NS letter on a Centrist party

Paul Mason says, probably correctly, that the "vast majority of Labour MPs" mainly just want to "be armed with policies they can sell on the doorstep" (Another voice, 24th August, 2018). This begs a question relating to the actual policies "Corbyn`s most trenchant critics" would be advocating when promoting their new centrist party (Leaving Labour, 24th August, 2018). Presumably they would have rejected Corbyn`s plans to nationalise railways and energy, increase taxes for the rich, and to end austerity, ideas which have proved to be popular, and revert to the Tory-lite promises which cost Labour so dearly in the elections of 2010 and 2015?

 Whatever their choice, the "Fair Oak Farm participants" will only succeed in putting a smile on Tory faces. What would be written on the side of Umunna`s electoral bus? "Vote for me, and guarantee another ten years of Tory rule"?

Centrist govt not the answer

John Harris bemoans the fact that "our new political culture has superseded the dominance of what some call centrism", and argues that the welfare state and the "post war education system were basically the work of centrists" (With no centrist path our politics will completely lose its bearings, 27/08/18). It was that education system which designated at least 75% of our children to a largely inferior education in secondary modern schools, a situation which was remedied by the more left-wing, Anthony Crosland. The "centrist" Blair government might have created the minimum wage, but set at such a low level it did nothing to decrease inequality or the pay ratio. "Centrist" Cameron is praised for the "equal marriage" legislation, but his hugely damaging and unnecessary austerity policies, which amongst other things, destroyed the "centrist" creation, Sure Start, conveniently get no mention. What sort of governments created the housing, care and teacher recruitment crises?

  This country neither needs nor wants "centrist" policies, which, with their lack of regulation, do lead to "financial crashes", as Harris acknowledges, tenant and worker exploitation, and scant regard for the work done by state employees. What it does need is an end to the rip-off culture which all governments in the last forty years have encouraged, and a move towards a fairer and more just society, starting with increased taxation for the rich, and more state investment and involvement in transport and energy provision. Does Harris really believe a "centrist" government would do any of those things?

NS letter on Today programme

Roger Mosey`s insistence that the reason for the loss of 839,000 listeners to the Today programme is its persistence with "its new obsessions around the arts, country life and daily puzzles" is as myopic as the programme editor`s claim that "the state of our politics", in particular Brexit, is to blame (Off the Air, 17th August, 2018). Does it not occur to them that the fact that listeners are aware of the vast sums paid to the presenters, who then show outright bias in their interviews, has to be an important +NSfactor? 

      With real wages falling and public opinion moving to the left, chummy interviews with the likes of Gove and Hammond by presenters on £400000 a year contrast sharply with the short shrift given to arguments propounded by Corbyn supporters. Too often, concerns of ordinary people, the effects of austerity and need for income tax increases are ignored. Abrasive, interruption-packed interviews, requiring answers in far more detail, particularly financial, are the norm for politicians and union leaders from the left, and in recent weeks, there has again been a definite pro-Israeli bias. Mishal Husain`s interview with Lord Sheikh this month focussed on the latter being wrong to attend the conference in Tunisia in 2014, because the conference`s title included the words, "In the light of Israeli aggression"! That it was in September, 2014, after the death of 2,220 Gazans, 1492 of them civilians, in July and August, was seemingly  irrelevant.

     I fear the "compromise on impartiality", which Mosey mentions, has been made already; hopefully, Kamal Ahmed will realise it, too.

Britain`s responsibility to protest

If, as your editorial states, this country has "a particular responsibility" to protest at the "wave of repression" that has broken out across Zimbabwe, because of Britain`s former position as a "colonial power", the government is going to have its work cut out (Britain has a duty to tell new leader that repression must end now, 12.08.18). Rather than selling arms to the Saudis, and kowtowing to the Israeli government`s every whim, Britain should be interfering with all its might, to end both the slaughter of civilians in Yemen and the continuous undermining of Palestinians` rights. Isn`t that its duty, in view of the role it played in creating the problems developed in the area when it was the dominant imperial power there?

    Another part of the world is having over half its population humiliated and insulted every day, but the silence of the protests from Britain, again that area`s "former colonial power", is deafening. Trump can be as racist and misogynist as he wants, but the government`s policy remains one of embarrassing deference. Just because the buffoon of a foreign secretary has gone, does not mean the policy itself has improved. Flexing its muscles in Zimbabwe might tick some boxes in Whitehall, but it would be little compared to what a government with any sort of ethical foreign policy should be doing.

Beatle-song letter to NS

Don`t ask me why but if there`s a place for analysis of the Beatles` enduring popularity, it won`t be long before, if the editor will let it, be in the New Statesman (Ticket to write, 10th August, 2018). At any time at all, almost every little thing about "the greatest entertainment phenomenon of the 20th century" can be examined through their songs. I`ve got a feeling you`d have to be a little child not to know something about these boys. What goes on when editorial teams come together will never get back to the readers, but I want to tell you that a regular Beatle feature would make a change from articles on economic misery and revolution, money shortages and the role of the taxman. If you need any help, you know my name!

Praise for New Statesman

Many New Statesman readers like myself will have been delighted with last week`s edition. Notwithstanding the Leader column giving encouragement for a "red Ukip" party, the article on Faiza Shaheen was seriously uplifting (The Chingford Corbynite, 10th August, 2018). Not only is she aiming to defeat the Johnson apologist and personification of "the cruelty and harshness" of Tory austerity, Iain Duncan Smith, she stands for the values and principles which appeared lost to the Labour party until recently.

    Then Grace Blakeley offered a detailed explanation of not only how the financial institutions caused the 2008 crisis, but why "reining in finance" is necessary to fund the country`s current account deficit ("Bargain basement" Britain isn`t working"). Her substantiated support for "tougher regulation" allied with "more and better taxation" and increased government investment shows how Labour`s economic policies, when explained and argued properly, can win them the next election. Further clarification on how the proposed increases in taxation will only affect the wealthy, ie people earning over three times the national average, is needed, and, of course, more sensible analysis of policies in the press. Hopefully the New Statesman will show the way!

i letter on Pre-U exams

We are assured by Ofqual that students who have taken the tougher A-level examinations this year "will not be at a disadvantage compared with previous years" (Exam grades adjusted for reforms, 14/08/18). The worry is, however, that they will be at a disadvantage compared with students, mostly from private schools, who take Pre-U exams instead of A-levels. These exams are marked and set by teachers in the private sector, and last year had far higher percentages of students gaining A*/A grades.