Christmas Cheer for Labour?

The last 100 years were recently described as the transit from Empire, to Democracy then Kleptocracy, as an increasing share of the world’s assets are sucked into the maw of a tiny minority of hugely wealthy individuals. Yes, individuals, for what are corporations but vehicles for multiples of individuals to acquire yet more that they cannot usefully use, without working for it?

No wonder then, if in such a world, large numbers who see this inequity happening around them are dissatisfied with those they have voted for merely perpetuating the status quo, albeit with minor tweaks of differentiation between parties. No wonder that such “indignados” [as they are known in Spain] respond when they hear a siren voice. This may be a voice from Left-field, as has occurred in Greece [Syriza] and Spain [Podemos], USA [Sanders] and here in UK, with Corbyn; or it may unfortunately and more commonly these days come from the Right: Farage, Trump, Le Pen, Wilders etc.

Political sirens must offer a braver new world, with charisma, articulacy and passion if they are to convince not merely their tribal followers but a substantial proportion of the voting public too. Herein lies Corbyn’s problem. He offers a socialist alternative model, true, with honesty and sincerity, which has brought to his banner thousands who had long felt disowned by politics and thousands more who were hearing the possibility for the first time of a politics in tune with their values. But his message stops there. Beyond the converts lie the public, deaf to his way. Sad as it makes me to say it, socialism is a minority sport, even within the Labour Party, at least at present.

Unless he can create a credible vision of a country people in their millions want, we will not go much further with Corbyn. To date, with open goals available for social ownership of rail, opposition to Brexit, mass council house building, State care and more, his Labour Party has devoted itself to infighting and invisibility.

Brexit has done it. Trump has done it. The people wanted them, despite their being palpably flawed. Labour, the people’s party, is no longer seen by the people as in tune with what they need. We who care about the values only it espouses, will patiently have to ride out a period of survival whilst we try to look for the role, the leadership, the political philosophy and policies which may bring us one day back to the fore. Trump, Farage and the other demagogues of hate will be found out, surely, by events which it will be painful to witness and experience.

Sorry. Happy Christmas

"You say you want a revolution" Well......

It is a huge irony that whilst the Left endlessly looks inwards as its factions bicker over who has the right to lead, those it aspires to lead flock to the parties of the Right. How can the Left’s natural constituency vote Right? Clearly, we must challenge old assumptions. Values and habit alone do not sustain loyalty.

The revolution which many on the Left felt to be needed – the peaceful uprising of the left-behind - has happened but not in the way any imagined. No socialist intifada; no new economic model but the rousing voices of nationalist demagogues. Same revolutionaries; different slogans. Sanders and Corbyn tried but Trump and Farage succeeded.

Political mainstreamers need to reassess how and why this has happened and is happening elsewhere. They no longer represent many of those they believed they did. The workforces of the old industries and their communities, cast out by Thatcherism, have been neglected ever since. Labour is no longer the political voice for millions in large workplaces or even their homes. With fewer workers unionised or organised, Labour’s relevance to voters is in question. The demagogues have heard, seen and had the nous to respond, not only by showing this but by applying their common touch to politics. It works.

So this is a watershed in democracy in the West, in UK, USA, France and more. Old assumptions have been blown away by a failure to listen or to keep abreast of people’s real needs. Speeches in Parliament and machinations in the capital no longer work for voters. New media can foster new allegiances.  So can new parties. Labour has an existential problem but this presents Labour Coast and Country with an opportunity, to offer unrepresented voters a platform for sharing common interests. Labour Coast and Country also offers the Labour Party the means to turn attention to millions of its followers it has ignored for too long. Recognising and structuring policy around communities shared needs could be a new model for Labour; now, where are OUR demagogues to take the voters along with it?

Am I a traitor?

I disagree with the use of a referendum in a parliamentary democracy

I disagree with the arguments made by both Remain and Leave in the recent referendum.

I disagree with a straight majority having sway over constitutional change.

I disagree with Brexit “meaning Brexit”. This is meaningless.

I disagree with the government’s refusal to allow parliament the final say over leaving the EU.

I disagree with the demonization of foreign students and workers, skilled or unskilled.

I disagree with the mean spirit preventing the generosity of citizens being allowed to help thousands of refugees in need.

I disagree with the tone of the national conversation since the referendum and the failure of the government to address this.

I disagree with the government subsidising nuclear power far more generously than renewables.

I disagree with the imposition of boundary changes favouring one party to reduce the size of parliament whilst increasing the size of the unelected Lords.

I disagree with first-past-the-post.

I disagree with cutting functions and budgets of local authorities.

I disagree with grammar schools.

I disagree with cutting entitlements of disabled and the poorest citizens.

and so much more. Am I a traitor?

Let us head for a Progressive Government

Every Labour member wants a Labour Government. How many can believe that such a thing is conceivable within a decade, when so many factors stand in the way: a resurgent Tory Party; the adoption of alternative parties by those whom Labour used to think of as tribal; the wipe-out in Scotland; the forthcoming boundary changes; the lack of a compelling Labour narrative; and the endless infighting within the party? So what are we who share socialist values to do, not merely to belong but to win power through which to restore such values to the governance of the country?

There is much talk of a Progressive Alliance, in which those sharing liberal values – Greens, LD, ScotNat, Plaid and Labour – agree seat by seat on a single candidate. This sounds attractive, with less in-constituency competition and aggregation of the votes from supporters of all progressives, like defeating a government bill in parliament. A set of values which are sufficiently shared by all could be conceived as glue.

But are there not flaws in this idea? Oh yes. When members of the same party frequently fall out over its direction or leadership, how realistic is it for tribes usually in conflict to agree, not for a Big Idea but simply to defeat A N Other? How enthusiastic and well-briefed on another party’s agenda can be those who are motivated enough to campaign? And will a socialist, say, feel truly empowered by an elected LibDem? Personalities may play a part in making this possible in some wards, divisions or constituencies; but what about those where this does not apply?

For a Progressive Alliance to work on a scale sufficient to win power in parliament, it will have to work across the nations. Can the leadership and supporters of our parties ever arrive at such an alliance in a system designed for and steeped in conflict? Until the system is itself addressed, probably not. Acceptance is needed first that the old 2-Party structure is no longer relevant. Labour’s tribe is a shrivelled rump searching rather cluelessly for a true purpose. The Tories hold themselves together by constant reinvention and iron discipline but could and probably should be at least two parties. Other parties clamour to be heard but with first-past-the-post never will be.

People all over the country are searching for inspiring leaders who seem to understand them, not necessarily within traditional political parties. So there is a need for a system which can accept all of these realities, enfranchising and engaging more [especially younger people] in the governance of their country.

Any alliance must surely be preceded by two initiatives, therefore: Proportional Representation, so that every vote counts and all voters feel a chance of being represented; and a revitalisation of properly funded local government, not just embodied in a few metropolitan mayors but everywhere, so that voters feel that they are influencing their own lives. Given these two building blocks, a Progressive Alliance may become not just an idyllic dream but a practical possibility. Multi-party representation in a given geographical area may lead to cross-party collaboration or at least organised tactical voting in a way unlikely today. Change has to start with fair voting and engagement of the public in matters to which they can relate: local housing, jobs, transport, healthcare; and with people they see working for them closer to home than the Ivory Towers of Westminster. The old duopoly will not give up its power base without a fight but Labour may just be in a position where it has to change or die. Maybe that change may lead to a part in a Progressive Government.

Mutually assured ...

Regular or indeed accidental readers of this blog may notice an uncharacteristic gap since its predecessor. Frankly, as an English socialist I have been lost for words. Even now that the latest Labour leadership election has at last ended, there is little left to say, either because it has been said a thousand times already or because nothing has really been resolved on which to pass comment.

However, on Saturday I was discussing the state of the world with a friend even older than me who reminded me of the phrase "mutually assured destruction". He was referring to current Labour factions but I had just opined that the world today seems more unsafe and unpleasant for its inhabitants [not including, of course, the "1%" - never them] than at any time since 1962. 1962? Because "mutually assured destruction" as a theory was close to being tested in practice, via the Cuban missile crisis. One of my daughters recently found it hard to believe that people once quite genuinely feared that we were on the brink of nuclear war; but such is my memory of 1962.

Happily, there were leaders at the time with the nous to pull back from the brink. Today's leaders, be they concerned with national or global affairs, do not deserve to place themselves in the same category as those of 1962. How confident can we feel in our chosen ones dealing with: Climate Change [fracking anyone?]; Syria [arms but never a food drop; and certainly no ideas]; refugees and migration [nationalism and xenophobia to the fore]; inequality [lovely if you are rich and powerful]; let alone domestic matters like care for the disabled or elderly, housing shortage and inflation, education for all children or destruction of public services? I see no potential leaders or solutions on the horizon with which to cheer myself; and look at my own Party and despair.

Shut Up! Its Tories you should be attacking!

Far too much has been said already by far too many about Labour in recent weeks, when all fire should have been aimed at the Tories. The future of the country and its citizens surely trumps internal politics. My previous post suggested a split and nothing has changed. I have not opined in this misery fest of name-calling and introspective back-biting, seeing little value in adding to it nor raising a voice on real issues in a room of the unhearing. Labour is going to hell in a handcart, leaving the ruthless but effective May to take her holiday secure in the knowledge that her boat will be unrocked in her absence. What a mess.

During the last few baking days I have been reading Jean Vautrin's novel of the French Commune, "The Voice of the People", with some enjoyment but not a little poignancy. The tale of inevitable heroic failure, more familiar through the lens of "Les Miserables", presents some parallels or at least a few passages which resonate in our self-destruction:

"...doomed to vanish down the trapdoor of history for having sought to reinvent a free and generous world through decrees and posters" may reflect how our supposed leaders are behaving today?

"[The revolution is faltering] because philosophers and artists confuse their dreams with the hopes and hands distorted by toil" perhaps sums up the Westminster bubble but "Must we wait for the poor to become so poor that they can only revolt?" and "People who smell of sweat are worth as much as people who smell of cologne" are lessons yet to be learned by those now in power.

The end of the Commune is that being played out not in England but in Syria for those who stood up to Assad. We here must not resort to arms but must respect the poorest more so that this is simply not conceivable.

Labour's fractured future

For years, Labour has failed to define its purpose in society and to engage effectively with the public. It is naïve even to pretend that Labour can win a General Election in 2020, when it has, at least for a period, lost Scotland and stands to lose dozens of English seats through boundary changes. It devotes the time it should be opposing Brexit and the destruction of public services and trade unions to internecine warfare. Little wonder that voters crave new stars to follow, be these apparently perverse: UKIP; nationalists; egomaniacs.

Even if the reborn socialism of Corbyn can take root beyond its long-standing adherents, it is impossible, surely, that it can gain sufficient ground for electoral success in under 4 years, let alone any "snap" election Tories may try to call to further damage Labour's credibility. So what options are we left with? A united party would seem to be the priority for most. Corbynistas claim that this is within their grasp if only all MPs and party members will loyally come behind their leader; deaf to the reality that the former have already refused in droves to do so. Owen Smith, whether a short-term stalking horse expected to be removed once Corbyn is out of the way, in favour of some as yet unnamed centrist; or a genuine long-term prospect, is the only other show in town. He is unknown to most but may just be seen as having the potential to re-build both party and popular engagement beyond the mere faithful.

Whichever prevails, there will remain that group of once-big hitters from Brown and Miliband's teams, waiting to stab the new Caesar or to lead a split and a new party. This could leave a true red Labour Party of under 50 MPs and a new Opposition Party of arund150, until each suffers the judgement of the electorate. Neither could do anything in the lobbies without he support of the other but also of the nationalists, LibDems, Unionists and even Caroline Lucas. And here lies the silver lining: the birth of a new politics, requiring cooperation instead of unity; alliances rather than a broad church. A progressive alliance no longer  "what-if" idea but a necessity. Maybe the unthinkable split can be a good thing in the longer term. Even the Right may try it eventually.

Why is schism a dirty word?

Both Labour and Conservative parties have claimed to be "broad churches", providing the political homes for voters with widely differing viewpoints, under a vague banner of common values. This has been sustained extraordinarily well considering the diversity of views contained and occasional outbursts of factionalism, not least concerning the country's membership of the EEC/EU. Holding the party together has tested leaders of both parties, notably Harold Wilson, Michael Foot, John Major and David Cameron. Now Labour is undergoing the supreme and perhaps final test.

For decades a small rump of dedicated socialists survived in both country and parliament, putting forward its critique and alternative point of view. Jeremy Corbyn has been a consistent player in this, eventually reaping his reward(?) by being voted party leader at the end of a long period of imagination-failure and lack of vision on the part of the majority, mainstream group in the House of Commons. This leadership inspired and was instigated by a hunger on the part of a public craving values-driven politics. It has led to the situation where the leadership has a sort of Praetorian Guard of both MPs and voters, for whom he can do no ill. His term of office has, though, failed to engage the wider public nor, crucially, the majority of Labour MPs, meaning that he cannot hope to win Labour power.

Within the Conservative Party too exists a faction, set on removing UK from the EU. In effect its followers should be in UKIP but, as with the left-wing within Labour, they want to convert the majority rather than form a separate party with no prospect of power. Thus both left and right factions prefer to live within the broad churches which have a chance of power. Watching the shenanigans party leaders are forced to engage in to bring all their troops behind them for votes is akin to watching the agonies of successive archbishops trying to unify the Anglican church when there are issues on which it quite simply cannot agree. But to church leaders, schism is unthinkable. Why? Because it looks like failure? Because size matters?

In parliament, numbers do matter. Majorities get their way. As the referendum has shown, sometimes even minorities get their way, when the Prime Minister is threatened with losing votes. This has led to parliamentary democracy: being sacrificed to a faction, on the altar of party unity; the denial of the function of MPs; and the country being damaged irreparably. Would it not have been better for us all had the Tory Inners and Outers been separate parties? Would it not now be better were Labour to divide into socialists and centrists? Lets get away from the 2-party system and open UK up to honest representation and coalition politics, with a voting system fair to all viewpoints.

As usual, minorities will suffer as our democracy is compromised

Brexit will have many consequences, few of them good for the people of this country or of Europe. Whichever consequence one looks at, it will be the result of a referendum sought only by UKIP but offered gratuitously by David Cameron seeking an answer to a simple question yet with no explanation as to what policies would lie behind the change option, least of all how the interests of people affected would be taken into account. We are said to live in a representative democracy, in which parliament is sovereign, with elected members there to speak for their electorate. These should have decided on the issue on our behalf. We now see the result of by-passing our system of governance.

The great failing of UK's first-past-the-post election system is that there are always millions of citizens whose views have no outlet. MPs are supposed to be the member for all constituents and often are - except when it comes to applying their party policy as priority. So in any non-marginal, the safely incumbent party can ignore the viewpoints or concerns of those who do not vote for them, leaving millions disenfranchised. If the ruling party decides to hit the interests of disabled people, what recourse will the latter have if their MP belongs to that party?  After Brexit, how will universities, farmers, construction businesses, hospitals, find or reassure staff, when the government exists to implement tighter immigration controls? Who will speak up for creative talent or manufacturers whose international markets will be shut down?

Now, the last opportunity for those who live in politically hostile constituencies to have a meaningful vote - elections to the European Parliament, in which everyone's vote has counted under the list system - will be closed forever. It is surely time in these circumstances to review the electoral system for post-Brexit Britain, to enfranchise everyone and deliver a more inclusive democracy. Meanwhile, for Labour supporters living in non-Labour rural and coastal communities, Labour Coast and Country offers one cross-boundary network in which to have a voice.

Democracy is too valuable to be by-passed

The critique of democracy is well-worn so need not be restated, except to say that alternatives are worse. There are times when only the firm hand of a dictator seems attractive; and others when popular uprising seems called for, but these are conclusions usually seen from a particular viewpoint. We all want the world or the country to be run as we think it should be.
However, bad though a government may be, in a democracy there will be process and mechanism whereby it may eventually be changed. It is when these are removed and democracy no longer applies, except in name, that true disenfranchisement occurs and the people are left powerless. Zimbabwe, North Korea and Turkey come to mind.
So we here in UK need to stay alert and use our representatives to protect our system. Why now? Because we are seeing signs of intolerance, in the attacks on those with different views; we are engaged in a denial of representative government, in this unnecessary and damaging referendum; and we are seeing abuse of power on the part of the current ruling party, as it dismantles and potentially prevents the rebuilding of the State.
These actions eat away at the fabric of representative democracy, weakening it further from its already flawed manifestation and risking a drift towards inequities which, whether deliberate or accidental, may lead to a future infinitely worse for the people of this country than even our current parlous state.

Do not blame Corbyn for Cameron's Folly

I am furious with Cameron. Why would I not be? He leads a party and a government both of which are at odds with my beliefs and values. My antipathy is permanent. No, my fury today goes beyond the norm. His arbitrary decision to put  the country through the forthcoming referendum will define his legacy. Not only has this led to a nasty, gratuitous distraction for Parliament and people but it could yet lead to lasting real damage to the country he is supposed to lead. Where is the leadership in gambling all our futures with such uncertainty over the outcome? This has been done for purely partisan motives. It will be small compensation that he will be the greatest loser.

There was never any need for this. Had he been a true leader he would not have derogated to an uninterested and under-informed public the responsibility for determining policy on immigration (which is what drove the referendum decision). Parliament is the place for such matters. This is what we pay MPs and PMs to do. Were he truly the Remain advocate he claims to be, he could not have taken the risk he has with all our futures. Whatever the outcome of June 23 (please let it be IN), this reckless gamble must go down in history as Cameron's Folly. Now that Out looks possible, the voices of the Remain Right are starting to point the finger of blame at Labour's performance in the campaign to distract public opinion from the truth. Let us be crystal clear: any failure was in calling the referendum in the first place and only one man carries the responsibility for that.

Transport is no luxury, especially in the countryside

In modern societies transport is a necessity. We no longer live and work only in neighbourhoods. Access to jobs, healthcare, education, welfare, shops or even just family demands travel. One might even say that transport is an entitlement; but one which for many has become increasingly scarce. So more public transport seems like a good idea. A vote winner. But in reality, whatever form of transport one requires,even if it runs to capacity or pays its way, can it justify its investment?
Those who live in cities or suburbs may think so. Infrastructure and services serve them and may even be taken for granted. Further investment may be seen as desirable to improve on frequency or comfort. But what of those 10 million or so separated from such services because they live some distance from routes and hubs? They (we) pay as high a Council Tax for a fraction of the benefits. No bus; no trains; no access to the essentials of independent living. We are either deprived of something to which we are entitled or have we elected to do without? Perhaps the attractions of rural or coastal life merit such a choice for some but what of others deprived by circumstances of essentials? What of those of limited means? What of those smitten by ill health? What of those incomers seeking more affordable housing? These still need access to all aspects of modern society. Yet for these the very services on which they should be able to rely may be separated from them by distances unbridged by any form of public transport. The first few miles of any journey towards the means to lead independent lives is untouched by investments, services or policy. Cars, private or taxi, are the only means of starting essential travel. The modern world is car-centred, allowing those with the means to move around at will, often in sole occupancy of a vehicle with capacity for several. Most households own one or more cars but how efficiently are most used?
Were transport truly a universal entitlement, networks of small capacity vehicles would circulate among rural communities, picking up and dropping off, enabling all people affordably to access shops, services or other transport services. We must assume, though, from the fact that this is neither the case nor a plan for any political party, that public transport must currently be viewed at best as only an occasional opportunity rather than an entitlement.
It must be time to re-examine just what the role should be for public transport and to whom it may be deemed relevant not only in cities but in rural locations. How can new technologies be brought to bear, for example to facilitate car sharing, locating assets to match needs or summoning vehicles, even driverless ones, to bring all who need to travel to do so. If there were the will, there could be a way.

Time for a brave, new world?

Work or employment have for centuries been the foundation-stones of society, providing the means for living and the opportunity for advancement. A perfect storm of factors may be about to change this permanently, in Western society at least as the work available to be done may no longer be valued sufficiently to sustain the majority of workers and the dependents.

These factors include neo-liberalism’s stranglehold on power; new technologies and the digitisation of jobs; and mass migration.

Neo-liberalism describes a political mindset particular to the powerful and wealthy who control the levers of power. These, the so-called 1%, have effectively used the media they control to persuade sufficient voters to support their “small State” doctrine, in which the markets which their organisations dominate are given free rein to decide the value and price of everything, with minimal control or regulation from government. Markets like low costs and high profits. Where labour is a significant cost element in the price of goods or services, its costs is reduced wherever possible. Jobs which demand high skills pay most but wherever possible these are kept to a minimum. So whilst in this country political leaders have decreed that more and more young people should go to university, fewer and fewer of the skilled graduates will be needed in work-places. How can this be achieved? Through the application of market forces – competition – and of the digitisation of functions previously thought to depend on human expertise. New technologies have enabled paradigm shifts already in how society goes about its business. Jobs which used to pay good, living wages have disappeared as new ways of doing things have been made possible, often without significant skills or large numbers of workers. Dock work was destroyed by containerisation of shipping decades ago. Coal-mining went in the face of alternative fuels. Secretaries are nowadays mere vanity items for the few instead of essential lubricants of business, as anyone can make arrangements, keep records and manage communications using a tiny hand-held device. Shops have disappeared as consumers buy online, leaving retail staff without jobs or with squeezed wages. Financial and medical advice has migrated from thousands of local experts to websites staffed by tiny numbers. Travel agents cling on to service technophobes whilst the majority can arrange travel, find the best accommodation and arrange currency for themselves, online. True, employment numbers have been upheld as new employments like call-centres and coffee-shops have grown; but these are low-paid, insecure and not career roles.

This trend shows no sign of slowing. What other, even more skilled historic functions may decline or disappear into the Internet? Teaching looks vulnerable to the ideologues of neo-liberalism as they week to remove standards and accreditation and encourage “any willing provider” to try their hand, turning the profession into a low-wage employment at best; or into an online endeavour for self-educating students. And what of drivers? Today there are millions of drivers of cars and trucks, buses and trains. How many of these will be left after the advent of the driverless vehicle? Uber has already demonstrated how the use of new technology can devalue the skills of the black-cab driver. It is not beyond imagination that Uber cars will become driverless, is it? And how many even higher-skilled jobs may be more accurately carried out, without human error, by robots? City trades can be automated and increasingly it is realised that humans are quite poor at betting, so maybe even the bonus-enriched may be replaced. Even film-acting may give way to CGI.

And why does mass migration matter, if the Right can slam the country’s doors shut? First, this is no passing event which will end when/if Syria is emptied. Climate change will perpetuate the drift northward of millions from Africa, the Middle East and subcontinent. Wire fences will not stop this. The influx of more and more workers, many highly skilled, desperate to earn a living and willing to work for lower wages, undoubtedly creates ever greater competition for those jobs which remain.  So there will be more people, fewer jobs and lower wages, for the foreseeable future.

Governments of the Right point to record high employment numbers and to how wrong the Luddites of history were in such warnings in the past, as evidence that these warnings are baseless. This time, though, they cannot point to high wages nor future opportunities beyond for a small minority of highly skilled researchers and developers of the next generations of non-employing enterprises. So how will they continue to persuade young people to indebt themselves to go to universities when at the end of their education there will be a graduate premium for only a few engaged in the most valued and creative fields of science, the Arts and, cherish the thought, good governance; but a lifelong struggle for subsistence for most? The inequalities already bemoaned in US and UK economies can surely only grow in these circumstances unless a new model for life and remuneration is found. Experiments with a Living Income – paid regardless of work status are worthy of attention. Just as Gordon Brown instigated Working Tax Credits to supplement low paid work, perhaps the State should simplify matters and just settle for everyone having leisure for life. No means testing; no transport to work requirement; no benefits system. Utopian – or inevitable?

Tom Serpell

Is less more for education?

"Less is more" is a quite useful rule in some fields, avoiding over-complication and delay. The current government, though, seems to believe that such an approach should apply to public services, with less money supposed to achieve wellbeing for a growing population. How may this apply to education under the upcoming Morgan [or is it Osborne] Education Bill?

Is less qualification of teachers likely to lead to more learning by pupils? Is less Local Authority oversight of admissions and provision likely to lead to more parent satisfaction with the places their children access, especially in rural areas with fewer options, far apart and poorly connected?  How will reducing public assets of land and buildings increase State provision? Will lower pay, poorer terms of employment and working conditions for teachers raise recruitment, retention and standards? How will fragmentation of commonalities such as curriculum or teacher training give more families comfort? Will less parent and community governance end up with more village Primary closures at the behest of Trust finance directors? Could it even be that removal of education from the budgets of Local Authorities  actually reduce their very viability?

The one certainty where less will mean more is that the loss of local accountability for education will mean more central bureaucracy, more Civil Servants at the failing DfE and more opportunities for private sector contractors to profit from Academy Trusts. Lack of evidence of competence or capacity to educate in either DfE nor Academy Trusts set up by Big Capital suggests a wholesale, arbitrary abandonment of a generation of children and a denial of the State's duty to educate all. Less indeed. Let us have no more of it.

Tom Serpell

Terrorism works. Lets avoid it.

Let us be in no doubt. For those prepared to practise it, terrorism or politically inspired violence works. Terrorists generate not only death and destruction but uncertainty and fear too. Their efforts affect not only innocent victims immediately in the firing line but even governments, often far away.

Governments have a duty to defend their citizens but in deciding how to do this they are susceptible to doing exactly what terrorists want; as are the civilian populations who perforce become refugees. Kid yourself not: huge increases in defence budgets, surveillance, ethnic cleansing and xenophobia are exactly what perpetrators of terrorism want. These are manifestations of fear.

ISIS may or may not be in retreat, suffering casualties, leaderless or just past its sell-by date but, relatively small in numbers that it is in comparison to its chosen enemies, it punches well above its weight when it comes to impact on governments. When the latter adopt state assassination or remote attacks affecting the innocent, ISIS wins. When every email you or I send is inspected, ISIS wins. How they must smile as those they attack join the game of violence, gainsaying the stated primacy of diplomacy. By killing a few, they invite the reciprocal killing and displacement of many more, perpetuating the cycle. The losers are not just the people fleeing for security only to find that countries they thought would shelter them slam their borders in their faces; but the governments which too readily kneejerk into doing what they criticise their attackers for.

If anyone doubts that this works or that history proves it, look no further than Israel or Ireland for precedent: diplomacy and eventual stability achieved via a violent journey. To say that violence works is not to advocate it. To acknowledge how it works could result that, instead of playing the games of the extremists, governments can redouble their diplomatic, social and intellectual efforts to deal with the issues potentially leading to the violence before they do so. A tenth of the sums spent on defence dedicated to diplomacy would seem a start.

How do you feel about this EU campaign?

Dare one say it? The campaign which started this morning but which is in reality already 2 months old, is both boring and badly managed. Yes, the subject f EU membership is important. Yes, voting about Europe is, for us who live in safe Tory seats, the one occasion when our votes count. But the powers that be could hardly have done worse in terms of enthusing the electorate.

If I were a Brexit-er [which I am most decidedly NOT] I could at least be enthusiastic because this is such a simple, clear message. But the awfulness and chaos of the rival gangs could reduce this clarity to confusion and lose them their chance of prevailing.

Then there are the Remainers. Oh dear! Their case could be so strong but their message and presentation are so poor. As usual with anything run by the Tories, the focus is on money and foreigners, when the visceral, emotional attraction must surely lie in decades past and future of peace and cooperation. Instead, we have Johnny Foreigner against Colonel Blimp; gunboats against the defenceless; and, sadly, old-and-voting versus young-and-disenfranchised. As if it were not already bad enough that Europe as an issue historically attracts low priority in voter concerns and low turnout. Four months of bad-mouthing bigotry is no turn-on, will do nothing to give democracy a good name and may lead to a damaging conclusion when there was no need for the referendum in the first place. What a mess.

Tom Serpell

Migration is part of English life

Communities large and small require a constant supply of labour if they are to be sustainable. Even ever-growing London needs not only the much-vaunted higher skilled workers who may grudgingly be allowed in from overseas to refresh the talent pool but also its hidden army of low-paid, less-qualified workers who oil the wheels of service, healthcare, cleaning and transport. As people migrate into the capital in search of economic betterment, the demand they create for accommodation drives up property prices, out of the reach of these workers who lived there before and need to live there still, creating a sort of ethnic cleansing of the unqualified. What is not so evident is the parallel to this picture being experienced in thousands of rural and coastal communities.

At the start of the 20^th century, there were some 1m agricultural workers populating the towns and villages of rural England. As these were deprived of their living by automation and changes in farming and fishing practices, many left the country for industrial employment, denuding their former communities. Smaller, less influential populations were further deprived of transport links, and public services.  In recent decades, city-wards migration has been replaced to some extent by a reverse flow, as members of the new, affluent, urban middle class themselves experience the effects of property inflation. These have been two-fold: they too have been squeezed to pay for their homes; but they have been able to take profits by relocating and sometimes starting businesses in more attractive, often rural or seaside, environments, with lower costs and better quality of life. For such incomers, lack of public services may be of less importance than to long-term residents, being typically more mobile and able to pay for services privately. But life-style businesses in rural towns have limited growth, employment and wages. As more of the static number of available houses are acquired by the wealthy incomers, fewer are available or affordable to the less skilled, lower paid inhabitants of these communities. The younger generation is forced away from the countryside to find employment, leaving villages as micro versions of London: communities of the affluent with no local supply of unskilled labour, to lift the seasonal crops, to care for the ageing, to drive the non-existent buses. Is it any wonder that there is demand for workers from overseas who are prepared to tolerate multi-occupation housing and unsocial hours?

Ministers make the assumption that the public will accept skilled foreign workers into the country, because they are presumably nice middle-class people and relatively few in number. The reality is that in London and in leafy and seaside towns, there is still a need for lower-paid, less qualified workers to keep services going; but they are unable to live there , thanks to the inflationary effect of ignoring house-building for so long. In a market economy, only higher supply will mollify price inflation. If villages are to remain multi-generational or evolve into retirement communities, they will need not only a supply of labour but a supply of housing which can be afforded by first-time buyers, young families and lower-paid workers; and effective transport services to connect them to the services they need for health, education and employment. Until then, we need to think carefully about our  attitudes towards migrants and which ones we really need in our communities. Too may affluent house-buyers is no solution.

Accentuate the positive

Back from sunny Cadiz, where we happily marched alongside the Podemos banner in support of safe passage for refugees.

Is it any wonder that engagement in politics in this country is so low? The messages put out to inspire the public are about reducing services on which we all rely, mean-spirited attitudes towards both citizens and needy foreigners, blame for everything and personalised attacks. Anger at "what the hell is going on" is a strong motivator but hardly affirmative. Fear of change seems to have become a mainstream tactic which works.

Yet so much of what makes communities work is so much more positive. Mutual help is everywhere. Volunteers help to welcome refugees; refugees in turn come out to help flood victims.  Communities provide allotments; allotment holders offer produce to the needy. This sort of behaviour shames our political class, with its eye so permanently on the balance sheet rather than on human needs and kindness.

In this country we are so fortunate in our climate and our history. Most people can work now in decent conditions, with good health and relative comfort at home. Life expectancy is growing and mental ill-health and discrimination are increasingly addressed, albeit from unacceptable levels. At grass roots, society works fairly, belying the inequalities accepted and even perpetuated by the Establishment oligarchy. People of all persuasions, ethnicities and gender are accepted within society and the law.

True, none of this happened overnight nor without leadership and often legislation. Governments and Oppositions have played an important part in directing societal changes. If the needs of the people and of communities are to drive legislation in future, we need to have politicians and electoral processes which pay heed to these needs and make positive changes more likely, rather than more fear, blame and focus on mere money. This is why it was a pleasure to march with Podemos, which links intellectual head with community heart in its very structure.

Tom Serpell

Awol

Your correspondent will be uncharacteristically silent for a while. Off to the land of Podemus. All in the name of research, of course.

Mass Movement

In her pitch to become Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, Stella Creasy spoke much of the need to create a movement as opposed to just an organisation. It is unclear whether she regarded what happened as achieving that aim, for a Corbynista tsunami was clearly not what she had in mind. Nonetheless, this raises the question as to how a movement comes about; and whether it can ever be deliberately created.

Charismatic leaders can lead a movement, it seems; though timing may be equally important in achieving buy-in. Where people feel excluded, a leader who speaks to their needs will attract a following more than a similarly beguiling personality might when life was comfortable and fair. Perhaps, therefore, it is the response to a need that makes a movement come about.

Take as a example how the people of this and other countries have responded to the plight of the myriad refugees fleeing their homes with nothing, to escape bombs and persecution. There has been a thunderous absence of leadership from those we put there to provide it. Indeed it may be that what has happened is a direct result of this vacuum. All over the country individuals have decided that doing nothing is not good enough; that it is unacceptable to leave so many to die or fall ill from exposure, especially small children, as politicians vie to "protect our borders" or save money rather than show common humanity. The people have decided. A movement has happened, unled.

Volunteers have simply gone, to Calais, to Lesbos, to Serbia, to take human warmth and generosity to others in need. Tonnes of clothes and food have been collected in communities all over the country. Others have collated these offerings and transported them to the destination of need, where yet others sort and distribute them to the cold and hungry. There is no Disasters Emergency Committee arranging all this; it is just happening. People use social media to find other people who can complement what they are doing. There are countless tiny groups and soloists acting because they feel an imperative. This is a movement.  It is unlikely that anything like it can be constructed to order, no matter who takes a lead, unless there is a true need which motivates the willing. The Labour Party was originally a movement responding to the need for rights for workers. What need it should fulfil now is the key question.

The poverty of wealth in Market-World

I need money. I like to have enough of it. I am lucky enough to have enough, though I am not rich. I can live a comfortable life, without excess. Lucky me, when many cannot be so fortunate. I also hate money, for what it can do to people, myself included. It can make you spend more than you want on crap you do not need. It can make one simply want more of it, which in turn makes one greedier, selfish, grasping. And greed is both unbecoming and leads to regrettable behaviours.

In our Market-World, you are supposed to want more of both money and possessions, as the manifestation of success. If you have lots, you may be placed on a pedestal, given honours, lauded, whether it was earned or unearned. Above a certain level of income, it becomes impossible to spend it all, but this does not seem to inhibit the desire for more, always at the expense of someone else. To make more, you may have to do down someone less grasping, less competitive, less entrepreneurial. If you run a small business, you are supposed to want to make it bigger, no matter that it may satisfy you need to feed and clothe yourself, your family and staff. Oh no, you must be entrepreneurial to be successful. It is not enough to be happy or content. Satisfaction is failure in Market-World. Poverty is unthinkable shame.

Irony is lost on politicians, it seems. For those propounding light-touch, low-interference government, business support is only on offer for those businesses aspiring to high growth, not to those who want a sustainable, long-term income. Greed and growth, consumption, conspicuous and vacuous wealth are today's gods, with churches called "Westfield" or "Dubai". Are these churches worth attending, when all you can do there is spend more or envy those who do? What do they offer in the way of comfort, culture or happiness?

I do not want to do without money, nor what it can do for me, my family and my interests but I see every reason to try to find ways of reducing society's emphasis on lucre as the main measure of success, for individuals or for governments. There are other values for humanity which should surely be given their chance as yard-sticks of success: peace; fairness; well-being; generosity.... How successful is this country in these?

Small State for a Small Future

Political parties are defined by their view of the role of the State. States' expenditure principally concerns the security and well-being of its citizens. How there are supported depends on the flavour of those in the ascendency at any time. Those governing parties accepting responsibility for the greater burden of the people's needs perforce raise the largest funds with which to pay for these, usually via taxes as the principal repeatable source. Governments deeming taxation to be theft of citizens' hard-earned income; and believing that individuals should shoulder the burden of their own well-being, regardless of circumstance, typically tax less - though frequently with little similar compunction when it comes to paying for those outgoings they favour. It seems that Small State believers will pare back ruthlessly services for well-being whilst lavishing tax receipts on arms used to assault citizens of other States.

Small Staters take a harsh view of needy citizens, so intent are they on allowing the economically successful to keep hold of their wealth. Healthcare, education, housing, and retirement are matters for personal decision, even for those who for any reason are unable to afford to pay. Impecuniousness is a sin in a market economy - or a disaster. It is clear that in a Big State citizens want for less, insofar as services are provided for them, paid for by tax receipts; but those earning most must share more of their income accordingly. In some States the payment of taxes for such common benefit is accepted as a right and proper part of citizenship.

How politicians explain their preferences for the type of State they would create is instrumental in how the public takes sides. Small Staters tend to demonise terms regarded as anodyne by others, like "tax", "borrowing", "poverty" and "entitlement", in attempts to persuade the general public that any party suggesting increases in tax or welfare is unpatriotic. Citizens undergoing temporary shortage of income, long-term disability or simply old age are contemptuously treated in media as second-class, while those riding high on commercial success are placed on a pedestal. But in such a climate, what do we, the people, lose? Once the State has shrunk such that only the rich can afford hospital care or education, how can Big State ever be restored, no matter how desirable to the majority; and how are the ordinary people to achieve well-being?

First, the country loses the capacity to provide universal education and care of a reasonable quality. Society then polarises into haves and have-nots, with a growing risk to cohesion. Second, the failure of the State to invest for the long-term in basis science, technology and infrastructure on which depend jobs, decent pay and commerce may deprive enterprise of the platform for their future success. Third, lack of capability in meeting the needs of ordinary people within the public sector may place the country at grave risk as under-paid private sector providers fall away, leaving the State in crisis with responsibility but no means to fulfil it. The Small State will lead to a small future.

Instead of shying away from those things demonised by the Right, believers in public services and State investment must reclaim or rewrite the lexicon and ruthlessly describe the benefits of the Big State, and publicise just how they spend money for the citizens.

Naked politics

Perhaps all politicians should study life drawing.

Drawing nude people may not seem the most obvious training for the cut and thrust of the world they aspire to - nor for any other job except artist. So what am I saying?  I am a long-time life artist. Every body, every pose is different, and complex. Merely outlining the shape with any realistic proportions is hard enough; but to portray the 3-dimensional object is more so. Then there is a person there too, alive and with a personality.

Artists like life drawing both because of the endless variety and challenge on which to apply their skill and creativity and because it demands a degree of concentration which is rarely possible in everyday life. This in itself is quite stimulating.

This is not to say that other interests are not equally absorbing, so why should I single out politicians for this particular hobby-horse of my own? What have I learned from it which makes it so relevant?

It is because to have the opportunity to draw a nude person is a privilege, demanding of respect. Models are people - extraordinary or ordinary, just like everybody. They may arrive in fine cars or on foot,  dressed up in finery or wearing jeans but when they remove their clothes, they are simply human beings. We ask no questions as to where they went to school, what their job is, how much they earn, where they live. We focus on just them. Stripped of all trappings by which assumptions can be made about them, we can only draw what we see. Every body is as interesting and as complex as every other one. We can only treat each model as an individual, unique and of equal value, with equal respect, doing our best to repay their generosity in exposing themselves for our scrutiny.

Now would it not be good for our leaders to see everyone as of equal worth, deserving of equal respect? It might even do them good to expose themselves to the scrutiny of others, without hiding behind the usual carapace of image and uniform.

Tom Serpell

Why bother? I think, therefore I write.

I suppose that the vast majority of people in any democracy give little attention to politics between one election and the next. Perhaps they express a view here, shout at the TV there, blame "them" for something or everything - but this does not make them political. Put it another way, as my wife does: "it must be great to be a Tory, not having sleepless nights worrying about other people's poverty or life chances, just thinking about their own interests."

A quiet life, unbothered by the stress of electoral failure, inequality, poverty etc sounds terrifically attractive, so lets not bother any more. No politics. No volunteering. No community work. Just stand back and wash one's hands of it all. It is someone else's fault or responsibility. Or is it?

If it seems wrong, perhaps it is. If it is wrong and you can see it, why is it up to someone else to do something or at least to draw attention to it? The trouble with being alive is that you do see things and what you see may demand a response. For some people, injustices identified cannot be ignored. For many, there may be few options available when facing the un-ignorable but even a voice raised above the silence of others may be of some use. Almost everybody has access to some means of communication, even if this is limited to one's own circle of acquaintances. Signing one of the endless petitions now available online may seem devalued by familiarity but, like electoral votes, it only takes enough people to ignore them for apathy to let those against whom the protest is aimed off the hook. Enough voices, letters, signatures, tweets, blog posts, marchers, and votes can make a difference.

If you are cursed with a social conscience, not bothering really is not an option. Doing something can get it off your chest and contribute to the noise others are like-mindedly making; and make a difference. So I have decided, after a pause for thought, to continue to use my advancing years to send my thoughts into cyberspace; as well as doing small things in the community which might otherwise not happen. Happy 2016.

Tom Serpell