Letter to Independent on OECD

Your editorial on the healthcheck given to the British economy by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) was a trifle selective and optimistic.(Independent,25/02/15) Should Britain really be feeling "pretty smug about economic life", when there are so many people working on zero hour contracts, when so many companies are failing to pay the minimum wage, let alone a living wage, and when pay is so low for so many an extra £900m had to be found recently for the extra benefits needed to enable them to survive. The "collapse in inflation" has indeed led to increased spending power, thereby helping to sustain some growth in the economy, but back in 2010, didn`t the government insist wage freezes were the answer? The same government described tax avoidance as "morally repugnant", but proceeded to cut staffing at HMRC by 20%!

     You recommend a "more imaginative approach to paying" for infrastructure, but ignore the possibility of government borrowing at what are in effect today, zero real interest rates, to pay for the huge amount of houses now needed, so that supply can catch up with the increased demand brought about the "Help to Buy" scheme.

     Even more surprising is your failure to mention the OECD`s warning about rising inequality, and the damaging effect it has on economic growth. Angel Gurria, who presented the report, actually said that had inequality not increased since the time of Thatcher`s government, the economy could be as much as 9% bigger today. Osborne, of course, is keen to view the report as praise for his "long-term economic plan", but that began with legislation to cut taxes paid by the rich;  it does not need an expert economist to realise the effect that would have on inequality! 

Tories and MPs` outside interests

Surprising to see the adverb, "astonishingly" used, in the article on the latest "cash-for access scandal", to describe Cameron rejecting Miliband`s "call to limit MPs` outside income".(Morning Star,24/02/15) His leadership of the Tory party is under such extreme pressure from the right-wing back-benchers, any agreement from him to "rein in their extra-parliamentary activities" was never on the cards. No doubt, he will be spouting forth about the necessity for MPs to have experience of the real world, so that they can empathise with the needs of their constituents, and serve them more effectively? Cameron and the Tories frequently say things like this, because they take us for mugs.

    They expect us to believe their support for an increase in wages, when their so-called "long-term plan" is for a low-wage economy; they expect us to accept that they really are determined to end the "morally repugnant" tax avoidance, even though they have cut the workforce at HMRC by 20%, and their much-vaunted "Google tax" is only intended to raise £355m a year, and then, not until 2019; Tories even consider it likely that people living north of  the Midlands will vote for them because of their support for creating "northern powerhouses", despite the billions spent on London and the south-east in the last five years. Voters must, presumably, forget the fact that the Tories ignored their manifesto promises after the last election, and still proceeded with top-down reform of the NHS and increases in VAT, and that Gove and Duncan Smith are just two of the front-bench who have been frequently reprimanded for their "economy with the truth". Tories are still attacking Labour as the "borrowing party" because it borrowed £142.7bn in its thirteen years in office. Voters are too dumb, in their eyes, to remember that they have borrowed £157.5bn in their five years of coalition government.

         Now they suddenly care about good governance? Probably as much as Rifkind does for the well-being of the poor, or the inflated rents charged by the profiteering private landlords, in his constituency!

        This isn`t the first time Miliband has called for MPs to be "banned from directorships and consultancies". Presumably, he realises, like the rest of us, that being on a British company`s board of directors in the 21st century, with agendas which include pay renumerations worthy of only one adjective - "obscene", dealings with accountants to discover new tax avoidance scams, discussions of "efficiency" which can only mean cutting jobs, and methods to maintain the "profit-at-all-costs-forget-ethics" ethos, is so far removed from the real world experiences of the average constituent, it is more of a hindrance to good governance than benefit. 

         What a shame Miliband didn`t see the need to insist that all Labour MPs and candidates reveal their tax details prior to the May election! This would have been embarrassing for some, no doubt, but it would have put the onus on the Prime Minister, Farage, and the other party leaders to follow suit. The fact that Labour`s response to Cameron`s failure to fulfil his promise on tax transparency, made back in early 2012, was a deafening silence, speaks volumes! 

     Nevertheless, Miliband has shown a degree of determination on the latest scandal, and it is to be hoped that his colleagues on Labour`s top table will show him more support than they have over his attempts to reduce student fees!

Guardian letter about EB sufferer

The G2 article on the epidermolysis bullosa sufferer, Lucy Glennon, should be compulsory reading for all those rich individuals and company CEOs, who think it clever to pay massive fees to accountants rather than paying their fair share of taxes.("You can`t twerk in a wheelchair",18/02/15) Essential reading, too, for politicians who think cutting welfare benefits for people like EB sufferers, who experience so much pain and suffering in their short lives, is the correct way to run the economy of the sixth richest country in the world, at a time when borrowing rates are at an all-time low, quantitative easing can raise £375bn for banks, the minimum wage is so low tax receipts are falling, and when cutting jobs at HMRC increases the likelihood of the tax gap staying at around £40bn a year. "Bullies in power", Lucy wrote, and who can argue?

      How ironic that Lucy should feel so strongly about the "cruelty" of the "work capability assessments" when they are carried out by Atos, a firm renowned both for its tax avoidance and government contracts. Hopefully, the next government will not only possess the compassion the coalition so obviously lacks, but the wherewithal to fund research for a cure for this most cruel of diseases.
More info: 

http://www.debra.org.uk/

Guardian letter on Ukraine

What a refreshing change to see commonsense written about the Ukrainian crisis! (Russia`s "sinister" long-term plan? A stable Ukraine,19/02/15) Dejevsky is right to say that sanctions against Russia, and the sabre-rattling by the west, "will only make matters worse".The greeting of last week`s ceasefire deal with "pessimism laced with cynicism" was only to be expected, especially as the UK and US were not involved in the Minsk agreement. We can expect more of "diplomacy`s wrongheadedness" from London and Washington, especially as the Tories will be eager to impress on the British electorate their unwillingness to pander to Putin`s insecurity, acting tough, but exacerbating the problem. Accepting that some of the blame for the Ukraine problem lies with the west would be a far more sensible approach. After all, it was the west who reneged on the promise made to Gorbachev in the various talks which preceded German unity. With West Germany being a member of NATO, and the east a member of the Warsaw Pact, the need for Russian agreement was imperative, and only when Baker, President Bush`s Secretary of State, said that there "would be no extension of NATO`s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east" was Gorbachev persuaded!

     Your editorial opines that "making the most of Europe`s and America`s economic advantages" is one way forward, but strangely omits the possibility of long-term economic agreements over the supply of gas and oil.(Cheating and bad faith, but still a chance the ceasefire will change the nature of the conflict,19/02/15) With Russia providing around a third of the EU`s oil, and nearly 40% of its gas, wouldn`t a deal to continue to take the same for the next ten years at an affordable, but considerably higher price than today`s, improve matters, and reduce the possiblity of further military conflict?

 

Arrogant Tories taking us for mugs

Yes, Andrew Rawnsley, the arrogance of the Tories does appear to know no bounds, with their “black and white balls” and attitude towards tax avoidance revealing them as “the champions and cronies of rootless, unpatriotic tycoons”.( If one thing will cost the Tories this election, it is their arrogance,15/02/15) However, arrogance is not the only “thing that will lose this election for the Tories”, as there is another, equally damaging Tory trait, and that is the contempt they have for the electorate. They really do take us for mugs!

 Will the average voter really be so impressed with the Tories` obviously close ties with the obscenely rich, that they will think they are the party well “equipped to run the nation`s finances”, or believe their ludicrous claim that they have shown more determination than any previous administration to reduce tax avoidance? Is the electorate not expected to know that this Tory-led coalition has borrowed £157.5bn in its five years in office, compared with the £142.7bn borrowed by the previous Labour government in its thirteen years, despite all their rhetoric about Labour being the “borrowing party”? Is the voter really so ignorant not to comprehend the significance of jobs being cut by 20% at HMRC by a government which describes avoiding tax as “morally repugnant”? After all, it has recently been shown that for every pound spent by HMRC`s business section, the return is £97!

    Even when  Ken Clarke suggests the need for the Tories to “loosen the hold of rich men on the financial survival” of the party, he actually “feeds into the distrust” of British politics.(Ken Clarke: Tory party must shun wealthy donors to avoid scandal,15/02/15)Voters are expected to trust them and accept the idea of a “donation cap” without being given any reassurance that the former single donor would be unable to rope in his family members to donate on his behalf.

Sadly, the arrogance is not confined to the Tories. The Lib Dems clearly think the electorate should ignore completely its role in passing such laws as the Bedroom tax, and tax cuts for the rich, whilst shadow ministers are obviously not being instructed to have aide-memoires with them when doing important media interviews. As if they would ever forget something important! Why, they even think a pink bus and conversation “around kitchen tables” will win them the female vote!

Miliband is not the problem

For months now, the British public have been inundated with press releases about Labour`s problems, generally focussing on Ed Miliband`s so-called "weirdness" and his lack of prime ministerial credentials. Steve Richards, for a change, has highlighted the Labour leader`s energisation as a "national figure when challenging orthodoxies and taking on powerful interests". (Only when Miliband is shaking things up is he at ease with leadership,17/02/15) Miliband may well be an "expedient insurgent", choosing his targets with care, but isn`t that not only a requirement of good leadership, but the very reason he is attacked so much by the Tories and their allies in the media? By promising to take action against the tax avoidance and evasion of rich individuals and companies, Miliband is again showing the determination denied to the electorate by the present government, keen as ever "to turn a blind eye"; Cameron`s five years in power have seen the staff at HMRC cut by 20%, when it has been shown that for every pound spent by HMRC`s business service, it collects £97, and £18 is the return on a pound spent by its local compliance unit.

       With the UK still the "equivalent of a rotting, run-down castle", the election is there to be won by Labour, but perhaps its problems do not lie with the leadership? At the launch of its industrial strategy, when speaking about dealing with hedge funds, Miliband remarked on the "clarity of view right across the shadow cabinet", as if such unity was rare.(Our focus is on hedge funds not hedge trimmers,insists Labour,17/02/14) Could it be the case that there are some on the election team a little too close to the City for comfort? After all, a pledge to join with the EU`s Financial Transaction Tax, when it comes into force next January, would seem an obvious source both of much needed revenue and electoral support.

       Richards is right to stress that Miliband`s "hunger for change" can win him the election, despite some lack of uniformity in the ranks; the problem is not with him, as the pro-Tory press like to insist, but there are certainly questions to be asked about the advisory team. What is the point of spending thousands on the likes of Axelrod for strategic advice, when crass decisions are made to send arrogant  members of the shadow cabinet into interviews without notes at hand, and attempt to attract female support by means of a pink minibus? There is much work still to be done!  

"Bus" and "Business" errors from Labour

Elections, which pundits describe as "too close to call", are often decided by defining moments in the parties` campaigns. Those of us old enough to remember still cringe at the memory of Neil Kinnock`s "rush of blood" a week before the 1992 election at the Sheffield rally". Then, of course, there`s Gordon Brown`s "bigoted woman" faux pas in Rochdale in 2010!  A repeat of such carelessness, one would have thought, would be the last thing Labour, with its team of advisers and American election-aides, would tolerate.

     Emily Maitliss on "Newsnight" is a worthy successor to the overrated Paxman, keen as she is to weadle out of politicians the information most of the public require. So when the shadow chancellor is due to appear on the programme, at a time when the Labour party is under the media`s cosh for an apparent anti-business stance, it is not rocket-science to guess successfully what the questions` focus might be, and to prepare accordingly. "Need business leaders worry should Labour win the election?" "Will a Labour government help or hinder investment?" "Are there any business leaders actually supporting Labour?" " Can you name them?"

      Why do arrogant Labour leaders think they can manage without aide-memoires? Wasn`t Miliband`s gaffe at the conference an example for them all to avoid at all costs? Do they really think the voters are impressed when politicians want to show how clever they are by using no notes? Memory lapses happen to us all, but lack of preparation smacks of carelessness and hubris. However, provided such things don`t occur on a regular basis between now and May, it shouldn`t do too much damage to Labour`s election hopes, and at least, Miliband is being "practised" for the TV debates.

       Sadly,however, something worse has already happened, and this time, there can be no excuses whatsoever, as presumably the decision to run with it was taken after much group discussion and debate? This could well cost them the election; it has certainly dented my faith in the leadership, and I am a staunch Labour supporter who wants desperately a Labour victory to see off the most callous of governments in modern times. Goodness knows what effect it has had on those considering giving Labour their vote, perhaps for the first time!!

      How could any politician, or anyone calling him or herself a political adviser in the 21st century, actually think for longer than a mini-second that female Labour MPs touring the country in a pink minibus was anything other than downright patronisation of women? They even compounded what was already a massive problem by saying it would enable them to discuss politics with women "around the kitchen table"!! They`re not even joking! "Grease" came to our cinemas in 1978, for goodness sakes, and even then, it was about a society in the 1950s in which it was cool to be a member of the "pink ladies". Didn`t anyone on Labour`s top table realise what an idiotic decision it would be to have a mini-battlebus anyway, without it being pink? One can only imagine what damage has been done, and what delight there would have been if the Tories had done it, confirming how out of touch with the ordinary people, and reality, they are. Is the electorate really expected to believe that Labour is different from the other parties? Boy, have they got an awful lot, both of work to do and manifesto changes to make, if this wrecked campaign isn`t going the same way as Kinnock`s. At least, his "rush of blood" was his alone!

 Questions have been asked about whether the Tories actually want to reduce tax avoidance and collect more revenue, because it would almost force them to improve public services. The question about Labour is even simpler: do they really want to win this election?