Be afraid of fear

Is fear a good basis for choice of government? Fear of more of the same? Fear of change and the unknown? Fear of foreigners? These are the agendas of demagogues but do Farages and Brands make for good governance? Surely not. They simply criticise whilst offering no viable solutions or alternative government. We should vote for outcomes, goals, for a country run better according to our beliefs, needs, values.

Recent debate has suggested that, with no overall majority for any party likely, we may enter a period of huge uncertainty or even paralysis, undesirable, no matter how it arises. Nor do alternatives taking place elsewhere in the World look much more attractive to believers in democracy. Disregarding the chaotic aftermaths of popular discontent with past governance in Libya or Syria, the stability now offered [and apparently liked by many] in their countries by Putin, Sisi and even Erdogan can hardly appeal. This sort of autocracy we should indeed fear.

The probability of a hung Parliament is created by citizens' hunger for something better suited to their perception of the country's priorities. For an increasing number, this means not more of the same, of the familiar, stale formal groupings. But for all of the imperfections of our sclerotic system, responding to fears may lead to results we will find useless or even abhorrent. Perhaps we need instead to work to change our institutions from within rather than dumping them in favour of a vacuum which may be filled by less desirable solutions. Until it proves to fail, let us hold fast to voting Labour for a more equal, less fearful society.

The Left has no realistic Kip-like alternative

The idea of UKIP's ghastly representatives being electable is repugnant but nonetheless appears to be growing in reality. Tories in particular, frustrated that their party is not quite unpleasant enough, can now see an alternative to entrust with their votes. This has been available for years but has only now become a real option because it is conceivable that their chosen Kipper could actually be elected.

True, some disenchanted Labour voters may go the same way; but for those on the left this option should not be conceivable. For disenchanted lefties, a close examination of alternative manifestos should lead to a mass exodus towards the Greens. Their current policy list is as close to an ideal socialist prospectus as you could realistically wish. So why not vote for them? They do, after all, have an MP and other elected representatives.

The answer I would offer is that they lack that likelihood of victory which the Kippers have discovered. The Greens have yet to build the bandwagon effect that Farage has created around UKIP. With little prospect of influence in the lobbies, a vote for Green still looks like a wasted one, no matter how sensible their policies. I wish it were otherwise. For now, the recourse for those who would like a more socialist country and government must remain to work on Labour from the inside, to persuade the leadership that it is more important to grasp the opportunity to set the country on a new course than to lose mass support and stay in opposition by presenting themselves as slightly nicer managers of the country's resources than Tories.

Tom Serpell

Politics begins at home?

So if Whitehall-centred government puts people off politics; but if politics is too important to be ignored [for the country has to be run], what then?

Real politics is about real needs in the communities of the country. Yes, we need defence [perhaps less than those in Whitehall like to tell us]; yes, we need international relations; yes, we need a State. But when MPs talk about cost of living issues, how well do they really understand what they are talking about? These are people remote from the issues on which they pontificate and legislate. To inform themselves they pay other well-paid people to conduct research but the realities of daily life for millions pass them by unnoticed. They seem more interested in helping businesses to thrive than voters, despite businesses bemoaning government interference at every turn.

In cities, towns and villages citizens know how scarce are affordable homes; how expensive is child-care which allows them to go to work; how absent and expensive is convenient public transport; what school clothes eat up from a budget; how time and energy poor it can be just to lead a normal life. For citizens with disabilities or without paying work, life is tougher still yet politics seems so rarely to be about the needs of real lives. Percentages pay no bills.

Real politics happens when women dispossessed of homes occupy disused flats. Real politics happens when spare allotments are made over to feed hungry locals. Real politics happens when public service workers face migrant workers being exploited by private sector businesses. When the main parties start to understand and address the real needs of real people, they deserve our votes much more than when they argue over who can score points in debate or which can be the most business-friendly.

Grandstanding and polls do not lead to engagement

As the summer's big political news items fade behind us - the Scottish referendum, the major party conferences, yet another ridiculously costly and pointless war - I find a thread connecting them all - their irrelevance to everyday life. Surely these issues, of huge importance to those with or seeking the drug of power, are a world away from daily concerns, yet it is these which occupy the media. All three major parties support bombing Iraq again. All backed the No campaign in Scotland. All engage in personality assaults which are completely non-constructive. No wonder voters are disengaged, disenchanted and looking at alternative ways of expressing their interests.

Then there are the headlines. What makes the news? Not the serious issue of a deeply unequal society nor the alternatives to war but the foibles and peccadilloes of people to whom we are supposed to look for leadership and decision-making. A lapse of memory is cataclysmic. Stupid behaviour destroys a career.Someone changes allegiance. These may be of personal significance but why should they dominate the media for the millions to whom they mean nothing? How will page after page of prurient analysis of these pin-pricks make for a better country? Parliament has become a club as inaccessible and irrelevant to most people's lives as the MCC or R&A Golf Club, run by a clique for a coterie of similar types.

How then can respect for politics be renewed? To be taken seriously by voters, as the people's party, Labour has to revive its values, its collective roots, using the media real people use in everyday life to hear and become more relevant again; and stop being Tory-lite proponents of an unnecessary austerity imposed to preserve the power of a tiny minority. Of course we do not have to pay off the deficit in one Parliament. Of course Cameron will look better at running his own choice of economic strategy. Of course we do not have to spend billions on armaments and wars we have no business to be in. Of course it is not right or essential to demonise and deprive the worst off. Come on Labour - what are we for?

Judge the book by its contents

The other day, someone asked me if I was a musician. Why? Because she thought I looked like one. I am not sure what a musician is supposed to look like, but even if I do, this would belie the reality. For I have not a musical bone in my body. So how much credence do we place on appearances? Surely too much. Take Ed Miliband, for example. He is pilloried by the right-wing media for his looks; yet his party remains unified and leads the Opposition in the polls consistently, despite this following a disastrous election only 4 years ago. This suggests that people see past the media’s insults.

 

Last week Tesco was found to have made a huge accounting error. Shares tumbled as investors took fright. The media and some of the public took great delight in this evidence of the fallibility of the mighty. Yet how many of those so delighting actually refuse to shop at Tesco – or Amazon, or Google or any other dominant brand? They perceive them as evil because of their power but continue to use them because of what they actually do.

 

There is much to be said for a retreat from deference to the powerful; even to challenging them. They – the 1% - cream off too much of what citizens earn, giving little back. But we do need people who are prepared to take on great responsibility, to make things work. We need leaders for communities, for workforces, for enterprises. These should not automatically be targets for brickbats. Our perception of them should be based not on superficial attributes, be these looks, success or even wealth but on what they do. If Tesco supplies more than 30% of the groceries of the country, this is partly because they meet the needs of millions of customers. If Tesco fails to deliver good value, customers can and will go elsewhere. If Tesco publishes erroneous figures, those who are concerned with such matters can and will review their stake in the company. These are manifestations of what the company does.

 

If Ed Miliband holds together an often fractious political party, develops a strategy for that party and for the country which people find credible and presents a team of electable candidates to the electorate, these are what he should be judged on. If I write a great symphony, judge me a musician. Otherwise, judge me for what I actually do, not what I may look like.

Tom Serpell

@uckfieldlabour

So how did it come to this?

Apart, of course, from the Treaty of Union, until very recently there was no apparent substantial existential threat to the United Kingdom –or so our political leaders seemed to think. They had agreed to a Scottish referendum; and had access to pollsters galore, so how did they get it so wrong? Surely the first duty of any Prime Minister is the defence of the nation, against whatever threat, presumably including secession – for how else do we explain the unanimity of the Westminster parties over the No campaign? Most leaders have clearly regarded even devolution as a threat to their power and failed to encourage a long-term federal solution which could have bound us ever more tightly together whilst recognising people’s hunger for more self-determination. This has been a huge mistake in the face of plentiful evidence, which Scots voters have now given us the chance to rectify.

Mistake No 2 has been arrogance. Delegating previously vilified Labour ex-ministers to carry out the dirty work instead of showing true leadership belittled the whole threat and allowed the result to be as close as it eventually became. The ultimate complacency.

Mistake No 3 was to fail to heed even those polls they did access at the time of the referendum agreement. The deliberate removal of the 3^rd option of Devo Max made the No option – more of the same – deeply unattractive to many. Accompanying this option with a badly drafted question, tactics of threat and bullying contrasted strongly with the upbeat, visionary campaign for Yes which has so nearly prevailed. Even as a PR man, Cameron should be dismissed for allowing this negative strategy, let alone for his dereliction of duty.

We are where we are, so whither England; whither Labour? The lesson of the Yes campaign for Labour must be to re-emphasise building a fairer society. It must define how it will offer some of the benefits won by Scots to disengaged English and Welsh voters. We voters must note how the Scots got what they really wanted by shouting loudest. Even we who live only 50 miles from the seat of power feel the lack of any agency. The SNP can be compared to UKIP, in tapping a vein of anti-Establishment feeling. Labour should back-track from its closeness to the City, to Big Money and to the other No parties and return to the grass roots from which it sprang, for this is where the disenchantment grows.

Cameron’s failures smack of his typical strategy vacuum; of reaction to pressures with back-of-the-envelope bribes rather than long-term vision. Labour must paint a vision for a better country now; and explain how it will bring it into being, to turn his mismanagement into something better for everyone.

Tom Serpell

@uckfieldlabour

 

Migration works both ways

Migration is only just beginning. Of course, it has always gone on, often with our country as a destination of choice, thanks to our socially liberal culture. As climates change, water becomes scarcer in some regions, power and employment shift and sectarian divisions turn into conflicts, more and more populations will be displaced and seek new homes.

Whilst ethical considerations and an inclusive society demand a welcome to those in extreme need, control of immigration is a legitimate political priority. Just how many oligarchs do we want buying up our best properties? How reasonable is it for public services to have to publish regulations or information in multiple languages? Why should incoming workers not be as subject to minimum wages as indigenous ones? How many jobs can actually be filled without recourse to recruiting non-nationals?

All parties need to address these issues but only one has a real solution and that is UKIP's desire to close borders. Such xenophobic initiatives have no place in our country, negating the positives of new earners, new cultures, duty and hospitality. Consider too its obverse, the emigration of British nationals to other countries. Would UKIP advocate stopping this too? We seed usually warmer lands with non-earning, often non-linguistic public service users in very large numbers. These are a burden on local resources, often not integrating nor enriching host communities. We should ask UKIP candidates their policy on this, perhaps, not least as Scotland may soon become either a source or a destination to be so controlled if it got its way.

Labour still has a very ill-defined solution to what will only grow as a policy issue. We in the affluent West, especially as a past imperial power, must not deny our responsibility to the peoples of the world; nor to our domestic voters.