New Statesman letter on Osborne`s mistake

Disingenuous as ever, Tory MPs are now, according to George Eaton, making excuses for George Osborne`s mishandling of the tax credits` issue, by claiming he was ignorant of the massive hardship the cuts would cause for "relatively impoverished people", because of  "a technical mistake" (Politics: How the tax credit climbdown humbled a chancellor thought to be at the height of his powers,30 October). With over 1200 staff employed at the Treasury, including, according to the Independent at the weekend, eight special advisers costing the taxpayer over £500,000 a year, it is hard to believe that someone didn`t carry out an "impact assessment". Next they`ll be telling us they didn`t know, not only about the steel industry being under threat because of unfair Chinese competition, but that quantitative easing works elsewhere in the world to stimulate economies, so long as banks are not the direct recipients. I don`t suppose the Tories will acknowledge, either, that the Northern Powerhouse is just a wheeze drummed up just before what was thought was an unwinnable election, and which can`t possibly work anyway, when councils are having their government grants decimated, or that tax avoidance measures are also suffering the consequences of a "technical mistake", that of sacking thousands of staff at HMRC!

 Tories are very keen to repeat the party`s propaganda about having a "long term economic plan", but less enthusiastic about mentioning its results, with economic growth destined to be as low as 0.3% in the next quarter; they must know that such downward trends are inevitable, when the bases of government policy is for the already prosperous to accumulate even greater wealth,  and the spending capability of the working people to be reduced. They certainly have "got too far down the pipe", as Tory MP Stephen McPartland so eloquently put it; sadly, with their policies, the "pipe" in question has to be a sewer!

Historian Ferguson a disgrace

An authorised biography of the Machiavellian, Kissinger, by a historian who infamously sees British imperialism, despite its greed for wealth, land and labour, its use of weapons, massacres, concentration camps and torture, as a force for good, who supported the Republican candidates, McCain and Romney against Obama in the 2008 and 2012 elections, and whose advice on the history curriculum for schools to then Education Secretary Gove was criticised so much by British historians and teachers, should not attract favourable reviews, and Greg Grandin duly obliged (Kissinger 1923-1968:The Idealist by Niall Ferguson,17/10/15).

      A defence of Kissinger`s "war crimes", based on the premise that other policymakers "can just as easily be accused", smacks of disingenuity of the highest order, whilst the absurdity of claiming that responsibility for atrocities and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people should not influence "how we assess his legacy" beggars belief. Somehow, loss of life in so-called "strategically marginal countries" didn`t matter as long as the cold war was won, a point which is not only abhorrent in its substance, but the epitome of selective use of evidence, as it conveniently ignores the fact that the bombing of Laos and Cambodia did not prevent America`s defeat in Vietnam.

 The public have been badly served by historians like Ferguson, who misuse historical evidence, for too long, and hopefully, sales figures of this example of biased history will indicate that the penny has finally dropped.

  

New Statesman anti-bombing letter

Jim Murphy appears to base his argument, that parliament should vote in favour of "RAF raids against Isis positions in Syria", on the idea that Britain`s position in the world hierarchy will be dimished otherwise (For What It`s Worth,23 October). "Conscientious objection", he says, is not a " legitimate posture for a P5 nation", but he fails to explain not only how British bombing will achieve success, but also what that success would entail. In WWII, the Luftwaffe`s bombing failed, and all the subsequent attempts to bomb the enemy "into the stone age" in Vietnam and the Middle East have met a similar fate. Indiscriminate bombing does not decrease resistance, nor the determination of the victims to carry on. The fact that the enemy is prepared to drop a weapon, from hundreds of feet in the air, which has the potential, not only to blow to pieces women and children, but to miss any intended "targets" and hit hospitals and schools instead, only ever increases hatred, and the desire for revenge.      

 Murphy contends that bombing Syria would end the "uncertainty about what Britain means abroad", but why can`t the same be achieved by taking a stance against mass killing? The usual justification given for violent jihadism is the foreign policy of the west, with its repeated invasions, interference and killing. Paddy Asdown, recently, rightly asked how can we expect to destroy Isis "by killing more Muslim Arabs with Western bombs". The solution has to be found diplomatically, not militarily. Does anyone really think that killing every jihadist will solve the problem of Isis or Al-Qaeda?

Guardian letter on Salisbury convention

Matthew d`Ancona asks whether we "really want Osborne`s measure to be overturned by a super-committee of the unelected" (Vandalise tax credit reform at your peril, my Lords,26/10/15). Of course we do, and according to constitutional legislation, the Lords have every right to do so; the Salisbury Convention ensures that Government Bills get through the Lords, even though "the government of the day has no majority in the Lords", as long as the Bill was "mentioned in an election manifesto" (www.parliament.uk). As "plans to cut tax credits" did not appear in the Tories` manifesto, the House of Lords has no choice. It is not the peers who are acting unconstitutionally, but the government, and this point is being ignored by most political commentators.

      Indeed, the peers supporting the measure need to ask themselves an important question about the upper house`s raison d`etre; if it does not check legislation, and hold governments to account, what is the justification for its existence? 

Tory MPs out of touch

Much has been written about Labour MPs being out-of-touch with their constituents in recent months, failing to realise the effects of the "cowardice of so much New Labour thinking", whilst the Tory MPs` myopia has been ignored (Doctors, teachers,the police:our public servants are demoralised,18/10/15). They have been so blinded by their surprise success at the polls in May, they have allowed Osborne, a chancellor obsessed with his own leadership ambitions, to lead them down a disastrous path (Tory MPs in 71 marginals at risk from cuts to tax credits,18/10/15). Will Hutton`s article only skimmed the surface of their other major problem; how many shortages in the public sector will there be by 2020? Can the Observer`s political writers still be so sure that the middle class voters, worried about their children`s health, education and security, will not turn to a Labour party promising a "fit-for-purpose functioning state"?

     Perhaps if the Observer stopped describing Cobyn as "hard left", and instead  viewed the popular re-nationalisation of railways and energy as part of a long-term economic strategy to reduce the massive £93bn annual corporate welfare bill, and stressed how the regulation of private landlords would benefit millions of tenants and aspiring home-owners, as well as the economy in general, Corbyn`s proposals might be seen in a more sensible light. Increasing the income tax rates for the very rich should be seen as essential for the maintenance of the basic elements of our welfare state; 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 the press describe it  as such now, when the aim is to pay for essential infrastructure projects?  Does the middle ground not want to see increased social mobility? 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? 

   As Will Hutton rightly concluded, "the prime minister and chancellor should beware", especially as the time is nearing when those suffering, because of Tory policies, will not only be Labour or non-voters!

Taking Owen Jones a step further

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.

England rugby:coach not the problem

When Wales failed to qualify for the 1994 World Cup because of a missed penalty against Romania, the manager, Terry Yorath, was sacked. Presumably, Ed Smith would think this fair, Yorath having failed to "shift his focus", even though the "culture" of Welsh football had been improved (Left Field,16th October, 20015)? Often in sport, the bounce of the ball, the oversight of an official, or the superhuman efforts of the opponents can lead to unexpected, and sometimes undeserved, defeat, with inevitably, the manager getting the blame. Coaches don`t miss the penalty shots, drop the passes or take the wrong decision with the goal/line in sight, but the players who do, invariably escape being banished into the international wilderness.

  Smith thinks that if Stuart Lancaster had "demonstrated the qualities of a truly talented teacher" England would still be in the competition, with a chance of reaching the semi-finals, and no talk of replacing him. But is it not true that England`s early exit was not because of bad management, but bad luck? Being in the group with two of the best teams in the world was the result of organisers making the draw ludicrously early; having England`s most talented back injured prior to the crucial game was hardly his fault, whilst the ball`s refusal to behave stupidly as it does 95% of the time, and instead bounce into Gareth Davies`s hands, is ultimately the reason Lancaster is being pilloried now.

     If, indeed, Lancaster did "irritate people", this was not apparent when his team thrashed Wales, France and Scotland, all quarter-finalists, in the Six Nations earlier this year. Fans being fickle is common, but it`s disappointing when the same tendency is shown by respected sports writers. Smith should be concentrating on more worrying and valid reasons for failure, as Tim Wigmore did, when he pointed out that rugby in England is becoming the "preserve of the privately educated" (Observations,9th October, 2015). 7% of the nation`s pupils attend fee-paying schools, but 64.5% of England`s squad did.