Why "humiliate" Greece and Russia?

Much is being written in the mainstream press denying that there ever was an intention to actually "humiliate" Greece and Russia, and that it is up to Russians and Greeks to find a way of addressing their own domestic faults. At least the Star Comment is clear on the treatment of Greece, and that "austerity is a medicine which enriches those who dispense it" (Morning Star,20/06/15). Well said!

     Of course there is a desire in the EU to "humiliate" the Greeks and their democratically elected left-wing government; economically it makes no sense to force Greece into bankruptcy, especially as the rest of the Eurozone is already benefiting from the European Central Bank`s 60billion euros a month quantitative easing programme. However, politically, illustrating to the people of Europe that there is no alternative to austerity, so they can forget all their radical, socialist and Keynesian ideas, there are obvious advantages. Sadly, the historical lessons of "squeezing until the pips squeak" have not been learned, as is made obvious, also, with the repeated imposition of economic sanctions on Russia. How can compromise solutions be made over, not only the future of Ukraine, but also the expansion of Nato, when economic uncertainty in Russia is being purposely exacerbated by the west? At a time when diplomatic talks are urgently needed, and when there are opportunities for east-west deals over energy provision, what can be achieved by the permanent exclusion of Russia from the G7? As Alan Mackinnon wrote, the world appears to be "rushing headlong" into the next cold war (Morning Star,20/06/15)

     A Greek-Russian alliance is indeed the most likely outcome of such short-sightedness by our politicians, with financial aid in return for a Russian pipeline through Greece. Those same politicians will, no doubt, express moral outrage at such a deal, whilst at the same time denying desperate people fleeing oppression access to their countries, unlike Greece, and refusing the return of the Parthenon marbles to their rightful owners, an act which could benefit the Greek tourist industry enormously.

 

"too left-wing" nonsense!

As soon as Jeremy Corbyn "secured his place on the ballot paper at the eleventh hour" what were we immediately told? (Morning Star,16/06/15) A left-wing Labour party can never win a general election; it "shows the party`s desire never to win again",said one scare-mongering Labour MP, whilst another insisted that with Corbyn at the helm, the Tories "would win a majority of a 100, possibly more". Such Blairite propagandawill not wash, and should be rejected. Blair may well have guessed correctly after the election defeats of Foot and Kinnock, but the country has changed hugely since then, and instantly placing the blame for the recent defeat on a manifesto insufficiently pro-business and aspiration-deficient is lazy politics.

      The Tories won with 37% of the vote, meaning 63% not only disliked or distrusted Tory policies but are now open to Labour persuasion. When a government is promising the most right-wing agenda of modern times, with spending cut to 1930s levels, inequality rising, wages so low in-work benefits are essential, and deficit reduction taking precedence over investment, it is political suicide not to offer real alternatives. The Tories, also, have little intention of ending tax avoidance and evasion, and none whatsoever of increasing social mobility, with  70% of top job offers guaranteed still to be going in 2020 to products of selective or fee-paying institutions, and "working class candidates" still likely to be "systematically locked out of top legal and accountancy companies" as they are now (Morning Star,16/06/15). Voters will remember the asset-stripping, and sell-offs at low prices to friends in the City, so why would they be happy in the next election to vote for a Labour party that offers more of the same, only with a "human face"? Let the Tories make the mistake of assuming the electorate will take ten years of austerity passively! 

     Didn`t Miliband`s popularity soar in the polls when he announced his radical policies on "predatory capitalism" and energy price freezes? The election of Corbyn as leader might lead to a split in the party, with those on the "centre-right" breaking away, or even joining with the Tories, but a left-wing Labour party could well provide our politics with a much-needed impetus, and prove the Blairites wrong.

Selling RBS a wasted opportunity

For a Chancellor ostensibly so intent on saving every penny, with reducing the deficit his overriding priority,and willing to resort to cutting even further benefits for the disabled, it is strange that George Osborne is apparently now willing to launch "a fire sale of the UK government`s 80% share in RBS bank", at a huge loss "to the public purse of £13bn" (Morning Star,11/06/15)  The question which is crying out to be asked is, why sell now at approximately 350p when he didn`t at 404p in February?

  As it doesn`t make any economic sense, the answer has to be political, and selling these shares to private investors, when prices are almost certainly set to rise, seems a very effective way of bribing yourself back into favour with the financial sector.

What a shame the much vaunted "long-term economic plan" allows for such short-term thinking! With the OECD announcing that investment in British business is too slow, what a wonderful opportunity Osborne is wasting. Returning the bank to the private sector at a time when it could be providing the funds for businesses to grow, and provide the machinery and technology essential to raise productivity, is simply economic "incompetence". Hopes that the electorate will have forgotten such generosity with their assets by 2020 appear to take precedence!

     Furthermore, a state-owned RBS could set an example in management to the other high street banks; that would mean some immediate sackings, both of all those employed in the investment arm of RBS culpable for the foreign exchange rigging, the illegal selling of mortgage-backed securities in the US, and all the other scams, and of those at the top responsible for the profit-at-all costs culture, and the obscenely high bonuses. It would also mean absolute compliance with all taxation laws, ensuring the Treasury received its fair share, to be invested in infrastructure, health and education. A bank like this could even attract employees willing to put the needs of the customer first, rather than personal enrichment, and millions of customers preferring to see the huge profits amassed by their bank benefiting the nation as a whole, not just its already rich shareholders.

A myth in need of de-bunking

 Since Labour`s defeat in the election, the view that the party was insufficiently pro-business to be electable, seems to have taken hold. The candidates for Labour leadership, Corbyn excepted, have exacerbated the situation with their acceptance of this opinion; they all swallow the nonsense that Labour failed to win over what they embarrassingly call "wealth creators", with one cringingly calling them "heroes", and that this cost them the election. Mary Creagh dropped out of the race with an article in which she stated that Miliband`s division of business "into producers or predators" actually "alienated business".

       The time is ripe to de-bunk this myth before it becomes the accepted norm, and before Labour spends the next five years sucking up to big-business and the City fat cats, and haemorrhaging even more votes in the next election. The more "pro-business" Labour gets, the more Tory policies it adopts, and the more votes it loses from traditional supporters and ordinary people. How many votes would Miliband`s Labour have gained had they promised to lower corporate tax levels further, or to go easy on business`s tax avoidance? The whole idea is crazy, dreamed up by the Blairites, with Mandelson at the helm, to divert the party to the right.

        Let`s get things straight: it is their own behaviour which divides businesses "into producers or predators", not politicians` imaginations, and Miliband was merely pointing out that the ones which fail to pay employees sufficient wages so that billions of in-work benefits are needed, but simultaneously manage obscene levels of renumeration and bonuses for those at the top, or which do everything possible to deny the Treasury the taxes due due it, despite Britain having the lowest corporate tax level of all G7 countries, need to change their behaviour. When Miliband stressed the need for banks to change their culture of profit-at-all-costs and to end the scams and ripping-off their customers he was only saying what the majority of us think. If this "alienated business", then so be it, but it did not account for the election defeat, despite what the Blairite "old guard" might think.

         Creagh  failed to mention that when Miliband did admonish "irresponsible capitalism" in conference speeches and in the election campaign, and that when he pledged to freeze energy bills until 2017 and pass on wholesale price cuts to customers, his, and the Labour party`s, approval ratings soared in the opinion polls. The more he attacked business for its greed, and in the case of the banks, the scams, the more the voters liked it, so it doesn`t make sense to say that Labour was not pro-business enough. Perhaps not anti-business`s bad behaviour enough is nearer the truth?

        Anyway, if Labour wasn`t sufficiently pro-business, why did Balls and Miliband promise smaller firms that they would have been the first to benefit under a Labour government, with a cut to business rates on 1.5 million small business premises?

         Was it the tone in which Miliband addressed business which offended them? Hardly! Blairites would do well to remember how he announced himself at the CBI`s annual conference last November, saying that it was "great" to be there, "celebrating the work" that business does "day-in,day-out for the people of this country"? He added that he would never "risk" their businesses by "playing political games with membership of the EU", and added that change was necessary for the economy so that it met "the basic aspirations of the British people.

         Despite what the right wing of the Labour party says, there is evidence to suggest that, had the party adopted a bolder approach to business, including gradual re-nationalisation of the railways, the transformation of RBS into a People`s Bank fully owned by the taxpayers, and re-employing the thousands who have lost their jobs at HMRC, the election result would have been somewhat different.

     Whatever happens in the coming months, Labour must stop apologising for Miliband`s supposedly anti-business stance, and saying it cost them the election; it`s a myth in serious need of de-bunking!

Tristram Hunt`s scapegoating is disgusting

Tristram Hunt may well opine that a Labour education secretary would not "ban To Kill  Mocking Bird", but judging by his pre-election announcements Labour would not reverse the academisation programme either, nor repeal Gove`s unnecessary assessment reforms, nor do anything about the 60 hour week many of our teachers endure, nor even promise the return of the Education Maintenance Allowance, the removal of which ended the aspiration of thousands of would-be sixth formers at a stroke ("We should have been more radical",09/06/15)

    Putting the blame on Miliband for allowing himself "to be perceived as uninterested in schools` policy" is a little rich when one remembers Hunt`s own lack of focus on the subject, and instead, his concentration on introducing teachers` oaths, a new re-licensing scheme, Performance Related Pay, and the lack of "character and resilience" amongst state educated pupils. With Gove-like predictability, Hunt wrote in the Guardian about "the long tail of underachievement", a view based on Pisa tests where students from a range of nations are given different questions to answer, and results somehow compared (Labour could abandon GCSEs within a decade, Hunt reveals,23/04.15). No mention whatsoever was made of the fantastic work and results being achieved in the state sector, despite constant curriculum and examination changes.

      Did Hunt ever see the need to consult with experienced teachers before introducing his policy initiatives? Of course, as he said, the country needs to "make the most of the talents of all our young people", but how would that be achieved by identifying a small proportion, the so-called "gifted and talented", and giving them special treatment? (Labour must do more to cater for gifted children, says Tristram Hunt, 02/02/15) All children deserve an education system which will stretch them to the limit, so designating some as worthy of preferential treatment is clearly unfair.

   Education, as Hunt says, "must be our vehicle for a bigger story of Britain", but few will be convinced, especially with this scapegoating, that he should be driving it! Did he ever commit Labour to a review of teachers` pay and conditions, or even to meet with teachers` union leaders? And he has the nerve to criticise Miliband!

Indy`s editorial on HSBC nonsense

What a ludicrous idea! Your editorial`s suggestion that the tax levy and ringfencing will cause HSBC to become a "weak bank" which, in turn, "will not make for a strong economy", ignores much empirical evidence (A bitter pill,10/06/15). You do admit to HSBC`s various scams like "having its share of PPI mis-selling", and the small matter of "money laundering" gets a mention too, but nowhere is it acknowledged that had it done anything to change the banking culture of profit-at-all-cost, and obscene bonuses to those who could make the most money for the bank, regardless of method or ethics, they would have avoided being fined far more than the amount paid because of the tax levy. No mention, either, of the £32000 a week paid to non-dom CEO, Stuart Gulliver, on top of his £1.2m salary, to get round EU bonus caps, nor of the bank`s role in rigging the foreign exchange markets, nor even of HSBC`s Swiss banking arm helping wealthy customers avoid tax. They have claimed that the bank levy prevents them paying a 5% rise on last year`s £6.3bn dividend to their shareholders, as if that should excuse their decision to sack 8000 workers who almost certainly had nothing to do with the misdemeanours.

  Quantitative easing provided £375bn to the banks after the crash, which was meant to kickstart the beginning of a "strong economy", with the banks lending to British businesses; it didn`t happen, but nevertheless,"bank-bashing", according to you, "has probably run its course"! How dare any bank complain about regulation, bank levies and a corporation tax which is around 18 percentage points below the rate paid by companies in America? How often have we heard the similar threat that, if bankers aren`t allowed their annual bonuses, they will leave the country? If our politicians had any bottle at all, they would call HSBC`s bluff ; most of the electorate would be in favour of an 80% bonus tax, and of our participation in the EU`s financial transaction tax due in January 2016, so, in fact, the bank is treated far too leniently in the eyes of most people. Didn`t Mark Carney say last year that the issues facing banks were not the result of a few bad apples, but evidence of a rotten barrel? 

Morning Star letter on academies

The decision by the Tory government to force through the academisation of  apparently struggling local authority schools in England is worrying on so many accounts (Morning Star, 0406/15) As you reported, 46% of academies have been branded as "requires improvement" or "inadequate", and the Commons Education Committee found no evidence to show that academic standards are better in academies than other state schools. This decision, therefore, has to be political rather than educational, with the eventual objective being "full school privatisation", as stated by Christine Blower of the NUT.

 Also of concern is that there appear to be no plans to deal with, or even acknowledge the existence of, "struggling" academies, whose employment of unqualified teachers on low pay is clearly part of the government plan for education on the cheap. No mention, either, of how this might affect students` aspirations!

    What is disturbing, too, is that the future of these state schools will be based on what can justly be described as random judgements made by Ofsted inspectors, whose accuracy in assessing schools is increasingly being questioned by experienced educationalists. Then there are the problems of exacerbating both the pressure on teaching staff, with many experiencing 60 hour weeks already, and on retaining and recruitment in the profession.

 The timing of the announcement, of course, is deliberate: the feeble opposition, provided to Gove`s unnecessary upheaval of examinations and curricula, by Labour`s spokespersons on education will undoubtedly be continued, with the party`s leadership candidates more concerned with bickering over their pro-business credentials. Burnham says he supports comprehensive education, but will he come out in favour of industrial action by teachers to save it?

Clearly we can expect a rush of contentious announcements from this duplicitous government, whilst Labour lacks cohesion and direction; forcing through unpopular legislation, which failed to appear in election manifestos, appears to be a habit the Tories have no intention of breaking.