Labour's fractured future

For years, Labour has failed to define its purpose in society and to engage effectively with the public. It is naïve even to pretend that Labour can win a General Election in 2020, when it has, at least for a period, lost Scotland and stands to lose dozens of English seats through boundary changes. It devotes the time it should be opposing Brexit and the destruction of public services and trade unions to internecine warfare. Little wonder that voters crave new stars to follow, be these apparently perverse: UKIP; nationalists; egomaniacs.

Even if the reborn socialism of Corbyn can take root beyond its long-standing adherents, it is impossible, surely, that it can gain sufficient ground for electoral success in under 4 years, let alone any "snap" election Tories may try to call to further damage Labour's credibility. So what options are we left with? A united party would seem to be the priority for most. Corbynistas claim that this is within their grasp if only all MPs and party members will loyally come behind their leader; deaf to the reality that the former have already refused in droves to do so. Owen Smith, whether a short-term stalking horse expected to be removed once Corbyn is out of the way, in favour of some as yet unnamed centrist; or a genuine long-term prospect, is the only other show in town. He is unknown to most but may just be seen as having the potential to re-build both party and popular engagement beyond the mere faithful.

Whichever prevails, there will remain that group of once-big hitters from Brown and Miliband's teams, waiting to stab the new Caesar or to lead a split and a new party. This could leave a true red Labour Party of under 50 MPs and a new Opposition Party of arund150, until each suffers the judgement of the electorate. Neither could do anything in the lobbies without he support of the other but also of the nationalists, LibDems, Unionists and even Caroline Lucas. And here lies the silver lining: the birth of a new politics, requiring cooperation instead of unity; alliances rather than a broad church. A progressive alliance no longer  "what-if" idea but a necessity. Maybe the unthinkable split can be a good thing in the longer term. Even the Right may try it eventually.

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

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

Whom is Labour for?

In the post-industrial age, with smaller workforces and collectivism more challenging in the workplace, the "natural constituency" of Labour has diminished like mist on a sunny day. Yes, there remains the important historic and emotional tie between Party and Unions but these too have seen their ability to recruit and organise dwindle as the nature of the workplace has changed and vindictive Tory legislation has bitten.

Success as measured by the Coalition merely counts the wealth growing in the off-shore coffers of the plutocracy. The unequal society on which we now - again - live illustrates clearly the need for a party willing and able to represent those whose economic and social prospects count for so little to the current government.

With values of altruism and mutuality, the Labour Party is clearly the only political entity which offers any voice for the under-paid, unpaid, isolated, disabled or ignored of Britain's 21st century. The problem is to persuade this majority to see itself as belonging to the Labour banner. We have been persuaded to see ourselves as individuals first, community second. The politics of individualism have dominated the consumerist, shopping-as-leisure marketplace we are told we occupy. What we really have is millions of people with common needs, for well-being, happiness and social cohesion as well as enough money.

We are a society in which care for others is second nature but belittled by low wages and status. Labour must lead a campaign to revalue caring for others' wellbeing and the caring professions in particular to where they belong, financially as well as emotionally; at the same time setting free-loading and gambling in their proper place in the hierarchy of respect - far below the carers, manufacturing, creative and digital workers. And let our party resile from this courting of "hard-working families" which so damages the esteem for those who are unable to work, no longer work, cannot find work or have no family. Let Labour be the voice of its true constituency: those who find themselves, temporarily or permanently unfairly treated by the economy.

Cameron is the great divider

Britain is increasingly divided under this Government. Quite apart from the potential departure of Scotland, which is not of his making, Cameron is presiding over a worsening North:South (or more precisely South-East vs the Rest) divide and record inequality, as his plutocratic allies line their pockets at the expense of the vast majority. Consider, though, another divide: that between urban and rural economies. As public services, which have been the major source of jobs, are withdrawn to a starved rump; and "infrastructure investment" means glamour projects handed to yet more party-funding mates, those who live in out-of-sight areas are ignored.
For rural families the journey to work or school can be lengthy, complex and costly. Shops, banks and the library (if there is one still) are not round the well-lit street corner. Affordable housing has not been built for years and house-prices and rents are soaring, straining further squeezed household budgets. We now learn that poverty demonstrably inhibits learning and even access to a computer, which is today a sine qua non for students. Superfast broadband comes last to rural areas which need them all the more because of the dearth of other means to access affordable sources of goods and services.
Many rural constituencies are safe Tory seats needing no special attention to sustain allegiance. New houses must not be allowed to spoil the view from the Manor house, so rural poor are faced with having to leave their roots in favour of grotty urban estates.
Labour may have few chances to win seats in rural England but its values are just as needed as in populous towns and cities. We must find ways of joining isolated Labour voices into one loud one so that our issues are understood and we too are part of our One Nation, even without electoral propsects.

Politics must be rooted in communities

Just back from a leisure visit to Strasbourg. Lovely city. What struck me was its self-confidence and sense of identity. This goes back all through its history, when it has more than once declared itself a republic (good idea!) with its own identity, economy and religious or humanist attitudes different from those of its neighbours or "host" country. Alsace's food, wine, architecture and culture are quite distinct from those of France [now] or Germany [at other times].
So why report this? It seems to me that one of this country's problems lies in its London-centricity. What is written about in the media is dominated by London, whether this concerns fashion, arts or politics. A small coterie of institutions mainly based in London dominates thought and action, often with little understanding or consideration for other parts of the country.
Where are our Strasbourgs? Until the middle of the last century cities like Birmingham and Leeds, Newcastle and Liverpool were the powerhouses of the country, with their industries and civic economies writ large and manifested in the great buildings and influence on national policy. The post-war period has seen this diluted and industry has been wrecked in the name of financial services, with local government reduced to insignificance by the centrism of both Labour and Tory governments. Now we are in a presidential age with few voters really aware of local leaders' names and roles.
Labour has to reconnect with people across the country; people whose lives are in communities, not merely subservient to London. We should, before it is all lost, celebrate local cultures, local differences, local needs by encouraging local politics, empowered by local knowledge and with control of assets and tax income. It takes true leadership to let go - Ed Miliband can show this leadership by relaxing some aspects of central control and allowing localism to flourish instead of stifling the country in a blanket of uniformity in which nobody feels pride or engagement.

Tom Serpell