What do we expect of a leader?

Now that Labour's Leadership process has run its interminable course, we can and must look at what we can learn from it, if only to make next time more sensible. There are many qualities and characteristics of leadership which have been the subject of a thousand books but a democratic political party demands something different. It requires someone to lead not just the organisation but the electorate, whilst allowing constant critique from the latter. S/he must be chosen from a group of egotists, with little in the way of a job description, training or career development.

How can the electorate choose from candidates not shortlisted by any criteria other than their own ambition and the hope of popularity among their colleagues? Leadership in business, military or family is hard enough to define but in politics it is doubly so. A candidate who can command the parliamentary party may put off the electorate; or vice versa. A leader in ideas may lack media charisma. A decisive character may fail to listen or delegate. Whence come skills in selecting a team, in motivating it, in making decisions others would duck, even in dealing with PMQs?

It seems that popular support may even derive not from the qualities or skills of the individual though but from their mere difference. In recent months, leaders and parties have been swept to the fore simply because of who they were not. UKIP claimed to be anti-everything. The SNP was not a Westminster party. Jeremy Corbyn was not an Establishment type. So far from a leader being a prime exemplar of their tribe, perhaps we need the ability to look beyond the obvious and towards game-changers. How do we do that?

This migration is no blip.

In the Stern Report Sir Richard predicted mass migration occasioned by climate change, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. That other apparent causes have triggered this already does not mean that the millions he writes of will no longer arrive; merely that some have started earlier and that we have more to come.

Western Europe is rich, despite the efforts of bankers to cream off the wealth to the Caribbean and elsewhere. It is large and populous but by no means full, as some on the Right would have it. Of course, Western Europe is not the only part of the world to which refugees and others may direct their weary feet. Indeed the failure of some of our so-called allies to open their doors is a disgrace about which our lily-livered governing class fails to act repeatedly.

But others' failure does not exonerate UK from doing the right things: to be generous, reactive and humane, instead of grudging and politically strategic; to collaborate and even take a lead in collaboration in Europe, to make sensible policies for migration instead of looking the other way in a nationalistic and cost-counting funk. Doing things for others is a central tenet of any moral society - which Cameron claims UK to be under his watch. Let him prove it. Migration is here to stay so a permanent, strategic solution had better be developed for the good not only of refugees but of this country. Failure to do so will only mean more unnecessary death, the rise of xenophobic nationalism - and a popular backlash against it which may lead to social breakdown in this country too.

Are some people really superior to others?

Are some people intrinsically superior in value to others? I do not mean in financial worth, for that is all too glaringly the case. No, I mean should some be regarded as better people than others? There are morally good, financially successful, genetically stronger, more handsome, more likeable....many differentiators but do they make it OK for some to look down on others? Put it another way:  are some humans inferior? Should some be looked down on because they look different, have been less fortunate, simply have less?
I pose these questions in the light of today's politics. One could be forgiven for thinking that my questions could or even should be answered in the affirmative, to listen to Government policies on welfare, taxation or border control. Yet all of my upbringing, education and acquired world view says "No!" All people should be entitled to equal respect, to rights. But if this is so, how can we allow those who simply have less (or nothing) to be demonized, excluded from basic sustenance and shelter? This country is supposed to be a beacon of democracy, good governance, liberal values and justice. Ha! We have to stop preening ourselves if we think so but look at how other countries we like to say we are better than to find out the reality. Look at how welcoming Germany and Sweden are being to refugees. Look at how Denmark equips itself to look after the less fortunate of their successful economy. If we care about values, let us elect a government which has some of the sort we aspire to, instead of one which sneers at difference and misfortune.

Hypocrisy or Hippocrates? What should we expect from our politicians?

Politics must surely be rooted in some degree in a philosophical framework. There must be a sense of purpose beyond mere acquisition of power and self-interest. To the Right this tends to focus on individualism, self-reliance and the Small State; to the Left on mutuality, community and shared responsibility. The common theme binding the whole spectrum must be the well-being of the country governed. How that well-being is measured is again a dividing issue. For some, it is all about economics [money] whilst for others, it concerns the people who constitute the nation. Such philosophical musings are an important backdrop to policy and the pronouncements of political leaders. There is nothing wrong in a devout Right-wing government unashamedly announcing policies which reduce taxation on individuals, insofar as this is what it was elected to do. There is nothing wrong in a left-of-centre governing party taxing companies and individuals more highly in order to fund more effective public services. What is wrong, is for the one cynically to claim the clothes of the other - to claim that taxing people more is doing them good; that removing rights and social security is to help people; that squeezing the poor to pay for the sins of the wealthy is in any way morally right. This is pure hypocrisy.

The Tory government seems unashamed in behaving in such a way, presumably in the search for outcomes which please its adherents. But this is not acting for the well-being of the population, merely for some of them. It may [or may not] work in achieving financial goals, which are the false gods they seem to worship but whether it does or not, let us at least be sold the truth.

The State is not just money but people. Any political philosophy should be open as to its purposes and its impacts on people's lives.  John Stuart Mill wrote of moral behaviour as causing the least harm to the largest number; the Hippocratic Oath, sworn for many years by the medical profession, commands "First, do no harm". Perhaps politicians of all parties should be bound by a similar oath on coming to Parliament, so that they are able to be held to account against a philosophically based but humane yardstick and reminder about the motivations which should drive them. Doing least harm would seem a good starting point.

Lets show some humanity to migrants

We ask readers to use your influence to persuade the UK Government and EU Council of Ministers to act at once to alleviate the living conditions of migrants in Europe. To date, many pronouncements have been made and some action taken to reduce the flow of desperate people both into Europe via Italy and Greece and internally between France and UK but little has been said or done of a humanitarian nature.

 

Whether they are asylum seekers or not, all are human beings, mostly with no money nor possessions. Many have suffered long and severe privations even before arriving at our shores. Whether welcome or not, they all deserve treatment as fellow humans: sustenance; health care; shelter; hygiene and respect. It is shameful that this country and our equally affluent neighbours cannot find it in our hearts and collective pockets to provide what we would certainly contribute were these refugees in a far off land. Humanitarian action is a sign of strength, not a weakening of resolve in border policy.

 Surely we can collaborate with our partners in Europe to establish and resource proper camps in key migration bottle-necks, be these Lampedusa or Lesbos, Kos or, parochially, Calais? Such a step would not only show our humanity but actually impose some order on the chaos and even permit processing of asylum applications without the risks to life and limb currently taken by so many desperate people who are surely our collective responsibility.

Language is politics

Words are the vehicles of ideas. Great art can, it is true, convey feelings and even concepts to some degree but almost always by implication. Explicit ideas require words if they are either to be articulated,  communicated and understood. Bloggers use written words; parliamentarians use speech. In whichever form, users of words have a responsibility commensurate with their position and audience. One would hope that great responsibility of this kind would be vested in those in whose hands trust is placed to manage great matters, such as running governments. How disappointing it is when, too frequently, those to whom we should look for responsibility choose words inappropriately, especially on matters of great sensitivity. In recent weeks commentators, political leaders and their messengers have seen fit to describe fellow humans as "cock-roaches", "swarms" and "marauding", as if those they refer to are lesser beings. Words like these do not belong in public discourse about innocent and often vulnerable migrants - for it was in this context that they were applied. Whatever political burden migration may place on a country, those concerned have human rights. Many are where they are because it is intolerable to be where they came from. They are all people like those who belittle and demonise them, who are more fortunate.

We should all respect them and demand similar respect of those who are fortunate enough to have a public platform. On such platforms, words should be chosen which lead to the speaker as well as the objects of their speech being respected. This applies equally to those jockeying for esteem and positions of power over others. Disrespect for opponents is becoming all too prevalent in party politics. Misusers of language who know better deserve no respect. Politicians should note, if they wish to be re-elected.
Tom Serpell

Mine is not a lone voice in this part of the country

There needs to be a credible alternative movement to counter the inexorable drag to the right that Blairism has engendered for the last 18 years.  Contrary to many media commentators, I believe that there is more of an appetite for more left wing ideas than many believe, especially amongst the young who are being systematically disenfranchised by the ruling regime, unfortunately enabled by the current labour leadership.  (As far as I am concerned HH's stance on the welfare bill was shameful, and AB's equally risible).

I work for a local housing charity/association and I can see how support for those most vulnerable in society is being corroded systematically on a daily basis, dressed up as the  war on "scroungers", (despite more than 50% of housing benefit being awarded to those in work).  This narrative really needs to be challenged but I don't see that happening under YC, AB or LK, therefore JC has my vote as things stand.  I just want to see a true opposition and just do not see that happening under "Torie-"Lite".
Cheryl Herriot
East Hoathly