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