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!