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.