Observer letter on reasons for UK changing

Your editorial asked "what has happened to us", and why Britain had changed so much since 2012 (Britain is becoming mean and narrow-minded,23/10/16).There are many reasons, of course, but politicians and the media must bear most responsibility.

     The coalition`s austerity measures, which were aimed mostly at the least fortunate, had the backing of a right-wing media, which convinced millions that those in need of help were, in actual fact, "scroungers". Television programmes which focused on the subject received extra publicity in the tabloids, whilst the callousness of government policies, and the valuable work done by "immigrants" in the economy were ignored.

    Rather than focus on true-to-life drama which might have enlightened viewers, the BBC, frightened by Tory politicians` threats to its very existence, concentrated its dramatic output on inaccurate historical soap operas, which falsified the view of our past. Similarly, politicians refused to make a fuss about the continued manipulation of our history by the 1.2 million files kept secret, and away from the prying eyes of historians, with the inevitable results that people have a rose-tinted perception of the past, and nationalism and racism have grown. Add to this the governments` appalling view of those escaping from wars, torture and extreme poverty, their concentration of investment in the south, the obvious electoral wheeze of Osborne that was the "northern powerhouse", and the policy of selling weapons to dictatorships regardless of  their intended use, and you get a society, where fairness is non-existent, and which looks backwards to a fictitious glorious past. 

    When a politician emerges who promises change based on ethical policies, and who doesn`t treat the voters like mugs, he is not only attacked by the right-wing media, but by the newspapers leaning to the left, which for some reason see him as too different from the Tories to win an election. Is it any wonder not only that the lies of politicians led to Brexit, but that Britain is in danger of being"swept along by a dangerous politics of hate"? 

May and the "just managing"

Has the abuse of British democracy ever been so obvious, or so significant? We have, currently, a situation where 17m people, most of them duped by eminent politicians into believing Brexit would provide "an extra £350m a week for the NHS and an end to VAT on fuel bills", decided we should leave the European Union (Politics, 21st October,2016). The total number entitled to vote was 46.5million.

 Perhaps worse is the fact that, as George Eaton tells us, the new prime minister is cynically targetting the "just managing", not because they are in need of government assistance, but because they account for "more than half the electorate in marginal seats". The definition of such a group, earning £19-21,000 a year, house owning but "afflicted by job insecurity", is so narrow anyway, it omits millions of people struggling to get by. What about the millions who are being exploited by greedy landlords, and the all too obvious need for strict rent regulation, something that this Tory government, like its predecessor, deems too politically dangerous to be contemplated? Unbelievably, Eaton attempts to prove his point that May is being advised by "aides who grew up in "just managing" families", with just two examples, one of whom "attended a comprehensive school in Huddersfield"! He can`t mean that all who cannot afford private education are "just managing", or, indeed, that private schools are the preferred choice of all parents, can he?

  The additional point that 4million voted for Ukip in the last election, but have no representation in parliament, also illustrates how the British version of democracy serves the people badly. One of our "core-values", according to Cameron, and worth fighting for in other countries, but here it`s simply a device for giving politicians an excuse to treat us like mugs - again!

HMRC off the hook again

A year ago, the public accounts committee criticised HMRC for its "woefully inadequate number of prosecutions for offshore tax evasion", and the subsequent excuse, that exorbitant court costs prohibited more cases (HMRC`s unanswered helplines impede tax collection, say MPs,04/11/15). The committee, however, allowed itself to be fobbed off with dubious and unfounded claims that the amount of uncollected tax in Britain was "no worse than in many other countries", stating the tax gap to be £34bn., a figure which contradicts this week`s statement by Treasury minister, Jane Ellison, that the tax gap is "down to its lowest ever level" (HMRC "underplaying corporate avoidance",21/10/16).

       Hopefully, the committee, at next Wednesday`s meeting, will give the "top HMRC officials" the grilling they deserve, for misleading the public for so many years; it`s bad enough when the government treats us as mugs! Clearly, HMRC`s underestimation of the tax gap has to be challenged, as the true figure has to be more than double the £36bn claimed. If HMRC`s failure to reduce the tax gap is due to staff shortages, after the "efficiency cuts" under Cameron, why isn`t May`s government recruiting? Won`t the new HMRC "specialist unit", tackling "misuse by companies of agency workers to avoid tax", simply entail transferring staff from one HMRC department to another (HMRC targets exploitation of self-employed,21/10/16)?

        Ending tax avoidance and evasion will require not only legislation with less loopholes, but a change of culture, so that people are disgraced, knighthoods and honours returned, and prison sentences imposed when individuals and companies fail to pay the correct amount of tax. Somehow, I don`t think that is what May has in mind!

PS 65% yesterday`s meeting taken up with telephone delays. Tax gap not likely to be reduced at this rate!

2012 letter on Heathrow

I am almost too ashamed to admit it, but I have to agree with Zac Goldsmith on something; a third runway at Heathrow would be a very expensive mistake. (Cameron would pay a high price for a Heathrow U-turn, 08/09/12) More sensible routing of planes and more use of other airports would free up money for more essential infrastructure expenditure. If more money must be spent, yet again, on London,why not improve the public transport access for the disabled,as the brilliant Sophie Christiansen suggests? (London is horrendous, says triple gold medallist, 08/09/12) Why is it necessary, all of a sudden, for extra planes to be required for businessmen to go about their work? Video conferencing and emails have surely diminished the need for business travel, and further technological developments will undoubtedly reduce it further.Fancy a Tory MP suggesting the government has "been seduced by vested interests". Whatever next?

Dylan, or is it Corbyn?

After years of protesting against inequality and the callousness of the "masters of war", always refusing the attempts of critics to "corral him into being something he does not want to be", how apt that he is finally being recognised as the "spokesman for a generation" (Dylan thinks twice about Nobel acknowledgement,22/10/16). Don`t think twice, Jeremy Corbyn, go for it!

Oxbridge interview in need of review

Louise Richardson, Oxford`s vice-chancellor, is right on two counts: her university does need to do more to attract the best, and "the best may not be those who look and sound like" her and her ilk (State school teachers still not pushing best pupils to Oxbridge,13/10/16). All the more reason, then, to scrap, or at least modify, "the notorious Oxford University interview", something which, by the institution`s own admission, is in need of demystification (The lightbulb moment:Oxford University issues questions to demystify interviews,12/10/16).

     How possibly can a mysterious interview do anything to widen Oxford`s attraction or access, or justify state school teachers having to give up yet more of their valuable time to drill their pupils "in Oxbridge interview techniques"?  It contains such "ambiguous", and "fun" questions where the answer is "typically the opposite" of what the interviewee expects, "real examples" are having to be released. The reason for this is clear: they hope it will reduce the candidates` fear of humiliation in the interview.

    Is it any wonder some teachers do not advise their brightest students to apply to Oxbridge? Being made to look and sound foolish in an interview is unlikely to build up either self-confidence prior to taking A-levels, or strengthen the essential faith and trust pupils need to have in their teachers. 

 

Good old days of Grammar schools

Interesting to read that in Russia, where "10,000 men and women a year were exiled to Siberia", and undoubtedly forced to endure some absolutely appalling conditions, the flogging of children was forbidden from 1864 onwards(Review,The House of the Dead:Siberian Exile under the Tsars,01/10/16).         Approximately one hundred years later, I and many of my fellow pupils were being flogged in our prestigious grammar school, so much so that the bruises and ridges in our bottoms would still be evident days later. Unlike the "banter between governor and the convicts" at Irkutsk prison, terms like "idiotic imbecile", and "half-witted nincompoop" were screamed in our faces, before being instructed to bend over.

Ah, the good old days of grammar schools!