May`s foreign policy

Heather Stewart says that a central idea in May`s thinking about foreign policy is maintaining the "rules-based international order" ( The challenge facing "unshowy" PM as she makes the case for airstrikes to Commons, 16/04/18). Would these be the "rules" which allow the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia to use in Yemen, and thereby create the world`s worst manmade humanitarian crisis, with, according to the UN "8.5 million Yemenis at risk of famine" (Britain`s shame, Britain`s duty, 11/03/18)? In Yemen, diphtheria is rife, choking the life out of innocent children, and the worst cholera outbreak in modern history continues to kill hundreds.

  May`s claims that the missile attacks on Syria to be intervention on humanitarian grounds are nothing less than sickening!

NS letter on May`s hypocrisy over Syria

Peter Wilby is not alone in wondering why deaths from "US-led military operations" in Syria and Iraq are "more acceptable" than those caused by Assad`s chemical weapons (First Thoughts, 13th April, 2018). Are we supposed to believe that children only suffer terribly cruel deaths when chlorine or sarin gas are employed? Consequently, immediate military responses ordered by western politicians must be viewed with scepticism.

   Bew and Maher rightly suggest that any "credit" Trump gets for having a lower threshold than Obama "for tolerating Assad`s most egregious crimes must be considerably hedged", and that his response to the current crisis has much to do with "mid-term elections looming" (The war without end, 13th April, 2018). What they omitted to mention, however, was that Theresa May`s sudden sympathy for Syrian civilians is also very closely connected to domestic affairs in the UK; the prime minister clearly sees this as her "Falklands" opportunity, moving the headlines away from Brexit, and the crises in health, caring, education and policing, caused by her government`s refusal to abandon disastrous austerity policies. By taking military action while parliament was still in recess, May not only avoided emphasising the weakness of her own position, but also, like Macron in France, appeased right-wingers who fear the decline of their countries as world powers.

    The use of chemical weapons has indeed provided the west, as Bew and Maher say, with a "sense of common purpose", but it has much more to do with political survival than the seizure of a moral high-ground. Intervention on humanitarian grounds is a rather dubious excuse when viewed alongside the selling of arms to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen.

Unanswered questions on Pre-U exams

Despite his "ladder of opportunity", laying out "the statistics of educational inequality", Robert Halfon`s desire for a "more socially just system" is clearly yet another example of empty Tory rhetoric ("The Tory party should change its name to the Workers` party. I am 100% serious", 17/04/18). He might well suggest that A-levels should be replaced, but knows full well that, in many public schools, the process has already started.

  Following the cheating scandal exposed by the Guardian last summer, Halfon`s select committee questioned the head of Eton, a director of Ofqual and the chief executive of Cambridge Assessment International Education (CIE), which runs the Pre-U examinations, around which the cheating was focussed. Even when the head admitted seven of his staff were involved in these examinations, either marking or setting papers, and the CIE chief admitted his organisation was not a member of the Joint Council for Qualifications, which inspects and regulates all other public examinations, the committee displayed none of the indignation or disgust one would expect at the revelation of such unfairness. Not one member of the committee, Halfon included, thought it necessary to delve deeper, and ask, for example, about why so many public schools prefer Pre-U exams to the traditional A-Levels.

     Wilby and others may not regard Halfon as an "orthodox Conservative", but someone in a position of authority who refuses to challenge instances of obvious unjustness, sounds pretty typical of 21st century Toryism to me!

Letter on new Centre party

Bernadette Horton rightly includes the adverb "unsurprisingly" when mentioning how the proposed new "centre" party "has Tory donors too" (Morning Star, 12/04/18).

The point of such a venture can only be to divide the Labour vote as happened in 1983, hand the Tories another five years of wielding their callous power, and blame the election defeat on a left-wing manifesto, to discourage the adoption of transformational policies. It certainly had that effect back then, with all that nonsense about the manifesto being the "longest suicide note in history".

     Despite moderate Labour being defeated in recent general elections, some millionaire donors, who have absolutely no connection or empathy with the millions of voters they need to support them, now think our most unfair and unequal society only requires minor changes. They are never going to back a party intent on ending tax avoidance, increasing the top levels of tax, or promising significant pay rises for teachers and carers.

    They will, as Horton says, have the support of so-called "moderates" in the Labour party, who hate the fact that Corbyn is the leader, but cannot understand that their feeble policies have lost two recent elections. If they cannot support Corbyn and his policies, they need to re-assess their political beliefs; if they do not want to transform our society and reduce inequality, they should not be signing up for a new party, they should be joining the Tories!

Letter to New Statesman on BBC

Nick Robinson derides Andrew Adonis for claiming the BBC has decided to back Brexit, "without presenting a shred of evidence", but offers none in its defence (Another Voice, 6th April, 2018). Instead, he counters criticism of the corporation`s alleged lack of impartiality with the suggestion that the alternative is "a British Fox News". Would this defence not have been more convincing if Robinson had given examples of programmes, or presenters, challenging the governments`s Brexit strategy with figures showing how the British economy is likely to suffer after leaving the EU? He doesn`t even mention the undeniable fact that the BBC`s Question Time has given far too much air-time to Ukip MEPs, and too little to MEPs from the other opposition parties.

       Robinson chose to ignore other criticisms of his generous pay-master, especially those relating to the interviewing techniques adopted by both himself and by his Today colleague, John Humphrys. Their use of repetition and interruption, especially when questioning Labour supporters and trade union leaders, adds more fuel to the allegations of bias, and has become as embarrassing as their feeble attempts to explain the gender pay gap at the BBC.

        It is little wonder Robinson did not attempt to justify this public owned corporation`s profligate pay policy, when the 2017 report by the National Audit Office revealed that the number of BBC managers earning over £150,000 was still increasing, despite the corporation`s pledge to reduce it by 20%? The BBC`s website reveals a list of over one hundred senior managers earning above that amount. Perhaps he would claim that such inflated pay packages were needed to fend off the likes of Rupert Murdoch, just as the presenter of a football highlights programme has to be paid millions to ensure football fans watch the programme?

     To make matters worse, the BBC is at the heart of another tax avoiding scandal, with HMRC investigating tax returns of around one hundred current and former presenters. It would seem the BBC is its own worst enemy, and until it delivers "due impartiality" and curbs its profligacy with public money, it deserves every criticism!

Real aim of centre party

I am willing to believe Andrew Rawnsley`s claim that there is a "segment of voters who feel disenfranchised by the choice between a Corbynised Labour party and a Rees-Moggifying Conservative party", but whether this "appetite" is sufficient to make the creation of a new political party worthwhile is doubtful (Opportunity knocks for a new party. But will anybody dare open the door? 08.04.18). The point of such a venture can only be to divide the Labour vote as happened in 1983, hand the Tories another five years of wielding their callous power, and blame the election defeat on a left-wing manifesto, to discourage the adoption of transformational policies.

     Despite moderate Labour being defeated in recent general elections, some millionaire donors, who have absolutely no connection or empathy with the millions of voters they need to support them, now think our most unfair and unequal society only requires minor changes. They are never going to back a party intent on ending tax avoidance, increasing the top levels of tax, or promising significant pay rises for teachers and carers. The "challenges facing Britain" about which they are concerned are not the same as the ones facing the millions of low-paid, landlord-exploited people fed up with rich politicians ruling for the benefit of the few.

    As for the idea that there exists a "convincing" leader with "star quality", perhaps Rawnsley was thinking of someone like Clegg or Osborne, two likely candidates for a post requiring a determination to maintain the status quo at all costs!

Monet for nothing!

Charging £22 for tickets to the new Claude Monet exhibition at the National Gallery naturally fuels the argument that there exists a "two-tier system", with only the very well-off being able to "afford special exhibitions" (All about the Monet: £22 tickets reignite row over gallery prices, 07/04/18). Free entry to exhibitions is clearly "not the way" the Gallery operates, as its director, with an annual salary of over £150,000, states, but, whilst Mark Knopfler might well nearly have said "Monet for nothing, and the tickets are free", £10 entrance charges should not be out of the question.

     Of course, the 30% cuts to the Arts Council budget have not been helpful, but the National Gallery, nevertheless, has acquired reserves of nearly £220million. Not only should these be used to lower prices to enable a wider audience to see pictures which, for most taxpayers, are still "impossible to see", but also to put on the same exhibitions in parts of the country other than London!