Why drugs but not taxes?

When politicians admit to having taken class A drugs in their younger days, and are then found to have introduced policies which led to others losing their jobs for the same offence, they rightly "face accusations of hypocrisy", and hit the front pages of the country`s newspapers (Gove is branded a hypocrite after admitting using cocaine, 09.06.19). It leads to others making similar confessions, but does nothing, apparently, to prevent them continuing with their bids to become party leader and prime minister.

  It seems absurd then that far less care is taken when scrutinising the tax payments of these would-be prime ministers, and indeed, why it is not a requirement of all candidates in the race for any party leadership to make public their own, and those of their partners, recent tax records. The winner of the current race will be responsible for all tax policies in the country, from income tax rates and VAT levels, to corporate tax rates and the measures to be taken to regain the billions lost every year through tax avoidance. Yet the UK electorate has no clue whatsoever about the amount of tax paid by any of the Tory leadership candidates! Knowing more about the drugs they took over twenty years ago and nothing about how much tax they currently pay is simply ludicrous!

Paul Johnson, "IFS guru", is undoubtedly correct when saying, as quoted in Polly Toynbee`s article, that none of the candidates for Tory leadership has a "fiscal strategy" for the country, and that none of their figures add up (The Tory leadership candidates - all in denial, all in dreamland, 11/06/19). Whether this is true of their personal fiscal policies is more of a moot point, especially as none of them is prepared to make public their own tax records, let alone those of their partners, and thereby throw down the gauntlet to the others.

Ian Birrell is rightly incensed by the "sickening display of double standards"  exhibited by the candidates for the Tory leadership (The elite`s double standards on drugs, 10/06/19).The country has had enough of politicians who "say one thing and do another". How long have we been hearing about government`s aims to end tax avoidance, but seen nothing to bring back the billions which are lost every year? Finding out about politicians` drug taking in their youth is clearly important, but is it really as relevant as discovering their recent tax records, plus those of their partners?

      In fact, shouldn`t it be a prerequisite of all candidates for party leadership that recent tax records be made public? It would almost certainly have reduced the number of runners and riders in this particularly ridiculous race! Details of their recent claims for parliamentary expenses would no doubt prove enlightening also.

Ian Birrell is rightly incensed by the "sickening display of double standards"  exhibited by the candidates for the Tory leadership (The elite`s double standards on drugs, 10/06/19).The country has had enough of politicians who "say one thing and do another". How long have we been hearing about government`s aims to end tax avoidance, but seen nothing to bring back the billions which are lost every year? Finding out about politicians` drug taking in their youth is clearly important, but is it really as relevant as discovering their recent tax records, plus those of their partners?

Following Gove`s admission, as Matthew d`Ancona says, the other candidates for Tory leadership "all now have to go through the same ritual, admitting what drugs they have taken in the past" (Hard Brexit is the drug Tories need to wean themselves off, 10/06/19). What a shame the "ritual" does not also include having to make public all of the recent tax records belonging to them and their partners. Not only would it ensure the country was getting a prime minister serious about ending tax avoidance, something which up to now has clearly been missing, it would also guarantee a more sensible number of runners and riders entering the Tory race!

Most of us will have agreed with London mayor, Sadiq Khan, when he  said he found the "idea that Boris Johnson`s record as mayor was an application for the job of prime minister astonishing! (Morning Star, 02/06/19). Every time Johnson`s name appears in the press there should be in brackets a list of his ten most obvious gaffes and sexist comments. Also included should be some of excerpts from book reviews, as rightly happened when Rees-Mogg fancied himself, like Johnson, as a pseudo-historian!

       Indeed, if there was a chance that the mainstream media in this country would delve into details, rather than offering a brief summary of CVs, there most definitely not have been the ridiculous situation of thirteen (at the time of writing) candidates joining in the race to woo the approx.100,000 Tory party members.

  The party`s 1922 committee have tightened up some rules about having to have eight or so backers before entering the contest (well it is about who will be the next prime-minister!), but in a modern democratic and transparent society, regulations should be much tighter, and that goes for all the main parties. 

   The number of candidates would be seriously reduced if a requirement for entry was making public their tax records, plus those of their partners. The public have a right, too, to be made aware of recent parliamentary expense claims, the number of properties owned including those rented out, extra-parliamentary earnings and all business interests. 

The race for Tory leadership provides ample scope for ridicule, and who better than Marina Hyde to ensure that every candidate promising to "deliver Brexit" gets the Michael duly extracted (Full no-dealers take on bluffers in race not to deliver Brexit, 01/06/19)? Providing fodder for clever columnists, however entertaining the product, should not be the main purpose of the contest, which, heaven help us, is going to provide  the country`s next prime minister.

    With the runners and riders already lining up for the Lib Dem leadership too, some sensible regulation is clearly required for such competitions. How about an expectation that all leadership contenders for any party should make public all their taxation records, plus those of their  partners, and of course, their recent parliamentary expenses` claims? I can`t imagine the fields would be quite so crowded if this rule was in place!

   

Johnson`s popularity will be short-lived!

Polly Toynbee`s hatchet job on Johnson and the hundred-plus Tory MPs, the real "ones to blame, crowding in to join his bandwagon", did not actually go far enough (Boris Johnson spoke: you can`t trust a word, 13/06/19). Most of the Johnson-supporting MPs will indeed be hoping for one of the "120 plum posts", thinking also that with him as prime minister out-Faraging Farage, their seats can be saved from Labour in the next election, but what Toynbee doesn`t mention is how short-lived Johnson`s popularity will be.

      Being prone to the odd gaffe and having a reputation of being something of a rogue, will only be popular attributes in the short-run; even before his arrival in Downing St, inevitably there will be, what Toynbee calls  "nation-shamingly", exposures, a mixture of revelations of infidelities, tax irregularities, gross exaggeration of past achievements, and bare-faced lies. By the time of the general election, Johnson`s inability to grasp detail will be obvious to all, and Tory MPs will have huge difficulty in explaining their choice of such an inept leader to an embarrassed electorate. Even Corbyn`s team should realise what damage six questions demanding detailed answers on a variety of subjects will do at PMQs.

     Lets not make the Tory mistake of treating the voters as mugs; Johnson is no "One Nation" Conservative, and will take his party down with him! 

Flawed BBC argument

It`s little wonder that the BBC "faced fierce criticism" over its decision to make most over-75s pay the TV licence fee (End of free TV licence for millions of over-75s, 11/06/19). Arguing that this was the "only way to avoid closing channels and making substantial cutbacks" is the most feeble of excuses, especially when the corporation`s history of profligacy is taken into account.

    Alternative "ways" include imposing a salary cap on all of its presenters and managers, and insisting on a strict policy of no tax avoidance. Why there is  a need to pay obscene amounts of licence-fee payers` money to presenters of sports highlights programmes, pundits and newsreaders escapes me, especially when there is so much kudos to be gained by working for the national broadcasting company. Similarly why the BBC has to pay well over one hundred of its "managers" more than the prime minister`s salary is equally bewildering.

Relationship not so "special" in 1939-40!

John Harris rightly reminds us again of the myths which prevent "any instinctive popular understanding of our national past", mentioning particularly "splendid isolation, the glories of the second world war, and the wonders of empire" (Brexit is the act of a country that is blind to its own history, 03/06/19). It would certainly have been apposite to have also included some factual details about the so-called "special relationship", especially when our apparent closest ally decided not to intervene to help us in the troubled years of war between its outbreak and December, 1941.

            Notwithstanding events like Dunkirk and the Blitz, it was only when Japan attacked Pearl Harbour that the US decided to intervene, and even then it was only Hitler`s declaration of war against them which brought us the much-needed military help! Unsurprisingly that section of the history of the "special relationship" is another aspect of our past which is either ignored or deliberately forgotten! Those trusting Trump to come to our aid, as most Brexiteers seem to do, need to check up on their history!

Labour and Brexit (3)

Just in case any more evidence is required to support the arguments put forward by Polly Toynbee (Remainers won these elections. They`d win a referendum too, 28/05/19),and Paul Mason (Corbynism is in crisis. Labour will have to oppose Brexit, 28/05/19), for Labour to "unite around the strategy of remain and reform", the latest email to Labour members has arrived. "With parliament deadlocked", it says, the issue of Brexit "will now have to go back to the people, whether through a general election or a public vote". Avoiding a "disastrous No-Deal Brexit" is clearly crucial, but what is still missing is the essential ingredient: its policy on Europe, given today`s circumstances.

 Winning a general election has become a much more remote possibility since 2017, and the reason is clear; Labour`s remain supporters will continue to leave until there is a clear commitment from Corbyn! Further delays and, as Mason says, officials like Milne and Murphy will have to go. Even Theresa May had the courage to sack Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill after her 2017 fiasco!

Your editorials have frequently and rightly warned against plots by the Labour right, which is why McCluskey was right to say that no notice should be taken of the "phoneys" like Blair and Mandelson who obviously would "sooner have a Tory government than a Corbyn government". That does not mean, however, that every criticism of Labour`s leadership should be viewed as an anti-Corbyn plot, or as Sunday`s editorial put it, a "revolt against Jeremy Corbyn" (Morning Star, 216/05/19). The fact is Labour`s approach to a second vote has been "mealy-mouthed", as Watson says, and it did cause disaster in the European polls, as it would in a general election.

      Corbyn`s leadership was supposed to be based on change, including a pledge to listen to the membership, giving them "a greater say in decision-making", as he himself said after his leadership election victory in 2016. Supporters will only, to use McCluskey`s words, "stick with Corbyn" if he does what he promised, because the thousands of us who support him do so because of his principled stance on all issues.If there is, as your editorial implies, some confusion about what Labour members actually want, a ballot is vital!

   Having "overwhelmingly popular policies" sadly will not win a general election if they are accompanied by a refusal to fully commit to remaining in the EU, given the awful consequences of the No-deal departure arranged by the next right-wing Tory leader.

As your editorial rightly said, the expulsion of Alastair Campbell questions whether Jeremy Corbyn "has thought carefully about the message from the voters" (Purging Alastair Campbell is a vindictive distraction from more serious issues, 29/05/19). Indeed, the whole issue highlights once again the lack of joined-up thinking in Labour`s leadership team. If the expulsion is supposed to distract from the latest anti-semitism problem, Brexit  or the European election fiasco, Labour is as guilty as the Tories for treating  the electorate as mugs, regarding them as unable to see what is really happening. If the decision was taken "not because of what Campbell did, but because of who he was", didn`t anyone think of what the consequences might be, of what the media would make of it, and how many others would admit to the same offence? Shouldn`t someone have pointed out the effects on the voters who need to be persuaded of Corbyn`s leadership qualities if an election victory is to become possible?

Rather than feeding the right-wing press continuously with anti-Labour propaganda, the party`s leadership team should be concentrating on ways to win the next election. At the moment they seem determined to lose it! 

Observer letter on private schools playing exam system

Any reforms which tackle the problem of state schools "playing" the examination system, and "end the incentive for schools to rid themselves of pupils who could depress their overall exam results" are to be welcomed, but they also beg an obvious question (Schools told to stop using exclusions to boost their results, 05.05.19). Why are there no measures to prevent schools in the private sector "playing" the system? They enter their pupils for Cambridge Assessment`s IGCSE exams, which have not been subject to the changes which have made GCSE examinations, compulsory in state schools, more rigorous? These exams are clearly employed to "boost results", just like the Pre-U exams, where coursework still figures prominently in the final assessment, are being used by most independent schools instead of the highly regulated and newly reformed A-levels.

Similarities with Weimar

As Martin Kettle says, there exist in the UK at the moment far too many “similarities” with Weimar Germany for comfort (A new exhibition in Berlin highlights how quickly a loss of respect for democracy can end in catastrophe, 16/05/19). It does not require rocket science qualifications either   to notice the falling “out of love with parliament”, the lack of cooperation between parties, and the far right`s repeated message of “national betrayal”, or to link them with a possible surge in support for a right-wing autocracy.

It is worth mentioning, however, that Hitler`s rise initially was through democratic votes in general elections, with the Nazis becoming the biggest party in the Reichstag after the 1932 June election. It was after the November election of that year when they actually lost ground, when it was decided to  offer Hitler the chancellorship, leading to the Enabling law and the destruction of opposition parties. Divisions on the left, with the inevitable lack of viable policies to challenge the promise of a strong Germany coming from Hitler, were an important factor in the rise of fascism, and must not be repeated here. The Labour leadership has a duty to provide a united opposition to the threat from the right; if Labour  loses the support of its “remain” voters, and their votes shared around smaller parties, a really significant and dangerous  “similarity” could be created, “with terrible consequences”!