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!