Happy Christmas

No sermon, just good wishes and big hopes for May 2015

From little acorns ..... @LabourCC

There is something of Ground Hog Day about elections in "safe" constituencies - safe, that is, for the regular winner. For the regular loser in such a seat, nothing much changes. No voice; no representation; invisibility. Coastal and rural constituencies typically remain in Tory hands, decade after decade, so what are we Labour voters to do? We may mount a campaign of sorts, with few resources and little support, only to achieve yet another failure. Not only does the hard work of activists and candidates prove fruitless but those voters who, against the current, give their ticks to the inevitable loser give only false cheer to the campaigners and are then not represented. This presents a strong case for PR; but failing this, is there nothing we can do in our rural isolation to stimulate change?

In Wealden constituency, one which is typical of this dilemma, we have just selected a candidate to fight the General Election on May, who brings an approach which seems worth sharing, in case its precedent may help others selecting PPCs. Solomon Curtis, our appointee, is young. He sees that his youth equips him with one particular advantage: the ability to communicate with his peers. Young people? In East Sussex? Not perhaps in the Labour Party of today but what about tomorrow? Older candidates may carry the baggage of experience but they will be of limited appeal to a new generation of voters. The older Labour voter will tick his box anyway.

We are excited by the idea of building Labour afresh, from the students and NEETs of our towns and villages. This may not win us seats in the forthcoming campaign nor even the one after; but it could bring new activism to bear, raise the profile of Labour in apparently barren soil and build a new core of Labour voters who may gradually challenge the complacency of the land-owning classes. The future is theirs anyway, so let them make it the way they want it. We old oaks should nurture these energetic acorns.

Tom Serpell

Religion and politics should not mix

Through superior education and ownership of land, the Church of the Middle Ages acquired power to challenge that of monarchs until Henry 8 swallowed it into his realm. This survived the separation of monarchy from Parliament in the 17th century to remain the anomaly we have still today, of an Established Church. We thus live in a secular parliamentary democracy in which institutions pay deference to an unelected Head of State who also heads the State religion. Furthermore, this Church is given rights such as votes in the House of Lords and influence over the education of our children.

The very existence of Church schools, funded by the State, itself an anachronism, creates precedent whereby other faiths demand parity, so we now have tax-payer money funding faith schools which exclude non-believers, teaching different fictions, over which there is no public accountability and in a secular country with a State religion. How can this do other than fracture society?

The Labour movement certainly had its roots in non-conformist Christianity, with a strong ethic of serving others not just self. It is constitutionally committed to equality above all else. How is this served by schools which exclude on grounds of irrational beliefs? The worthy aspects of all mainstream religions may seem sound bases for political and educational doctrine but such ethos was lost long ago, leaving the example of the Established Church as one of hierarchy, power, wealth, deference and discrimination against women - the very antithesis of Labour values.

This hangover from the Middle Ages may look good in the rear-view mirror of the ageing Tory omnibus but must surely be challenged and addressed by Labour.  It must be time to separate Church and State once and for all time. Let religions survive and even thrive on the basis of convincing followers rather than by force-feeding the impressionable. Just as urgently, faith schools of all strands should ideally no longer exist but certainly not survive on tax-payers' funding, to perpetuate and proselytise myths of yesteryear. State-funded schools should operate to nationwide standards and practices. This is not the politics of envy but of equality. All it takes is the courage to do it.

Tom Serpell

Revealed: how Tories convince themselves they are right

Incensed by receiving an electioneering flyer from our local Tory MP and his inevitable successor [he is off to richer pastures, I gather]. Incensed but not surprised to find that it contains what purports to be a survey of voter preferences. But here is the thing - the only choices are between Tory policies!

Be ready to read that voters in Wealden think that reducing immigration is more important than capping welfare. Reasonable? Not when the choice is between "Reducing immigration" and "Cutting welfare" and not between immigration as an issue and welfare as an issue. "Building affordable housing" and "empowering women" are among choices but without any policy backing either.  It is all about which of their agendas we gullible voters support more and not about what we are most concerned by.

Similarly, how objective will the findings seem when they invite ranking of a number of possible policies when each is qualified by a positive spin? Take "Securing a cut in the EU budget" - described as "protecting British interests - but does it? How objective will the findings be when no other policies can be suggested? No mention of a Living Wage, which would increase tax take and remove welfare needs for migrant workers, for example. This might come well above some of the Tory list.

Then there is the most fatuous, disingenuous question of all: "Putting party politics aside and thinking about them as individuals, which of the main party leaders would you prefer as Prime Minister?" PUTTING PARTY POLITICS ASIDE? I do not think so. Nobody has a vote for who becomes Prime Minister - only for a local MP or councillor. So why ask the question if not for party political reasons, presumably in the erroneous belief that their relative ratings in polls will play out in where the X goes on May 7th?

I record these mild rantings today so that I can be reminded when this piece of waste paper is followed up with the next, that these finidngs will be entirely predictable because the questions are partial, misleading and fall short of any sort of validity in terms of methodology. I predict that these findings will include that: Tory policies are popular; and that no policies which attend to the economic and social miseries of millions of voters will feature. Betcha!

Tom Serpell

Is it any wonder people are fed up with politics as it is practised?

Children are brought up from their very earliest years to be polite. This includes speaking respectfully to and about others. School reinforces this principle and workplaces only work effectively by putting it into practice. Society has learned over time that discrimination against people on the grounds of who they are rather than what they do or say is a form of ill-manners deleterious to social cohesion. It is not rude to say someone is gay, black, Muslim, foreign or female; but it is anti-social to treat these as factors on which to base attitudes or behaviour. We know this so clearly that laws have been put in place to ensure compliance.
Even without laws, common sense says that manners are a lubricant of a peaceful society. If someone is rude or offensive to another, it is not surprising if this creates tension or reaction which in turn may lead on to aggression or worse. Recognising this, Parliament set in place rules for behaviour and language which the Speaker enforces. But take the same body of people away from the discipline of the House and they act like unruly children. MPs in particular - often egged on by journalists in search of a story - have become the very exemplars of how not to behave in a civil society.

Name-calling by the very highest in the land sets the sort of example which damages the efforts at upbringing invested in those who should be admiring them. This is made even worse when these same supposed leaders use their rhetorical platform to belittle not just their political opponents but the very voters whom they are supposed to represent. The demonization of the weak by the strong shows the corrupting effect of power in its worst light and devalues politics.

Leaders in society have a far greater duty to behave as we all should, just because they have set themselves up as leaders. Yet in politics today, some of these may be the very cause of their own demise, as the people whose support they crave find that politicians' standards of behaviour are infuriating, belittle their messages and leave them looking to other ways of expressing their values. This may be doing considerable harm to our country. They should look at themselves before criticising others.

Fairer to whom?

A fairer society seems to be a claimed objective for all political parties, which makes specific building blocks of this the only true differentiators voters can use to separate them. To the Right, fairness seems to centre on the self: what is fair for me; how I can hold on to my money without sharing it through taxation. Presumably, in primitive societies survival - looking after oneself first - makes sense. If you die you can do nothing for anyone else even if you want to. This Maslovian priority seems less valid in 21st century Western societies, where most people have more than all they need for subsistence and can look more widely for applications of resources.

To those on the Left, priority is given to a wider good or a collective, sharing of the cake. The social unit comes above the individual, so taxation is a leveller rather than theft. Regrettably, there are too many parts of our country where "Me First" voters predominate. Just listening to vox-pop interviews in by-election high streets shows this - ever focussing on how government decisions impact the individual rather than wider society. Even is such areas, though, there will be a number with a different take on fairness, frustrated by their invisibility and lack of agency. Parties of the Left claim the mutual agenda but their supporters in Right-dominated areas are left high and dry when it comes to representation.

It is for this reason that Labour, Coast and Country has been formed, to build a platform for rural and coastal voices (for these have historically been dominated by regressive parties). In such areas there are issues particular to that environment, beit agricultural, maritime or touristic. Labour, Coast and Country is embryonic but already active, via website, blog, Twitter, Facebook. A rural manifesto has been initiated, a conference held and a first publication drafted. Ultimately, LCC will offer a platform both online and off, for Labour members across the nation to link up, express views and experiences and aggregate policy contributions in a virtual "constituency sans frontieres". This way, Labour can become fairer to all its potential voters, develop meaningful policies for the whole economy and engage with social conscience wherever they may live. This way lies a fairer society, according to Labour values.

Labour, Coast and Country can be found at www.labourcoastandcountry.com and followed on Twitter @LabourCC

Tom Serpell

Winning women’s votes

How can Labour maximise its potential vote when women are so poorly represented in the corridors of power of industry or government? When gender inequality shows no signs of structural improvement, what surprise can there be if women stay away from the ballot on May 7^th? Here we are, 39 years after the Sex Discrimination Act, still with a substantial pay deficit for women in similar work to men; with decision-making roles in employment dominated by men; with women’s issues being a delegated minority responsibility in government rather than embedded in all aspects of policy. It should not even be an issue.

Women are entering the workplace as never before but mostly in part-time, underpaid, privatised jobs, often forcibly self-employed, which keep them from entering the hierarchies which would improve their income. Nor, apparently, have Trade Unions been sufficiently energetic in penetrating these workplaces to make collective representation possible.

Not all women have children but this potential career interruption has made it possible, if not excusable, for employers to categorise women as more suited to flexible working and less likely to achieve higher office. Childcare arrangements make it impossible for those of either gender – but mostly women -  with parental responsibilities to enter full-time work, which might start them on the ladder towards greater fulfilment, earnings and eventual influence. Even where the work they do is of huge value to society, as in child- and elderly-care, this value is not converted into proper reward, recognition and career path. Their time is so little valued by those who employ them that Personal Assistants’ travel time is not remunerated in many instances.

Specific actions a Labour Government should take include: mandating the Living Wage including travel time; mandating female and workers’ representation on employer Boards; effective regulation of equal pay; and active, open support for Unions which tackle the needs of lower paid sectors such as adult care, childcare, hospitality, cleaning and retail.

The capitalism accepted by all main parties favours rewarding investors over workers; and GDP over well-being. Only a resetting of values leading to a new set of priorities will properly appreciate and reward the work mostly done by women, whether in the home or in another workplace. Then men and women may take equal childcare and earning burdens and both participate to the maximum of their potential in careers and even Government. Then women may be enabled and motivated to make different choices, including voting for the politicians who have made these possible.

 

OK to be angry

Last week this blog centred on fear as a poor basis for political choices. But what about ANGER? Personally, I am not especially prone to succumbing to high states of emotion but my politics has been heavily charged with anger. It was fury at LibDem hypocrisy which led me, for the first time in my life to join a political party. It is anger which makes me seek a safety valve in tweeting and blogging, if only to save the TV from assault. It is anger at he treatment of fellow human beings by this Government which determines my allegiance to Labour. [Not that the latter is immune from my ire - its Byzantine processes and infuriating caution make it tempting to seek solace in more radical alternatives]

It might seem that anger, like fear, should not be the determinant of one's vote. We rationalists would wish the future to be based on evidence and human needs. But without passion we may end up doing nothing, for ourselves or for others. That way lies the sort of vacuum which allows the ruthless greed of the Right to move in unhindered. So let it out. Be justifiably angry. Let emotions give courage to do the right things.

Be afraid of fear

Is fear a good basis for choice of government? Fear of more of the same? Fear of change and the unknown? Fear of foreigners? These are the agendas of demagogues but do Farages and Brands make for good governance? Surely not. They simply criticise whilst offering no viable solutions or alternative government. We should vote for outcomes, goals, for a country run better according to our beliefs, needs, values.

Recent debate has suggested that, with no overall majority for any party likely, we may enter a period of huge uncertainty or even paralysis, undesirable, no matter how it arises. Nor do alternatives taking place elsewhere in the World look much more attractive to believers in democracy. Disregarding the chaotic aftermaths of popular discontent with past governance in Libya or Syria, the stability now offered [and apparently liked by many] in their countries by Putin, Sisi and even Erdogan can hardly appeal. This sort of autocracy we should indeed fear.

The probability of a hung Parliament is created by citizens' hunger for something better suited to their perception of the country's priorities. For an increasing number, this means not more of the same, of the familiar, stale formal groupings. But for all of the imperfections of our sclerotic system, responding to fears may lead to results we will find useless or even abhorrent. Perhaps we need instead to work to change our institutions from within rather than dumping them in favour of a vacuum which may be filled by less desirable solutions. Until it proves to fail, let us hold fast to voting Labour for a more equal, less fearful society.

The Left has no realistic Kip-like alternative

The idea of UKIP's ghastly representatives being electable is repugnant but nonetheless appears to be growing in reality. Tories in particular, frustrated that their party is not quite unpleasant enough, can now see an alternative to entrust with their votes. This has been available for years but has only now become a real option because it is conceivable that their chosen Kipper could actually be elected.

True, some disenchanted Labour voters may go the same way; but for those on the left this option should not be conceivable. For disenchanted lefties, a close examination of alternative manifestos should lead to a mass exodus towards the Greens. Their current policy list is as close to an ideal socialist prospectus as you could realistically wish. So why not vote for them? They do, after all, have an MP and other elected representatives.

The answer I would offer is that they lack that likelihood of victory which the Kippers have discovered. The Greens have yet to build the bandwagon effect that Farage has created around UKIP. With little prospect of influence in the lobbies, a vote for Green still looks like a wasted one, no matter how sensible their policies. I wish it were otherwise. For now, the recourse for those who would like a more socialist country and government must remain to work on Labour from the inside, to persuade the leadership that it is more important to grasp the opportunity to set the country on a new course than to lose mass support and stay in opposition by presenting themselves as slightly nicer managers of the country's resources than Tories.

Tom Serpell

Politics begins at home?

So if Whitehall-centred government puts people off politics; but if politics is too important to be ignored [for the country has to be run], what then?

Real politics is about real needs in the communities of the country. Yes, we need defence [perhaps less than those in Whitehall like to tell us]; yes, we need international relations; yes, we need a State. But when MPs talk about cost of living issues, how well do they really understand what they are talking about? These are people remote from the issues on which they pontificate and legislate. To inform themselves they pay other well-paid people to conduct research but the realities of daily life for millions pass them by unnoticed. They seem more interested in helping businesses to thrive than voters, despite businesses bemoaning government interference at every turn.

In cities, towns and villages citizens know how scarce are affordable homes; how expensive is child-care which allows them to go to work; how absent and expensive is convenient public transport; what school clothes eat up from a budget; how time and energy poor it can be just to lead a normal life. For citizens with disabilities or without paying work, life is tougher still yet politics seems so rarely to be about the needs of real lives. Percentages pay no bills.

Real politics happens when women dispossessed of homes occupy disused flats. Real politics happens when spare allotments are made over to feed hungry locals. Real politics happens when public service workers face migrant workers being exploited by private sector businesses. When the main parties start to understand and address the real needs of real people, they deserve our votes much more than when they argue over who can score points in debate or which can be the most business-friendly.

Grandstanding and polls do not lead to engagement

As the summer's big political news items fade behind us - the Scottish referendum, the major party conferences, yet another ridiculously costly and pointless war - I find a thread connecting them all - their irrelevance to everyday life. Surely these issues, of huge importance to those with or seeking the drug of power, are a world away from daily concerns, yet it is these which occupy the media. All three major parties support bombing Iraq again. All backed the No campaign in Scotland. All engage in personality assaults which are completely non-constructive. No wonder voters are disengaged, disenchanted and looking at alternative ways of expressing their interests.

Then there are the headlines. What makes the news? Not the serious issue of a deeply unequal society nor the alternatives to war but the foibles and peccadilloes of people to whom we are supposed to look for leadership and decision-making. A lapse of memory is cataclysmic. Stupid behaviour destroys a career.Someone changes allegiance. These may be of personal significance but why should they dominate the media for the millions to whom they mean nothing? How will page after page of prurient analysis of these pin-pricks make for a better country? Parliament has become a club as inaccessible and irrelevant to most people's lives as the MCC or R&A Golf Club, run by a clique for a coterie of similar types.

How then can respect for politics be renewed? To be taken seriously by voters, as the people's party, Labour has to revive its values, its collective roots, using the media real people use in everyday life to hear and become more relevant again; and stop being Tory-lite proponents of an unnecessary austerity imposed to preserve the power of a tiny minority. Of course we do not have to pay off the deficit in one Parliament. Of course Cameron will look better at running his own choice of economic strategy. Of course we do not have to spend billions on armaments and wars we have no business to be in. Of course it is not right or essential to demonise and deprive the worst off. Come on Labour - what are we for?

Judge the book by its contents

The other day, someone asked me if I was a musician. Why? Because she thought I looked like one. I am not sure what a musician is supposed to look like, but even if I do, this would belie the reality. For I have not a musical bone in my body. So how much credence do we place on appearances? Surely too much. Take Ed Miliband, for example. He is pilloried by the right-wing media for his looks; yet his party remains unified and leads the Opposition in the polls consistently, despite this following a disastrous election only 4 years ago. This suggests that people see past the media’s insults.

 

Last week Tesco was found to have made a huge accounting error. Shares tumbled as investors took fright. The media and some of the public took great delight in this evidence of the fallibility of the mighty. Yet how many of those so delighting actually refuse to shop at Tesco – or Amazon, or Google or any other dominant brand? They perceive them as evil because of their power but continue to use them because of what they actually do.

 

There is much to be said for a retreat from deference to the powerful; even to challenging them. They – the 1% - cream off too much of what citizens earn, giving little back. But we do need people who are prepared to take on great responsibility, to make things work. We need leaders for communities, for workforces, for enterprises. These should not automatically be targets for brickbats. Our perception of them should be based not on superficial attributes, be these looks, success or even wealth but on what they do. If Tesco supplies more than 30% of the groceries of the country, this is partly because they meet the needs of millions of customers. If Tesco fails to deliver good value, customers can and will go elsewhere. If Tesco publishes erroneous figures, those who are concerned with such matters can and will review their stake in the company. These are manifestations of what the company does.

 

If Ed Miliband holds together an often fractious political party, develops a strategy for that party and for the country which people find credible and presents a team of electable candidates to the electorate, these are what he should be judged on. If I write a great symphony, judge me a musician. Otherwise, judge me for what I actually do, not what I may look like.

Tom Serpell

@uckfieldlabour

So how did it come to this?

Apart, of course, from the Treaty of Union, until very recently there was no apparent substantial existential threat to the United Kingdom –or so our political leaders seemed to think. They had agreed to a Scottish referendum; and had access to pollsters galore, so how did they get it so wrong? Surely the first duty of any Prime Minister is the defence of the nation, against whatever threat, presumably including secession – for how else do we explain the unanimity of the Westminster parties over the No campaign? Most leaders have clearly regarded even devolution as a threat to their power and failed to encourage a long-term federal solution which could have bound us ever more tightly together whilst recognising people’s hunger for more self-determination. This has been a huge mistake in the face of plentiful evidence, which Scots voters have now given us the chance to rectify.

Mistake No 2 has been arrogance. Delegating previously vilified Labour ex-ministers to carry out the dirty work instead of showing true leadership belittled the whole threat and allowed the result to be as close as it eventually became. The ultimate complacency.

Mistake No 3 was to fail to heed even those polls they did access at the time of the referendum agreement. The deliberate removal of the 3^rd option of Devo Max made the No option – more of the same – deeply unattractive to many. Accompanying this option with a badly drafted question, tactics of threat and bullying contrasted strongly with the upbeat, visionary campaign for Yes which has so nearly prevailed. Even as a PR man, Cameron should be dismissed for allowing this negative strategy, let alone for his dereliction of duty.

We are where we are, so whither England; whither Labour? The lesson of the Yes campaign for Labour must be to re-emphasise building a fairer society. It must define how it will offer some of the benefits won by Scots to disengaged English and Welsh voters. We voters must note how the Scots got what they really wanted by shouting loudest. Even we who live only 50 miles from the seat of power feel the lack of any agency. The SNP can be compared to UKIP, in tapping a vein of anti-Establishment feeling. Labour should back-track from its closeness to the City, to Big Money and to the other No parties and return to the grass roots from which it sprang, for this is where the disenchantment grows.

Cameron’s failures smack of his typical strategy vacuum; of reaction to pressures with back-of-the-envelope bribes rather than long-term vision. Labour must paint a vision for a better country now; and explain how it will bring it into being, to turn his mismanagement into something better for everyone.

Tom Serpell

@uckfieldlabour

 

Migration works both ways

Migration is only just beginning. Of course, it has always gone on, often with our country as a destination of choice, thanks to our socially liberal culture. As climates change, water becomes scarcer in some regions, power and employment shift and sectarian divisions turn into conflicts, more and more populations will be displaced and seek new homes.

Whilst ethical considerations and an inclusive society demand a welcome to those in extreme need, control of immigration is a legitimate political priority. Just how many oligarchs do we want buying up our best properties? How reasonable is it for public services to have to publish regulations or information in multiple languages? Why should incoming workers not be as subject to minimum wages as indigenous ones? How many jobs can actually be filled without recourse to recruiting non-nationals?

All parties need to address these issues but only one has a real solution and that is UKIP's desire to close borders. Such xenophobic initiatives have no place in our country, negating the positives of new earners, new cultures, duty and hospitality. Consider too its obverse, the emigration of British nationals to other countries. Would UKIP advocate stopping this too? We seed usually warmer lands with non-earning, often non-linguistic public service users in very large numbers. These are a burden on local resources, often not integrating nor enriching host communities. We should ask UKIP candidates their policy on this, perhaps, not least as Scotland may soon become either a source or a destination to be so controlled if it got its way.

Labour still has a very ill-defined solution to what will only grow as a policy issue. We in the affluent West, especially as a past imperial power, must not deny our responsibility to the peoples of the world; nor to our domestic voters.

Can there be good nationalism?

Perceptions of the nationalism as presented by SNP and UKIP seem to differ. Why should this be, when quite clearly both are nationalist parties and nationalism is widely condemned in principle as a dangerous, isolating ideology?

In part, perception depends on who is looking. Those of the Left will clearly see UKIP and its like critically, both because we come from the opposite end of the political spectrum and because they stand for all that we reject. Yet we see in the SNP something far less objectionable, despite it seeking, at least superficially, the same separatist agenda. Secondly, the message from Scotland's nationalists differs from that of UKIP, the EDL etc. It aims for democratic inclusion, consultation and cooperation rather than prescription. Even after separation it wants to engage in EU and UK, politically and economically as well as commercially. Thirdly - and here is the clincher - the SNP is voicing a desire for self-determination, or absence of remote control, which resonates with many voters on both sides of the border.

Adversarial behaviour to the referendum in Scotland brings out sympathy on the part of many. Had Cameron shown leadership in the fight for the union rather than delegating to someone he otherwise belittled; had a positive vision been depicted of the Union instead of mere criticism of Scotland's economics (its always all about money with the Tories); had the more popular Devo-Max option been allowed on the ballot paper, the chance of staying united would now be far greater. But he acted as Whitehall usually does, dictatorially, patronisingly, remotely and perhaps more in England's interests, it is Cameron who will have to live with the label of the PM who oversaw the break-up of a nation, whilst handing a part of it to its nationalists. Only time will tell if the latter were right or not but right now, it is quite easy to see why their form of nationalism looks attractive.
Tom Serpell

Democratisation of funding

The "yaa-boo" between political parties about sources of funds is rarely far below the surface nor is it very edifying. Today, a revolution is under way in how funds are raised for the Arts, social and community causes, which could change this. Crowd-funding allows those with ideas to raise money have them turned into reality not, as hitherto, by going cap-in-hand to some wealthy or powerful individual or institution but by appealing to those most likely to appreciate the outcome for small contributions, which can be aggregated towards a larger target. These contributors may be a future audience, the local community or just supporters. Each will be willing to contribute partly because they are asked for little; but each will be offered some form of benefit or reward. This process is enabled by the Internet, where well tried processes and hosts make it easy. The promise of funds occurs in the Idea stage, meaning both that resource for implementation is obtained but so is buy-in when the Idea becomes Reality.

How could this relate to politics, Labour in particular? First, Labour has the need and desire to engage more democratically with its supporters; and to raise funds in new ways. Second, many supporters get pretty fed up with endless begging messages from HQ without knowing on what money will be or has been spent. Third, many may be all too willing to make small contributions to those costs of which they most approve. The party, on an appropriate platform, could itemise options for contributors: investment in a nationwide network for rural Labour, for example, vs employment of social media specialists for CLPs, vs a campaign to stay in EU; to see which appeal most and to gain support from those who relate to the topics concerned. This model has proved effective in engaging support for petitions via 38 Degrees, Avaaz etc.

Target budgets can be set which must be attained before action is taken, making selection democratic and also creating a fan-club for the ideas supported. Use of such new but effective models will reinvigorate funding and energise younger voters into action teams.
Tom Serpell, @uckfieldlabour

Today I am in Cornwall recharging my batteries

but, unlike the PM, I do not have a country to run. I will return to the word factory next week.

No wonder politics is despised

Government in thrall to capital
Policy decided by electoral considerations over national interest
Arms exports determining foreign policy*
Peerages for party funders
Personality over values
Success measured by GDP rather than people's well-being
Wealth on a pedestal while weak are demonised
Super-rich allowed huge income rises while social security is destroyed
Police policing the police
[*Let us not forget that it is our ally and customer Israel which commits atrocities in Palestine; and another, Saudi Arabia, which funds the awful ISIL. What sort of foreign policy is this?]
These are just some of the reasons. All of them can be addressed but only by a Labour government.

Alternatives to Government borrowing and regressive taxation

Chancellors are wont to use marginal tax rates both to fund public services and national debt repayments and to appeal to voters according to their political priorities. Their changes are then reversed by their successor. This rather fruitless game leaves the poorest majority in society as the pawns in a game, always far more affected by changes than those whose wealth insulates them from the impact of such moves.

As Labour seeks to come to power to refocus policy on people rather than just GDP, it will be constrained both by a commitment to debt reduction and the accusation of being a “tax and spend” party, but it will need to fund its priority programmes. Higher VAT is surely inconceivable, because it hits the pockets of the poorest most. This leaves Income Tax and NIC rises as options, perpetuating the visible ping-pong but changing nothing structurally.

There is surely a case for reconsideration of what should be taxed. Currently, taxes are principally levied on work [Income Tax; NIC] and expenditure [VAT], the two activities essential both for the economy of the country and for that of individuals. This seems counter-intuitive.

Could it make more sense to treat taxation as a form of payment for use of the principal asset of the country, its land? This is finite. It has come to be “owned” but is in reality an immutable, physical entity and part of the heritage of the whole population. “Ownership” is really temporary, exclusive tenure of land by those fortunate enough, but who have done nothing to create it and often nothing to increase its value, though its use enables economic activities. Depending on the profitability of these activities, the apparent value of the land grows but without those carrying out the activity necessarily contributing anything for the privilege of its use. On occasion, value rises despite lack of use.

Taxing land value [Land Value Tax] could become an effective and fair source of revenue. Local Authorities or a national land-bank could readily determine permitted use for any parcel, ascribe a value to that use and tax accordingly. This enables those who would profit from using the land – through letting in fracking, for example - to recompense the State or community for allowing them sole rights to do their activities on it. The higher the demand and the more valuable the activity, the more can local services be funded and the fairer the overall tax system can become. Unused land with a defined value could more readily be purchased compulsorily for the good of the community rather than being blocked for asset inflation; whilst primary residences could be exempted.

Taxing land value annually [in effect a Ground Rent to society for tenure] would enable a concomitant reduction in the regressive taxes on individuals’ efforts, enabling more people to keep or spend more of their earnings, satisfying agendas of both left and right whilst recognising differences in local economic needs. Wholesale adoption of such a scheme would seem a high risk without testing its efficacy and de-bugging it on a local scale. Maintaining universal democratic engagement of tax-payers would be essential but Labour’s new focus on rebuilding local governance may offer the perfect opportunity for theories and new tax models such as Land Value Tax to be piloted, perhaps especially in rural areas with needs for infrastructure investments . of the kind accessible to urban environments.

Tom Serpell

Gaza: Actions not impotence

Politicians of all parties throughout the West seem like rabbits in the headlights when Israel is mentioned. It seems that they are fearful of accusations of anti-Semitism or holocaust denial if they dare to criticise the Israeli State. Yet what is happening in Gaza surely goes beyond what can be brushed under the carpet for the sake of historical guilt. Israel behaves with impunity not even afforded to Hitler's Germany, despite increasingly acting as racist human rights deniers. When will politicians or the UN show some leadership and humanity if they are afraid even to use the language for what is happening which properly describes it?

Actions are needed. Here are just some from which they could choose a beginning:

• Apply arms embargo on Israel, ie stop selling our arms to them
• Propose UN sanctions
• ProposeUN safety zone along Gaza's borders
• Hold an International conference to problem-solve the creation of a sea-port for Gaza
• Unilaterally delist Israeli and illegal West Bank goods from import

Note the use of "propose", - even this goes too far for the vote- and finance-conscious Government we suffer from in UK currently. Therefore it must be up to Labour to show the leadership so lacking elsewhere. Come on Ed - lets help the poor people of Gaza instead of wring hands and tutting.

Double standards in hand-wringing

A new Foreign Secretary but how much difference? Talk tough about Russian-backed troubles in Ukraine but do nothing to upset the arms and finance sectors - could have been Hague or Hammond. Say nothing about Gaza except to express continuing support for the racist regime in Israel - could be any Foreign Secretary for decades: not even tough talk.

When almost 300 die at the hands of a Russian-backed militia, the Government talks tough [but will do nothing]. When over 300 die at the hands of a US-backed, UK arms customer there is barely a word of sympathy for the bereft or wounded and certainly no help to the underdog.  The Tory determination to base diplomacy on export potential, largely unfulfilled, has left this country looking like beggars in the international community, with little to offer except an order book for more guns and a cringing fear of retaliation against any real toughness, for fear that our beloved financial services sector will suffer and top mates' bonuses be reduced. Failure to build alliances has left UK isolated such that even the tough words are undeliverable and we are left with hand-wringing; and not even that for poor Gaza.

Israel has flouted UN resolutions galore with impunity. Its treatment of the indigenous population of the lands it has stolen would constitute reason for international action were these by any country other than the untouchable Israel. Is it not time, with historical perspective on UK's own role in causing the hopeless divisions in Palestine, to become the Palestinians' friend? A sea-port with internationally guarantees safe passage, perhaps protected by our otherwise pointless Navy, would seem a good start.

The Future is more individual members

I am reminded by the campaign of Crispin Flintoff for the NEC how important every Labour member can be. Those of us living in non-target constituencies, often in tiny minorities among myriad Tories, may be forgiven for feeling that our membership and our vote count for nothing, democratically. Crispin's stance for a mass membership emphasises that every subscription counts, especially when Union support is reducing. Each new member brings cash to the Party which it could take considerable efforts to raise in other ways. This is value.
We also need to feel that our opinions matter, though. How this can work is problematic. Reading Al Gore's book "The Future" offers a clue:
"Our first priority should be to restore our ability to communicate clearly and candidly with one another in a broadly accessible forum about the difficult choices we have to make. That means building vibrant and open "public squares" on the Internet for the discussion of the best solutions to emerging challenges and the best strategies for seizing opportunities... and protecting the public forum from dominance by elites and special interests with agendas that are inconsistent with public interest."
This is exemplified by our support for Labour Coast and Country, the embryonic forum for rural and isolated non-urban Labour people. The future lies in people with similar agendas being able, through the Internet, to share their ideas, shape policy recommendations and inform the Party with their expertise.
Tom Serpell

Why radical is best

There really is almost no point in Labour sticking to a me-too list of policies, hoping to win on grounds of managerial credibility or not being Tories. Even in the unlikely scenario of a victory in such circumstances, what would this do for the people of this country? More austerity, less public services, growing inequality leading to stress and misery for millions. Unless Labour is prepared to offer  real change, not just of masthead but of substance, it may as well save its campaign budget for a further 5 years.
This country is getting richer again, according to the Government. No. Some few people and corporations are getting richer as they cream off dividends and asset inflation into tax-minimising investments. The vast majority of voters and non-voters are left to pick over the slim pickings of lower wages or lower social security as they attempt to make a living, never mind a comfortable life for themselves and others. This is not about old-style class warfare but a need for the earnings of this country being shared more fairly among those who contribute to their generation in return for electoral support.
Without social change and a refocusing of politics onto the holistic needs of all citizens, UK will cease to be a democracy in more than name, as its governance increasingly ends in the hands of huge corporations unaccountable to the public. This trend can either be maintained under a Tory self-interest agenda; or reversed by a Labour-led evolution in favour of mutuality and concern for the well-being of all and accountable through retention or restoration of public services and social influence over infrastructure.
Labour has been drip-feeding encouraging policy ideas, no doubt to test public reaction. This will no doubt be assessed by huge representative committees. Such methodology can only regress to the mean. The Leader of the party has to take this agenda by the scruff of the neck, shake out the managerialists and tell the country where he will take us and how, as far away from the greed and power accretion of the current oligarchy as possible. Then Labour will be true to its values and present a true alternative which can hope to make the country a better place.

Justice - for whom?

All political parties must embrace a justice system but there are no absolutes in justice. Despite what those in power may claim, there are options as to how justice can be defined and achieved. These options must be based on the values of the Party. A government which values wealth above all else has focused on reducing the amount of money allowed to the poorest, as if this money were stolen from others. The justice system is increasingly used to the disadvantage of the weakest in society, unprotected increasingly by legal aid. Trust in policing has become frayed by decades of practices revealed as corrupt or prejudiced. Prosecutions are common for petty crime while those responsible for the loss to society of billions are seen to be immune. Trust needs to be restored in the institutions for justice to be done and perceived to be done for all.

As demonstrated by "The Spirit Level", trust [as well as health] is lower in countries with higher income difference, which has gone out of control in UK. An alternative government which prioritises social justice is more likely to create a culture of mutual trust. Can a society in these days be less unequal? The gulf between richest and poorest is almost half in the Nordic countries that in USA and UK.

Labour must return to power, with an agenda to restore justice for all: detection and prosecution focused on the crimes which most damage the country, tax fraud, digital theft, financial malfeasance, people trafficking, unfair rents and employment practices, on a national or international level; but at a local level, crime prevention through local knowledge and a presence in communities, with mediation, community resolution and restorative justice as tools to keep costs down and reduce prosecution and imprisonment for those least equipped to function in society. Labour can be the ground-breaking Party which decriminalises drug-taking, to expose and squeeze out the illegal dealers and introducing controls to make safe what people buy and consume.

By targeting the right resources at what most damages society, justice can still be achieved affordably, without removing from those most in need of it the vital resource of legal aid from properly remunerated lawyers. This is everyday justice affecting employment, housing, clinical negligence, and unfair arrest, protecting people instead of criminalising them.

Grayling is failing; Sadiq can succeed.

Tom Serpell

We need a team which expects to win. Sack the doubters, Ed

After the last General Election, who would have said that Labour could even think of winning back power after one term in opposition? Pundits wrote off Labour for a generation in the aftermath of the disastrous Brown administration and ridiculous, drawn-out leadership contest. Today, the media are yet again giving vent to their inbuilt anti-Labour bias, focussing on a Leader who is attempting radical change of the sort they all knew would be necessary for Labour to re-build; yet which they fear and hate. Why? Because they know that the reality favours a Labour win next year.

Labour has been ahead in the polls form months, despite their best endeavours. From what they write one could be forgiven for thinking that Labour was dead in the water, with no hope of victory, yet here we are with a besieged leader, still 4 points ahead, with the new policies gradually unfolding into a story which will regain popularity further; and with a demographic advantage which would see Labour win even at Party parity.

We have to put up with the media bias but surely not internal sniping, presumably by remnants of New Labour still trying to justify themselves. It is totally unacceptable for shadow ministers to brief against the Leader who appointed them, whose loyalty he is entitled to assume. Ed M should find out who these are and remove them summarily. Just as the best of England's football team were the new blood, so let us go into the election with a new, talented young team, supportive of Ed Miliband, rather than one containing rotten apples whose malign influence can only damage the motivation of the thousands of volunteers working for a Labour win. They are certainly entitled to expect a cohesive, loyal team as they strive for a Government which will make Britain a fairer country.

What is going on in Birmingham's schools?

This is not a rhetorical question but a meaningful one for all Labour supporters regardless of their knowledge and experience of education. With scapegoating, scaremongering and school-bashing – by politicians, political placemen such as Ofsted leaders and the media, all of whom should know better, we are not getting any hard evidence of what is wrong. Why not? – is it because some very plump chickens, having been fed on irrational policies are coming home to roost? Is it because academic success and Islam cannot be linked by some with a different ideological if not racist viewpoint? Is it because it diverts from a collective political fear of the economy/cost of living and electoral defeat? Or is it because actually nobody knows what to do?

The children involved - and in many other parts of the country as well, have been used disgracefully in this politically motivated free for all. It makes a mockery of the Tories (very quiet Lib-Dems on this) even mentioning safeguarding when political squabbles are being ratcheted up, personalised and  professionals demonised when children are literally just going to school to learn (and for some at the moment doing life-changing exams).

The education system in this country is a mess. It is a fragmented and unsafe environment for our children who, remember, only get one go at it – you are only seven years old once in your life. It has become the post-code lottery that we tried hard to remove from Health provision only to resurrect it within Education. We now know that the government, through Ofsted, want seven year olds to be warned about extremism….this must be part of the so-called British way of life. Does this apply to Jewish, Catholic, C of E schools? Did the country vote for that? There are so many instances of incoherent thinking at Government level.

The Labour party, rather than a half-hearted response to a government statement with Tory-lite proposals has to be clear. All state-funded schools, whether LA maintained, trust academies, sponsored academies, free, nursery, primary, secondary, tertiary schools etc. must be secular. If private schools want to be faith schools, then parents and the community must be sure how the teachers behave as professionals regarding the teaching of religious beliefs. The Labour Party could of course grasp the nettle this time around and not give charitable status to the faith schools as this is tantamount to state funding.

Birmingham schools have finally exposed the quagmire of Education policy – be courageous and reach out Labour!

Elisabeth Rumbold

Labour's choice of words

There may be a cost of living issue, as food and energy prices rise, but this mantra is beginning to sound stale and even misses the point. For many in our unequal society it it not so much that costs have gone up as that incomes are artificially and ideologically depressed by this vicious oligarchy of wealthy elitists. With millions out of work not receiving a Living benefit and millions more in work which does not pay basic bills, the political failure must be seen as one of pay rather than of prices.
Until Labour articulates the realities of life for those it seeks to represent, it will continue to look like another metropolitan clique, instead of an empathetic friend. UKIP has illustrated the power of simple messages which hit the spot for their minority following, now Labour needs to do the same for the majority by correctly diagnosing the problems people face and saying how it will govern, preferably very differently from the Coalition. Let's hear more about social security, independent living and proper pay; and less about strengthening banks, more austerity and tired old phrases.

#Labour must challenge the Establishment not be part of it

Across Europe, traditionally dominant parties have been rocked by the support for anti-Establishment movements. These are neither all left nor right. Some are anti-austerity; others anti-EU. All seek to wrest power from long-established, dominant power blocs.

Labour under Blair strove and succeeded in becoming a part of The Establishment, friend to bankers, media bosses and big business. It is surely time to return to Labour as a movement for change, challenging the powers that be. The 1% represented so consistently by the Tories controls not only a disproportionate amount of the wealth and earnings of capitalism but also of the levers of power. Labour leaders increasingly try to look and act like these, instead of representing the 99% and trying to change the power base.

There is both a tribal vote for Labour and support for it as a party with values and principles, particularly relating to fairness. Farage, Le Pen and Tsipras have shown that there is a desire on the part of voters to be led by people who connect with them and who are prepared to stand up to the powerful, stand up for the weak, and have the courage to endure some unpopularity in the name of doing what is needed.

Labour is and should be the party of Europe; of women; of ethnic minorities; of the disabled; of the economically excluded - and say so, even if some powerful interests do not like this.

One Nation includes disabled and mentally ill citizens

To plagiarise Oscar Wilde, this Government seems to know the cost of everything and the value of no-one. Its treatment of disabled people shows just how fixated it has become on reducing the role of the State and on cutting expenditure, at the expense of people’s well-being. If profit is not attached, expenditure has no point to them.

Attacks on Disability Support Allowance; arbitrary assessment of disabled people as Work Ready; the threatened closure of the Independent Living Fund; withdrawal of support for moderate disabilities; the Bedroom Tax; slashing of adult social care budgets. These are just some of the ways in which the Coalition has focussed its ideologies against citizens. Yet as citizens, all have rights and needs. Just as people’s needs for education, healthcare or transport differ – yet are accepted as entitlements to a degree – disabled people’s needs should not be the focus of this clearly deliberate attack, which smacks of “untermensch”-ism. It seems that Tories regard all claimants as scroungers to be deprived of social security entitlements.

Whatever the ideological basis for these cuts, whether reduction in the size of the State or, worse, a deliberate demonisation of people unfortunate enough already, this has little to do with economics and rides roughshod over rights. There is a failure of joined-up thinking to be overcome, as those cast aside from, for example, educational support, are left less likely to find jobs, which the Tories seem to regard as a panacea. Labour must ride to the rescue of disabled people and restore their right as citizens to public services, both as a moral issue and a pragmatic one. These are voters, after all and a significant minority in need of championing [11.6 million people have a limiting long-term illness, impairment or disability in Great Britain (Office for Disability Issues, 2014)]. The mantra of “independent living” sounds great but lack of support at home for disabled people can leave them having recourse to GPs or A&E at far greater cost to the exchequer. Personal Assistant support, essential for prolonged independence, is under-funded and lacks mandatory standards.

Where parties do agree is on the desirability of integrated, personalised health and care, to maximise independent living. This is a genuine win-win model, being better for the user and more cost effective. But even here, Labour must not follow the Coalition path, which has led already to thousands being outside social security, either by virtue of changes in eligibility criteria, harsh sanctioning or by falling outside the radar, perhaps through loss or a carer. Anyone can become disabled; but their ability to deal with the consequences depends on availability of resources. So far, disabled citizens have been hit disproportionately harder by cuts than most. Labour must listen to them; ensure their individual needs are assessed; then be their advocate and rescuer. Labour must ensure that it reinvests in effective public services, provided to acceptable standards. What higher duty does a State have than the well-being of its citizens?

Tom Serpell

VOTE - then demand change

Turnout for this week's European Parliament election is expected to be low but there is every reason for anyone concerned at the direction of travel of this country to make their mark. First, Europe and our place as a key player in it must surely demand stronger Labour support than has been forthcoming from the shadow Cabinet to date. It must be our future. Second, (and I make no apology that this point has been made on this blog before) for Labour voters in most rural areas,  this is the only chance we get for our tick to count, with every other election dominated by Tory incumbency. Third, every vote which is not for the pseudo-non-racists of UKIP must be registered, to keep their pernicious influence away from power.

So our top candidates - Annaliese Dodds, John Howarth, Emily Westley for the South-East - must be given every chance.

But this support cannot be unqualified. How many voters between elections hear or see any evidence whatsoever of the work of their chosen representatives - let alone know their names? We hear much that is critical of Europe's institutions, their members' lifestyles and expenses, so how about demanding reports on their achievements? MEPs are at least democratically accountable so lets support them this week but be very demanding of transparency and value every other week in return.

Tom Serpell

Rus in urbe

As a countryside dweller I regularly write about the particular issues facing people like me, isolated by geography and historical allegiances of political parties. Labour, Coast and Country is working to create means for rural lefties to act collectively, across boundaries.
Some of the factors driving this campaign to reduce our isolation, though, apply to town dwellers. Isolation comes about from a variety of causes, not just where you live. Just as we hicks in the sticks share metropolitan concerns for rents, welfare, housing etc so urbanites may recognise some of the particularities of country folk. Not least among these can be isolation, a key issue which Labour should actively address. City crowds mask the presence nearby of citizens who, for no fault of their won, find themselves outside the mainstream. They may lack money. They may have mobility issues or sight impairment which prevent them from actively availing themselves of what the city has to offer. They may simply be lonely or suffer from mental health issues which lead them to stay indoors. Whatever the cause of their isolation, they are as important as citizens and voters as anyone. Labour can ill afford to ignore votes wherever they may be found and, as with remote rural supporters, ways need to be found to engage with everyone if we are truly to be One Nation.

Labour Coast and Country is exploring how to bring solitary voices together. Perhaps some of the same tools need to be applied towards enfranchising isolated people wherever they are.

Tom Serpell

Can political parties still command mass support?

It looks as though political parties have had their day, as voters (or rather non-voters) find new ways of collective thought and action. Organised politics has failed miserably to understand or adopt digital media, which are by now quite long-in-the-tooth. Single issue collectives like Stop the War, Hacked Off and UK Uncut have larger “memberships” than the parties. Online petitions regularly attract 10s and 100s of thousands of signatories.

So what can or should the parties do about this? Their portfolios of policies are as likely to put off adherents as to win them. A supporter of Policy A may be as strongly opposed to Policy B. And how can a Leader in today’s media’s preferred presidential politics possibly appeal sufficiently ever to be good enough?

It seems to me that the agenda and language of politics has to be shifted towards values, with a party’s policies described in terms of their consistency with these. A leader with values is surely a match for one with fewer or worse, regardless of how his/her looks may seem to the image-conscious.

It is surely not too late for Labour to espouse new media actively, to link itself to campaigns of others making as well as to its own supporters. The Party must see how digital communities work, not by preaching or imposing barriers to engagement but by creating conversations between people with common interests. Today’s digital policy seems at odds with this. Members receive regular top-down messages, usually accompanied by a request for money. How off-putting is this?

Take rural issues as an example. Voters living in the countryside far from the conurbations which set most of the political agendas have very distinct issues of isolation and cost of living not appreciated by the metropolitan majority. They are fewer in number but still have rights and needs; as well as being a significant minority which Labour should certainly not ignore. Yet how else can these voters have a collective voice if not by connecting them? The same can be said to apply to other otherwise isolated categories like disabled people, freelance workers, the care sector. If Labour could offer individuals the means to connect to others of similar interests, it would be better informed on these issues and rebuild collective behaviours under a common banner. And if Labour does this, perhaps it can justifiably ask voters who are not members to tick its box; and voters who do not buy the whole package will tick that box because the package contains what they need.

Tom Serpell @uckfieldlabour

What future for affordable and social housing?

A Google search for "Section 106" yields, as top advert: "Avoid Affordable Housing". Lawyers touting services to enable property developers to circumvent the needs of local communities. This is the tip of the iceberg which exists to support Big Construction; and it includes the Coalition. What hope can there be that any return to mass house building will include ANY lower-cost homes for those who need them, when the massed ranks of investors and their cronies in Parliament are arrayed against them, hidden behind a single clause in the Town and Country Planning Act?

Section 106 of this Act, backed up by more recent "clarifications", gives developers the escape chute from inclusion of social or affordable homes in new estates. It is clear that the very purpose of the Act was to ensure that developers had to provide Local Authorities with funds - "the essential provision"- towards infrastructure and social housing needed for the local community, through the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Yet the get-out provided by Section 106, whereby reduction of overall scheme profitability below 17.5% enables the developer to escape the "essential provision" belies this intention; and invoking it has now become standard practice.

With house-building already below half of the rate required to meet demand in this Parliament, the shortfall has increased under the Coalition by an extra half-a-million houses. The Government is certainly failing the working and non-working people of the South of England who need to live near work but cannot find homes. Then in April Clegg announced that new Garden Cities and now all new developments can be built without social housing.  With neither sufficient build nor provision of an affordable element, could the Coalition really be expecting NOT to get back into power?  Could they be inflating a house price bubble whose burst the next Government will have to suffer? They are certainly doing big favours to land-owners, landlords and developers. Luckily, there are fewer of these than there are would-be householders. Labour has to get the message out that only we will free up land, control rents, build council houses and demand a proper affordable housing sector.

Whom is Labour for?

In the post-industrial age, with smaller workforces and collectivism more challenging in the workplace, the "natural constituency" of Labour has diminished like mist on a sunny day. Yes, there remains the important historic and emotional tie between Party and Unions but these too have seen their ability to recruit and organise dwindle as the nature of the workplace has changed and vindictive Tory legislation has bitten.

Success as measured by the Coalition merely counts the wealth growing in the off-shore coffers of the plutocracy. The unequal society on which we now - again - live illustrates clearly the need for a party willing and able to represent those whose economic and social prospects count for so little to the current government.

With values of altruism and mutuality, the Labour Party is clearly the only political entity which offers any voice for the under-paid, unpaid, isolated, disabled or ignored of Britain's 21st century. The problem is to persuade this majority to see itself as belonging to the Labour banner. We have been persuaded to see ourselves as individuals first, community second. The politics of individualism have dominated the consumerist, shopping-as-leisure marketplace we are told we occupy. What we really have is millions of people with common needs, for well-being, happiness and social cohesion as well as enough money.

We are a society in which care for others is second nature but belittled by low wages and status. Labour must lead a campaign to revalue caring for others' wellbeing and the caring professions in particular to where they belong, financially as well as emotionally; at the same time setting free-loading and gambling in their proper place in the hierarchy of respect - far below the carers, manufacturing, creative and digital workers. And let our party resile from this courting of "hard-working families" which so damages the esteem for those who are unable to work, no longer work, cannot find work or have no family. Let Labour be the voice of its true constituency: those who find themselves, temporarily or permanently unfairly treated by the economy.

Energy as a Rural issue?

Now that Green Dave (as was, until his Chancellor persuaded him otherwise) is thinking of withdrawing support from Onshore Wind; and in the aftermath of the fracking threat in West Sussex,  energy is now a rural issue.

 

Wind Farms are rarely found in urban environments, requiring space, wind, and low impact on people [because of the number affected]. Therefore they must be located, if anywhere, either at sea ("OffShore") or in the countryside ("Onshore"). Dave's Mates own most of the latter, though, and are starting to make noises. Now that those who wanted to cash in on the generous compensation for hosting turbines have done so, he is persuaded that supporting this form of wind energy generation, the lowest cost one, is no longer attractive. One must not upset one's friends, must one? No matter that the country appears to need both more energy and lower costs.

So should Labour now take up the cudgels for Onshore Wind all the more strongly, as the lower-cost renewable energy source currently available? Or should Labour take an environmental stance against further rural eyesores? Who are we to please - or displease, most?

 

Labour seems at last to be moving towards a devolution agenda, which may enable local communities to develop their own strategies and even to invest in their own infrastructure needs, energy included. The sorts of energy local authorities could afford whilst responding to local geography, would include on-shore wind, fracking and solar. Labour could usefully consider developing policy in this area whereby not only land-owners receive compensation but so do affected local communities.  This could take the form of discounted energy prices for those most affected,  not just the land-owners.

 

Rural Labour supporters do not often seem to count in determining policy, small in number as we are, but here is an issue where combining rural viewpoints into a coherent lobby might make great sense and carry some weight. 

 

 

A vote for a Labour MEP is a vote for One Nation

Labour's determined focus on target General Election marginals is understandable. We must win in Hastings, Brighton Kemptown and other winnable seats if we are to get rid of this frightful government. Why voters should turn out in other instances may seem less obvious. Take a constituency like Wealden, for example. One of the safest of safe Tory seats, Labour has just 200 members and absolutely no chance of winning even a County Council seat any time soon. But what about those 200 Labour members and the perhaps 10% of voters who emulate them at election time? Some of us are passionate Labour supporters. What are we supposed to do with our energies, our ideas and our votes?

Around the country there are many constituencies like Wealden, mostly rural or coastal, where Labour supporters exist in minorities, marginalised from national polity. Some say "Go and help in your nearest marginal". Some do. But this is not always feasible. Rural life is quite isolating. Public transport is often non-existent; and running a car expensive; and canvassing does not suit everyone. And why should we ignore the needs of our own communities in favour of somewhere with which we have no connection? Rural and seaside areas have particular issues of deprivation which, electoral priority or not, need to be taken into account by policy makers. "One Nation" must mean all communities matter, not just key metropolitan marginals. It is for this reason that Labour Coast and Country [@LabourCC] has been set up, to enable Labour people living in Tory seats to connect with one another, across constituency boundaries, to share our common needs, feel less isolated and create critical mass to influence policy.

But we still have enthusiastic Labour supporters largely ignored by the Party; and communities outside the focus of policy, both with insufficient voice. Neither can elect representatives who can channel our needs. Or can we?

In May, the country will be invited to go to the polls to elect MEPs. Turnout will be low. Focus will be on UKIP's fate rather than Labour's. Between European elections we hear almost nothing about the work of the European Parliament or our representatives there. Each of these represents a huge geographical area, such that their visibility in any community is minimal and their names are unknown to most voters. So why should we engage in this election? Apart from whatever they actually achieve on our behalf, for rural Labour supporters voting for MEPs is the one chance we have of actually electing representatives of our own Party. Let us actively support those who genuinely support the rural agenda.

A Libertarian Budget?

The Chancellor has won praise from the Right for his innovative approach to pensions. This at first glance confirms him as a libertarian and opens a wide divide between the Tories and Labour, which must be welcomed as the arguments shift from managerial to ideological. Surely Labour can win in a battle over fairness?

However, closer examination may lead to this analysis being questionable. If a libertarian approach aims to remove the State from having any role in people’s lives, his policy on annuities fails. It purports to enable those retiring to have full control over their own pension pot, without being told by the State what to do with it. Libertarian? Apparently.

But if we compare this to the Right’s reliance on markets’ self-control, it can be shown how, when this fails to be the case, as it often does, it is the State which has to step in to bail out failures, again and again: the banks being a case in point. So when (not if) people fail to foster their assets effectively for their retirement, where will their needs be met? By the State, of course.

The fallacy of the Right is that its ideology sounds attractive – let everyone hold onto their own money as far as possible - but that this has been shown not only to be a recipe for failure but to place greater reliance on the State than it would claim. It also favours the ruthless over the fair and is likely to lead to the most unequal society, as we have now. How Labour can support this flawed policy is perplexing and should be challenged.

Neither the size of the cake nor of its slices are beyond choice

What does “public services” mean? These are not simply services used by the public, which can be offered by anyone. They are those services deemed essential to everyone, provided by the State. We now see that to the Right, these are a nuisance, to be minimised because of their drain on the exchequer. They have placed much delivery beyond true democratic accountability in the name of cost reduction [despite considerable reorganisation cost], at the same time removing  the State’s competence at delivery, resulting in dependency on corporates working under “commercial confidentiality”; and with little concern for the motivation of the remaining public sector workers.

So what about Labour from 2015? We know that the Coalition’s reforms of the NHS are to be repealed; and that care is to become one with health. We know that there will be a return to qualified teaching and some refocus on local government. But we also know that Ed Balls foresees further massive cuts in public spending. How then are public services even to be sustained, let alone restored to meet the needs of a growing, ageing population and generation of young people lacking proper prospects? Surely the size of the public services cake does not have to be determined by Osborne for a future Labour budget? Borrowing is not a dirty word; nor is taxation.

Where do we find the Party’s vision for the role of the State and the slicing of the budget cake? What are its spending priorities as between, say, social care and defence; or even between support for the City and infrastructure investment? When some areas of expenditure are ring-fenced or apparently sacrosanct, like defence or HS2, how come continued or reenergised public services – matters that affect the daily lives of people in need – are treated as the first port of call for cuts – by a Labour Government?

Yes, the [re-]advent of local strategy boards for health and education may help redirect funds in those silos but we see no clarity about how these bodies are either democratically accountable nor how their work is joined to other local strategic needs. Populating boards with temporarily interested but unelected parents or patients merely pretends public engagement, when the real expertise must come from professionals. How will transport strategy interact with health, employment or skills strategies under such narrow boards?

Surely we should be looking for a realignment of government spending – the whole cake - with the needs of the population over those of "the economy" as a  purely financial construct. Surely remuneration for public services workers could be set in line with the value recipients would place on their work. Is not the care worker looking after someone’s elderly parent more skilled and valuable than someone gambling with bank deposits? The size of the cake and of its slices need deciding by Labour values, not the inherited assumptions of this vicious Coalition.

Why do we accept the language of success for high inflation?

The Cabinet, the City, the construction sector are all at pains to celebrate the rise in property prices as representing "recovery" as London and the South-East housing sales prosper. Double digit percentage house price rises are hailed as evidence of good news for the economy.

But hold on - let us explore the reality here. Is not the real truth that the South-East is experiencing inflation, at a level which in any other sector would be regarded as near disastrous and which would lead to Tories clamouring for wage cuts for lower paid workers?

Then there is the Princess Royal adding her two pennyworth, using her enormous insight into the needs of rural people to reject the building of new towns in favour of infilling villages and market towns whose transport and schools infrastructure are already inadequate; where there are few jobs; and house prices and rents are uncontrolled.

People in rural areas of the South-East are infected by the London bubble as the capital's real estate is mopped up by non-resident rich, leading those whose work is needed to buy in an ever-widening radius just for affordability. Such jobs as there may be in the areas affected are increasingly out of reach of workers forced themselves to move away to lower-cost towns, from where travel is rarely easy.

What measure do you prefer, GDP or a happy country?

The influential book "The Spirit Level" [Why Equality is better for Everyone; Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, Penguin 2010] has said it. Economics soothsayer Joseph Stiglitz has said it. Now even the EMF, after years of advocating bank recapitalisation and austerity as medicine for broken economies has said it: inequality is wrong. Awareness of this has long been a major factor behind progressive politics, principally on moral grounds. It is simply not right that some people are rewarded for what they do in huge multiples of the remuneration available to most, when they exert no greater discernible effort and merely happen to have talents "the market" elects as more valuable. In many cases inequality stems from no effort at all, merely from wealth acquired by inheritance, accident or good fortune.

Those now leading the campaign against inequality no longer need rely on moral indignation as the basis for arguing against it. These researched and credible sources have now concluded clearly that it is wrong economics. Inequality is damaging because too much wealth is sucked out of the economy into overseas vaults (literal or metaphorical); and too little into the hands of those whose work has contributed to its creation and who will spend it in our local businesses. The problem with this realisation is that it has little traction with those who run the economy, the very plutocracy whose wealth is so divisive. These strive to ensure that their power is perpetual and that the rest of the people are pacified by being led to believe that we live in a democracy, rather than under an oligarchy of the rich. While there is still a chance for democracy to exert itself, we must wrest power back to the wider population and regain control of the country's assets and levers of power for the good of the 99%. We need Parliament, the law, the infrastructure and proper tax management to be in accountable hands, so that inequality is reduced and a fairer society created. The Economy is not just about GDP but about the wellbeing of people.

Mutiny against injustice

In September 1931 the crews of the Royal Navy Atlantic Fleet mutinied. So serious was this that the Cabinet of the National [Coalition] Government even considered shelling the moored ships. So damaging to the country's reputation was this that Britain was forced off the Gold Standard; yet this episode, a capital offence, was settled and hushed up without even a Court Martial or Commission of Enquiry. How could this come about?

In May of that year there was a worldwide banking crisis, which led to large-scale selling of sterling. To defend the pound, foreign banks demanded that UK's budget deficit be eliminated, meaning a saving of £120m in the coming year, equal to more than half of Government civil spending; and more than the budgets for the police and armed forces combined. It was decided by Chancellor Snowden [Lab!] that tax rises should account for £24m of this sum; and expenditure cuts for the balance, £64m from cutting unemployment pay. In other words, the poorest were to pay. The Admiralty, led by Austen Chamberlain [Con], would bear its share too, by a series of cuts, again affecting most seriously the lowest paid ratings most. Cuts of £1 per day were to be made with immediate effect, across all non-commissioned ranks. This had the effect of a 25% cut for the lowest paid. As the Daily Herald described affairs: "This is not patriotism but acceptance of the dictatorship not even of a British bank but of international finance..... It is not a people's Government but a bankers' Government.... part of the price for saving the pound is to be paid by the very poorest people in this country."

As word of this spread from ship to ship gathered for exercises in Invergordon Bay, crews refused to work. The officers aboard had some sympathy for the men but "the sudden realisation that discipline and authority depended on consent had shattered and cracked the solid ground on which they stood." The mutiny shocked and left paralysed the Government and even the King, who was very Navy-minded.  Instead of resorting to the historic model for treatment of mutineers - capital punishment - or to force, to overcome it, they crumbled. "The mutiny ended with the Government agreeing that sympathetic treatment should be given to hardship cases" - in other words, it backed down in face of withdrawal of labour.

This story is rarely retold but can be read in full in the source for these quotations, "The Invergordon Mutiny" by Alan Ereira, [1981 Routledge & Keegan Paul] It is surely worth reading today. Need I say more?

Migration as economics

Say “immigration” and the conversation will be about “how many?” Say “migration” and a natural ebb and flow of humanity is depicted, within as well as to and from a country. Say “economics” and immigration falls into its proper place as a cog in the machine, creating and responding to economic and social conditions.

Without injection of new capacity, skills and diversity to our economy, our home-grown demographics will lack the ability to grow the economy, to service pension commitments and to fulfil functions essential to the smooth running of the economy. How would today’s UK function without the contributions of care and health professional, independent retailers and agricultural workers, to say nothing of academics and entrepreneurs of first and second generation immigrant origin? UK needs to look an attractive destination where skills can be employed.

Labour should never be the party to demonise this transfusion; but it can and should ensure that the right parameters apply. Labour’s value of long-termism should be applied to a vision of what sort of country we want, in terms of population size, diversity and qualifications. The demise of trade and industry councils on whose advice sectoral skills requirements could be identified has left the recruitment of the skills needed for our future economy, be these from home-grown or imported talent rudderless. Whilst we must continue to welcome incomers on humanitarian grounds, we should set out our recruitment stall in the EU in particular, and help those who may consider migration to decide if they may expect find a welcome and a job here. UK should not seek the skills of those whose capabilities are more important to their country of origin. This may suggest that working in and with source countries to educate and develop a future workforce meeting UK as well as domestic needs could become an important role for DFID/FCO.

We do not need money launderers or the mega-rich who merely extract wealth from our nation. All incomers should expect to pay taxes just as any indigenous citizen would, including on assets which are not working for the economy. We have to form a view on the demand for lower wage workers in sectors such as agriculture; and how this draws migrants in. Raising and policing minimum wages may encourage more uptake of such work by indigenous workers but equally attract more incomers.

How can this formula be implemented, though? Free movement within Europe, including UK, surely offers the best market for recruiting the skills we need. Sounder borders and internal implementation of regulations for employment throughout Europe, including UK, will enable any unwarranted inward migration to be managed. UK’s libertarian attitude to identity documentation may be a barrier to such a policy and should be revisited, pragmatically.

Above all, Labour needs to address the agenda, language and prejudices which drive the public perception of this topic. Only by leading with a language which is more strategic, factual, positive and inclusive will we be able to pull away from the sterile, xenophobic arguments about how many “others” we find it acceptable to live with.

Tom for UckfieldLabour

Rural idyll or rustic isolation

The lanes and woods of this rural constituency paint a picture of tranquil beauty and a high quality of life. For many this is exactly what makes living here so attractive. In fact the tranquillity disguises what is a hive of activity. Quite apart from the obvious roots of a rural economy - agriculture; horsiculture; hospitality - behind many a hedge lurks energetic enterprise quite unexpected in these surroundings. Within walking distance of my home are a pie factory,  a soap manufacturer exporting all over the World; in Internet retailer and a state-of-the-art print works, let alone our local brewer, jeweller and artists.

But even in such an enterprising culture there are few jobs and accessing workplaces can be convoluted and expensive where public transport is scarce. Many of those wishing or needing (for family or economic reasons, for example) to remain here seek to find a living through self-employment. These will no doubt be celebrated by current political spinners as evidence of a dynamic economy, contributors to record numbers of start-ups and sole traders. But let us look deeper beneath our green canopy:

Self-employment through inability to find or access work may be very different to entrepreneurship. Anyone forced into looking for piecework may be ill-equipped to handle the running of even a sole trader-ship. This requires not just a skill to sell but the skill of selling. It demands equipping one's business to compete with all the others in the same trade who will not let go lightly of any potential business; and to avoid being taken advantage of by unscrupulous clients. It requires rigorous understanding and management of cash-flow, whilst often bringing in far less income than is needed. How many coming out of employed status or unemployment are really equipped to deal with these alien functions; and where can they access such skills in scantily populated rural areas?

Hidden in this rural idyll are people facing deprivation, isolation and lack of hope, without the means to overcome these. The Tory Shires and Home Counties may be the playgrounds of the wealthy and comfortably off but they are others' homes too, who need the means to be seen, helped and represented.

Tom Serpell

Cameron is the great divider

Britain is increasingly divided under this Government. Quite apart from the potential departure of Scotland, which is not of his making, Cameron is presiding over a worsening North:South (or more precisely South-East vs the Rest) divide and record inequality, as his plutocratic allies line their pockets at the expense of the vast majority. Consider, though, another divide: that between urban and rural economies. As public services, which have been the major source of jobs, are withdrawn to a starved rump; and "infrastructure investment" means glamour projects handed to yet more party-funding mates, those who live in out-of-sight areas are ignored.
For rural families the journey to work or school can be lengthy, complex and costly. Shops, banks and the library (if there is one still) are not round the well-lit street corner. Affordable housing has not been built for years and house-prices and rents are soaring, straining further squeezed household budgets. We now learn that poverty demonstrably inhibits learning and even access to a computer, which is today a sine qua non for students. Superfast broadband comes last to rural areas which need them all the more because of the dearth of other means to access affordable sources of goods and services.
Many rural constituencies are safe Tory seats needing no special attention to sustain allegiance. New houses must not be allowed to spoil the view from the Manor house, so rural poor are faced with having to leave their roots in favour of grotty urban estates.
Labour may have few chances to win seats in rural England but its values are just as needed as in populous towns and cities. We must find ways of joining isolated Labour voices into one loud one so that our issues are understood and we too are part of our One Nation, even without electoral propsects.

Labour should be tough on social security, in the right ways

We lefties are supposed to be open-handed with the taxpayer's money, if the Press is to be believed. Anyone needing to supplement their resources should just be able to apply for this or that and receive it in due course.

It has never been this way; nor should it. Our first desire is that everyone should be able to earn a living, so that social security becomes unnecessary. In order to be able to fund, though, those calls on social security which are merited and important, we have to ensure that the country first raises the proper sums from those who ought to pay; and then does not profligately hand it all out to the wrong people.

It has become quite loathsome how people unable to afford for their meagre rations to be reduced are demonised and squeezed by this awful Government, so lets help Labour to get it right when we are back in power. Here are a couple of true-life examples which I encountered only this week to help them find better targets:

Ms A is 22. She is a single mother of one baby, living in the home of her middle-class professional parents. She is casting around to find a home for her, her boyfriend and her baby, near to where she has been brought up. Mummy and Daddy will guarantee her rent - though are not proposing to pay it. In the area concerned, rents are expensive so she plans to seek housing benefit. Is this right, when by moving out of her parental home she will be burdening the taxpayer?

Mrs B is in her 60s and very wealthy, with a very old mother suffering from dementia. Her mother lives a few miles away still in her own flat, where she receives substantial care and support from the NHS and Social Services. Her daughter visits regularly. The latter wants to go away on a foreign holiday for a week, ie will not be able to make her usual filial visits for a few days. Her mother's care will be uninterrupted. The daughter is claiming to be a carer, entitled to respite and the funding for this.

The cost to the State of these 2 examples may not break the bank but they exemplify how it is so often not the poorest in society who rip it off, but those who do not need help at all. It is surely to these that the attention of tax and social security scrutiny should turn, alongside the tax avoiders and bonus grabbers. As a "lefty" I will be happy to be tough on this sort of abuse.