Who would you really want to run the country?

Among the tedious and misleading mantras of Brexiters is one which seems particularly seductive: "We want our own parliament to run the country instead of a lot of unelected European bureaucrats".
Well, of course we do..... don't we? In terms of accountability, there would appear to be no contest, when we the people elect our parliamentarians whilst EU civil servants are invisible and, worse, not British. This is, though, a false comparison, for neither do EU civil servants run our internal affairs nor do our MPs. The former administer the decisions and regulations of the Council of Ministers; the latter administer nothing but contribute to decision-making in this country. One group is of law-makers; the other of implementers. One group is insular; the other international in scope.

Leaving aside the falsity of the comparison, let us pretend they are competitors for the role of running our affairs and turn to the nature of those who constitute each group. Although a mere lowly industrial worker in my career, I have met examples of both categories. On this frail sample, I would say that both are generally intelligent and well-meaning types of people. But looking at the other evidence available to me - the media - and a very big difference manifests itself. One group is made up of highly educated, well-trained professionals, doing what they are tasked to do with little or no personal agenda. The other is a mix of self-seeking, egotistical amateurs [at least in governance], whose aims may include a well run economy but may also include climbing the party ladder, pleasing a bolshie electorate, greasing up to the media and furthering their own extra-curricular objectives.

On the basis of such a comparison, I know which set of people I would rather were making the country tick. Happily, we retain the vestiges of a Home Civil Service, despite the ravages of anti-Statist ideologues, which can and do their best for the country, often, in my experience, complemented by their EU counterparts. Accountability? They are all employees reporting to or acting upon the decisions of elected ministers. How accountable those ministers are to us for either their own or their departments' behaviours is a bigger question, for we seem to have very little insight into their competence, motivation or performance; nor the means to make them answerable to us in the pale sham we call democracy.

Religions make poor rulers but so does capitalism

From two different sources in recent days has come an idea I had previously not considered: that religious control of a State may affect its economic performance. How was it, one asks, that the Middle East went from being the intellectual and artistic powerhouse of the World, via the vagaries of history, to being an under-performing group of still tribal countries which perform economically less well than their neighbours to the North in Europe? What happened to that intellectual drive? The second source suggests something similar in respect of Spain in the 18^th century: a State watching without emulating the scientific and artistic dynamism of France and Britain in the Enlightenment.

The answer posited by the respective authors lies in religious power in both cases: the Caliphate in the former; the Inquisition in the latter. In each, the defence of dogma is said to have prevented acceptance of new ideas, especially in science and technology, which elsewhere transformed communications, leading to economic growth among adopters. Religions, being based on fictions rather than reality, tend to defend the teachings of their hierarchies. Take the outlawing of Tyndale in the 16^th century as an example closer to home. Allow the combination of translation into common language with the printing press, and suddenly the people, or at least those educated enough to read, can see or hear the words as written in the Bible instead of being given selective extracts which suit the aims of those in power. Suppression of innovations can have a dampening effect on uptake and on the impacts on daily lives which should follow from them.

This analysis seems to confront religion as Luddite, which may be fair. It also assumes, it seems to me, that economic growth is all; that a capitalist economy is desirable. Philosophies, including religions, are not there to support economies but to guide people into a better way of life. It may be that the ordinary people of the Arab countries in the Middle Ages or of 18^th century Spain appreciated some aspects of the way they were governed or guided; and may not have been as comparatively badly off as their modern-day counterparts. Inequality is certainly plentiful in today’s capitalist model. Happily, modern, democratic Spain is a dynamic and cultural country. But look at the position of the Arab states, whether engorged with unearned riches, destroyed by religion-based wars or ruled by bigotry, they show little sign of restoring their intellectual capital or sharing wealth at all fairly among their peoples. Nor does secular, capitalist Britain.

Free labour? At whose expense?

Volunteering sounds like a thoroughly worthy occupation. It enables people with the time to do so to make a generous contribution to their community or some charitable purpose close to their heart. In doing so it benefits the organisation, its beneficiaries and the volunteer. What is not to like?

David Cameron started out his disastrous premiership propounding the Big Society, in which everyone would contribute to the communities in which they lived through volunteering, with these apparent benefits. This would enable government and councils to outsource public services to charities deemed to be specialists in their field, with savings to the public purse. Unfortunately, he accompanied this policy with swingeing cuts to Local Authority budgets, which had the result that funding for community projects and charities was severely curtailed, such that those which might have had the capacity to carry out contracts for services lost this.

However, the cuts to State delivery continued and public services were either digitised or simply reduced. Thousands of competent civil servants and council staff lost their jobs. Citizens were gradually deprived of more and more services on which they had relied. Many, appalled that parks and libraries were to close, stepped up to volunteer and keep them going. Others, seeing the plight of neighbours impoverished by the reductions in welfare, started and ran food banks, now helping sustain over 1m citizens of this country. More yet, often frail themselves, are driven by lack of alternatives within their compass, to act as full-time carers for their ageing loved ones. What a triumph for the Big Society.

So before accepting that volunteering role, consider whose job it used to be or should be; what skills and training it ought to have; and whether by taking it, you are helping the diminution of the State or local services on which we are all entitled to rely. Volunteering can be a good thing but should surely not supplant the livelihoods of fellow citizens, especially by a less professional alternative. Maybe that energy which would be used in volunteering could be devoted to demanding that the State does its job.

“Remain” is the option for failed negotiation, not no-deal Brexit

We were told by the Right that the economic crash was the fault of Labour spending yet for years after Labour failed to dispel this untruth. Now we are told that Brexit is the “will of the people” and nobody has the courage to deny this either.  Labour must, if it is ever to win again, learn the lesson that it must gainsay the mantras fed to the public by Lynton Crosby et al.

We are told that the Brexit negotiations are aimed at minimising the negative impact of leaving the EU.  By implication as well as by all available evidence, any other future model will be worse for the rights of citizens and worse for our economic future. Brexit “hard” or “soft”, Norwegian models or joining EFTA are all worse than where we are now, so why not say so? The negative impacts can be avoided completely if we stay, yet our leaders fail to say so, terrified of gainsaying “the will of the people”, the latest mantra of the xenophobes.

The referendum should not have been allowed to go unchallenged. Cameron should not have been allowed to decide that a simple majority could change our Constitution for ever nor that the vote should be mandatory. These went unchallenged and were accepted into Labour thinking, so much so that they joined forces with the Right to enable the signing of Article 50. This brought Brexit back into Parliament’s aegis and rendered arguments about the referendum’s validity redundant. We know that most MPs are Remainers yet allow them to continue to act as if we must now accept a second-best future or worse.  Anyone who dares to suggest that “the will of the people” makes Remaining impossible is shouted down. Are they all so pathetic that none will stand up for what they actually believe in and for the country’s best future?

Perhaps it would help those with vestiges of backbone if they were to see the triggering of Article 50 not as about accepting whatever outcome this weak government can negotiate but as being about starting the process of negotiation, to see if an acceptable deal is feasible. Thanks to Gina Miller, Parliament will have a say before we actually leave. To make this have any point, surely we have to have the option not of “no deal is better than a bad deal” – ie exit on the worst possible terms – but of staying a member of the EU – of saying, “we have tried to find a future outside but failed”? The EU will welcome us staying and so, one suspects, will a majority of the people by then.

Tom Serpell

When winners are losers and losers win, it is time for a fair voting system

For some reason, at election times my desire to blog and tweet dries up, perhaps in the face of the barrage of material put out by all shades of opinion. For all I know another election may be round the corner to prolong my relative silence but an invitation to have my say is too good to refuse. So much has been written and said about so many aspects of recent politics that it is hard to grasp at any particular strand but reflection has singled one out which is of particular relevance to Labour, it seems to me.

The result of GE2017, surprising in so many ways, seemed to suggest a return to the 2-party model which had been challenged by the ascendency of the SNP, the substantial Green vote, Sinn Fein’s new strength and the happily short-lived threat to all things decent of UKIP. Both major parties will now claim that they provide such a broad church that there is no need for these parties but is this really the case or is the result really pragmatism on the part of the electorate wanting their votes to lead somewhere? I can sympathise with this, having lived in constituencies with MPs for whom I have not voted all my life.

A choice of parties offers every voter a real chance to express their values. Minor parties act as pressure groups on both major parties, not just one at a time. Their followers need to feel that their votes count not only during ballots but also via elected representatives. Parliament needs enriching with diversity of opinion. We only have to look across the Channel to see how complacency and over-familiarity with establish parties can lead to vacuums to be filled. So how come we have reverted to the 2-horse race?

I suggest that this has more to do with the system than with the lure of the manifestos. The only chance a vote has of impact is, in the current system, one for one of the 2 horses. But if the system were to be changed so that the race could have other potential winners, both in constituencies and in parliament, surely many would back the other runners again. In the period before the recent election campaign, when Corbyn’s Labour looked likely to shrink dramatically, there was a renewed enthusiasm in social media for fair voting/PR. Now that Labour looks electable again, this should not be allowed to drop away again because it is about fairness, a key Labour value.

Throughout the country there are voters like me, in millions, I suggest, whose vote does not count in the current system. How good would it be for us to have the chance of electing accountable representatives to councils and parliament, wherever we live; and for Labour AND Tory parties to have MPs in every part of the country, not just in “heartlands” plus the odd marginal? Democracy should give such voters a voice. Should UK not now actively espouse PR as the means to provide it not only via social media but via MPs of different parties for every part of the country?

Tom Serpell, East Sussex

What should a socialist do?

We live in a capitalist world. To aspire to or campaign for an isolated socialist model is unrealistic. No successful socialist state has yet to be experienced. But this knowledge does not mean that one has to like this truth. I want citizens to have ownership of crucial infrastructure and services; to enjoy equal opportunities for good housing, healthcare and education; to live free from discrimination in a fair society; and to share in the fruits of work. I am a socialist.

The essence of capitalism as an economic theory is that wealth creation must lead to more to go around. Over centuries as economies have grown, ever fewer people, it is true, are in absolute poverty but the reality is that the “going around” fails.  The economies of the most advanced nations are deeply unfair and unequal. Those who have the capital get more. Those who are employed to grow it do not. The desire for perpetual growth of capital leads to the retention of what should “go around” for those who have it to reinvest or, as dividend, to reward the brilliance of their decisions to enrich themselves. But it is no fault or disgrace not to be wealthy – merely the fall of the dice. For most of history, over 90% of populations everywhere have lacked any assets whatsoever, whilst those who have them pass them on at their own discretion.

There is surely a legitimate case for those of a socialist mindset not to attempt the replacement of capitalism but to mollify it; to demand the sharing around. In the capitalist world, “tax” is a dirty word. It suggests to those who like keeping all they acquire sharing some of their gains with those who either worked to create them or missed out on opportunities in life. Yet even for the Right the State has roles to perform, which they accept as requiring funding via the tax system. Defence and the justice system are commonly accepted uses for tax revenues, for example. Capitalists need educated workers to help grow their wealth, good transport, water supply and sewage systems. Socialists want that wealth more fairly distributed. So the key function of political discourse must be deciding the extent of the roles the State and thus the level of taxation required. Discourse, by its very nature, must allow for other ideas and beliefs. This discourse must begin with acceptance that taxation is an essential, ethical part of a democracy they should be proud to contribute rather than a dirty word.

Even if one’s vote counts for nothing, because of where one lives or because politics fails us, it is still possible and important that the discourse occurs, if only as a check on the anti-tax, anti-State brigade. We must recognise that the less the State is funded, not only the fewer public services will be afforded but also the more the State itself can be rejected or undervalued, opening the way for the Trumps, Le Pens and Goves. For those who care more for the needs of those in society who have not been blessed with capital, the use of tax to fund public assets and services is essential. This is what makes socialists continue to exist and to try to influence politics, but not, generally, to bring capitalism down. Anyway, why should anyone with socialist values deny these simply because they are in a minority? One day we may not be.

Labour may not like the market but it needs marketing

What has marketing to do with the Labour Party? Surely, it is all about selling stuff that nobody needs? Well, irony aside, the answer is that it has everything to do with Labour today, anti-capital or not. The “M”-word actually has two meanings, both of which deserve consideration here. First, it is about aligning an organisation and what it does with the needs of those it seeks to serve. Second, it is about making as sure as possible that those it wants to serve actually  access what it offers; that it promotes itself effectively.

So, first things first: whom does Labour seek to serve? This used to be easy for the party to answer – the workers of industry. Perhaps this is not so obvious today, when “industry” is not what it was and workers are less organised. Maybe one could answer “everybody” – but this would be too trite. Of  course it is true but you have to start with a core vote; a target subset of the whole, who are most likely to need a Labour Party. Is this “hard-working families”? Is it the lower-paid; or the young [the future]; or the old {who vote]? If it is any or all of these, which party would it then like to speak up for the unemployed, the poor, disabled people, who seem to have been excluded of late? [In my view, if Labour is not for these, then it has no purpose at all]. Without being clear whom it believes it represents, Labour can produce pledges and policies galore but fail to align itself to its desired voters.

Then, there is the message. Voters in today’s world buy into not a list of policies but to religions. Not the theological sort but visions or congregations to which they want to belong; whose image or Big Idea they aspire to. This is how cars, clothes, holidays and even food are chosen. Politics is no different, in having to make itself attractive, not in the detail but first in the desire to belong. Just as a consumer may want to be sure the clothes fit, the food is fresh or the holiday as advertised, so s/he will indeed want a set of policies which they like the look and cost of. But this is uninspiring and insufficient; the technicalities to be taken for granted. Decisions are about being on this side, with this group, sharing these values. And quite correctly, surely, for politics should be on a higher plane than mere pecuniary or technical calculation. Jeremy Corbyn is currently repeating Ed Miliband’s mistake of trotting out nice sounding policy ideas whilst failing to give any sort of believable vision for the future, through which to inspire attention or voting:  the religious part. Without a good Big Idea, able to be communicated and promoted in a pithy sound bite or strapline, Labour will continue to fail to inspire. So come on Labour: decide what you are for and tell us, loudly. Do your Marketing.

Was Voltaire right?

In a previous blog, I mentioned Voltaire as a major figure in Europe’s and thus our culture. Challenging the roles of religions, rulers, war, and ideas then in the ascendency; wit; Anglophile; humanist and author, he is a towering figure in the development of political and philosophical thinking. In his great satire, Candide, his innocent young hero, is faced with the follies of the great and the good of the times but can find no sense in them, despite their being presented as inevitable according with the prevailing determinist philosophy of the times. If, regardless of circumstance, the well-meaning individual had no free will and could do nothing to change things, surely s/he should content him/herself with “cultivating the garden”. The inevitable conclusion of having no agency is to do nothing.

Today, politics and events seem to be approaching a condition of near-determinism: where nothing can be done to oppose those in the ascendency. Someone decrees that something is true: it becomes fact. Someone is appointed leader of the country, with no bow to democracy: then claims a democratic mandate to put into effect actions she had previously opposed. Someone opposes the policies being advocated as bad for the country: and is dubbed a traitor. An opposition party supports the greatest constitutional change in decades which its members oppose. Millions with a desire to oppose have no means to do so.

So what is today’s Candide to do? Is it the case that things are inevitable; that we have no agency; that we must merely cultivate our garden?  Philosophical thought has moved on. We are supposed to have and exercise free will. The belief system of the Right would hold that we should be in control of our own destinies; whilst the Left supports collective action for the wider good. This being the case, we should be in a position where citizens can vote against the prevailing authority; but with the official Opposition nowhere to be seen; and with large parts of the electorate living where they have no prospect of electing even a local councillor, how meaningful is enfranchisement?

Maybe Voltaire was right. We should cultivate our garden but not literally, as an expression of disengagement, but metaphorically, starting at the grass roots; working for the values we espouse within our communities, to be and feel useful. Like charity, politics can begin at home – or in the “garden”.

We ARE European, even the Leavers

Brexiteers frequently talk of protecting “our culture”, demanding that newcomers subscribe to it, pass tests in it or generalising that “they” do not understand it. Do those who have been born and brought up here understand even what it is, ourselves? Do we have the right to talk about “us” as if there were still some race of Britons who form the core of the population, which is gradually being eroded by the pollution of immigration?

What can “our culture” be? This is a hybrid country, a federation of nations with their own cultures, mixed with a long history of new ingredients contributed by arrivals from many and varied parts of the world. The truth is that this is a nation composed of a huge variety of ethnicities, forming a culture enriched by each and all of these. Whenever there was a British tribe, it was before the histories taught even in our most reactionary institutions. Angles, Jutes, Vikings, Romans, Huguenots, Irish, Jews, West Indians, Bengalis, Somalis, etc – these are the ingredients of our happy melting pot.

What are the fixed points, then, which we build on, using these new ingredients? The weather – for this occupies minds, typically? Nothing to be proud of there. Chaucer and Shakespeare – but how many citizens are familiar with them? Our history – largely related as kings and queens, wars and battles, imperialism and theft? Our sports – which may have been invented here but at which prowess is far from unique?

The truth is that whatever we can identify as indigenous, our political and moral philosophies are rooted in ancient Athens, our science in the Arab world, our art in Italy. More recent cultural icons in this country are not home-grown. Are not Dante, Beethoven, Voltaire and Leonardo influences on or of our culture?  Our museums and galleries are packed with the works of great artists from all over the world, to be admired and even [though I am not in favour] retained as national heritage against repatriation claims. This is not to decry our home-grown national treasures, merely to declare that we are a part of a Western European culture over 2 millennia old; and that to focus on home-grown alone is to narrow our appreciation of what makes us tick or the world a better place.

The mantra “British x is the finest in the world” is mere propaganda put about by those who lack the experience or learning about the wider world. It is bandied about nonsensically in relation to our army, our football, our beef, our healthcare, and more. Put any of these to true comparison and perhaps the jingoism will prove hollow. This country is a fine place to live, with fine people and much to celebrate but it is not so very different and doubtfully superior to others. Rather, it is a part of the cultural mix of a long-evolved international society, which it is folly or tragedy to deny. To claim superiority for it is sheer hubris.

 We could [and this seems to be where Brexiteers would take us] define our heritage on ethnic purity but this has been tried before, with disastrous results. We must not go there again. Anyway, who wants a dreary diet based on what our geology, climate and “true Brit” talent might allow us?

Heroes and villains

The controversy occupying the media over the legacy of Martin McGuinness is nothing new. It seems to suggest that people need to pigeon-hole the notable dead in a binary way. They must either be “a Good Thing” or “a Bad Thing” in a Sellars and Yeatman history. But how many people are really either good or bad, saint or sinner? Throughout history great impact has been made by figures whom you might not want to leave alone with a family member. Even the very great may have feet of clay. Occasional media surveys to identify “greatest Briton” regularly turn up Oliver Cromwell and Winston Churchill as candidates but both had bloody escutcheons. Then there are the “terrorists” turned “statesmen”, the judgement of whom depends as much on one’s political allegiance as on objectivity: Castro; Begin; Arafat; Mao and so many more.

Even in more peaceful arenas those on a pedestal of achievement may have pretty undesirable traits. Artists like Picasso, Simenon and Gill, whose work is so special, would not win many feminist votes; whilst Caravaggio, an artist of pivotal importance was a convicted murderer.

Gladstone, Lloyd George, Major; and further afield Kennedy, Clinton, Mitterand, to name but a few, were far from pure when it came to behaviour yet remain respected in the rear-view mirror of politics. Perhaps hindsight, though, only works after memories had dimmed of the misdemeanours and when the legacies have been seen to have been sustained over time. One suspects that McGuinness will remain in the history books as the first republican power-sharing minister of Northern Ireland, whilst the number who cannot forgive his violent past will dwindle. Like everybody, he was not one thing or the other but a human being with different sides to his life which made him who he was. Perhaps we have to accept that there is a price to be aid for the Good Things.

As if things were not bad enough. Welcome to May's World

A common attribute attached by its friends in the media to the Tory Party in the past was that, whether or not you liked its politics, it was the party of competence. Can this still be said with today’s cabinet? Surely not. Whether because the new managerialism adopted by ministers exposes their inexperience; or through their mistrust of the professionals of the Civil Service; or because we have a cabinet appointed not for their abilities but to buy off party factions, the endless series of ill-advised and subsequently binned initiatives, mainly aimed at headlines more than the well-being of the electorate, suggests that we have a very poor government. The evidence? Nearly ten years on from the financial crisis, national debt remains unresolved and the only solution offered is to take ever more from the mouths of the less well-off of the electorate. After almost 8 years of Tories in charge, there are funding crises in health, social care, prisons, schools and local government; increasing child poverty and deprivation for disabled citizens; and shortages of nurses and GPs.

Last week, the Prime Minister begged priority for Brexit in aid of avoiding a second Scottish referendum. It looks very much as though this same pretext applies to every aspect of government responsibility. Does this mean that we can at least be confident in her running a good Brexit? Again, let us look at the evidence. Who does she entrust with the ministerial responsibilities associated with this top priority but three rejects, egged on by others: Johnson, Fox and Davis all yesterday's rejects who have reason never to have been given any sort of responsibility; whilst their cheer-leaders are the bastards of the past, IDS, Redwood et al. No cause for confidence here.

Through no fault of the Tories, we have a pathetic official Opposition, which spends most of its energies pleasing its fan club or fighting with its internal opponents instead of calling the government to account, led by someone without the intellectual sharpness to do so. More effective opposition comes from a country, Scotland, with an ejector seat to threaten, which, if exercised, will actually destroy the United Kingdom. She sidelines this but at her [and our] peril.

As if the unnecessary Cameron referendum was not bad enough, we have a worse future ahead in Brexit, made yet worse by the paucity of talent negotiating it, whilst the country goes to the dogs in the hands of second-rate, inexperienced, self-justifying ideologues who care more for money than for people. Welcome to May’s World, our future.

The Will of the People

Remember “taking back control” and “America First”? Meaningless yet seductive slogans which opponents failed to counter. Now, “the will of the people” has taken over, sucking in not only the very people whose will is to be obeyed but almost every opponent of Brexit, so much so that the official Opposition imposed a 3-line whip to support the government, in favour of what most of its own voters rejected.

Of course, in a democracy it would seem that the will of the people should be paramount. But should it, when those same people and their ancestors have won the right to delegate their decisions to elected representatives? Then there is the breath-taking idiocy of presuming that “Yes” or “No” to a simple question can represent the will of the people over the most complex political issue they will ever face.

Now, this 2016 Yes/No “will of the people” is to be exercised regardless of the outcome of two years or more of multi-faceted negotiations. If the Prime Minister in 2019 or 2020 says she has a satisfactory parachute for our flight into the unknown, adopting it will be called “the will of the people”. If she says that she does not and we must leave Europe via ejector-seat, this too will be “the will of the people”. Two utterly different solutions, both ascribed to the Leave vote. Whatever one person, the PM, says, will be treated as “the will of the people”.

Not only is this palpable nonsense but it is alarming in two further respects. First, there appears to be no significant opposition to it, leaving us as if in a one-party State. Second, it removes all vestiges of democratic legitimacy from the greatest change to our governance in decades. This stands to add UK to the growing list of countries being run as unopposed virtual dictatorships: Turkey; Zimbabwe; Russia etc. What are we doing to our children’s future; and all for a slogan? Who will dare to go against the so-called "will of the people"?

Tom Serpell

Blog name change

You may notice that this blog has a new name, as have the Tweets associated with it. Why?

I have just cancelled my Labour Party subscription. This has been done with great sadness. I am a socialist, so Labour should be my political home. Even living, as I do, in a ward, district, division and constituency in which there is no prospect of electing anyone who can represent my views, I have actively supported and campaigned for Labour, because of its values. Labour should be the government for this country but when the current leadership opted to support Brexit, I could no longer see it as worthy of its name and heritage; nor of my subscription.

Socialism has always embraced internationalism and solidarity among working people and the disadvantaged everywhere. 40 years of building on this principle in Europe has now not even been defended; nor have those on either side of the Channel living and working as Europeans.

By adopting a 3-line whip in Parliament, Corbyn failed to fight for what the vast majority of Labour supporters voted in the referendum; as he fails to oppose the government effectively while he concentrates on factional in-fighting. He is not the only guilty one. The right wing of the party has disloyally failed to support the elected leader, making this infighting inevitable. Were there any sign in Labour of either a potential leader who could rally the party; or a vision for Labour's future raison d'etre which anyone in the shadow cabinet could articulate, staying in could be more worth fighting for but at present even opposing the Tories seems beyond them.

I shall continue to challenge and rail at politics as it evolves. Ironically, I shall be no more on the side-lines outside Labour than inside, because of where I live. I have a number of like-minded friends both inside and outside the Labour Party; and believe there to be thousands in similar electoral conditions who may yet sympathise with and respond to the position I am taking.

In sorrow and in anger
Tom Serpell

An Industrial Strategy for Labour

Political history would suggest that Theresa May’s proposal for an Industrial Strategy belies her Conservatism. The phrase “Industrial Strategy” generally describes how a government will actively engage in the country’s industries and Tories generally do not espouse intervention in the private sector – apart from helping its share-owners get richer.

Labour itself, a more intervention-inclined party, has a mixed track-record in this. National priorities, of course, demanded that the WW2 government in which Labour played a very large part mandated how productive capacity was turned to the essentials of the war: food and arms, principally. Attlee’s government from 1945 then nationalised what it regarded as national priorities, of energy and transport, not merely to serve the nation’s needs better than self-serving private companies could or would; but also to introduce standards of workplace safety and workers’ rights, with considerable success.

However, attempts at selective intervention in the ‘70s by Tony Benn proved both disastrous and that politicians lack the expertise to pick “winners”. A cautionary tale, which may have put off subsequent leaders from emulation. Now, the Tory government looks to be trying a variation of this approach, by selecting sectors to foster with investment and other support. This presents Labour with a multitude of challenges: the need to respond; the need to do so in a way which is not just “we would do it a bit differently”; and the desirability of a 21^st century socialist industrial strategy for the country.

It need not be seen as reactionary to look again at public or preferably social ownership. There is palpable public support for taking the railways and energy into publicly accountable management. There is, though, much not to like in the idea of selecting for support sectors merely on their growth potential as the Tories seem to have, not only because this choice may prove as unsuccessful as Tony Benn’s but because it is likely that shareholders, managers and workers in ignored sectors may be less than enchanted to be left out.

Then there is the issue of the nature of intervention and its objectives. History suggests that government financial initiatives have helped shareholders more than jobs or productivity. Hitherto, jobs have been a key objective. Today, functions, especially in manufacturing, may be more productively performed by machines or robots than even low-paid workers. This is hardly a social driver for strategy. So what is intervention for? There may be strategic sense as in 1945 in consideration of national needs beyond the mere profit growth of some companies which have little need of help. Food and energy security and concomitant reduction of imports, for example, in the post-Brexit period, may become of increasing importance again. Climate change suggests a strategic need for carbon-free energy technologies.

These or all sectors are surely best run by those who know their business, without interference from the ignorant. What could be of significant value to any or every sector include: innovation from scientific research, supported by a supply of STEM graduates; banking sympathetic to innovation; and [like the Tories – they can be right about something] infrastructure to facilitate logistics and high-speed secure data, nationwide. Facilitation is surely better than interference.

In other words, Labour should indeed have an Industrial Strategy, socialist in flavour, but differentiated from the government’s by better serving the whole nation’s interest and avoiding the problems of the past. The consultation’s focus on jobs, though laudable, may be less desirable and achievable than one on economic security. Labour may be better re-cast as the champion of the consumer than just of employment.

Politics is education’s worst enemy

With the exception of 2 days for the annual celebrations of GCSE and “A”-Level results, media and political comment on education is constant and uniformly negative. “What is going wrong with xxx?” “What dreadful teachers!” “Labour’s way is wrong”. etc etc Even Labour spin is more about how its approach is marginally less bad than that of the Tories than visionary.

True, government initiatives over the last few years will surely damage the sector:

·         Reduction of funds for SureStart and nursery schools, so crucial as foundations for social mobility;

·         Fragmentation of school models, abandoning the comprehensive principle and universality;

·         De-valuation and de-professionalisation of teaching;

·         Loss of local strategic input, oversight and accountability;

·         Giving away of public assets such as playing fields;

·         Constant messing about with curriculum;

·         Focus on snap-shot monitoring instead of proper assessment of pupil progress;

·         Cuts and geographic variations in funding, resulting in patchy results for children;

·         Lack of proven improvement process for schools in difficulties;

·         Debt burden for students;

·         Neglect of FE sector; and more

Yet students are generally reckoned to be happy and able to achieve what they want from school and college, despite this apparent chaos. The unhappiness seems to lie with teachers, whose profession is so under attack; and with the inexpert but opinionated commentariat. Whose satisfaction should be paramount?

Labour must surely move on from its tentative critique of whatever the government proposes onto the high ground of its own vision, in education as in other fields. National standards; universal excellence in a common model; letting teachers take the lead; encouraging enquiry over information; investing in capacity to meet community economic and demographic needs; removal of divisive faith and private schools from State support; and enabling best practice to be identified, validated and shared, instead of being hidden away to protect competitive advantage. A strategic approach instead of a political, tactical one. A true alternative to the doctrinaire privatisation of the current government. And when it succeeds, education will be in the headlines only for those celebrations, without the negativity in between.

When Leaders had a sense of humour....

A past Labour leader’s response to pressure to engage in a progressive alliance [to the tune of “The Red Flag”]:

“The people’s flag is palest pink

It’s not red blood but only ink.

It’s sponsored now by Douglas Cole*

Who plays each year a different role.

Then raise our pallid standard high

Wash out all trace of scarlet dye

Let Liberals join and Tories too

And socialists of every hue…

With heads uncovered swear we all

To have no principles at all

If everyone will turn his coat

We’ll get the British people’s vote.”

Clement Atlee, 1939

[courtesy of “Citizen Clem” by John Bew. Riverrun, 2016 – highly recommended]

[*GDHCole was a socialist theorist and Fabian, 1889-1959. The reference to Tories is only partly ironic – there was much talk in 1939 of anti-appeasement MPs of all parties cooperating]