Pay gap solutions (Observer letter)

"Tough action to match the rhetoric" is not something anyone can seriously associate with May`s government, and publishing the names of stock exchange companies "that suffered at least a 20% shareholder rebellion against proposals for executives` pay" or other resolutions at shareholder meetings, simply strengthens the argument (Chief executives are hard to embarrass: rules on pay must get even tougher, 24.12.17). Not only will it do little to "rein in excessive awards", as these executives, like bankers,  really are "immune to embarrassment", the list is incomplete. For example, it omits Persimmon, because only 9.7% of its shareholders objected to the renumeration proposals which gave 150 bosses a share of £600 million, with the CEO pocketing over £100m, and it will have omitted many more. Far from being an initiative which "bore fruit" as your Business Leader contends, the government`s list will ensure this particular "unacceptable face of capitalism" keeps smiling.

      Trusting in the ethical behaviour of businessmen is like believing bankers have to be given bonuses to keep the "best people" in the City. Having rules to force all companies "to publish pay data", as the Leader suggests, is not enough; since when has "naming and shaming" had any success in deterring businesses or rich individuals from pursuing tax avoidance policies? 

    Alternative proposals with more chance of success involve parliamentary legislation. A sensible ratio between  CEOs` pay and the average worker in the companies has to be agreed upon, and a law passed enforcing the decision. Failing that, raising the top levels of income tax to such heights that the amassing of obscene wealth becomes impossible, would not be unpopular with the majority of voters. Such a policy is not unprecedented, with Wilson` government in the 1970s having a top level of 83% for earnings, plus an extra 15% for investment income.

    CEOs, like university vice-chancellors, do not achieve results on their own, and if legislation is needed to end their greed and shrink their arrogance, so be it!

Ofsted should place blame where it really lies

Ofsted has an absolute nerve to announce that "more than a hundred schools have not improved for over a decade", as if it was their fault (Morning Star, 14/12/17). Amanda Spielman, the chief inspector, also showed  concern for the treatment of some of the UK`s disadvantaged children by saying that the practice of "off-rolling is an invidious example" of schools losing sight of the purpose of education. It is all very well for politicians like Andrew Adonis to call for a ban on what he called "the cancer of school expulsions", and on manipulated admissions, but as long as both the main focus of Ofsted and the government is on examination results, and Tory governments continue to underfund state sector education, schools have hugely difficult choices to make.

      "Difficult children", and those with special needs, require urgent and careful attention, but how can schools afford the cost of such requirements? Perhaps Ms Spielman would prefer pupils with behaviour issues to sit in with the GCSE pupils, but what would her inspectors say of the lesson which was constantly interrupted, or of the school with subsequently declining results? Schools employing specialist teachers, or setting up their own referral-units, have to make sacrifices elsewhere, which often means subject like drama and dance being dropped from the curriculum.

       Ofsted does enjoy a "unique overview" and has the ability to "speak truth unto power"; it should be placing the blame where it really lies, with the government and its failure to fund state schools and their teachers adequately!

Democracy and transparency

Yet more proof that this government`s commitment to the so-called "British values" of democracy and transparency cannot be taken seriously (Files on Britain`s most controversial episodes vanish from archives, 26/12/17). Not only has it repeatedly refused to release the "1.2m historical files" locked away at Hanslope Park, and so enable historians to reveal the truth about, among other things, British behaviour in the colonies during the time of the British Empire, it now appears to be complicit in the disappearance of crucial documents "after civil servants removed them from the National Archives and then reported them lost". The fact that these papers cover "some of the most controversial episodes in 20th century British history", and whose study would clearly reveal information damaging to previous governments and past establishment figures indicate that the state`s manipulation of our history continues, and transparency as far away as ever.

    A  government wishing to reveal its support for democracy would aim to remove "barriers to democratic engagement", rather than make it more difficult for any age group to vote (Plans to pilot voting ID "could hit older people", 26/12/17). Labour is right to focus on the problems caused both by the photo ID requirement, and the inaccessibility of most polling stations, which these days should surely be made more numerous, and placed in areas like supermarket entrances, and college campuses. 

   "Safeguarding our democracy" from fraud, as the minister for the constitution says, is important, but a government  experimenting with ways to ease the voting experience and increase electoral turnout, would be more convincing; after all, the record recent Tory governments have of "protecting the most vulnerable" is hardly impressive!

Unbelievable BBC!

How typical of the BBC. In a year when we have seen 

 austerity measures and infrastructure underfunding continued by the Tories,

 an election where the Tory majority has been slashed, 

Brexit talks embarrassing the nation, 

Tories sucking up to Trump and insulting our real allies, 

Conservative Cabinet members forced to resign for sexual harassment, 

and a Labour leader whose popularity has soared to heights rarely seen in this country, despite the abuse hurled at him by the media, 

who gets chosen as politician of the year? 

A Tory!

Unbelievable!

Crossing the line

The country has, indeed, "crossed the line", as Barbara Ellen says, when homeless nurses are "among the people who are placed in emergency accommodation", but sadly, that line has been crossed all too frequently in recent years (If our nurses are homeless, we`ve crossed the line, 17.12.17). Evidence for the "troubling societal shift" has been in existence for a while, with libraries and sure start centres closing whilst HMRC was cutting thousands of jobs, and with austerity policies targeting the least fortunate while the rich received tax cuts.

     More immediately, we have seen a Cabinet minister deliberately misleading his fellow parliamentarians over Brexit preparations, and receiving only the mildest of rebukes, and heard of a family having a "lucky" week when invited to a funeral with food provided. In education, not only has it been been admitted that social mobility is clearly not a priority, but also that so-called "top" public schools were able to tell their pupils in the summer their Pre-University examination questions, because they had set them. The head of Eton even owned up to the Commons` select committee that seven of his teachers are involved in writing the questions for their A-level alternatives, something which the education "watchdog", Ofqual, has since deemed perfectly okay.

  The "lines" are being crossed almost every day, and even more worrying is that there may be no change until 2021. Has the UK in modern times ever been in greater need of a general election?

Ofsted and government to blame!

Whilst Amanda Spielman`s concern for the "treatment of some of the UK`s disadvantaged children" is to be welcomed, it is a bit rich for her to say that the practice of "off-rolling is an invidious example" of schools losing sight of the purpose of education (Vulnerable pupils abandoned by school system, says Ofsted chief,10.12.17). It is all very well for politicians like Andrew Adonis to call for a ban on "the cancer of school expulsions", and, indeed, for your editorial to criticise schools which "manipulate admissions", but as long as both the main focus of Ofsted and the government is on examination results, and Tory governments continue to underfund state sector education, schools have hugely difficult choices to make (Champion of the deprived, 10.12.17).

      "Difficult children", and those with special needs, require urgent and careful attention, but how can schools afford the cost of such requirements? Perhaps Ms Spielman would prefer pupils with behaviour issues to sit in with the GCSE pupils, but what would her inspectors say of the lesson which was constantly interrupted, or of the school with subsequently declining results? Schools employing specialist teachers, or setting up their own referral-units, have to make sacrifices elsewhere, which often means subject like drama and dance being dropped from the curriculum, and we know what papers like the Guardian and Observer think of that (Scrapping GCSE drama from the curriculum would be madness, 02.11.14)!

      Ofsted does enjoy a "unique overview" and has the ability to "speak truth unto power"; it, and your editorials, should be placing the blame where it really lies, with the government and its failure to fund state schools and their teachers adequately!

University recruitment

There is, of course, "a hidden profit motive" which encourages universities to "recruit as many students as possible paying top whack", as your editorial states (The market in higher education: not just about vice-chancellors` pay, 08/12/17). "Driving up quality through the power of student choice" is, indeed, an unlikely result of the "marketising" of higher education, and it is made even more implausible by two recent additions to the equation. The first is that many universities are attempting to make themselves look more attractive to potential undergraduates by making them unconditional offers, something which will undoubtedly cause despair to their over-stressed teachers, keen to maximise their potential.

     The second is the revelations recently made, after the summer cheating scandal, about Pre-U examinations, which many public schools now prefer to A-levels in many subjects for their sixth formers. No wonder, when we learn that many of these examinations are set by teachers in the private sector; the head of Eton recently reported to the Commons` select committee on education that seven of this year`s examinations were set by members of his staff. Ally this to the fact that these examinations are not overseen by the Joint Council for Qualifications as A-levels are, and we have a situation where standards might well be being driven down, and for this, universities and government policy must share responsibility.

Boris as Tory leader? Bring it on!

Most  NS readers will have been as amused as I was when reading the article by the editor-in-chief of what has been described as "the Bible of the banking fraternity", in which Tory MPs were urged "to start getting behind Boris" (Philandering won`t hold Johnson back, 1st December, 2017). William Cash appeared upset that "the new darling" of the Tories, Jacob Rees-Mogg, is the "bookies` favourite to be the next Tory leader", and prefers Johnson, because he apparently sees voters as "there to be drawn in, persuaded, teased, entertained and signed up". Is there anything more entertaining than Tories grasping at straws?

   It is difficult to support Cash`s claim that "the left fears Johnson", when the Labour leader`s popularity is based on a view of politics that is so distant from the one held by the foreign secretary. Corbyn`s strong principled beliefs contrast sharply with the opportunist and manipulative career moves of Johnson, and they clearly resonate with young voters, fed up with Tory policies which favour the rich and  big business, whilst imposing austerity measures on the least fortunate.

  If Johnson`s "charisma is the Conservative Party`s greatest electoral asset", it is an acknowledgement of its intellectual bankruptcy, devoid of ideas, bereft of unity and leadership, and guilty of leading the country into a Brexit which increasingly and suspiciously looks like a bonfire of regulations and workers` rights. Voters are fed up of being treated like mugs, and will not forget Johnson`s lies in a hurry. Many, like me, will relish the prospect of him as Tory leader, facing questions from a live audience in the build-up to an election. Bring it on!

Social mobility:as if the Tories cared

The suggestion that the resignation of the entire Social Mobility Commission is a "huge blow" to a prime minister who has "hinged her whole domestic agenda around improving opportunity" has little credibility, simply because of lack supporting evidence (For all May`s talk of meritocracy, she does nothing but reinforce privilege over opportunity,03.12.17). Even the excuses made to deflect blame from Tory governments, such as "deindustrialisation over the last 30 years", and generational wealth gaps, ignore governments` failure to distribute infrastructural investment away from the south-east.

     In education since 2010, governments have not only diverted funds from the state system to aid the creation of free schools, simultaneously threatening the return of grammar schools, they have ended the Education Maintenance Allowance which helped pupils from poorer backgrounds enter sixth forms, and removed coursework elements from external assessments. This is not the work of administrations keen to improve social mobility, especially when accompanied by austerity measures which have increased, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the number of children living in poverty by 400,000 in the last four years.

    The editorial mentioned the advantages gained by pupils at "elite public schools", but omitted to acknowledge the fact that Pre-U examinations have replaced A-levels in many independent schools. The head of Eton admitted to the Commons` select committee on education that seven of his staff are involved in the setting of these examinations, and no doubt the marking too! This becomes even more alarming when allied to the fact that Cambridge Assessment International Education, which runs Pre-U exams, is not a member of the body responsible for examination regulations and inspections, the Joint Council for Qualifications!

    Meg Kneafsey`s article on the "appalling behaviour" at Durham University simply added fuel to the argument for a law limiting the undergraduate intake of each university to 7% from the private sector, in line with national figures (Sneering at miners reflects a deeper malaise in our universities,03.12.17).

Scandal surrounding public schools and Pre-U exams

When news broke last August of an examination cheating scandal at top public schools Eton and Winchester, few in the UK had heard of Pre-U exams. When the details of the cheating were revealed, it became clear that in many independent schools, these examinations are taken instead of A-levels. As if the playing-field wasn`t sufficiently uneven, many of the privately educated are able to get their qualifications for entry to university by taking examinations which most teachers, let alone the public, didn`t know existed.

 Why do so many so-called "elite" independent schools favour Pre-U examinations in the first place? It appears these examinations were created in response to demands from private schools, because, presumably, they were not happy with the A-levels which the vast majority of 6th form students in the country take. Why? On the Pre-U website, Winchester College recommends these examinations, as they "are very liberating for teachers". In what ways? Are the courses and assessment procedures so different? Are the fees for these examinations higher than for "bog-standard" A-levels, and therefore out of the reach of most fund-starved state schools?

   What we do know is that Cambridge Assessment International Education, which is part of Cambridge University, runs the Pre-U exams and appoints the examiners, who just happen, often to be independent school teachers, which explains why there was cheating  this summer. Winchester college was forced to suspend its head of history of art , according to the Guardian (28/08/17), "after allegations he gave students prior information on exam questions". Similarly, the "deputy headmaster of academics" at Eton was forced to leave after questions were allegedly distributed to his students from the economics examination.

 So many unanswered questions, and so many doubts raised about the fairness of the education system, as if it wasn`t skewed enough already in favour of the wealthy. Never mind, here comes our trusted democratic parliamentary system to the rescue.

 Yes, the Commons` select committee on education invited the head of Eton, a director of Ofqual, and the chief executive of Cambridge Assessment International Education (CIE) to answer questions last Tuesday. The Guardian headlined that the Eton head would be "grilled". Excellent! All will be revealed and we will find out the answers to our many queries about these examinations.

    Sadly, however, there was no grilling, not even a mild heating, and watching the recording of events is not recommended. The Eton head admitted that seven of his staff set papers for exams taken by their own pupils pupils, and what also was particularly relevant was that the CIE is not a member of the organisation which is responsible for examination regulations and inspections, the Joint Council for Qualifications. CIE`s chief executive admitted the number of incidents of exam malpractice had risen from 269 in 2013 to 719 this year worldwide, hardly encouraging if we are to believe in the integrity of their exams! Ofqual do not even include the CIE when reporting on malpractice! What no-one mentioned was what happens in the classroom when the teacher knows the exam questions in advance, even if the pupils don`t:; there is so much room for putting more obvious emphasis on certain topics than on the others not being examined.

      What we need to know is how Pre-U examinations are different and why so many independent schools prefer them for their pupils than the A-levels taken by the vast majority of state schools. There must be yet more advantage gained for children attending public school, as if there wasn`t enough already!

Britain and Trump

The UK needs to take a stand over Trump’s approach to Israel

There may be “no one in the White House able to restrain him”, as Robert Fisk says, but that does not mean Britain and her Nato and European allies should be doing nothing.

It is not enough for Boris Johnson to say he was “concerned about reports Trump would recognise Jerusalem as Israel`s capital”. Downright disapproval is needed immediately, then joint communiques from European leaders disassociating themselves from Trump’s idiotic action, and then the return of all American diplomats from their embassies, starting with the one in London. Cancelling Trump`s forthcoming visit to the UK is also an immediate priority.

It is not good enough to wait for Americans to take action themselves against him: Americans wanting to impeach their president need all the support they can get!

Guardian letter on social mobility

Alan Milburn diplomatically attributed the government`s failure to "deliver on the issue" of social mobility to there being "too much focus on Brexit" (Brexit and fairness don`t add up, 04/12/17). One does not, however, need to be left of the "far- centre of an opposition", as Zoe Williams claims, to be finding "May`s equality shtick rather hard to swallow", as her repeated failures to act on any one of her aims regarding "burning injustices" stated in her Downing Street speech lead to an all too obvious conclusion (Never mind social mobility. Poverty is an insult to us all, 04/12/17).

      Williams is right to say that support for the Child Poverty Act was "only skin-deep", but sadly, the same is true of all recent Tory announcements on social improvement. Giving priority to policies of austerity, tax reduction and state-shrinking means everything else becomes mere rhetoric, designed only to win votes. The Social Justice and Mobility Commission was never intended to have the power to initiate change; after all, giving more opportunities to people from working-class backgrounds inevitably means less opportunities for the middle and upper classes. Having the EU around as a scapegoat, deflecting blame from the government for the poverty and minimal opportunities for improvement, came in particularly handy for the dominant faction in government, leaving us, of course, with an ever "worsening problem".

Tax and productivity

Andrew Rawnsley was right to say that "politicians have been slow to come to a subject that has been troubling economists for some time", and the result of their apathy is the current low productivity with its projected growth rate of 1.2% (Life is going to turn very nasty if we can`t solve the growth puzzle, 26.11.17). The five "foundations" of the government are based on, in Rawnsley`s words, "addressing skills shortages and deficient infrastructure", but they, despite what the Business Leader states, are most certainly not "fine as far as they go" (An industrial strategy that puts the whole country on the map is the way to lift UK, 26.11.17). There is a huge omission, and without it, any industrial strategy will flounder.

       It is, of course, reform of the existing tax system, which encourages short-termism and a bonus culture. Far too many CEOs are obscenely rewarded because they have overseen a rise in profits rather than in productivity, and an increase in the dividend paid to shareholders rather than in the amount produced. Raising the highest band of income tax would at least show both the government`s serious intentions in dealing with the productivity problem, and its awareness of where much of the problem lies. A sensible tax structure is needed to encourage CEOs to invest in technology and training rather than to accumulate wealth for themselves and shareholders! More scrutiny of bosses` actions instead of workers` hourly productivity would result in bigger dividends for the country as a whole.

Labour and Brexit

Jonathan Rutherford states a number of obviously incontrovertible points, but just because the country needs "national leadership, political resolve, and a strategy for a better country", does not necessarily lead to the conclusion he favours (Why the left should support Brexit, 24th November, 2017). It is noticeable that he omits any mention of the fact, stressed in the previous week`s Leader, that the country has been "betrayed by mendacious mediocrities such as Mr Johnson", and that the Brexit vote was only in part "a vote for the nation state", as many people voted to leave because it was a way of protesting against duplicitous politicians who had ignored vast swathes of the country for too long (Leader, 17th November, 2017).

       Rutherford wants Britain, apparently, to leave the EU because it "expands the opportunities of financiers, investors and high-skilled professionals", but that only happens because our leading politicians in the last thirty years have encouraged it; few will dispute that they have generally been either far too close to the City and financial institutions, or too easily influenced by  press and media barons. Kenneth Clarke openly admitted the latter recently. How can the greed of the multinational companies like Google and Apple ever be curtailed without European co-operation?

       Far from the public knowing  Labour to be "untrustworthy and not credible", it is Corbyn`s principled approach which has made him so popular. His policies to increase regulation, impose a fair system of taxation, and end the practice of investment being focused on the south-east, will be made far more difficult to achieve without trade with Europe, the inevitable consequence of the botched negotiations currently taking place. Corbyn also is clearly coming to the conclusion that the young people of this country, on whom much of his support relies, relish the opportunities the EU affords them, socially, educationally and economically. For purely political reasons, Corbyn has to oppose the hard Brexit into which the Tories are leading us; for the good of the country he has to consider a second referendum on the "deal" the Tories have in store for us.