Corbyn`s new approach to PMQs

The "calm and collected" approach by Corbyn at PMQs certainly has Cameron "floundering" and long may it continue (Morning Star,15/10/15).

       The originator of "One Nation" Conservatism, Disraeli, appealed to workers in 1875, with his Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, which gave back unions powers they had lost under Gladstone, and which made strike success more likely by allowing peaceful picketing. Perhaps Corbyn could use this fact at next week`s PMQs, stressing the irony of the situation with the Tories` current claims to be the party of the working people, whilst attempting to, as Frances O`Grady recently said, "to cut Britain`s unions off at the knees" (Morning Star,15/09/15)? He could also stress how Germany`s policy of co-determination, with union representatives on the boards of large companies, has both helped boost the German economy, and prevent runaway inequality.

    Corbyn`s "new approach" to PMQs, attempting to reduce its "theatrical" elements, has started brilliantly, and further, simple improvements can materialise, especially if Corbyn`s team check the questions from his backbenchers beforehand, to ensure there is neither repetition nor overlap; no more easy rides for Cameron! Leave the "jack-in-the-box" antics to the Tories, as remaining seated unless asking a question can add much needed decorum, and decrease the impression of an out-of-control classroom, at least on one side of the House! A question about the wisdom of cutting staff at HMRC whilst pretending to be concerned about the "moral repugnance" that is tax avoidance could be followed by letting Cameron know the Opposition hasn`t forgotten his promise to reveal the tax details of his front-bench, even though it was back in 2012. Causing the prime minister considerable and deserved embarrassment should not be too difficult for Corbyn; after all, there is much to be embarrassed about!

Morning Star letter on grammar schools

On a day when news broke about the Tories allowing another selective grammar school to be set up in Kent, it was refreshing to read some common sense about education from Melissa Benn and Lucy Powell (Morning Star,15/10/15).

Tory views of grammar schools have long needed  challenging, if not repudiating. Of course, many working class students achieved success in such schools, and were given opportunities of advancement, but how many were denied one, and instead, given an inferior education in a secondary modern, because a test at the age of 11 had designated them as having no potential. In comprehensive schools, created in the knowledge that students` intelligence and potential continue to develop after 11, all pupils get an "opportunity".         Results, despite the selection process, were never as good as they should have been; in my two-form entry grammar school, half of the pupils were immediately written off and put into the B stream, where the teachers were even less enthusiastic, the subjects, naturally, "less academic", and the results woeful.

 Disappointingly, the penny has yet to drop in all political circles, hardly surprising perhaps, when so few of our opposition politicians are able to respond to Tory propaganda about education, largely because of their own education in private schools. Hopefully, Powell`s promotion will see things change, as clearly the Kent decision could be just the start. At least, we should not see again Tristram Hunt`s nonsense about "character and resilience" being the preserve of the privileged any more!

 

Corbyn can attract middle ground

Cameron`s "bold step on to the centre ground", whilst rightly criticised by some Observer writers for its contrast with years of right-wing policies, has apparently been made possible because "Labour vacated the ground in advance" (Cameron`s vision poses a challenge for Labour,11/10/15). What such an opinion ignores is the actual nature of this "territory". It is a broad area, and whilst Cameron`s anti-union and privatisation policies might appeal to some of its occupants, closer analysis of the parties` proposals, and less adherence to Blairite spin, would offer huge opportunities for Labour. Ellie Mae O`Hagan stressed how Corbyn needs to expose the Tories` "lack of substance", and perhaps a reminder of the pro-union Cospiracy and Protection Act passed by Disraeli`s "One Nation" administration would be helpful, but a more successful tactic would be to emphasise the broadly centrist nature of much of what the media terms his "hard left" proposals (Where Corbyn can attack by being slicker and smarter,11/10/15).

     The popular re-nationalisation of railways and energy should be viewed as part of a long-term economic strategy to reduce the massive £93bn annual corporate welfare bill, while the regulation of private landlords would benefit millions of tenants and aspiring home-owners, as well as the economy in general. Increasing the income tax rates for the very rich is essential for the maintenance of the basic elements of our welfare state, including schools and the NHS; insisting on higher levels of corporate tax simply puts the country on a more equal footing with our competitors; offering more than silly "smell the coffee" soundbites to make individuals and companies pay their fair share of tax appeals to all but the avoiders themselves.

     As many top economists acknowledge, governments` support for trade unions can help reduce inequality, and improve productivity. Quantitative easing for banks to re-capitalise, to the tune of £375bn, was never seen, even though there was no kickstart given to the economy, as economic madness in 2009, so why should it be described as such now, when the aim is to pay for essential infrastructure projects?  Does the middle ground not want to see increased social mobility, or believe that increased bombing of the Middle East by western powers actually increases the possibility of peace in the world? Is there general agreement that hedge funds in the City should be sold taxpayer-owned RBS shares for £1.1bn less than their value at any time, let alone at a time of austerity and belt-tightening?  Do the electorate really want nurses and teachers to be paid so little recruitment agencies have to "scour the globe" because of shortages (School heads trawl the world for recruits as UK teachers quit in record numbers,11/10/15)?

      It is a Tory myth that the so-called "centre ground" is up for grabs, just as the idea that Corbyn`s policies can best be described as "hard left". What is needed is for Labour to be given a fair hearing, and for Tory speeches focussing on "social reform, equality of opportunity and an assault on poverty" to be exposed as the propaganda and political posturing which they most definitely are.

Owen Jones is right in saying how Labour should play the Tories at their own game, and, "as a top priority", adopt a policy of "message discipline" (Let`s hammer our the anti-austerity message until the Tories` ears bleed,14/10/15). But why not take this a step further, and adopt some of the terminology, too? If Labour also had a "long-term economic plan", it would not only stop the silly Tory game of point-scoring by including the words in their obsequious, so-called questions at PMQs, but enable re-nationalisation of railways and energy to be viewed as essential, if the huge annual £93bn corporate welfare bill is to be reduced.

Jones suggests that the "work penalty" should be mentioned by Labour politicians at every opportunity, but this lets the Tories off too lightly. Viewers/listener/readers need to be reminded, too, of Hunt`s accusation that British people don`t work hard enough, especially perhaps, teachers putting in 60 hours a week, and doctors and social workers fleeing their impossible targets to work abroad. The fact that £375bn of quantitative easing was given to banks to kickstart the economy back in 2010, but doing no such thing, should be in Labour`s armoury, when outlining Corbyn`s plans for funding infrastructure.

    A challenge to the Tory nonsense about borrowing has to be made; a government that supposedly worries so much about future generations` debt is perfectly happy for graduates from ordinary backgrounds to leave university owing up to £40,000, and to encourage young people to take out massive mortgages to get on the housing ladder. One rule for young people, another for governments, even though interest rates have never been lower! 

 Corbyn is popular because he is different; his Labour can show it is different, too, by throwing "every bit of artillery" it has at the Tories` preposterous economic claims.

Tory attack on tax avoidance a joke!

The fact that Facebook only paid £4,327 in corporation tax does not simply "add to the debate about how to ensure multinationals make fair tax payments", but reveals yet again the government`s feeble attempts to tackle the problem (Facebook`s £35m staff bonus - and £43277 tax, 12/10/15). Which companies are actually "smelling the coffee" because of their "morally repugnant" practices, as they were warned they would be, by Cameron and Osborne back in 2013, or reeling because Osborne`s "diverted profits tax" is planned to recoup a mere £600m, but not until 2019?

   A government which makes huge cuts in its tax collecting agency cannot seriously be seen as an enemy of the tax avoider, and recent reductions in the numbers of tax inspectors at HMRC have also meant that fewer tax inspections in the construction industry are allowing employers to flout laws on bogus self-employment. The number of inspections in the construction industry has fallen from 5330 in 2012-2013 to 2420 in 2014-5, which means more employers are paying little or no national insurance for the majority of their workers. The number of construction firms fined for such illegal practices has fallen from 57 in 2012-13 to 5 in 2014-5. 

Can we believe anything the prime minister and chancellor say?

 

Unpublished New Statesman letter on Tory conference

Is is not possible that it is not only the Tories who are in danger of becoming too "complacent" before the next election (Politics Column,9th October,2015)? George Eaton seems convinced about the result already, and even about Corbyn`s future as Labour leader. What a shame he didn`t apply some of his astute critical skills to the ridiculous claims made by the Tories at their conference; Sajid Javid, for example, was allowed to insist that "equality of opportunity was the defining metric" without a word about the government`s education policies failing millions of children, and forcing recruitment agencies to scour the world for new teachers.

Similarly, Osborne`s speech was described as "assured", but didn`t I read that he repeated his claim, made previously in a recent New Statesman interview, that his views on politics have changed since becoming MP for a northern constituency? Surely the fact that he represents an area of Cheshire, one of the richest constituencies in the country, was worthy of a mention? A survey by Barclays declared Tatton as "the highest-ranked area outside London and the south-east", with an average income, even then, of £62,350. He`ll be telling us next he`s a man of the people!

  It`s time to start giving Corbyn a fair hearing; that description of him as "hard left" is misleading when his policies are actually what most voters in the so-called "centre ground" support. Lets save the criticism for a chancellor who sells taxpayer-owned shares in RBS for £1.1bn less than their actual value, to hedge funds in the City.

University reform needed

Can anyone truthfully say that the UK utilises all the talent available to it? Of course not, and one of the reasons is the bias shown by the so-called "top" universities to applicants from private schools. The arguments against this is well known; with only 7% of all pupils privately educated, it does not take a genius to see the unfairness, when some universities take in more than 50% of their undergraduates from the private sector.

      One obvious solution would be to legislate to ensure universities could not take in more than 7% of their intake from private schools, matching the national average. It would mean all universities would be forced to accept more candidates from the state sector, and inevitably, more students from poorer, working class backgrounds. There would be some objections, with some universities complaining about a fall in standards, but there is plenty of research already done, showing how undergraduates from state schools tend to achieve higher degrees, and make more academic progress, than the cosseted, and rather spoilt, students from the private sector. 

      Of course, not all state schools are the same, with some of the selective ones in the more prosperous areas being able to provide a much more "privileged" education than others in less salubrious districts. Television programmes on the subject, with their fly-on-the-wall approach to filming, (or so we are led to believe) have not served the cause of state education well. Whilst they have shown the caring and dedicated side of the teaching profession, and, probably to the horror of Tristram Hunt, the abundance of "character and resilience" amongst the pupils, the cameras never focus on the hugely successful teaching and learning which take place on a daily basis, often enabling 60% plus of the students to gain 5 A*-C grades, and go on to sixth form studies. The programmes give the impression that in all state schools, lessons are constantly disrupted by poor behaviour, and this is simply not the case.

   Undoubtedly, however, examination success is much more difficult to achieve in some state schools than others, often for a variety of reasons. The more "challenging" schools often find staff recruitment a problem, which can lead to the appointment of unqualified teachers, and "promotion" of classroom assistants. In such schools, staff often leave mid-course, which can be particularly damaging at sixth form level, where the subject may have to be dropped at the end of year 12, if no replacement tutor can be found. A-level results may well be affected, which can then impact on university application success.

Shouldn`t all universities be forced, as so few do it willingly, to take in a certain percentage of their undergraduates from these schools? If pupils can achieve grade Cs and Bs after teacher upheaval, perhaps poor leadership, and compulsory cutbacks at their schools, they at least deserve the opportunity to continue their studies at the university of their choice.

 

2 Pro-Corbyn letters

It`s not only the Parliamentary Labour Party which can divided up into "optimists and pessimists" (Leader:Corbyn asserts his authority,25th September). I really enjoyed reading Helen Lewis`s piece on what will happen when austerity starts to hurt "the sharp-elbowed middle class", as it pointed to an obvious conclusion (The Politics Column,25th September). The article`s thesis was that the Tories` austerity measures over the next five years would have such dire consequences for professionals like lawyers and doctors, (austerity has been affecting teachers for so long, presumably they don`t count any longer!) Osborne would be prevented from repeating his previous achievement,"cutting public services and still getting re-elected". Imagine my disappointment; I was convinced the conclusion was going to be similar, but actually confessing Corbyn was electable!

       With Osborne`s austerity allied to his cosying-up to the Chinese government, promising a French-owned energy company extravagent bribes to invest in Britain, selling off RBS to his friends in the City at ludicrously low prices whilst insisting every penny counts, and in future almost certainly privatising Channel 4 and most of the BBC, Corbyn`s policies will soon be resonating with millions more. It`s not only Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett`s generation to whom he has given hope!

Around fifteen months ago, Jeremy Corbyn wrote an article for your paper about "New Labour`s chief lieutenant Peter Mandelson", who then, as now, was warning about Labour making "any move to the left" (Morning Star,09/07/14). Corbyn`s reply was that the "tide was turning" and that now was the "time for a radical alternative".

     Corbynites last week will have been delighted to see yet another attempt by Mandelson to return the Labour party into the hands of the routed Blairites  This time the pleasure is compounded, not just for the usual reason that every time this one-time spin doctor tries to tell party members what to do, the natural reaction of most of them is to do the exact opposite, but because he has admitted that Corbyn must be given time. How gracious of him, also, to give up his self-appointed role as lead policy-strategist of the Labour party; he now wants "the public" to "decide Labour`s future", as if they haven`t just done that. Call yourself a democrat, Mr Mandelson?

           Time, and a fair hearing, are all that Corbyn needs. With Osborne making Britain even more of a debtor country, following his deals with human rights-denier, China, and offering a "state guarantee" of another £2bn to persuade companies owned and controlled by the French and Chinese governments to invest in the Hinkley Point nuclear project, Corbyn`s problem of choosing topics for the party conference speech, and for future PMQs, has been eased somewhat. Add to this the government`s dubious silence about the strategy, and the consequent need for debate about it, and you have some very good reasons for the Labour doubters to show some unity for once; the Tories are clearly over-confident, and underestimating the opposition!

     Corbyn`s policy of the British taxpayer taking ownership of the railways will gain inceased popularity, when the electorate discover how much the Chinese already own here, including "a third of the UK passenger train fleet"; it`s up to the Labour MPs to shout such details from the rooftops. They can talk loudly, too, about how, in time of a housing crisis and huge shortage of affordable homes, the Tories are forcing housing associations, which build around 40,000 properties each year, to sell homes under the right-to-buy scheme, and taking on their £60bn of debt. One wonders, too, about which state-owned broadcasting company will buy, probably at a knock-down price, Channel 4, and what that would tell us about the prospects for the BBC.

 All this, and it`s only two weeks since the leadership result was announced; carry on like this for a couple of years and Corbyn will not only be electable, he`ll be a shoo-in