vigilance and risk management of medicines division" is all very well, but does she really meet the government`s requirements for such an important role? For a start she is not married to a Tory MP, and was not appointed to the post as a result of lobbying by associates in the Commons. Her life has been "devoted to public health", with no experience whatsoever of working for accounting firms like Deloitte, or even an outsourcing firm like Serco. Has she ever employed her own media team, let alone paid one absurd amounts of taxpayers` money? She probably doesn`t even run a pub close to the Health Secretary`s constituency home (Hancock`s ex-neighbour won Covid-19 kit work, 27/11/20)! Hardly a basis for joining the UK`s "world-beating" team!