Measuring patriotism by flags

Will someone please tell Tory ministers that patriotism can never be measured by the number or size of union flags, and has nothing to do with monarchism (My flag`s bigger than yours: ministers parade their patriotism on TV, 20/03/21)? What patriotism most certainly has to do with is pursuing policies of justice and fairness which reveal genuine concern for all of the UK`s population, in all of its areas! Neglecting public health infrastructure to such an extent the country is totally unprepared to face a health crisis does not come under the heading "Patriotism", and neither does imposing austerity which hurts the disadvantaged the most? Caring for the British people, ensuring they are safe from disease, is clearly an essential role for a patriotic government, but so is pursuing policies which improve education provision for all. What is patriotic about underfunding state schools whilst giving financial advantages to private schools, or wasting taxpayers` money by enriching cronies or buying unnecessary weapons of mass destruction? Just like the flags, the number of weapons can never be a measurement of a government`s patriotism! The next time the likes of Johnson, Jenrick and Truss, with their pseudo-patriotic paraphernalia, are mocked on television or social media, could the Guardian please refrain from describing pictures of the queen and union flags as "patriotic backdrops" when they are clearly no such thing!

School and university reform

As John Gray wrote, Roberto Unger`s "proposals for a national project are mostly unworkable", but that does not necessarily include his ideas relating to education (How to remake Britain, 19 March). Unger is rightly critical of the national curriculum`s "intimate association with testing" and the value placed on "the memorisation of facts" (The system cannot hold, 19 March). Both resulted from Gove`s unnecessary assessment reforms in 2010, and can easily be remedied. The current debate about how our history has been manipulated, and how imperial amnesia has led to a distorted and misplaced view of Britain being somehow "exceptional", demands change. Many text books need rewriting,and many documents unearthing from their secrecy in Hanslope Park before the subject can justify a compulsory place in the curriculum up to year 11, but what better way is there of preparing pupils "to use information critically" than the study of historical evidence, using knowledge and understanding to evaluate and analyse its reliability and utility? Of course, fairness in education would be enhanced by the abolition of private education, which Unger recommends, but it would need a much greater commitment from Labour than currently exists. That does not mean the ridiculous financial incentives given to independent schooling, like charitable status, and fee exemption from VAT, should continue, nor the ability to bypass the highly regulated A-levels to gain university entrance qualifications. Private schools` exclusion, in the main, from inspection by the same regulator as state schools, Ofsted, is absurd! If ever the British people are to be released from "the bonds of belittlement", whether through a "national project" or the transformational policies of political parties, reforming education will be key! As Gavin Williamson says, the current university admissions system does put working class students at a disadvantage, but whether the introduction of post-qualification application will prove the answer is a moot point (Gavinn Williamson`s pitch to save his job,22/03/21). The phasing out of Pre-U exams, taken by many private school pupils to avoid highly regulated A-levels is to be welcomed but universities should now accept the so-called "privilege cap", which would limit the proportion of students accepted from private schools at the national figure of 7%. This would force universities into adopting contextual admissions policies, and make more room for pupils from the underfunded schools, from underprivileged families and from economically deprived areas, whose potential remains largely untapped. That would be "levelling up" in action rather than rhetoric! 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? It clearly put off Williamson`s "mates"! Test their ability after three years of their education, not after eighteen years of being disadvantaged! "Wholesale reform of universities" does not mean "tweaking the grading system", but levelling the field for admissions, and this Williamson almost certainly will not do!

Johnson the clown

I suspect most readers of "the long read" will already have depicted Johnson as a clown, but few with the justification of so much detailed evidence as provided by Edward Docx (The long read: In the court of the clown king, 18/03/21). A clown intent on "satire, subversion and mockery" does indeed "distract the audience", a point no doubt noted by many in the Tory party who supported his leadership bid. By ridiculing most human conventions, Johnson`s multitude of lies would be overlooked by an electorate seeing only an "honest politician" and not necessarily the policies which would simultaneously increase inequality and please party donors.Claiming anything other than a miniscule pay rise for NHS staff to be "unaffordable" whilst offering a £25bn bribe to businesses to invest to increase their own productivity, and posturing as the defender of underprivileged pupils whilst ensuring top universities are dominated by students from independent schools are two cases in point. So far, opinion polls would suggest the electorate`s attention to the obvious calamitous mishandling of the pandemic has been again "distracted" by Johnson, but if memory of circuses serves me well, clowns ended up at least being drenched with water, if not fired from cannons. This has to happen soon; there are too many "important issues" which need to be settled!

Has Johnson ever heard of Chernobyl?

History shows that very few, if any, of the old challenges were met "by turning to nukes and aircraft carriers" so it is highly unlikely any of the "new" ones will be either (The future of defence and foreign policy looks oddly old-fashioned, 17/03/21). Having a nuclear arms race in the Cold War not only revealed the stupidity of politicians, willing to waste billions on sufficient weapons to destroy the world many times over, it displayed their sheer ignorance prior to the Chernobyl nuclear explosion in 1986. The radioactive contamination spreading thousands of miles away from Chernobyl actually focused minds sufficiently for US and Russian politicians to complete serious talks, culminating in the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), signed in July 1991. By "raising the cap on our nuclear warheads" at the same time as "slashing the international aid budget" Johnson has revealed himself not only as "especially childish", but prone yet again to political posturing. Does anyone really believe the UK is so "exceptional" it can demand the respect of the world by adopting "oddly old-fashioned" 20th century policies which were idiotic then, and even more so, now? Can anyone, let alone a prime minister with such a distorted view of history, explain how the safety and moral standing of the country can possibly be increased by raising the number of nuclear warheads from 180 to 260?

Olusoga and our make-believe past

As David Olusoga rightly says, both royals and tabloids are "trapped in a fantasy version of Britain`s past" which is dominated by the concept of British exceptionalism (The royals are just like much of our press - trapped in a fantasy version of Britain`s past, 14.03.21). In a recent televised talk, the queen described the human traits of "self-discipline" and "good-natured resolve" as "national attributes", whilst the popular media`s fondness for our "glorious past" leads to the mistaken belief in Britain having to fight on "alone" in 1940. Whilst the French president recently announce the setting-up of a "memories and truth" commission to find out what really happened in their Algerian war, the British government, with its colonial amnesia, insists on refusing access for historians to the million-plus historical files locked away in Hanslope Park. The problem is that the truths revealed would almost certainly prove the non-existence of British exceptionalism, the myth responsible, in part, not only for Brexit, much of our institutionalised racism, our refusal to follow the WHO`s advice on testing last March, but the popularity of a prime minister who revels in it! Only when the truth about the UK`s colonial past is revealed, when the facts about our seizing and looting of colonies, whilst committing the most awful of atrocities, and our reliance on essential colonial aid to emerge successfully from world wars, are all openly admitted and taught, can the people and government of this country ever hope to have a non-distorted view of the future.

Labour and imposing definitions

Philip Collins is absolutely correct: "left to their own devices" the Tories will indeed define levelling up in the most minimal way possible", which is why Labour must "impose a definition" (The Public Square, 12 March). This is the way to "horrify the Tories" because their version of "levelling up" is merely political rhetoric, just like setting up a "northern powerhouse" or getting rid of "burning injustices". Similarly, providing a 21st century definition of "patriotism" would not go amiss, stressing how it entails the pursuit of justice and fairness for all of the UK`s population, in each one of its areas. "Managing the economy", also, must be re-defined, to escape Tories` control of the economic narrative. For too long, Labour has been forced to accept the Tory brand, with its outmoded view of tax payments from the rich, and its myths about "trickle-down" wealth. Even their latest "soon to be U-turned" decision to offer no more than 1% pay rise for NHS staff was explained by an "unaffordable cost" excuse. None of Starmer`s protests mentioned how economic multipliers ensured that increases in pay for public sector workers practically paid for themselves through increased tax returns. The sad fact is that election victories will continue to elude Labour as long as the Tories are in charge of the political and economic narratives; definitions have to be provided which reveal the shortcomings and incompetence of this duplicitous government Despite the fact that, as John Harris says, the Conservative party "spent much of the last century reinventing itself", it still remains a "two-nation" party (Despite all their failures, the Tories are still riding high,15/03/21) They might claim otherwise, such as when imposing austerity measures in the last decade, but there is no doubt that the disadvantaged suffered most, whilst the taxes on the rich were reduced substantially. If Tories are to be "dislodged", Labour has to focus more on debunking myths, and redefining what Harris calls "enduring Tory themes". Too often, the Tories are allowed to dictate the narratives by determining the criteria by which their actions are judged. How can law and order and patriotism be "enduring" when the government repeatedly fails to address violence against women, to acknowledge institutionalised racism, and, even after the warnings from Operation Cygnus, to prepare the country properly for a pandemic? Security is not simply about defence against a foreign attack. Patriotism involves having an education system which maximises the potential of children from all backgrounds, and a government investment scheme for all areas of the country. Managing the economy cannot include a reliance on myths like the Laffer curve and trickle-down economics. Labour has to provide its own answers, but election victory remains unlikely without a wholesale attack on Tory myths

Pushy Parents

No one with an iota of understanding of how state education runs would even contemplate final GCSE and A-level grades being determined after "negotiation between students and teachers", let alone make comments to that effect (England heads fear pushy parents will demand better grades, 12/03/21). Of course, teachers need to be "protected" from undue pressure, and, as Geoff Barton says, "strict quality assurance mechanisms" should have been put in place. A better system would have schools sending marked samples of a variety of their pupils` work, complete with a proposed grade, to assessors appointed by the examination boards who would be responsible for the final grade, with all costs paid by the government. (Apologies to the DfE and Ofqual for any joined-up thinking this might have entailed!)

PMQs and debunking Tory myths

The weekly session of PMQs, ostensibly where the government is held to account by the leader of the Opposition, has become somewhat farcical. Starmer`s questions provoke waffle, not answers, and the Speaker makes no interjections to improve matters. To his credit, and to Johnson`s obvious bewilderment, Starmer devoted all six of his questions last week to the callous cut in aid to Yemen. To show the need for moral leadership, it was a sensible move, but embarrass Johnson it did not! The temptation this week to focus all questions on the 1% pay offer to NHS staff should be resisted. Lead with it, by all means, but with Johnson and Sunak insisting "the government could not afford a higher increase", the five remaining should be devoted to the Tories` management of the economy, changing the focus each time to maximise the PM`s display of lack of detail (Johnson defends his 1% pay offer despite NHS staff exodus warning, 08/03/21). £25bn can be afforded to provide a tax break for companies which invest in plant and technology! Does Johnson not understand how economic multipliers work, how pay rises to public sector workers cost little, bearing in mind the boost they provide both to local economies and to the Treasury? Voters need to be shown how Tory understanding of economics is based on myths like the Laffer curve and private being more efficient than public, and how, despite Johnson`s claims about being a "one-nation" Conservative, Tory budgets end up favouring the well-off. Of course a more generous offer can be afforded!

Debunking Tory economic myths

If Labour is to have a hope of winning the next election, its leadership team has to challenge the Tories` handling of the economy. Dictating the economic narrative should not be the preserve of the Tory party, especially as it insists on churning out the same economic theories, which have more to do with mythology than modern thinking on the subject. It`s time Labour debunked these theories once and for all! In the weeks approaching Sunak`s budget, we will be inundated with figures about the dreadful state of the country`s finances, and how the government must start paying back some of the national debt as soon as possible. This is straight out of the Thatcherite economics text book, and is typical of a chancellor desperate to put ideology before common-sense mathematics, and to start justifying a return to some sort of austerity. Osborne did the same in 2010, claiming that the UK was on the verge of bankruptcy and ruin, ignoring the fact that the Bank of England was at the time creating £350bn with its quantitative easing scheme. The mistaken theory on which this is based states how government debt is like household debt, and must be paid off as soon as possible. As well as stating that government investment is far more urgently required now than debt repayment, Starmer should question Sunak`s figures about the debt totalling over £2tn. If the £895bn of quantitative easing money is included, it means that well over a third is actually owed to the government owned Bank of England. The USA`s national debt stands at $27tn , yet that is not preventing Biden spending £1.9tn on a stimulus package; the UK`s debt should not prevent government spending here either! Sunak will mention frequently, no doubt, how our debt-to-GDP ratio now exceeds 100%, but will ignore pointing out that this has been the case in Japan for over 20 years. Starmer will need to do it, instead! The chancellor will also stress how the government has spent billions already, but never will admit that much of that expenditure actually will return to the Treasury in the form of income and corporate tax, and VAT returns. These economic multipliers are obvious, but we the people, treated as mugs as usual, are presumably not expected to understand them. Really? If a construction company wins a government contract, a large proportion of the company`s fee will result in profits, which are taxed, will pay wages, which are taxed, and will be spent , which will generate VAT returns. This is why cutting benefits is purely ideological, as economically it makes little sense. Perhaps Starmer, and shadow chancellor Dodds, could point out Sunak`s inevitable omissions, when he claims to be part of a generous, "one-nation" government? The third myth in need of greater challenge from Labour, is the one suggesting how the Tory party is the only one which can be trusted with taxpayers` money. The Covid crisis has shown this to be a nonsense, with so much cronyism, contracts given to firms with some connection or other to members of the government, and so much money also wasted on private firms like Serco and Deloitte, resulting in a massive £22bn splashed out on a test and trace system which has so far achieved little. Such government profligacy has to be a major target for Labour; even the National Audit Office pointed out last September the lack of transparency and conflicts of interest in the procurement processes. By proposing that the National Audit Office be allowed more "independent invigilation" of government spending, Dodds has made a sensible start towards winning credibility, but much more is needed. Taxation is often a problem for Labour governments, largely because it gives too much credence to the significance of the so-called Laffer curve, and ends up increasing taxes on the wrong people. Modern economists disregard Laffer`s invention, designed as it was to enable President Reagan to cut taxes for wealthy Americans, but Tories still use it to justify having a mere 45% as the highest band of income tax. The claim that if the rate is higher, fewer taxes are paid, is nonsense, and Starmer and Dodds need to ignore it when targeting the wealthy earners for tax increases in the next election manifesto. Challenge too the absurd Tory notion that taxing the rich is anti-aspirational; are people really deterred from aiming high because taxation will prevent them from enjoying their money? Tories are far too keen to forget that average income is around £26,000, while insisting increasing taxes for everyone is the only way to save the NHS. Wrong on so many accounts! If Starmer is so keen on playing the patriotic card, he and his team should stress how paying taxes in full is the truly patriotic thing to do, and make public their recent tax details. Throwing down the gauntlet to the Tories should soon reveal which party is the more patriotic!

Starmer`s 21st century patriotism

Listening to Starmer`s speech (18/02/21) it would seem he took Mandelson`s advice, sadly, and judging by a recent televised political broadcast, wrapping the Labour party in a union jack flag as well as kowtowing to business appear to be Labour`s current direction. If, however, Starmer is to embrace patriotism, as some think tanks have obviously suggested, at least it should be a 21st century version, not the one advocated by the right wing press and Johnson`s government. Their patriotism is straight out of Victorian school books, designed not only to foster jingoism and exceptionalism, but to encourage young men to volunteer for battle when required, and young women to wave their white feathers..... Starmer could outline what a patriotic prime minister should be doing - pursuing policies of justice and fairness which reveal genuine concern for all of the UK`s population. By challenging the Tories on the role patriotism played when governing this country for the last decade, the Labour leader could at last be seen to be doing the job he was elected to do. Is it patriotic to neglect public health infrastructure to such an extent the country is totally unprepared to face a health crisis? Even when a dummy run of a pandemic is tried, should a patriotic government ignore the findings, as the Tories did in 2016 after Operation Cygnus? A government that cares for its country as much as Tories claim to do would have all the PPE and ventilators necessary for any crisis, not to mention ensuring the 100,000 nursing shortages were filled. Caring for the British people, ensuring they are safe from disease, is clearly an essential role for a patriotic government, but so is providing a decent education for all of the population. Yet the last decade has witnessed an education policy aimed only at making sure the so-called "top" universities are dominated by students from private schools, whilst state schools have been seriously underfunded, and consequently, understaffed. Strangely, none of the Tory concern we hear so much about for underprivileged children was evident from 2010-2020, and with serious cuts to council budgets, hundreds of Sure Start centres have been forced to close. Patriotism does not mean only caring about the education of the over-privileged! Looking after the economy, taxing fairly, and spending taxpayers` money wisely are all the duties of any government wanting to be considered patriotic, but what we have seen in the last ten years has been nothing of the sort; cutting taxes for the rich whilst imposing the most callous and cruel austerity policies on the least advantaged in society cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be showing love for one`s country! What have we seen during the pandemic crisis? An incompetent administration more intent on giving government contracts for urgently-required eqiuipment to friends and party donors than controlling the spread of the virus, too concerned with helping tax avoiding companies like Serco and Deloitte than getting things done properly by experts in the public sector. It`s all very well for Starmer to want to work in partnership with British businesses, but it would make more sense if that partnership was conditional, and applied only to companies that were willing to prove their patriotism - by paying their taxes in full, by having reasonable pay ratios, by allowing all workers to join unions, by ending their short-termism and instead used profits to create new jobs and apprenticeships, and,of course, by cutting carbon emissions and working towards a green economy. How much more patriotic would it be than Johnson`s policy if government contracts were only given to firms if they met these criteria. "Patriotism" for Labour need not be the test the Tories envisage.but a means to embarrass Tories in general, and this government in particular. Starmer would be foolish to waste this opportunity.

Guardian letter on Yemen aid cut

When Andrew Mitchell says that "cutting aid to Yemen by 50% is unconscionable" (Health crisis looms, say agencies ahead of UK funding cuts, 03/02/21), and adds that "this is not who we are", John Crace disagrees, and is right up to a point (Sketch, 03/02/21). It is what this nation has become, largely because of what can only be described as brainwashing. Being told constantly by the mainstream media that the national debt needs repaying urgently and foreign aid has to be cut leads to a gradual acceptance, as Johnson well knows when claiming to have popular support, and mocking Starmer for devoting all six of his questions at this week`s PMQs to the subject of a poor country`s imminent famine. Similar backing from the media in 2010 meant Osborne`s unnecessary austerity, based on the ridiculous notion that the country was near bankruptcy, and leading to untold misery for thousands, whilst the rich were given tax decreases, went through with little opposition. Having too many low paid public servants and key workers, a "forgotten third" of our children underachieving in underfunded state schools, top universities dominated by students from the private schools, numbers relying on food banks increasing daily, when London-based banks announce billions of profit yet insist poor countries repay debt rather than buy Covid vaccines, is, it seems, also what "we are". Perhaps if the media repeatedly insisted that we are the world`s 6th richest economy, with enough untaxed wealth to pay everyone a living wage, and provide everyone with a decent home, who "we are" would change dramatically. Aid to Yemen pales into insignificance when compared with the figures associated with the government`s "chumocratic" contracts and failure to rein in tax avoidance! 6 Budget-day questions on Yemen? Well done, Mr Starmer!

Johnson is consistent!

ohnson May well be, as Philip Collins asserts, a "character who is hard to characterise", but that does not necessarily make him "hard to oppose" (The Public Square, 26 February). A prime minister claiming to be a "one-nation" Conservative, intent on "levelling up", is an easy target when enacting such policies would enrage most of the party`s members and donors, and doom them to failure. History has shown us, from Disraeli to May,, that Tory claims to be on the side of the working people and against "burning injustices" are simply political rhetoric! Stephen Bush`s suggestion that Johnson`s "most consistent attribute is inconsistency" misses an important thread running through his administration (Boris Johnson`s great gamble, 26 February). Sending children back to school gradually would have meant following the lead of the Welsh and Scottish administrations, just as having all teaching staff vaccinated at half-term an acknowledgement that Starmer had driven the decision. In the pandemic`s early stages the WHO strongly suggested that testing was the way forward, only for Johnson`s insistence on the UK`s "exceptionalism" leading to obfuscation and delays. Johnson`s proposals have to be of English origin and not copies of methods used in other countries, or ones proposed by Starmer. The quarantine scheme has to be different from the one used successfully in Australia, and naturally ends up half-baked and unlikely to prove effective. The decisions are all political, designed to show Tory ideas better than Labour`s and England`s solutions more effective than those of all other countries. A death rate per capita worse than that of the US does not appear to be as significant for Johnson as the next election!

On Johnson`s modus operandi

Marina Hyde is wrong (The curious tale of a wild dog in No 10 - and Boris Johnson -24/02/21). Playing the "calm, authoritative setter of boundaries" he may well be, but it`s the same old Johnson running the country. Too afraid of his right-wing backbenchers, he makes the mistake of producing too early a roadmap which causes the majority to relax their Covid defences. So intent on exhibiting "exceptionalism", schools in England have to reopen all at once rather than following the more sensible Welsh and Scottish example of a phased return. Fearful of pursuing any policies put forward by Starmer, the prime minister cannot support the idea of vaccinating teachers. It was the same last year when the WHO`s advice on early testing, and Australia`s example of a successful quarantine system could not be followed for similar reasons. Unless all staff involved in children`s schooling are vaccinated in the coming weeks, the reopening looks like a disaster-in-waiting. Indeed, Covid will continue to flourish until all of the people unable to work from home but crucial to the economy`s survival, are given priority vaccination status! Of course it "would be better not to allow an uncontrolled spread" of Covid in younger people, but that would mean breaking from Johnson`s modus operandi (Betting it all on vaccines. But are they the Covid pandemic`s magic bullet? 23/02/21). Sending children back to school gradually would have meant following the lead of the Welsh and Scottish administrations, just as having all teaching staff vaccinated at half-term would have been an acknowledgement that Starmer had actually made a sensible proposal. In the pandemic`s early stages the WHO strongly suggested that testing was the way forward, only for Johnson`s insistence on the UK`s "exceptionalism" resulting in the advice being ignored. This explains all of the policies adopted so far; the ideas have to be of English origin and not copies of methods used in other countries, or ones proposed by Starmer. The quarantine scheme has to be different from the one used successfully in Australia, and naturally ends up "half-baked" and unlikely to prove effective. The decisions are all political, designed to show Tory ideas better than Labour`s and England`s solutions more effective than those of all other countries. A death rate per capita worse than that of the US does not appear to be as significant as the next election!

Labour and tax

With the obvious effect of reducing demand, Labour is quite right to say that "economically, now is the wrong time to increase taxes (Labour wary of being saddled with the old party caricature of tax and spend, spend, spend, 26/02/21). Displaying more economic nous than the Tories is essential if future elections are to be won, and debunking myths is a good way to start. There are plenty more, like the infamous Laffer curve, in need of critical analysis from Labour. Fair tax rises need not include those paying basic rates of income tax, no matter how strongly many of them are willing to contribute more as an "act of paying back to our NHS", as mentioned by James Johnson (Tax rises are no longer taboo. So who will dare put them up? 26/02/21). As well as rises in corporation tax in the future being necessary, Labour should be pledging future increases in income tax for all earners in the higher bands, as well as in capital gains tax, plus a windfall tax on companies who have profited massively because of the crisis. Debunk myths, by all means, but the need for people on average earnings to pay more when the rich pay far less than they can afford has to be addressed, too, no matter what the likes of Mandelson might sa

Debt and bankers` bonuses

The Jubilee Debt Campaign is absolutely right to say that the British government should be doing more to force UK banks to "alleviate the new developing country debt crisis" (UK urged to help ease debt crisis in developing countries, 22/02/21). With 30% of the debt owed to British banks, the chancellor should be doing more than "calling on private-sector creditors" to join the debt suspension scheme. Not only are these poor countries spending so much on interest payments, they cannot afford to run adequate health services, let alone purchase Covid vaccines, they owe to banks which last week published annual profits in the billions. The result is the banks pay staff massive bonuses which are surplus to very generous salaries rather than helping poor countries recover from the pandemic! When banks last faced criticism for paying obscene levels of pay and bonus, they justified their action by claiming they had to attract the "best people", and that banks were putting "ethics before profits" after the 2009 crash. Even if such policies ever existed, they certainly didn`t last very long!

Starmer and business, patriotism and history.

Doubtless, Starmer was keen not to make the front pages of the tabloids on Friday morning with a speech mentioning the need for tax rises or increased spending, but by making his "headline proposal" anything but, not even managing the Guardian`s front page, the Labour leader wasted his opportunity (Keir Starmer has started on a long march. He must lead for his voters to believe, 19/02/21). Clearly Mandelson`s advice was heeded rather more than that of anyone else, Shouldn`t any "partnership with businesses" be conditional on businesses paying their taxes in full, paying wages above the legal minimum, ending their short-termism by investing in apprenticeships and technology, and having sensible pay ratios (Starmer says Labour must work with businesses to create a fairer society, 19/02/21)? Omitting any mention whatsoever of the need to tackle high rents and the shortage of affordable housing has to be a mistake; he cannot take anyone`s vote for granted , especially those of the young. His speech did not even make the 6,30 news on Radio 6 Music, so goodness knows how many mentions it received on commercial radio stations! Going "easy on the government, rather than developing a clear message" does, indeed, appear "profoundly naive", as Tom Kibasi says (To deliver on his promises, Starmer must change course, 17/02/21). "Wrapping Labour in the union jack" not only is an embarrassing and feeble attempt to woo Tory voters, it is an acceptance of a Victorian and outdated definition of patriotism which Johnson`s government loves to perpetuate. With a 21st century definition, Starmer could "confront the Tories" with a direct challenge, and simultaneously do much to "mend his relationship" with party members. Questioning "Johnson`s honesty" could start with an outline of what a patriotic prime minister should be doing,- pursuing policies of justice and fairness which reveal genuine concern for all of the UK`s population. He could also stress how a truly patriotic PM would never neglect public health infrastructure, allow state education to be underfunded, or pour huge amounts of investment into one area of the country at the expense of all the others. The fact that genuine patriots pay their taxes in full should be added! "Obvious advice" doesn`t just need saying, but heeding, too! Your editorial rightly says that the government, by hanging on to "sanitised versions of the past", will be able to portray opponents of the status quo as "unpatriotic to the point of indecency" (Our view of the past needs updating. But ministers want to keep it frozen,16/02/21). What a wonderful opportunity, then, for the Labour leader to intervene, starting by giving the nation his definition of patriotism. Starmer`s worst nightmare might well be having to take sides in an argument, as Gaby Hinsliff suggests, "over whether Churchill was a racist", but refusing to allow the Tories to dominate the narrative on the subject of national pride would enable him to set matters straight. (How Starmer should respond to the Tory war on the woke, 16/02/21). A prime minister`s patriotism entails more than flag-waving, and ensures policies are put into place which benefit all the people, guaranteeing social inequalities are reduced, and all public services are properly funded. As Rafael Behr wrote recently,, the pandemic has revealed the "penalty we all pay for neglect of public health infrastructure" (The pandemic has made the case for social democracy, 27/01/21). The deliberate underfunding of our health and education services in the last ten years was not the action of patriotic governments, and Starmer needs to say so. Similarly, misleading the people over their history also does the country a disservice, especially as it encourages the myth of "exceptionalism", which itself is responsible for much of the racism in today`s society. What could be more patriotic than promising a commission into the teaching of history in our schools, opening up the secreted history files in Hanslope Park, and enabling the nation to form an "honest view of Britain in the present" through a detailed study of its past?

Bravo, President Macron!

Bravo, President Macron (President Macron is right to break France`s silence over the Algerian war, 10/02/21)! Although ruling out an apology and reparations for fear of "stirring up patriotic controversy" prior to next year`s election, at least he has the courage to "kickstart the unpacking of the past". Of course, Starmer would be attacked mercilessly for lacking patriotism by the right-wing media if he suggested a "memories and truth" commission to review the years of British imperialism, but how else will the UK ever have an accurate history based on actual evidence? If France can open up its "closed archives", Britain can do so also, with over a million files locked away at Hanslope Park ready for historians` analysis. The problem is that the truths revealed would almost certainly prove the non-existence of British exceptionalism, the myth which explains, in part, not only Brexit and much of our society`s racism, but the popularity of a prime minister who revels in it!

Starmer and Biden

eremy Corbyn, as Andy Beckett says, probably "made politics too big by promising transformative change in countless areas of life", but with the ideas of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez shaping many of Biden`s "presidential priorities", Starmer could clearly do worse than remember some of the proposals made in the 2019 Labour manifesto (Think bigger: Biden`s lesson for Labour, 12/02/21). After all, he won the leadership contest after promising to uphold 10 of its radical "pledges"! Can anyone seriously claim that promising "economic justice" by increasing income tax on the rich, reversing Tory cuts in corporation tax and clamping down on tax avoidance, is too ambitious? Similarly "social justice", with promises to invest in public services, and "climate justice" which includes the Green New Deal, should surely be foremost in any list of a Labour leader`s priorities? Up against a prime minister capable of promising and saying anything (about having a "plan for social care" springs to mind), Starmer has to make the lines of demarcation between Tory and Labour policies very clear, and that must mean no kowtowing to the City. The US`s national debt of $27tn, is not preventing Biden from demonstrating how a centre-left government can be "daring and proactive" in a crisis, an obvious lesson to be learned by a Labour leader in danger of losing widespread support.

Sunak`s duplicity

Polly Toynbee`s excellent article on the despicable George Osborne omitted an interesting parallel with today (Osborne`s cuts left Britain powerless to resist Covid). Justifying his austerity measures, he claimed Britain to be "on the brink of bankruptcy" when the Bank of England`s quantitative easing programme had created £375bn by 2012. Now we have a chancellor about to warn us of impending austerity, claiming a national debt of over £2tn, and in need of repayment, when £895bn of the debt, the amount created by quantitative easing since 2009, is owed to the government-owned Bank of England! Strange how the Tories never mention quantitative easing when they are trying to shrink the state back to pre-crisis levels, and introduce austerity for their dangerous ideological reasons! The country, as a recent Guardian editorial pointed out, is again being "softened up for austerity policies" (Vaccines will not end the unemployment crisis, even if they end the health crisis,17/11/20). Hopefully Starmer and Dodds have learned from Osborne`s duplicity, and not only are aware of the shortcomings of the Tories` economic theories but ready to put matters straight! Your editorial is right to rebuke the chancellor for claiming that "the government`s ability to spend is temporary while interest rates remain low" (Covid has seen economics revolutionised. Where are the UK`s revolutionaries? 08/02/21). With Sunak already intimating that austerity measures are on the cards, it is vital that Labour starts to challenge his figures before the March budget. For a start, with no evidence anywhere to suggest that the markets will deliver a post-coronavirus recovery, the flaws in Tory economic ideology have to be exposed. Sunak`s self-proclaimed "moral obligation" to start repaying the national debt is based on the misleading Thatcherite claim that a country`s debt is similar to that of a household, one of the devious methods Osborne used to justify his cuts in 2010. The real obligation of the government is to provide security against poverty and disease for the whole population, not to protect the profits of financial institutions. Sunak`s £2tn of national debt includes £895bn of quantitative easing, ostensibly owed to the government-owned Bank of England, and pales into insignificance when compared with that of other countries. A debt of $27tn is not preventing Biden spending $1.9tn on a stimulus package, whilst we hear lots about the UK 's debt-to-GDP ratio being over 100%, but nothing about Japan`s having been higher for over 20 years! Far better than flag-waving, an under-pressure Starmer can show his and Labour`s patriotism with a plan wherby quantitative easing kickstarts the economy, rather than funding bonuses in the City!

Williamson no worse!

Martin Fletcher appears to think the incompetent Gavin Williamson is unusual among Tory education secretaries because "he had few obvious qualifications for the post", with even his being "one of only two education secretaries to have attended a comprehensive school" only a reason for ridicule rather than suitability (The dunce of Westminster, 5 January). Of course, as Mary Bousted says, "teachers have no confidence in him" and hold him "in contempt", but in my 40+ years of teaching, there wasn`t one Tory Secretary of State for Education, and very few from Labour, who had the necessary relevant experience in education, and who furthermore didn`t incur the wrath of teachers. From Margaret Thatcher to Michael Gove, in a job where the display of a total disregard for teachers` expertise and experience is an absolute prerequisite, it`s clear that not one of those Tory education secretaries would have coped with this crisis any more capably than the present incumbent. . Of course, Williamson should have provided the necessary laptops for remote learning by now. but if the Tories are so concerned about the education of disadvantaged pupils as they now claim, shouldn`t his predecessors have provided the necessary technology years ago, let alone refrained from removing the Education Maintenance Grant? Can anyone actually remember anything the two previous education secretaries did at all, not to mention improving state education? Williamson, albeit a convenient "patsy" for the prime minister, has achieved what is expected of all Tory politicians given the job, and ensured the top universities are still dominated by students from private schools, despite only 7% attending them."Poor decisions made on inadequate evidence" are simply par for the course!

Starmer`s flagwaving

Your editorial is right to say that Starmer is yet "to highlight the social inequalities which have grown under a decade of Tory cuts" (Labour needs a story to say why it is better for Britain than the Tories, 01/02/21). He does, however, have an "alternative plan", the one which helped him win the leadership contest. The trouble is that the Labour leader is clearly reluctant to repeat his promise to uphold the 10 pledges for fear of being branded by the media as a "radical extremist" or "another Corbyn"/ The pledges range from "economic justice", with the rich paying more tax, and investment in public services, to a Green New Deal and strengthening workers` rights, and would certainly provide a platform for "building back better". What voters must be told repeatedly is how a hugly underfunded NHS, and a government more committed to ideological cost-cutting than providing security for the population, as shown by its failure to take the necessary measures after Operation Cygnus in 2016, facilitated the spread of Covid-19. As Rafael Behr said, the pandemic has revealed the "penalty we all pay for neglect of public health infrastructure" (The pandemic has made the case for social democracy, 27/01/21). Failure to go on the offensive now risks the danger of Tories getting away with their incompetence, and receiving undeserved praise for a vaccination programme organised by the NHS. What is the point of Labour ending up with centrist policies which will change little, and will furthermore look barely dissimilar from many Johnson will espouse in order to stay in power? The plan exists, but failure to admit ownership of it will cost Labour dear! A political party which is keen to "communicate respect and commitment for the country" should not have to resort to "the use of the flag, veterans and dressing smartly" (Revealed: strategy for Labour to win back red wall, 03/02/21). What it requires are policies, based on justice and fairness, that reveal genuine concern for all of the people, and a leader with the confidence and courage to espouse them. What most certainly are not needed are party political broadcasts which are only noticeably different from those of the Tory party because they use the term "cronyism at Westminster" once! With Johnson capable of adopting any proposals to help prolong his time at Downing St., Starmer`s policies have to be both radical, concentrating on fairness, a concept low in the list of government priorities, and also, contrary to the new strategy, "significantly different on tax and spend" from the Tories (Will Starmer`s new strategy succeed in winning back traditional Labour voters? 03/02/21). Exposure of the myths on which Tory economic policies are based is essential, if taxes on the rich are to be increased and inequality reduced. With so much goodwill currently felt for underpaid key-workers and the new head of the Confederation of British Industry admitting that the UK needs to "rebuild a fairer, greener economy", now is the time for Labour to come up with some answers (UK needs 1945-style reboot of economy, says CBI chief, 04/02/21). That sounds a far better way to indicate your party`s concern for the country than flag-waving!

Pandemic`s message

Jason Cowley`s question about the "lasting social, economic, cultural and political consequences" invites one obvious response (Editor`s Note, 29 January). The pandemic has revealed the penalty the whole population pays when the public health infrastructure of a nation is neglected, so never again can a British government or political party get away with underfunding the NHS. Ten years of unnecessary Tory austerity measures led to massive under-investment in health and social care, with the obvious consequence of unpreparedness for a busy winter period, let alone one with the added problems caused by a pandemic. The worst example of this disregard for the security and welfare of the British people came after Operation Cygnus, a government simulation of a flu outbreak, in 2016 ; the Cygnus report stressed how the UK`s preparedness was "currently not sufficient to cope" with a pandemic`s demands. The exercise had shown how important it was to have sufficient PPE for all doctors and nurses, and ventilators and critical care beds for the patients, and we all remember what was in such short supply last February! Ideologically driven austerity must never be allowed to cost a nation so dear again! Never again can the British public be tricked into agreeing with Thatcherite nonsensical economic theory about a country`s debt being akin to that of a household, with repayment being more important than investment in both infrastructure and key workers` pay. No chancellor should be contemplating cost-cutting at a time when interest rates are so low, and quantitative easing available. What the pandemic has proved is that this country can never again risk having a government which has decreasing investment and taxation as its core objectives.

Long term reasons

With the death total reaching 100,000. the media`s focus has naturally been on the reasons for the UK has suffering so badly. Even though the Guardian has devoted many articles and editorials on the subject, especially on the indecision and errors of the government since January 2020, only Rafael Baer has broached the issue of the most important long-term factor: how ten years of unnecessary austerity measures led to massive under-investment in the NHS, with the obvious consequence of unpreparedness for a busy winter period, let alone one with the added problems caused by a pandemic. As Behr says, the pandemic has revealed the "penalty we all pay for neglect of public health infrastructure" (The pandemic has made the case for social democracy, 27/01/21). Devi Sridhar in her detailed analysis of the reasons, suggests that "the lack of personal protective equipment for many health and social workers" at the start of the crisis was the "fourth error", which ignores one vital detail from four years earlier; the government and NHS leadership knew of the gaps in Britain`s ability to cope with such an emergency after Operation Cygnus, a government simulation of a flu outbreak, in 2016 (Five fatal errors that led to the UK`s 100,000 Covid deaths, 28/01/21). The Cygnus report stressed how the UK`s preparedness was "currently not sufficient to cope" with a pandemic`s demands.(What was Exercise Cygnus and what did it find, 07/05/20). The exercise had shown how important it was to have sufficient PPE for all doctors and nurses, and ventilators and critical care beds for the patients. How many lives could have been saved had the Tory prime ministers, May and Johnson, and the relevant Health Secretaries, Hunt and Hancock, done their jobs properly? Has ideologically driven austerity ever cost a nation so dear?

Other reasons for 100,000

Robert Booth`s excellent summary of the reasons to explain the high death rate from Covid does well to include a long-term factor, the "health of the nation", with Britain actually going into the pandemic "in poor health" (The tragic numbers: Why are they so high? 27/01/21). Strangely, however, Booth fails to mention two other important and relevant points: firstly, how ten years of unnecessary austerity measures had led to massive under-investment in the NHS, with the obvious consequence of unpreparedness for a busy winter period, let alone one with the added problems caused by a pandemic. As Rafael Behr says, the pandemic has revealed the "penalty we all pay for neglect of public health infrastructure" (The pandemic has made the case for social democracy, 27/01/21). What is also omitted, but equally revealing, is that the government and NHS leadership knew of the gaps in Britain`s ability to cope with such an emergency after Operation Cygnus, a government simulation of a flu outbreak, in 2016 (What was Exercise Cygnus and what did it find, 07/05/20). The Cygnus report stressed how the UK`s preparedness was "currently not sufficient to cope" with a pandemic`s demands. The exercise had shown how important it was to have sufficient PPE for all doctors and nurses, ventilators and critical care beds for the patients. How many lives could have been saved had the Tory prime ministers, May and Johnson, and the relevant Health Secretaries, Hunt and Hancock, done their jobs properly? Has ideologically driven austerity ever cost a nation so dear?

Defending Gerrard

For a team with a "19 point lead over its bitter rivals", to lose the championship two things have to happen: either the team has extraordinary bad luck, getting star players injured, or these days tested Covid positive, or massive complacency sets in (Left Field, 15th January). With no control over the former, the manager`s job is to prevent the latter, and that is exactly what Steven Gerrard is doing when "grumbling at the conclusion of the Old Firm derby", which Rangers won. Jonathan Liew`s argument that the Rangers boss is "driven as much by his past as his future", and consequently cannot "bring himself to glimpse victory" is seriously flawed, too selective with relevant evidence, and lacks completeness. How any article on Gerrard`s motivation can omit mentioning the fact that, as captain, he was able to inspire his team to come from a 3-0 deficit at half-time, to win the European Champions League final in 2005 beggars belief. Then there`s the 2006 FA Cup final, when 3-2 down, stricken by cramp, and yet he manages to score in the 90th minute from 30 yards. Or the 86th minute goal against Olympiacos, leading 2-1 when needing a two goal advantage to go through? There are many, many more. To suggest that Gerrard "never had a happy ending" at Liverpool verges on the ridiculous!

Starmer too defensive

I fear that the Labour MPs mentioned in the Inside Westminster article by Stephen Bush who "worry that Starmer`s unwillingness to risk a little temporary unpopularity" is costly, because it leads to missed opportunities, are putting it mildly (The woes of the Pandemic PM, 8th January)! Why park the bus, as Hunter Davies might say, at one end, when goals are there for the taking at the other? Closing the gap with the Tories on economic competence is vital for an election victory, yet Labour hasn`t even challenged Sunak`s ridiculous claim about having a "moral duty" to reduce the national debt, a Tory harbinger if ever there was one for a return to some sort of austerity. Has Starmer ever disputed the chancellor`s £2tn debt figure, including as it does £875bn of quantitative easing, or even mentioned in passing that the US`s debt is £20tn, or that the real "moral" obligation is to those who are struggling to pay the rent or feed their children? If, as his supporters suggest, "what matters most" is Starmer`s "personal lead over Johnson", adopting Mourinho-like tactics over the recent education debacle seems ludicrous. As the incompetent Williamson clearly doesn`t make the crucial U-turning decisions, his boss should be the one in the opposition`s line of fire. Of course, Williamson should have provided the required laptops to enable remote learning for all, but if the Tories are so concerned about the education of disadvantaged pupils as they now claim, shouldn't this have been made obvious years ago? Perhaps their preference for grammar schools, ending the Education Maintenance allowance for sixth formers, and watching as underfunded SureStart centres closed, took precedence? An over-cautious Starmer appears to have forgotten the ten pledges he made , not only to unite the party, but to win the leadership contest. He does need to ensure the public can "pick him out of a line-up"at the end of 2021, but not because of being the one who broke his promises, and let an incompetent prime minister off the hook!

Johnson`s personal responsibility

If Johnson is indeed "able to ride this one out", and voters give him and his party "the benefit of the doubt over the handling of an unprecedented global pandemic", it will not simply be because of the furlough system and the arrival of the vaccines (Will Johnson shed the doubters if his dithering is largely forgotten amid a vaccine triumph? 13/01/21). He has been allowed to escape blame for the indecision, delays and frequent U-turns, not only by placing cabinet ministers in the firing line, but by an Opposition leader equally frightened of incurring temporary unpopularity. Rather than attacking Johnson, responsible for all the delayed decisions and misleading and confused messaging, Labour and the majority of the media have focused on the health secretary`s inability to equip NHS workers properly, Williamson`s lack of joined-up thinking generally, and Sunak`s refusal to make the £20 a week rise in universal credit permanent. Of course, incompetence should be punished with sackings, but there should be no doubt over who is ultimately responsible. Does anyone really think that the chancellor cannot be told what to do, or that the education secretary decides whether schools should be closed or not? Starmer`s refusal to support teaching unions over school closures was sufficiently embarrassing for it to be mentioned in this week`s PMQs by the prime minister who added that Marcus Rashford was doing more to "hold the government to account" than the Opposition. With Starmer failing to challenge Johnson on the wording of his pledge to "offer" all those in the first target group a vaccination by mid-February, I fear that, for once, he has a point!

"Ineffective communication" easily improved!

John Lynham rightly asks "Where are the public health announcements on TV?" (Letters, 12/01/21). With guidance limited to "politicians` announcements and dull official information online", "effective communication" is clearly not being made As John Crace says, the chief medical officer, Chris Whitty, might well be the only person whom anyone trusts to tell "the naked truth about coronavirus", but he cannot do the job alone, especially when restricted to Downing St press conferences (At a time when we all need someone we can trust, it`s Whitty, not the PM, who delivers, 12/01/21). An improvement could be made by the government buying time on TV channels between and during programmes when millions are guaranteed to be watching, just before Match of the Day, for example, or in the commercial break during Coronation St. Other well respected people, like Marcus Ratchford and David Attenborough, minus the interminable graphs and podiums, could be chosen to explain the rules clearly, and to advise on mask-wearing and social-distancing, with perhaps a 30 second clip of Whitty explaining why these rules must be obeyed. Celebrities like Phoebe Waller-Bridge or Ed Sheeran might have influence, too, especially on the younger audience. Reducing transmission figures will doubtless come down, in Hancock`s words, to being "about how everybody behaves" and with the death toll set to reach six figures soon, something different is clearly needed (Police defy ministers as clamour grows for new Covid restrictions, 12/01/21). Rocket science it clearly isn`t, but for a government incapable of joined-up thinking, it could prove a useful tool.

Williamson typical of Tory education secretaries

Rafael Behr seems to think that the incompetent Gavin Williamson is unusual among Tory Education Secretaries because "his only known expertise in the field is that he once went to school himself", and because not only is he "despised by teachers" but has "alienated even the moderate wing of the trade unions" (Williamson: how can he be this inept and still have a job? 06/01/21). In my 40+ years of teaching, there wasn`t one Tory Secretary of State for Education, and very few from Labour, who had the necessary relevant experience in education, and who furthermore didn`t incur the wrath of teachers in the state sector for one reason or another. Indeed, many of the assessment problems faced today result from the unnecessary reforms made by Gove, in a job where the display of a total disregard for teachers` expertise and experience is an absolute prerequisite. It is not entirely Williamson`s fault that teachers are hugely underpaid and undervalued, or that concerns for safety and welfare are blamed on "militants" in the profession. That too many schools are underfunded and understaffed, that too many face recruitment problems, and that most state schools are over-inspected by an unsympathetic Ofsted, cannot all be attributed to one man`s lack of ability or principles. His predecessors did nothing to prevent our so-called top universities being dominated by pupils from private schools, or to ensure all higher education institutions adopt contextual admissions procedures. Of course, Williamson should have provided "laptops for remote learning", but if the Tories are so concerned about the education of disadvantaged pupils as they now claim, shouldn`t they have provided the necessary technology years ago? Perhaps their preference for grammar schools, ending the Education Maintenance allowance for sixth formers, and watching as underfunded SureStart centres closed, took precedence?

No need to change the flight path

Gaby Hinsliff says that we don`t know "what sets him apart from anyone else in contemporary politics", so are we to assume that the 10 radical pledges made by Keir Starmer in his Labour leadership campaign were simply to win over the left-wing Labour membership, and not to act as a guide to what he would do in power (Decent, competent, cautious, but Starmer still has to prove he can inspire victory, 03.01.21)? If that is the case, he is in danger of scuppering any hopes of creating a united and electable Labour party. He has to remember how a preponderance of centrist policies which ignored the grievances of working people, have cost Labour too many elections already this century.. It is vital that Labour does its utmost to rubbish Conservative preposterous claims to be the workers` party representing the aspirations of ordinary people, and that means those 10 pledges have to be honoured, and not simply because ignoring them would be to betray democracy. Years of shrinking the state in the UK have proved disastrous, along with unfair taxation, deregulation and rising inequality, not to mention the abundance of corruption and cronyism. Labour does have a wonderful opportunity; a "Conservative party willing to spend" should not prove the "disconcerting enemy" Hinsliff thinks it is, especially with incompetents in the Cabinet and Sunak`s instincts clearly heading for a return to austerity policies, which no doubt will be as callous as Osborne`s. There is absolutely no need for Starmer to change the "flight path" he started on when winning the leadership contest!

Application for Education Secretary job!

Marina Hyde sensibly was willing to "bet that there are people who quite want to be secretary of state for education" (With a heavy heart, Johnson remembers the real victim:him, 02/12/21). My first decision would be to ensure all involved in the front-line of delivering education in the UK were prioritised for the Covid vaccinations, quickly followed by announcing that all schools be closed until at least the end of January, except for vulnerable children and those of key workers. Added impetus would be given to ensuring all disadvantaged children without the necessary technology received it as soon as possible. All external examinations would be cancelled immediately, replaced by externally moderated teacher assessments. A group made up of teachers` representatives, unions and examination board officials would be set up to phase out gradually all external examinations. The chancellor would have to be challenged on any proposals to freeze teachers` pay, insisting instead on a considerable pay increase for classroom teachers, whilst pay reforms at universities and in higher education would introduce a pay cap for vice-chancellors, and move towards all lecturers being given permanent contracts. A start could be made to eroding what David Feldman called the "mosaic of harms and harassment" endured by racial and religious minorities in our universities by a serious revision of admissions procedures (Universities should not be told how to fight antisemitism, 02/12/20). 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. Ok, Marina,assuming I can work from home, when do I start?

Supporting Johnson`s deal a mistake, Starmer

Larry Elliott might well be right when saying that what matters politically is "the quality of goods and services" resulting from the UK-EU deal, rather than the actual details in the small-print, but when the inevitable delays, shortages and queues occur, there will be plenty of "political fallout" going the prime minister`s way (Johnson`s happy to "own" his deal - Labour would gain little by opposing it, 28/12/20). That is why making sure "Johnson owns the accord" and then voting for it in parliament has to be a mistaken route for Labour, as it assumes its claims will receive a fair hearing in the right-wing media. Hasn`t the party`s recent history taught it anything? Instantly as Labour gives its support, it will share the blame for all the problems ensuing from the deal, no matter what the shadow front-bench says to the contrary. Just because the Tories supported the Iraq war in 2003 and escaped any culpability for the ensuing disaster does not mean Labour can expect to get away with this. As soon as Starmer attributes any problems to Johnson, he will be mugged by the press and forced to share responsibility. The only sensible way forward for Labour is to abstain, as Polly Toynbee suggested a few weeks ago, accompanied as it must be by the leader`s "speech of a lifetime" (Johnson`s deal will spark a war in his party, 08/12/20). By giving 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.

MPs serving us badly

That the "token debate" on the trade deal was described as "a farce" by the Hansard society`s senior researcher comes, as your editorial states, as "no surprise" (This deeply flawed unscrutinised deal is a bad start to a new era, 31/12/20). Parliament has been guilty of abdicating its constitutional responsibilities over Europe for decades, and the result was seen in 2016. Voters weren`t told fully of the details involving membership of the EU prior to the referendum by their MPs, or of the problems everyone would face if the Leave vote was successful. Instead, blatant untruths were allowed to go unchallenged, and obvious questions unanswered, with MPs` ignorance of the details often as much to blame as adherence to biased ideology. With the "derisory level of scrutiny" given to this deal, ignorance of its details will again be a factor in future "national conversations". It reminds me of how the then chief secretary to the Treasury, days before becoming chancellor in February, 2020, claimed that as free ports were not allowed in the EU, Brexit enabled the UK "to unleash this potential in our ports" (EU cracks down on free ports for role in corruption and crime, 11/02/20). Unfortunately for Sunak, 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"! Inevitably, such misleading of the public by our leaders is set to continue, a fact made even more definite by MPs, and their Speaker, again failing to stand up to what is so obviously a power-grab by Johnson.

Johnson`s new staff will make no difference

Katy Balls tells us that a "less combative era with more parliamentary outreach" is about to begin in Downing Street, largely because of the departure of "Vote leave aides" and the arrival of a new chief of staff, Dan Rosenfeld, and a new "press spokesperson", Allegra Stratton, a pair whom no one could call "rightwing headbangers" (Johnson`s big risk in 2021? Having no one left to blame,30/12/20). Many will disagree. Didn`t Rosenfeld say in an interview that he really enjoyed working for George Osborne, whom he thought "cared deeply about making a difference"? Millions of UK citizens certainly knew all about the difference Osborne made to their lives and prospects with his unnecessary and callous austerity policies! Stratton`s right to "rightwing headbanger" status does not rely simply on the disgraceful and biased interview with a single mother on Newsnight in May, 2012, which left the interviewee claiming to have been "humiliated". Anyone willing to act as the spokesperson for a prime minister who is not only using a national crisis to increase his personal power at the expense of parliament, but who is willing to tell untruths at the drop of a hat, disappear from public view when the going gets tough, and make outrageous claims about the country being "world-beating" when it is anything but, has either to be as unprincipled as her boss, or headbangingly rightwing!

Starmer`s pledges

Andy Beckett writes that the 10 radical pledges made by Keir Starmer in his Labour leadership campaign were simply made, according to his centrist admirers and leftist critics, "to win over the left-wing Labour membership", and should not be regarded as a guide to what he "would do in power" (For Starmer to change Britain, he`ll need to be less cautious, 18/12/20). Thomas Frank recently wrote in the Guardian about the need for Biden and the Democrats to "confront their own past", and "acknowledge how their own decisions over the years helped make Trumpism possible" (Now Biden must tackle the causes of Trumpism, 09/11/20). The same applies to Starmer who must remember that a preponderance of centrist policies which ignored "the grievances of blue-collar workers" cost Labour the 2010 election just as it lost the 2016 election for Clinton. It is vital that Labour does its utmost to rubbish Conservative preposterous claims to be the workers` party representing the aspirations of ordinary people, and that means those 10 pledges have to be honoured, and not simply because ignoring them would be to betray democracy. Years of shrinking the state in the UK have proved disastrous, along with unfair taxation, deregulation and rising inequality, not to mention the abundance of corruption and cronyism. Beckett rightly says that Starmer "does have a big opportunity", especially with Sunak clearly heading for a return to austerity policies, which no doubt will be as callous as Osborne`s; he must not waste it! Bernie Evans

Wealth tax insufficient

Despite income inequality in the UK being largely fuelled by the massive pay and bonuses for company CEOs, resulting in obscene boss/employer ratios like the one in retail of 140:1, it is not surprising that our current government, which laughably claims to hold "one-nation" principles, does nothing about it. What is unexpected, however, is that the Labour leader, elected to run a united party intent on executing the 2019 manifesto, is so quiet on the subject. Not only should he be condemning the "shameless self-enrichment by the wealthiest in society", Starmer should be putting forward policies which explain Labour`s position now (It`s time to address the salaries of shameless CEOs with no moral compass, 17/12/20). The Tory preference for "naming and shaming" has no effect whatsoever, but companies with pay ratios above around 20:1 could face higher corporation tax, be banned from acquiring any government contracts, and be subject to windfall taxes..Greedy bosses and executives need to be taxed more; how about 60% over £500,000, 80% over a million, and 100% over £5million? Similarly, when, as your editorial states, "the public mood" suggests there is widespread support for all those "crucial to the nation`s wellbeing", pay increases for the lower-paid would be welcomed .Instead of freezing the pay of public sector workers, as Sunak proposes, far better to award 10% pay rises, not forgetting how economic multipliers would make this far less expensive than it sounds. With borrowing costs so low, the government could borrow £30,000 to pay a nurse`s salary and pay less than £30 a year in interest, and the nurse would pay back so much more in income tax and VAT! By all means, let`s "revisit" the "notion of regulating the pay ratio", but Labour, in line with Starmer`s leadership election campaign pledges, should be demanding immediate legislation "Runaway boardroom pay" is indeed "acute", as last week`s excellent Business Leader stated, and higher taxes are now essential (The myth of trickle-down economics is dead. It`s time to tax the rich harder,20.12.20). Despite income inequality in the UK being largely fuelled by the massive pay and bonuses for company CEOs, resulting in obscene boss/employer ratios like the one in retail of 140:1, it is not surprising that our current government, which laughably claims to hold "one-nation" principles, does nothing about it. What is unexpected, however, is that the Labour leader, elected to run a united party intent on executing the 2019 manifesto, is so quiet on the subject. Not only should Starmer be condemning the self-enrichment by the wealthiest in society, he should be putting forward policies to remedy a situation which has for too long been an indictment of our society. Greedy bosses and executives need to be taxed more, with top rates increased to 60% on incomes over £500,000, 80% over a million, and 100% over £5million. Their companies should be targeted too, so that those with pay ratios above around 30:1 facing higher corporation tax, and be banned from acquiring any government contracts, and subject to windfall taxes With companies so adept at minimising their tax payments, perhaps consideration should be given to tightening rules so that the Treasury could be compensated via massive corporate fines? Is it beyond the ken of politicians to draw up legislation to set a legal limit on pay ratios, and also to guarantee all companies not only pay their workers a living wage, but treat them with dignity and respect, thereby stopping, for example, the degradation of Amazon`s employees in their workhouses. Repeated huge fines would soon have an impact on profits and shareholders` dividends, and, therefore, very quickly on company practice!

Rugby injuries

The situation regarding head injuries in rugby should have been a major concern for the game`s authorities for many years, and it should not have taken cases by high-profile players of previous generations to bring it to the fore. Sadly, former player Kearnan Myall appears to be absolutely correct when saying that "many people in the game urgently need educating", certainly if a recent radio interview is anything to go by ("It`s so clear that many people at the top of the game don`t understand",16/12/20)! Someone representing Bath rugby club was last week questioned on the Today radio programme, prior to the club playing Scarlets later in the day. When the subject of head injuries came up, he was adamant everything was under control, concussion was much better understood these days, and players` welfare was number one priority. Not only was there no mention of the "literally countless number of sub-concussive hits", which is Myall`s chief concern, but when asked whether the two players who suffered head injuries in the previous week`s match, would be playing that day, the Bath representative`s reply was ominous;:"only one of them"! It is extremely unlikely there will be any "17 to 19 year olds coming through" in a few years time unless rules are changed very quickly..As Myall fears, if rugby is banned in schools before changes occur, the game will be finished!