Return of Rachmanism

Robert Booth`s report on the appalling conditions endured by thousands of private tenants, "so squalid they are likely to leave them needing medical attention", is yet another indictment against a government claiming to care about the people it is meant to represent, and the "burning injustices" it pledged to remove (Hundreds of thousands at risk in squalid rented homes, 29/01/18). It is worth reminding readers that Conservative MPs two years ago voted against proposed new rules requiring private sector landlords "to ensure their properties were fit for human habitation", with the then local government minister, Marcus Jones, claiming the proposal would result in "unnecessary regulation and cost to landlords" (Tories reject move to ensure rented homes fit for human habitation, 12/01/16).

     To no one`s surprise, it later emerged that 72 of the MPs who voted against Labour`s amendment were themselves landlords. I trust the Labour candidates standing in those 72 constituencies in the next general election will let the voters know how their MPs voted. Booth`s report proves "rogue landlordism" is rife; successive governments have done too little to prevent tenants` exploitation, with the inevitable result - the return of "Rachmanism"!

May`s "tough new rules": as if!

The trouble with Theresa May`s promise to "rebalance the system in favour of ordinary working people" is that we have all heard the rhetoric before, and are still waiting to see the relevant action (Boardroom excesses can no longer be tolerated. The economy has to work for all, 21.01.18). On becoming prime minister in 2016, her Downing Street pledges to fight "burning injustices", help the "just about managing", and make Britain "a country that works not for a privileged few" led simply to continued unnecessary austerity policies and her support for more grammar schools!

  May`s big idea about restricting the excesses of capitalism was to have workers` representatives on company boards, but business lobbying soon put pay to that, which is why she has been forced to resort to the failed tactic of "naming and shaming", which has done absolutely nothing to reduce tax avoidance or paying wages below the minimum level required. Now forcing greedy directors to "explain themselves" is supposed to stop them arranging obscenely massive bonuses for themselves?

    Instead of issuing what are clearly not "tough new rules" about pay ratios and pension funds, a government determined to "stand up" to businesses would pass legislation, firstly to ensure the correct percentage of profit is paid into companies` pension funds before calculating shareholder dividends, and secondly, to set a sensible pay ratio between bosses and their workers. Such legislation would have the desired effect, but only if those who then chose to break these laws faced not doubtless affordable fines, but imprisonment. Similar punishment is needed, too, for auditors who give misleadingly positive trading figures for companies in far from healthy state of economic wellbeing.

New Statesman letter on Churchill

It was good to read Adrian Smith`s article on the "deeply flawed film", Darkest Hour, as it unfortunately still appears to be the trend, despite its repercussions, seen most obviously in the Brexit vote, to mis-remember so much of our history (Playing fast and loose with the truth, 19th January, 2018). Even your Leader referred to the myth about Britain standing "alone against Hitler`s Germany", forgetting the small matter of the support of the empire (Leader,19th January, 2018). Such "colonial amnesia" is all too common when our so-called "glorious past" is evoked to remind us of our pre-EU days.

   Churchill is the subject most frequently used in the triumphalism of our history, and results in some commentators` desire for "an equivalent figure today". Most voters would agree that a leader of principle is, indeed, needed, but where were Churchill`s principles when crossing the floor in Parliament - twice? A similar requirement exists for a prime minister with vision and humanity, but Churchill claimed the Beveridge plan to be unaffordable, and his version of "humanity" allowed him to make frequent racist comments, to refuse the export of food to prevent famine in Bengal in 1943, and to encourage the maintenance of chemical weapons in the Middle East.

   The history of our country is still being manipulated, with 1.2m files locked away in Hanslope Park, and distorted versions of the past, like Johnson`s "The Churchill Factor", aptly described by Nicholas Shakespeare as "a book-length job application", making the best-selling charts (The Hinge of fate, 19th January, 2018). The mythologisation of our history needs to  be acknowledged, and it should start with a more accurate evaluation of Churchill`s career.

Criticism of the Observer

My disappointment with the Observer`s inclusion of a grossly distorted and heavily biased article on "the great man", Churchill (If only we had a leader to match him, 07.01,18), was compounded by the paper`s failure to include any readers` letters of protest (Opinion, 14/01/18). With the Guardian and Observer having campaigned for many years against the manipulation of history (Foreign Office hoarding 1m historic files, 18.10.18, Uncovering the brutal truth about the British Empire, 18.08.16), it seemed ludicrous to see its protraction, and indeed, its extension.

 Having marked A-level history essays for over 40 years, I was surprised by the lack of balanced argument and completeness in Rawnsley`s piece, despite his Cambridge history degree. Then there was the exaggeration, even using the words "genius" and "superman" to describe Churchill, with conclusions based on unsubstantiated opinion, and above all, a refusal to analyse all of the available evidence. Rawnsley claimed the country needs leadership which combines Churchill`s "principle, vision and humanity", but there was no mention of his crossing the floor twice, or India, or chemical weapons, or even his opposition to the welfare state!

    If the country continues to believe in our mythical "glorious past", "exceptionalism" and great leaders, and that World War II was won by us "alone", is it any wonder that there exists a deluded view of our role in Europe? Trouble is, I never expected the Observer to contribute towards it.

Applauding Churchill?

Applauding  a film about Churchill has something to do with, as Simon Kelner says, "a nostalgic feeling", but much more to do with the result of years of manipulating history by modern governments (All cheer the flawed hero in our time of need, 17.01.18). The people have been drip-fed a distorted version of a mythical "glorious past", and that includes of the heroic wartime leader, whose lack of principle and humanity led to a "crossing of the floor" twice, and the death of millions of Bengals, and whose words, "Very well, alone" have led to a nationwide amnesia about the country`s indebtness to the colonies for their contribution in the war.

  Churchill would be as unelectable now as he was in 1945; not only was there his own history of being anti-union and worker, but his opposition to the welfare state, which, according to the Tories typically, could not be afforded, and would, in Churchill`s words, lead to Attlee needing to set up "some form of Gestapo". Thank goodness for the wisdom of the 1945 electorate! The shame is that the triumphalism of our history has, in part, led to the ridiculous and arrogant idea that we do not need Europe!    

Running down NHS

Theresa May`s pathetic attempt to display strong leadership, along with an equally feeble effort to convince voters that she is listening, explain her recent endeavours to replace the "lightweight and serial blame-passer" who is Jeremy Hunt (Pity the NHS, but it`s not time to get rid of Jeremy Hunt, 15/01/18). Toynbee is right to offer "two cheers for Hunt remaining", simply because his replacement would not only try to put his or her stamp on yet another "re-disorganisation" of the health service, but would be a Tory, and in this government that means someone who agrees with the policy of running down the NHS until privatisation is the only option remaining.

   The GP, Dave Triff, suggests that it would never cross people`s minds that "the government would have deliberately underfunded" the health service for the past seven years, but why not ("My heart surgery was cancelled on the day", 15/01/18)? Tory policy since 2010 has been to shrink the state, taking spending levels down to levels last seen in the 1930s. Running out of doctors, nurses, beds and care homes neither happens overnight nor by accident.

   A government which is prepared to use unqualified students in short-staffed hospitals, to cancel operations for thousands of sick patients at the last minute, and then attempt to mislead parliament and the public with "disingenuous" figures is only worthy of our contempt. A general election has never been more urgently required!

Hero-worshipping Churchill has to stop

How someone with a first-class honours degree in history from Cambridge can "misremember" so much in one article on Churchill beggars belief, especially in a newspaper, which constantly argues against the manipulation of our history, and in favour of releasing hidden history files from Hanslope Park (Wanted: A leader like Churchill, 07.01.18)!

     Of course, the country is currently in need of "leadership that combines principle, vision and humanity with the capacity to mobilise and unify", but Churchill`s "principles" allowed him to "cross the floor" twice! Similarly, his "humanity" led to his attempts to control the BBC during the General Strike, his sending of troops to end the strike at Tonypandy, his infamous racist comments, including the ones ensuring the death of three million during the Bengal famine of 1943, and even his encouragement of the use of chemical weapons in the Middle East. At a time when foreign policy needs to be based on compromise and caution, when the threat of terrorist attack has to be met with conciliation rather than armed conflict, the last thing Britain needs now is Churchillian aggression. How much damage did his "Iron Curtain" speech do to east-west relations?

   Fighting on in 1940 was a no-brainer, as the alternative was to lose the empire and face revolution at home; "very well, alone" stands out as one of the worst examples, both of our "colonial amnesia", and of the mythologisation of our so-called "glorious past". Rawnsley seems to have forgotten that Churchill was "unelectable" in 1945, as he would be now, and the millions, who have benefited from the NHS and the welfare state since then, have reason to be grateful for the wisdom of the postwar voters. In 1945, the Tories thought putting the Beveridge plan into action could not be afforded. Where have we heard that one before? In the election campaign, Churchill, in his first radio election broadcast, accused Attlee of wanting to behave like a dictator, despite his loyal service in the war cabinet. In order to put its plans into operation, Labour would, according to the Tory leader, "have to fall back on some form of a Gestapo"!

           It will be difficult to take Rawnsley`s columns seriously in the future, knowing that his biased view of the past ignores so much relevant evidence.