Signing off

That's all, folks - at least for 2015. Come back next year to see what we have to say from rural East Sussex. Meanwhile, happy Christmas.
Tom Serpell

The Rights-thieves are active. Fear them not their scare stories.

Rights belong to everyone, permanently and inalienably, from birth, whether someone else likes it or not.  These are not given to us according to our beliefs, colour, gender, affiliation, ethnicity; nor can those who gain ascendency over others claim the entitlement to remove them. This is expressly forbidden under the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Despite this, sometimes, some of those who do not like others to have rights attempt to take them away. When they do, those affected suffer.

Describing human rights in these theoretical terms does not adequately explain the suffering of those deprived. This may take many forms but may include: torture; enslavement; mutilation; abuse; injustice; even death. There may be theoretical rights but actual experience can be so different, as with those walking across Europe seeking safety from bombs, including our own. We should be shocked to hear about these things occurring, though they can seem remote when far away or involving alien cultures and may only spur a few to react. When attempts take place to deprive us  here of our rights, they can seem so much more real. When a democratically elected government deliberately, consciously seeks to abandon well-established, hard won conventions or entitlements, in a country which prides itself on the maturity of its governance and civilisation, then we can feel the shock. Depriving those without means of justice; taking away trade union rights; making people homeless - these are all against our rights but are happening in this country today and constitute attacks too.

And for what purpose? To save money?  To maintain power? To reduce the State? If the State has any role it starts with the defence of its people, not, surely, just from physical attack but also from loss of rights, like freedom of religion or freedom of expression. Every citizen should be wary of attacks, insidious or overt, on their own and on other people's rights because loss for one means loss for all. By the same token, the defence of the rights of one person may be the exemplar or test case as a precursor for wider, class action in defence of many. So individual effort in the face of seemingly unstoppable attack may not be impossible or wasted.

Ignoring human rights abuse is to renege on one's own rights and duties to others. Today, as human beings spread across the world in search of sanctuary from war, persecution and the destruction of their homes, to watch country after country head towards nationalism, isolation and hard-heartedness, is to watch the potential demise of the unanimity which enabled the UN Declaration to come into being; and the end of the collective, collaborative Europe which has given peace and allowed rights to be upheld since WW2. We should all be afraid of governments behaving like this and resist the erosion of what is ours, whether they like it or not.

Politics must become more fun!

Omitting the recent "Corbyn Effect", political parties have seen a decline in membership continuously over many years. Old tribal warfare such as Workers vs Bosses has faded into memories, even if the issues behind it are unresolved and painfully present behind the scenes. Most work is no longer carried out in huge factories but by "white-collar" mortgage-holders with new priorities. In our unequal country, having a job and a home, no matter how indebted, count as economic success,  apparently not meriting the energies of unions to wrest improvements from Gradgrind employers. This leaves the Left with out its main historic purpose.

Voting is now left to older generations with memories of how we got here and with the time to stay in touch with the mainstream media. They are familiar with the democratic process, unlike today's young. Yet the future belongs to the latter, even those not yet of voting age. How are they to be persuaded to engage in a process which seems so irrelevant to their daily experience, let alone join a political party? True, the aftermath of the recent election has seen a huge upsurge in parties' membership, perhaps because Corbyn's message, like that of Nicola Sturgeon in Scotland, could be conveyed in a sound-bite or in 140 characters.

And how sustainable will this engagement of the younger voter be, if or when the power-hungry sulkers of the Labour front bench show how disloyalty really works and the people's Labour Party is once again discarded? Then, focus group, who-can-be-least-radical politics expressed in spad-eeze will turn them off again, surely. The [mostly white, mostly] men in suits will once again be a distant oligarchy with no understanding of the lives of those struggling young workers, disabled or unwaged citizens.

Instead, these may more likely be engaged by what makes them curious, angry, or empowered. This may be a community cause, or a global conflict; a campaign or an injustice. So the young, as bright, lively and unselfish as in any generation, will form their own allegiances using their own preferred forms of expression and media. This will still be political engagement but not party-political, leaving them outside the process whereby decisions can be made. A thousand pressure groups will still need a mechanism through which to unlock resources controlled by an ever-narrowing, unrepresentative few. These latter will still cluster in Parties, which will still need voters; and the voters will still depend on the Parties; but the people may fall into neither category unless they can attract the young, the ethnic minority, the women voters currently put off by the profile of  "Politician". How to do this? The Parties must relinquish their capital stronghold, devolve and share power - genuinely, explain how governance works; offer social engagement and the fun of debate; actually listen and hear what is needed; and then show how politics can work for them and for the country.

Misleading history lessons

Although history does not repeat itself precisely, that general lesson can be gleaned from an understanding of it is surely undeniable, except by the most arrogant or wilful of leaders [naming no names]. It is in understanding it badly that lies one current malaise, which may cost us dear. How we talk about, treat and make policy about foreign peoples may be the very cause of some of the most intractable policy areas: diplomacy, Europe, immigration, social cohesion.

As rulers of colonies, the British Establishment acquired a sense of superiority, entitlement and arrogance which has yet to be diluted by the passage of time since empire's demise. Foreigners were looked upon with either suspicion [if powerful] or disdain [as lesser beings]. Still, today, our ruling oligarchs and their media camp-followers seem content with a default mode of suspicion and stereotyping. The Algerian author Karem Daoud sums up this attitude thus: "Arab-ness is like Negro-ness, which only exists in the white man's eyes"

 Such a hangover from history leads to behaviours, even policies, such as schmoozing the rich, no matter how ethically dubious; and trying to avoid direct contact with the rest. Handshakes are exclusively reserved for those with money to spend. This "rubber-glove" attitude may be manifested in trying to ensure that our shores are protected by other States not letting people out in our direction; or in bombing from a safe height. It cannot be seriously believed that history teaches us that the gunboat is preferable to the conference table, but metaphorically this seems to be the first resort of the Right. Trouble in Syria - lets bomb, or better still, use remote controlled drones. Refugees in Calais - lets keep them away with fences and someone else's armed guards. Mass migration in Europe - lets claim we are not a part of it.

Refusal to welcome valid refugees is all about their foreignness rather than their humanity. Hostility to the EU is about an arrogant distaste for collaboration with Others. The British Establishment still seems to show its old colours, failing to grasp that all humans are of equal worth, no matter how much or little wealth they command; and that foreign States are as entitled as our own to self-esteem and the respect of others.

The World is changing before our eyes. Mass migration has only just started. As climate change also shows, you cannot simply turn your back on such seismic shifts but have to adapt to them. Concrete walls will - should - not keep out either extreme weather nor the realities of human need. So let us have reality in politics not worn-out attitudes inherited by a narrow-minded and xenophobic few.

Do we really want to go it alone all the time?

They say that perception is truth so perhaps I may be allowed ignorance to some extent of facts "on the ground" when the impression of reality is all I can rely on. I have long felt that collaboration - teamwork, if you like - was a preferable way of overcoming obstacles to going it alone. Not only are two heads better than one but more resources and fewer opponents result. So Europe has avoided conflict since its members agreed on cooperation. So, the principle of mutual defence [note that word] lies behind NATO. So, the countries of the world agreed to create the UNO to foster collective solutions to the biggest issues.

Then why is it now the case that these apparently laudable institutions seem to be by-passed by our own government, a key player in each? NATO is, it is true, cited as the vehicle for some actions but these are rarely concerned with mutual defence. Rather it is used in aggressive adventures. The UN fails totally to appear when a massive humanitarian crisis faces hundreds of thousands across Europe and the Middle East - even neglecting the disgrace of the Calais Jungle and its suffering inhabitants. And how pathetically self-serving have the leaders of the EU been when dealing with the crises facing both the elected government of Greece and its suffering people.
rld.
When institutions fail it is because its members fail to cooperate. This will inevitably lead to the further breakdown of the institution, leading to unilateral actions and inter-nation, "Balkan" conflicts, with the humanitarian aspects of the crises of the world left high and dry. Before this occurs, leaders need to look hard at both the reality and perception of their own loss of faith in collaboration and ask if this is really the fault of the institution or of their own leadership. They need to ask what is really best for the country and for the world. My perception may be shared, to the extent that supporters of cooperative institutions may end up voting to abandon them, if they are allowed to fail to perform as they should. Then the reality will be truly dangerous.
Tom Serpell

Tribalism is great but can it damage democracy?

Seth Godin had brilliantly described one aspect of how modern society structures itself in his writings on tribes. I hesitate to describe his work as an analysis of what works, though.
We are none of us true islands, connecting ourselves by accident or intent with others in any number of tribes with shared interests, habits, bloodlines, cultures or roles. Each may belong to several or even many different tribes, in which we engage as suits us. This has been made incrementally easier since the mass access to the Internet arrived. Now, we can subscribe to any number of groups even without ever meeting our peers, just by use of our mouse. And herein lies the problem. For just as joining can be ready, so can creating a would-be tribe.
In politics, there used to be, in this country, two major and one or two minor parties to attract us. Now, even within the broad label of a major party like Labour, one can join tribes of the left, the right, the centre, all of which fight verbally at least every bit as viciously as they do with the older, bigger enemy: the Other Party. Criticism too having entered the cloudosphere, all this verbal war is carried out in full view of who is saying what about whom, to the delight of the enemy.
Belonging is great. But taking vociferous sides in public conflicts between tribes within a greater Tribe could mean defeat of all at the hands of those we should be fighting. So, Jeremy, be careful that Momentum does not put all your momentum into a narrow box which can be attacked by other Labour boxes, become a mere sectional tribe, instead of changing the big tent for the better.

Its groundhog day in the country

Angry of Wealden sends off his letter to his elected member, a Tory, naturally. The rebuff is received, polite but firm. No dice for humane revisions to policy. Lets try the Labour Party? Our concerns meet a dead end, with no elected members. End of politics for the rural dweller. What other recourse is there?

Well, there must be some, because the values and passions of socialists cannot simply be ignored, brushed aside. this way lies extreme blood pressure or a complete negation of Labour Party membership.

The first realisation must be that isolation does not mean total solitude. Surrounding each of us there are others, if only we are lucky enough to find them. shared values are a terrific social bridge. In our secret minority we may not wear our hearts on our sleeves for fear of pariah-dom; but perhaps we should, so that we can find or be found by these kindred souls. They too shout at Question Time, despair at the lack of Labour rebuttal, want to express their reasoned views. Linking up is the first step. This may be done informally - the pub is a good start - or in a more structured way, via the constituency party or other arranged group. There is strength and confidence in numbers as well as solidarity and company.

The collective view or rant achieved may then also remain unheard, of course and for the same reasons. What then? can Labour really ignore or afford to deny the local knowledge and passionate support of thousands of such individuals and pockets of socialism spread throughout the no-hope constituencies, merely treating them as cash cows and target-seat fodder? No. a way must be found to bring their voices, energies and know-how into play, not least because these represent a common experience of rural living and political needs. Living in the country is not all cows and Range Rovers. It is expensive; has fewer and poorer services and the transport to reach them. It is not to put us into Defra's hands as off-shoots of a now minute farming world. Link us up and we few are many. Turn the party towards our needs instead of just looking at party efficiency. Meet these needs and urban needs will probably be satisfied too.

@LabourCC

Labour may have a new way to do business but the Press, unfortunately does not

The audience for Jeremy Corbyn's conference speech both in the hall and at home was uplifted by the refreshing prospect of manners in politics, as well as by the overdue spelling out of real alternatives to the Camborne mantra of "no alternative". We knew what to expect but it can be so disappointing to be right. Sure enough, the media, from the Today programme onwards, has sought to sew discord, criticism, negativity and nit-picking.

The Murdoch media can always be relied on to do all it can to damage any socialism. So what? But the BBC has once again come out fighting for the mantle of "Most Small-minded Media". "Yes but..." must be the first words of every BBC interviewer; never "congratulations". This may be one reason for the popularity of Twitter etc, for here, whilst there is plenty of criticism and too much rudeness, there is also a healthy measure of good will, support, positivity.

Labour has just elected Jeremy on a wave of popular enthusiasm. He is trying something new - inclusivity; consultation; decency. These cannot be allowed to thrive by media longing only to be destructive, for they know nothing about joy or celebration. How disappointed the commentators will be if Labour under Jeremy actually grows, wins and creates a better country. What will they find to be mean-spirited about then? Do not worry - there will be something.

Let Labour oppose before demanding it governs

During Ed M.'s regime, there was huge frustration in the Party and the country at the snail-like process of deciding and then announcing policy. When it came, it was girt with caution and lacked a governing vision to inspire the electorate. Jeremy Corbyn has been preferred as Leader by Labour supporters because we already understand his vision, at least in part but we do not need a full portfolio of policies this early in the proceedings, as pundits and opponents seem to be demanding.

It is for Jeremy and his delegated team to come up with policies as and when ready, as other leaders before them and in time for a General Election almost 5 years away. But before then, there is a prior responsibility which has been sorely neglected for the last 5 years, which must take precedence over pleasing the baying and unnecessarily critical media hounds: opposition.

Cameron, Osborne, IDS and the rest have got away with an obscene catalogue of destruction of public services, failure of economic management, vicious injury to people's lives and downright lies, almost unchallenged. Jeremy's appeal is that he posits clear alternatives to the measures claimed as essential by Tories and only mildly criticised by the other Labour leadership candidates. When Labour front-benchers daily challenge Tory dogma and lies with real alternatives and pungent critique, Labour will look electable even before a full programme for governing is unveiled. It will and should take time for the latter, for Party management and even succession planning to take shape. Meanwhile, let us hear it for Jeremy Corbyn, Leader of Opposition.

Refugee numbers are big but it is the individuals who matter

It was the books of Lyn MacDonald bringing to life the experiences of soldiers in the Great War which changed everything for me. Studying history, ancient and modern, seemed until then to be all about dates, scale, win or lose. The big story about WW1 was the telephone numbers of casualties. Almost 60,000 on Day 1 of the Battle of the Somme, 19,000 dead. Millions of dead and wounded on both sides. Lions led by donkeys. All these headlines typify how history seemed until it became personal - not for me but for every one of those who experienced the events which make up the narrative. Every unit of statistics is a story - a biography of a person, usually involving other people, who knew, loved, hated or otherwise encountered them. Lives lived, enjoyed, happy, sad, ruined, concluded.

Now, once again, we are in the midst of a numbers storm. Millions of people displaced, hundreds of thousands in camps, tens of thousands perilously crossing seas, thousands of political pawns. Then a picture is published showing a dead boy and we realise that migrants are refugees; refugees are people, individuals who also had lives in their places of origin as bank managers, scientists, engineers, cooks, school-children, with families, friends . How desperate these must have been to leave these lives, to face walking, limping, swimming, starving, with no known destination. Every one a story, a life, a human.

This is why refugees must be found homes among those who have the wherewithal to provide. This is why shutting them out is not appropriate and shows a deficit in leadership and humanity. This is why those who have played a part in creating the chaos the Middle East has become have a duty to those displaced by the deployment of Western arms. What are these individuals supposed to do, who find themselves with nothing, in the middle of alien countrysides, facing hostility, starvation, or a future worse than the ones they fled. This is why we as individuals too should think how to change things.

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

This selection process is ridiculous!

Could the Labour Party really have found a worse system for choosing a new leader than it has?

A General Election lasts just 8 weeks, for 20m voters to elect 650 MPs, across the whole country. We are told that it requires twice that length of time for 0.25m members, most already relatively familiar with the candidates, who are armed with up-to-date contact lists, to select just one person (2 if you consider the deputy counts). This has to take place against the background of a rampant Tory Party, wreaking havoc with the lives of those whom Labour should be protecting, yet hardly noticed while the factions fight like rats in a sack. What a shambles and disgrace.

 

It had already been widely acknowledged that Labour made the mistake in 2010 of letting Tory lies about who was responsible for the deficit off the hook whilst Ed Miliband was elected, so what does the Party do but repeat the mistake and do it all over again? Osborne commands the media, claiming as "progressive" his imposition of yet more penal penury on the neediest; and the Party which should speak for them and to them argues among itself but publicly.

 

If hustings are essential, hold them daily over a short period, filming them for streaming or broadcasting. Let candidates publish their CVs and manifestos online so that anyone can read them at will. But 16 weeks of uncertainty, back-biting, neglect of Opposition and just looking incompetent is inviting oblivion, no matter who wins. We cannot wholly blame Ed M for resigning after his rejection, but maybe on reflection the Party should have been more loyal and persuasive of him at least to oversee the transition. As it is, those responsible for the process are every bit as culpable for whatever period is we have in the wilderness as the leader who arises from it.

Tom Serpell

Loyalty in politics?

Anyone in their right mind will say that loyalty is a good thing, will they not? Certainly the opposite is frowned upon. If we say someone is loyal to their spouse, that is only what is expected from their commitment. If we display loyalty to our employer, this is what we are paid for. But loyalty can be played like a card in the political game without quite the same clarity. An MP voting loyally for their party (as instructed by the Whip) may please the hierarchy but will this same action be seen as loyal to the wishes of the voters of their constituency or even to his/her own conscience?

"I have been a loyal Labour all my life" you hear on the doorstep How can this be when the Labour leadership can swing from Michael Foot to Tony Blair in such a life-time? Is this the same Party in each case, to which loyalty is expected? You could argue that the loyalty is to the values of the Party rather than to the Leader with some credibility yet does anyone seriously believe that such divergent leaders espoused identical values? We can but hope. Similarly how can we find the common factors linking the leadership candidates, when one is berated as a "Tory-lite" and another as a "Socialist voter-repellent"?

So when we cast our vote for Leader or Party, how are we to select if not on blind loyalty? Perhaps for the values we as individuals conclude matter. If power trumps principle, in our thinking, so be it. If principled opposition is enough, go for that. But probably the second worst loyalty in this context is that based on habit - "I have always voted X". The worst? "My [father/mother/family] has always voted X".

Humans are tribal, so it is understandable that the wish or habit of a chosen tribe is followed but in 21st century Britain most of us adhere temporarily  to several tribes. In this context, individuals need to be clear on  our own values to which we are loyal. Then we can vote accordingly, avoiding choices which may let us down.
Tom Serpell

The State we are in.

Political parties differ according to the philosophies which guide them. A fascist state requires total submission to centralised control. A communist state would be run by the people, acting collectively. For the last 35 years or so, this country has been governed along what has become known as neo-liberal lines, in which individualism and market forces are set above collective good or planned communities. Even the Labour Party, founded to promote "common endeavour", has acquiesced in this tendency, acting merely as a brake on its extremes rather than promoting an alternative philosophy.

The evidence of history, even within recent times, shows that markets and enterprise, Gods of the Right, cannot function effectively without State input, to invest in both pre-commercial research and infrastructures; and to bail them out from the consequences of their wilder behaviours. Freeing individuals and corporations from paying taxes both deprives the State of the wherewithal to fulfill its role and creates a society of greed and inequality, where those who can, thrive, but those who lack the emotional, intellectual, physical or economic resources flounder without a safety net.u

The society resulting from the Small State is thus unequal and nasty, with it's individualism an obstacle to a shared culture. The happiest society in Europe is widely acknowledged to be in Denmark, which has high taxes, a benevolent State and low inequality. Our current government seems to value money above the happiness or even the well-being of its citizens. Labour needs to spell out much more clearly the sort of society which can be built on its true philosophy; a society in which payment of reasonable taxes is not belittled but welcomed; in which the State has a clear and laudable role, not so much in managing resources as in planning and directing them towards society's priorities; setting and policing standards and expectations. Above all, a Labour country will foster mutually supportive communities rather than self-seeking individuals. Without a strong State working with others, how will we be able not only to care for all citizens but also share in investing to address those macro-issues which transcend borders: climate change; migration; multi-national corporations and conflicts? Selfish individuals and corporations, no matter how financially successful, and tooth-and-nail competition offer little interest nor any means of doing so.

With thanks and apologies to David Burrell
Tom Serpell
@uckfieldlabour

What sort of revolution?

The Pope, the Dalai Lama, Christine Lagarde, Thomas Piketty. What do these have in common? All point to the ever-increasing inequality in the World as damaging, even potentially socially destructive and, as such, unacceptable. Yet we have a governing party which seems set upon a strategy to increase the wealth of the haves at the expense of the have-nots. Throughout history such arrogance and unfairness has generally led to a fight-back, with the feeling that only revolution can bring about an equal society. Sometimes this has taken a bloody form, as in France and Russia. Recently the uprising of the dispossessed younger generation of the Arab countries has shown that such a recourse is not a mere tool of history.

Today we are witnessing an attempt at a revolution through the very means civilised leaders would advocate: the ballot box. In Greece, an uprising of discontent caused and fuelled by the arrogant demands of unaccountable oligarchs and bankers outside the country, is being responsibly channelled via election and referendum. If this fails, what further options will be open to the hungry, poor, sick and shamed people of the country which gave birth to democracy? Will they meekly accept decades more austerity at the behest of the undemocratic oligarchs of Europe? Or will they take others steps, with tragic and awful consequences? Alexis Tsipras is being demonized by the Establishments of the world when we should be thankful for his courage in attempting a peaceful revolution. We should look with concern as our own government does more to make this country unequal and its people deprived of entitlements they have earned, for fear that here too the wrong form of revolution is not stoked up. We need our own Tsipras to prevent this. We should empathise with and support the Greek people today of all days.

Read me!

Why bother? http://uckfieldlabour.blogspot.com/2015/06/why-bother.html

Why bother?

L
On Saturday, we marched.
In May we campaigned.
We blog
We tweet.
We try.
But what for?
A socialist, I live in a safe Tory constituency, rural and largely affluent. But there are people here as elsewhere who are not affluent, who need the support of the State, even just for a while. So should I simply admit defeat and not bother? It would be so easy, would it not? To do nothing. After all, I am OK; and my pathetic attempts to be seen or heard get nowhere. Don't they?

THEY would love this. If there is no opposition, they win not only the battle but the war. If I lie down in face of the cruelty wrought on others, am I not as culpable as the perpetrators? If I can see the problem and a solution but do nothing to make things better, am I a democrat or even a human being worthy of the name?

Even in a losing situation, if I care, I must try. I must shout pointlessly. I must object without being heard. I must write to the ether. I must wear out my shoe leather. It will make no difference but I must not do nothing. For if I do, nothing will ever change. If Voltaire and Paine had not written; if Wilberforce and Ghandi had not campaigned; if the Pankhursts and Tatchell had said nothing, how would the World be today? I am none of these, nor of their stature but I care, I think, I articulate, so I must do something, no matter how inadequate. Maybe, just maybe, joining with others, even in small numbers, we can voice a viewpoint which may drag others towards a degree of sympathy for this and away from the worst options. I am not alone. I find friends, support, solidarity and purpose in politics. This is the point.
Tom Serpell

Has the Left forgotten Greece?

Not much seems to have been said by our politicians about Greece of late, despite the ongoing existential crisis it is suffering. Is this because we have no role to offer; no ideas; or just other pre-occupations? Could it be that we are so terrified of going the same way that it has become a taboo subject? Surely there is plenty to say about a fellow EU member and democracy, which sits in mortal danger of being bankrupted by the very international oligarchs who have the power to rescue it. Its people have been so deprived by the machismo of its creditors that almost half are unemployed and many go hungry. Whatever the causes for this - and of course some lie in their own behaviour over decades - surely this treatment of fellow Europeans is unacceptable; and all in the name of money?

Perhaps lack of focus from UK is occasioned by the "me, me, me" culture of the victorious Conservative Party here, infecting minds and media. We too are told it is good for us to go without for the sake of "the economy" [for which read "the Establishment"]. Surely as fellow austerity victims, the British people can have fellow-feeling for Greeks? We too surely must protest against the assumption that medicine to be effective has to be nasty for the patient. We should look with admiration and perhaps more than a tinge of envy at the leadership shown by Tsipras and Varoufakis. They are in a titanic struggle to deliver the will of the people of Greece, who are so fed up with austerity but still emotionally bonded to Europe. It is hard to imagine any leader in this country having such courage in the face of the big guns aimed at them.

In case we may fall back on the differences between our case and that of Greece, let us also be clear just what the real agenda of the IMF, EU Commission and banks is: to get rid of the elected government of Greece which stands up to them, no matter its democratic credentials. They aim to bring it down by enforcing bankruptcy if necessary, in order to restore their own placemen and make sure that money comes before people again, as it does to our Government. Of course Labour should be supporting Syriza and we should be hearing a lot more about what is happening in Greece than we do. We are all Greeks now and should use next Saturday's march to say so.

Surely there is something to be said for principles?

Much is being written and said about Labour's need for unity. What is not to like? But was the party that lost the election noticeably divided? Surely not. Ed MILIBAND had led for 5 years, gathering plaudits for leading a united party, even despite doubts about his apparent leadership qualities stressed by commentators. Was there too much focus on control of the message, to retain that semblance of unity? Probably. Did the Tories, a party notoriously divided over Europe and more, lose? No.

So now, despite this background, we members are urged to unite behind one of a number of would-be leaders, most of whom are saying they were not in favour of aspects of recent policy to which they agreed until May 8th. Such is unity. Is unity then our duty or responsibility? Surely not. It is surely up to potential leaders to unite us. This is what leadership means. The Labour Party is a broad church, like the Conservatives and LibDems. This means that is is home to those of the far Left and far Right of Labour politics. We should not be asked to give up sincerely held beliefs and principles in the cause of making someone of whom the media disapproves least look like a unifier. It is for a true leader to accommodate the diversity of the people and inspire them to unite under Labour values, a vision for the country's future and active opposition to the government. John Smith was widely reported to be one such.

For now, I shall promote as leader the candidate whose version of Labour most closely tallies with my own: @JeremyCorbyn4Leader He has little chance of getting into the race, let alone being elected but only he appears to be standing on a clear, socialist platform, to which he has been consistent for decades. Could he unify Labour? There is only one way to find out....
Tom Serpell

What Labour is for?

The outcome of the General Election for Labour inevitably means heart-searching and much talk. The question that all of this must beg is "What is Labour's purpose?" Right or wrong, the other parties could express their distinctive aims succinctly and in a way anybody could grasp: Small State, Low Tax; Leave EU; Independence; Anything it Takes. Labour used to be able to say with justice that it stood up for workers. It tried to say this again but with little conviction. Since the decline of organised labour, Labour has seen it fit to align itself with the bosses rather than the employees, rendering its roots history. Unless a clear purpose can be defined or a vision of UK's future depicted as an ambition, we are left with mere generalisations about social justice, aspiration etc, unsubstantiated by any detectable DNA.

Labour used to challenge capitalism. Whilst this may no longer win hearts and minds, turning capitalism to use for the greater good sounds like a starting point for clarifying a distinctive line, implying decent wages for those who work to create value, a more inclusive view of stakeholders, collective and democratic behaviour instead of the cult of the individual. Labour's next Leader will need courage enough to withstand the brickbats s/he will face for challenging the Establishment, but unless they do so, what are they for?

To be worth its salt, any organisation must be prepared to stand up for its beliefs. Any leader must be able to be articulate and passionate about these. Meekly accepting the role without taking on the powerful is to let down those who look to Labour as champion of those lacking influence of their own. Herein lies a proper purpose for the Labour Party. Right now, this role is only offered by the SNP or by non-Party pressure groups, to whom Labour has abrogated its former function. By all means work with others in a progressive alliance to achieve specific goals like EU membership, Human Rights, anti-austerity, environmental responsibility; but do so carrying the banner of champion for something or someone. Today it looks as if all the candidates want is votes, without the values, the passion or the charisma needed to merit them.

Beware of abuse of power

In his play "Antigone", Sophocles's flawed king, Creon describes actions he has taken with disastrous consequences as "The sacrilege I called public policy".

In today's secular society, we may no longer feel that sacrilege is an appropriate term but the idea is clear, that to claim moral grounds for actions taken to bolster one's own interests at the expense of those unable to resist is hubristic. For Creon to have claimed gods-given right to make self - interested decisions is not so far away from Ministers claiming that it is for people's own good to have the safety nets on which they depend cut away, when this is done for doctrinaire reasons, simultaneously protecting the wealth of those more fortunate.

Could any religion today defend or support the so-called " bedroom tax" or entitlements which fail to meet the subsistence needs of claimants? If not, perhaps Sophocles was right. Those to whom power is entrusted can only morally exercise that power if they look after the interests of all those over whom they have power, rather than just favouring sections of society with less needs and more influence. Democracy demands rule for all the people. To act otherwise is, if not sacrilege, immoral and must be challenged.

Labour's Dilemma

Labour members join because it is a party rooted in the real world of work, fighting for decent wages and conditions, for everyone, not just for themselves. It has values, of mutuality and altruism, instead of self. It defends against abuse of power by employers, landowners and the governing elites.

To be capable of electoral success, Labour must appeal, it is said, to those who are comfortably off, more self-centred as well as to society's more vulnerable. To ignore the middle class, it is argued, is to eschew power and thus the chance of doing good. We must pretend we are not unselfish in order to act unselfishly, no matter that this pretence goes against what we stand for.

What would you do: stick to principles and risk staying in Opposition; or compromise and have the chance of more votes and of putting decency into practice (assuming the mask does not slip)? It seems to me that looking a bit Tory will fool nobody. Those wanting to have their deeply held values represented will be let down whilst those looking for a more money-centred politics will head for its real proponents. Tory-Lite is nothing.  Look at the outcome to the LibDems of succumbing to the siren voices of power. No, despite the risks, a Party of principle should not simply follow votes. It can only hold its ground if it holds by its values. These can and must form the basis of its immediate role, in Opposition. There is a real and vital role, right now, for Labour, if it has the courage to be so clear in its stance, in: promoting our membership of the EU; defending the Human Rights Act; supporting decent, living wages; enabling Labour councils to build Council houses in their thousands; preventing selection from regaining a hold on education; fighting tooth and nail to stop social security cuts and more. Who knows, if Labour opposes well, maybe the votes will follow?
Tom Serpell

I am back on the blog!

Tories are not what they used to be http://uckfieldlabour.blogspot.com/2015/05/tories-are-not-what-they-used-to-be.html

Tories are not what they used to be

Expect more contracting out of what used to be called public services, regardless of ultimate cost to the taxpayer or service level, as the new Government closes down the State as fast and far as it can. Privatisation is only in its infancy when it comes to welfare and health.

The p-word has come to be used as a shorthand for a variety of State-shrinking options, from selling off assets to employing outsource companies to do what was previously seen as within the purview of the Civil Service or Local Authorities, both of which are demonized in the eyes of the neo-liberal oligarchy now in charge.

The reality behind "privatisation" though goes deeper. Think back to Conservative administrations since WW2. In all until Thatcher's, there was a strong public service ethos, with respect for the independence and expertise of those employed. Thatcher believed, wrongly as it proved, that selling off State functions could improve efficiency whilst freeing Government from investment burdens. The resistance to this from the Civil Service led to a more lasting antipathy which the next years will undoubtedly see taken to new depths of ideological asset stripping.

The difference today is that instead of seeking alternative but efficient skilled ownership, the modus operandi is based on treating everything in units of money - monetising. No longer are there concerns for human expertise, motivation or self-esteem. Instead, tasks are broken down into those which can be outsourced via IT to the public, those which can be digitised and those for which a grudging low wage may be paid. It matters not a jot that the service is inadequate and the worker is unable to subsist on the miserly wage. To a plutocratic oligarchy all that matters is GDP as a measure of Government effect; and that as little as possible of that should be diverted from increasing assets of the "haves" into the pockets of mere wage earners or worse, the dependent. They know the cost of everything but value only money. People are mere economic units, either contributing to or draining the exchequer.

So by all means protest against privatisation but remember that it is just one symptom of a society in which only money counts. Old style Tories, aristocrats and business leaders used to govern with a sense of patronage, care and responsibility for those whose work created their wealth. Today's see only dispensible ciphers whom they wish they did not have to bother with nor even pay, if possible. How ironic to look back nostalgically to Conservative governments!

Give us a break!

I have decided during the election campaign that more than enough words are being devoted to politics without the need for me to add to them for a while. Enjoy the gap but vote for Solomon Curtis for Wealden or for me for Chiddingly and East Hoathly if you live in these, please.
Tom

Don't let us forget where politics starts

In case you have forgotten, next month there takes place a General Election. One could easily be forgiven for thinking if we did not, for some reason know otherwise, that we were in fact expecting a Presidential poll, so narrow has been the media focus on the party leaders. Yet on 7th May there are also elections all over the country to select not only Members of Parliament who are supposed to represent tens of thousands of those who live near where they claim to; and council members in thousands, who undoubtedly do.

There is little as yet to suggest to the electorate that this latter battle is imminent. Hedgerows and walls are still quite bare of garish posters introducing locals to neighbours they probably do not know but who aspire to win their votes. These local elections matter. They are not about remote avatars but flesh and blood people, mostly unpaid, familiar with the locale but still espousing their own prejudices, ideologies and favourite issues on which to base the policies and spending decisions which have some of the most immediate impact on communities.

These candidates are all human, prone to idiosyncrasies, with disparate personalities and capabilities. But they are also potentially influential on the well-being of their neighbours, so merit scrutiny; and some credit for taking on sometimes tedious and disagreeable issues. This election should not be ignored under the shadow of the more remote but publicised one dominating the attention of the Press and broadcasters. It should be taken seriously by voters as well as by candidates. Otherwise, how on Earth can one justifiably grumble?

Activists - what drives them?

What on earth makes thousands work in their own time and often at their own cost in the name of politics?

It is perhaps quite understandable that people should stand for election at whatever level of the democratic pyramid. They may seek the Viagra of power. They may seek to change society for the better. They may simply be ambitious. But at the end, there is a reward, in the form of remuneration, celebrity, influence, satisfaction at outcome, even a better society.

But what of the volunteer foot-soldiers who work tirelessly to put them in this happy state? What do they get? Why do they/we do it,  for there is no glamour and not a little stress involved in cold-calling on the phone, in unwelcome door-knocking, in carrying through the 19th century form-filling or in raising funds which may serve little purpose, for candidates with no hope of victory? They travel at their own expense. They spend their own leisure time devoted to boring, repetitive tasks often in the face of insults. They are largely anonymous both within their party and the outside world, so expect no reward or recognition.

For some, it may simply be a hobby, a past-time linked to their political allegiance but this is surely insufficiently powerful a pull to explain the sheer number of volunteers and hours devoted to the campaign trail. This can surely best be explained by the values they see in the politics. Being myself of the Left, I certainly promote Labour because I want to live in a fairer, less selfish society. How Tories explain their values I leave to them - this is beyond comprehension [unless malice is a value]. But a vision of a better society must surely be the driver for the great unpaid armies currently at work. Let us hope we get one.

Progress? How can social justice be in decline?

How do we come to 2015, almost 7 decades since the UN Declaration on Human Rights, 6 since the European Convention, 5 since the Race Relations Act and 4 since the Sex Discrimination Act and yet find an apparent upsurge in behaviours associated with blind prejudice, both in Government and wider society?

The media regularly reports incidents of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. Feminism has had to be re-awakened in the face of everyday sexism. Politics itself is being fought out in a pitched battle couched in barely-masked xenophobia, if not racism. The current Government is all too ready to stereotype and demonise millions of its own electorate, simply because they are less fortunate: old, young, poor, temporarily workless or disabled.

This has surely happened gradually and through a creeping change in social attitudes, coinciding with the rise and rise of the Market as the driver of what passes for a political philosophy. If this is true, reversing the trend will also take time, assuming there is the will to do so. Deliberate leadership will be required. So is this where a Labour Government can come in; and if so, what could it actually do to pump-prime the re-establishment of a values-driven polity?

First must come implementation of legislation already in place, led by equal pay for women. There can be no excuse for passing laws and failing to enforce them. This should be followed by mandatory gender equality targets for Parliament, local authorities and boardrooms.

Secondly, political and media influencers must be challenged in their vicious use of false syllogisms about particular groups, drawing generalisations from extreme instances. Could there be a case here for an Office for Data Responsibility?

Third, no part of society, whether through power, wealth or celebrity should be above the discrimination laws. All prejudice should be challenged and held to account and those uncovering it protected from any backlash.

Fourth, divisive or privileged institutions should be banned, including private and faith schools. Workplace childcare should be mandatory for major employers, private as well as public, to allow parents regardless of gender to pursue careers.

Labour must preach - and deliver - social justice or it is nothing.

Asking my question

Ed M has circulated a request for questions from members of the Labour Party to which he may offer an answer. Here is mine:

Why do you not stop talking about "hard-workers" and "hardworking families" and talk about the people? Surely the Labour Party should be inclusive. Politics must be for all, not just some niches identified by focus groups.

Tom Serpell

Time for a rethink about marketing politics

Politics watchers can see the Tories courting the elderly with high interest bonds funded by struggling taxpayers in an effort to secure their votes. At the same time, they consign the young to low-paid employment, shrinking benefits and unaffordable housing, because they are less likely to vote even though the future is theirs. Both Labour and Conservative camps trot out a mantra of support for "hard - working families" as if only those in work are deserving; yet simultaneously drain them dry.

This intergenerational jockeying is the result of the "marketisation" of politics, as of all other facets of the economy in our increasingly value free culture. We are slotted into sterotyped boxes to make it easier for them to sell us their wares. But hold on a minute: are not those pensioners the parents of the hard workers and grandparents of the debt-burdened students? Do these generations exist in isolation, as mere silos for the convenience of demographers? Or do we sit down together for Sunday lunch, support one another through crises, emotional, medical, financial, practising in microcosm the essential redistribution which politicians only argue over?

These is a movement called variously Design for All or Inclusive Design which increasingly demonstrates that focus on selected minorities is essentially divisive and fails to maximise the reach of the messages intended to be delivered. Instead, by treating the needs of the weakest and often neglected in the community as the first objective, all people can be satisfied whilst decent values come before mere marketing. Instead of looking for ever more blatant bribes for this or that market segment, how about thinking of the first obligation of a State, to look after the most vulnerable, as politics' first priority and not as a begrudged afterthought? Then everyone will be better off because the community feels better about itself, the vulnerable are safe and politics is about doing the right thing.

Are petitions democratic?

Saturday saw a reversal of recent trends as online petition builder 38degrees unleashed newly recruited local groups not into cyberspace but High Streets. This suggests awakening to the self-limiting nature of digital platforms, as Internet-savvy sought to sign up real live shoppers to their petition to save the NHS. Worthy? Perhaps. Effective? Possibly. Meaningful? Probably not.

38degrees, Avaaz, Change.org and others have recently provided another release valve for those of us who rail at the TV, despair of the papers and are disenchanted with those supposed to represent us. They have been more useful than this, too, in helping those who look to determine which of the issues proffered may make best petition fodder, by virtue of attracting the most support (at least from those taking the trouble to engage with their processes).
But when a signature chaser seeks to win over a doubter with a dubious claim that this type of petitioning is nonpolitical, what is the point; why sign? Where do the thousands of signatures seeking to protect the NHS get us unless they influence politicians with the power to change or defend?

I confess to rather liking these alternative ways of connecting non-geographically. It is interesting to note now, though, this migration to offline organising. This is surely a sign of political intent? It suggests an appetite for a new way of gathering like-minded opinion, both on the part of the promoters and of their members. But again, what is to be done with the evidence or their demands? Lots of agreement going nowhere?

Surely the best lessons to be drawn from this exploration of the capabilities of the Internet are that (a) (some) people like them and (b) political parties ought to wake up and make greater use of them. Only elected, accountable representatives, can really be said to have our permission to make decisions, either for or against change, on our behalf. When we do not like their decisions we must be able to replace them. Petitions, single issue activism and shouting at the TV all have their place but only as tools to help us to have our representatives listen and respond, instead of serving their own narrow experience. They cannot replace elected parties. Maybe they aim to become them but right now this is far away.

Labour needs a new approach to media

It is a given that the majority of the Press has a right-wing bias and that it defends the Establishment. Insidiously, though, this has worsened under the current ultra-reactionary government such that the spin peddled by the latter has become the orthodox, even for the supposedly neutral BBC (but look at the inclinations of their leading political journalists).

 

This situation leaves Labour yet more isolated from the means to promote its legitimate messages. It is remarkable though rarely remarked that Labour has sustained a poll lead for so long against such a background. So, other than those critical friends, the Guardian and Mirror, what recourse does the Left have to reach out to the public?

 

First, even the hostile organs must afford some coverage to Labour, albeit in a cynical or fault-finding mode. Currently this mainly presents EdM etc as dull, incompetently managerial, except when, on occasion, they let go; when they step away from their controllers and show real passion. No media could have ignored the passionate oratory of Lloyd George or Bevan; nor the demagogic brilliance of Heseltine, Crow or Kinnoch. Nor today do they do so for Brand, Johnson or Garage. Telling it like it is is news, so Ed and Co need to let themselves show their true feelings. Staying in the Party aparatchiks' corset can only play into the hands of enemies.

 

Social media offer much more to Labour's demographic than to the aged Right. Tory Central Office may spend like water on Facebook ads but these are manifestly artificial and unlike the genuine chatter of friends and followed. Twitter and Facebook have no editors to constrain their content. Labour-minded tweeters need proudly to shout their allegiance beyond their partisan followers and share as widely as possible the values and truth of its policies as a demotic medium.

 

Thirdly, Labour must move onto more differentiated ground, away from the petty comparisons so beloved of their critics. Simple, bold messages highlighting Labour's raison d'etre in today's world may attract brickbats but will also be attention-grabbing - and vote catching. And if this means upsetting Big Business, bankers and hedge funds, this can only mean we are on the right track.

@uckfieldlabour aka The Cell

Leadership, power and integrity

Large sums are made by authors, trainers and self-appointed gurus claiming to know what it takes to be or become a leaders. Politicians, at least elected ones, have to be leaders. They set themselves up to be followed by thousands, after all. Their success at the ballot box may be merited by their talent; it may also reflect their brass neck in putting themselves forward and/or the brand to which they attach themselves. Their staying power or the hindsight of history produce the evidence as to the validity of their selection. Another factor may be worthwhile including in this judgement: the greater good.

I suppose that most entering politics genuinely want to do something worthwhile on behalf of their community. What is clear, though, is that the power which popular support offers to those elected can affect the latter in different ways. To some, it increases their sense of responsibility and drives their energies. To others, it feeds ambition and creates a sense of entitlement or grandiosity which can actually prevent them from being good leaders. My suggestion is that those who maintain their original or even an enhanced desire for the greater good are likely to be far better leaders than those others who let it all go to their heads. It does not take high office for this leadership to manifest itself. There are politicians who act as the conscience of their peers or content themselves with achieving social good. These can be seen as leaders just as much as those in charge of departments of State - and some of the latter should not be where they are, based on this criterion.

Those who accept the votes and responsibility without delivering on their original ethos are not leaders but failures. We know who they are, even if they do not; but too late. The trick is to be able to identify at the selection or election stage who will become which. This is not so easy but integrity should overrule ambition, perhaps, as a yardstick.

Tom Serpell

Who will dare to be different?

Argument between leading political parties is so often about relatively small differences in emphasis or detail of a shared strategy rather than real difference of strategy. No wonder polls often fail to separate them; and the public become frustrated with there being so little to choose between them. We, the ovine voters, must not be allowed real choices, if these could threaten the Establishment, which, across the political elite, has common interests.
"There is no alternative but to pay down[ or off] the deficit" is a case in point. Why should there be no alternative? They may wish to exclude other options but that there are others is not in doubt, as other economists can aver. Governments make choices about how they spend in our name. We should hope that we could choose between choices - but in reality the options we are given are already selected by them to maintain their power base. Increasingly, the choices made deprive people of well-being in favour of flattering the interests of the powerful. There is an alternative in which the wealth of the country is shared more widely - and this could have greater benefit to the economy by encouraging spending.
Another "given" is that we work all our lives in order to leave "something to the next generation". This is an invention of neo-liberal capitalism - promoting creation of more capital-owning which will ultimately lead to unearned income. It was not always thus. Workers worked for subsistence, with, if they were fortunate, a pension to live in in retirement. For some, there was not always work; let alone a pension - nor a nest-egg. Now we are told that right-thinking people first buy their own homes, then retain them even after they move themselves out into care, while the State pays the cost of the latter. This is apparently a policy shared across the political spectrum: to have tax-payers money used to pay for care whilst the person cared for owns a home they no longer need, except to leave it to their off-spring, who may by this time themselves be entering retirement. The family thus cease to be workers but capitalists, thanks to government policy and at our cost. There must be an alternative where we pay for our own care out of what we have accrued; or rely on the State if we have no such back-stop.
So why does Labour not have the courage to say this? Could it be that all who attain power become capitalists?

Individual or Citizen?

What does it mean to be a citizen? To live among others in this country, certainly. To pay taxes which contribute to enabling the country to function, certainly [even the tax-hating Right love their war and security machines and Government jobs]. To have some say over how much tax we pay and on what it is spent? Surely. So how can we have that say if we eschew the very means which enable it - voting?

Some say there is no point in voting - nothing changes. Yet how else are politicians to be influenced to pass laws if not by voters? Mere opinion polls carry no power, like the real thing. Others say that all parties are the same - but clearly they are not, or political discourse would be at an end or at least less vicious and tribal. Some say that certain categories of society should not be allowed to vote - the under-18s; criminals; peers - yet surely those very categories have as much connection with what tax is spent on as any. Others would and do argue that just as taxes are inevitable, so why should voting not be mandatory too. Here lies a libertarian paradox - does freedom lie in paying or not paying tax?

Not voting - or even not registering to vote - can be seen as self-disenfranchisement; a distancing of the individual from the State and its interference in lives. This may be prevalent among those feeling excluded from society, those looking for new models for self-expression or those who feel let down by the current structures. Yet all those lives are lived among the shared culture, infrastructure, justice systems and public services managed by the very State so apparently disliked. People, it is clear, must feel that voting is important either because they feel a social duty from living in a community; or because there is a particular local or topical decision to be made to which they can relate or is seen as important. Nobody, surely, can be immune to the issues for which the State [including Local Government] acts on our behalf, be they economically deprived [in which case they are likely to be dependent] or affluent [in which case they may be concerned with how tax is applied].

Traditional politics, though, fails to make such arguments effectively to millions. Major parties are seen as tribal but cut from similar cloth and defensive of their accumulated influence. Smaller parties are seen as unable to grasp the levers of power with which to deliver their sometimes preferred agendas. Single issues and new media through which to espouse them may attract many but lead to neither votes nor laws. The lot of millions of workers without effective say on the conditions in their won workplaces may be an object lesson in the need for democracy to be shared and actively used by everybody. The challenge of democracy lies in how to make it attractive to and practised by all ages and categories of citizen. Labour of all political parties should be the champion of citizens and leave individualism to the others.

So what IS democracy?

You must have heard people say: "Oh, I could never vote for [Ed/Cameron/Farage etc]". Well, of course they cannot unless they live in the nominee's constituency. In a representative democracy we do not vote for a Party; for a Leader; for a set of ideas. We can only vote for a candidate in our own constituency. True, we may be motivated by any of the above to support that representative but our vote is for the person. S/he may prove a Party loyalist or a rebel; inspirational or disappointing. And the person we support may not even be elected, leaving our interests in the hands of someone with whose values we may be wildly at odds. This is our system.

The word "democracy" brings together "the people" and "power". This remote lottery of a representative system may seem rather estranged from the expectations we are encouraged to have about our empowerment. The legitimacy as an elected representative of someone for whom perhaps only 20,000 people have voted may seem questionable. It is no wonder that many people follow the dubious lead of demagogues who eschew the Party system; or engage in politics through single-issue campaigns and petitions, not least when the latter may attract tens or even hundreds of thousands of signatories. These may feel a sense of belonging, engagement and empowerment greater than that of belonging even to one of the large Parties, whose policies one may agree withy only in part. So these alternatives suit "the people"; but have little apparent power. The latter still lies in the hands of the Parties which win elections, for the foreseeable future.

For this reason, despite all of the criticisms one can justly make of the system we have, it still seems that the only way of making democracy work is to engage in its mechanisms, including finding the person who merits your vote. I shall be voting for my local Labour candidate, Solomon Curtis, in Wealden on May 7th. Join me.

This is why we should oppose privatisation

"I told you so" is always unpopular, especially when justified. Despite Labour's early experiments, progressives have long opposed selling off assets or contracts for public services. We are accused of being doctrinaire in doing so. Now that the evidence is coming to hand of how it has worked, let us examine whether we were correct in our opposition for other reasons.

This month has just provided one example: Hinchingbrooke Hospital. As long ago as the previous Government, this hospital was failing to meet targets and economically. Eventually, the incoming Coalition decided to privatise it, contracting a hedge-funded firm called Circle to turn it round. This process has been under way with some impact for several years but now, under the continuing austerity and inexorable rise in demand, Circle is unable to meet is shareholders' profit expectations and decided to withdraw. Who will pick up the burden is not yet clear but ultimately this will be the tax-payer. Yet again, the State is called on to rescue the private sector from the effects of markets. Familiar? I should think so. You doubt me - want examples? How about the banks?  Who rescued them from their gambling debts? How about public ICT and military procurement? How about Southern Cross care homes? Or East Coast Mainline? Or Olympic Park security (G4S)? Or A4E. Or Serco... the list goes on.

Has not the myth of the excellence in management of the private sector yet been laid to rest? Let us just see how privatisation is flawed:

• it is about making profits for investors from taxes paid by the public;
• it employs lower-skilled workers to replace skilled - and do a worse job, whilst leaving the State less-well prepared to step back in;
• it picks the low-hanging fruit, leaving again the State to deal with the most complex and skill-demanding roles but without economies of scale;
• it is far from infallible, as its proponents would seem to suggest;
• it can [and does, frequently] walk away, leaving the State, which the Right so belittles, to pick up the pieces.

These are why privatisation of NHS is bad for us all. Labour must stop just banging on about privatisation without explaining why it is a bad thing, when the Right and its media buddies say otherwise. You were told.

Capitalism and Socialism: not such strange bedfellows

Atop the parapets of the Great Western Bridge in Glasgow are lanterns supported by cast iron figures of heroic workers, representing the women and men who made the wealth which made the city. Well-deserved, you may think, but what patronising cheek the architect of the Great Western Bridge had for the reality was and is again that those who toil are neglected, underpaid and ignored.

Surely nowhere in the world is there a finer monument to Victorian enterprise than Glasgow. Even today, when Thatcherism and new technologies have swept away the workplaces of thousands and the maritime heritage has been airbrushed from the sight of the visitor, throughout the city there remain monuments to the civic and business leaders of the Industrial revolution, in the form of fine streets, public buildings and even tombs. Indeed the latter, gathered into the huge Necropolis beside the lovely cathedral, perhaps sum up capitalism to perfection: ostentatious self-esteem in competition.

However, so effective has been the cleansing of the city of the real story of its wealth that one could stop and just admire it as the perfect product of capital. But who really made the ships, the steam engines, the buildings? It was not those buried in the Necropolis, surely, but those anonymously dumped in paupers' graves. The former certainly ordained that these things should be created but they surely did not wield the tools nor break sweat to implement them. No, this was the role of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children [yes, children] underpaid, living in overcrowded squalor in rotting tenements. The evidence for this description is maintained in records and displays at the Peoples Palace and elsewhere, though not so much is extant, for most has been removed. Is it any wonder that, living cheek-by-jowl with their employers' excesses, the workers should have been driven to a different political allegiance - to solidarity, mass action, to objection to the vast inequality of the great city, to socialism? Yet, then, as now, power lay not with the majority but with the wealth. Today, we once again have a growing economy in which inequality is demanded by a few at the expense of the rest. Glasgow of 150 years ago is with us once more and it is again socialism's time, driven by capitalism's divisive greed.