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union jack" not only is an embarrassing and feeble attempt to woo Tory voters, it is an acceptance of a Victorian and outdated definition of patriotism which Johnson`s government loves to perpetuate.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.