Mutually assured ...

Regular or indeed accidental readers of this blog may notice an uncharacteristic gap since its predecessor. Frankly, as an English socialist I have been lost for words. Even now that the latest Labour leadership election has at last ended, there is little left to say, either because it has been said a thousand times already or because nothing has really been resolved on which to pass comment.

However, on Saturday I was discussing the state of the world with a friend even older than me who reminded me of the phrase "mutually assured destruction". He was referring to current Labour factions but I had just opined that the world today seems more unsafe and unpleasant for its inhabitants [not including, of course, the "1%" - never them] than at any time since 1962. 1962? Because "mutually assured destruction" as a theory was close to being tested in practice, via the Cuban missile crisis. One of my daughters recently found it hard to believe that people once quite genuinely feared that we were on the brink of nuclear war; but such is my memory of 1962.

Happily, there were leaders at the time with the nous to pull back from the brink. Today's leaders, be they concerned with national or global affairs, do not deserve to place themselves in the same category as those of 1962. How confident can we feel in our chosen ones dealing with: Climate Change [fracking anyone?]; Syria [arms but never a food drop; and certainly no ideas]; refugees and migration [nationalism and xenophobia to the fore]; inequality [lovely if you are rich and powerful]; let alone domestic matters like care for the disabled or elderly, housing shortage and inflation, education for all children or destruction of public services? I see no potential leaders or solutions on the horizon with which to cheer myself; and look at my own Party and despair.

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?

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

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.

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

Judge the book by its contents

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Tom Serpell

@uckfieldlabour

Gaza: Actions not impotence

Politicians of all parties throughout the West seem like rabbits in the headlights when Israel is mentioned. It seems that they are fearful of accusations of anti-Semitism or holocaust denial if they dare to criticise the Israeli State. Yet what is happening in Gaza surely goes beyond what can be brushed under the carpet for the sake of historical guilt. Israel behaves with impunity not even afforded to Hitler's Germany, despite increasingly acting as racist human rights deniers. When will politicians or the UN show some leadership and humanity if they are afraid even to use the language for what is happening which properly describes it?

Actions are needed. Here are just some from which they could choose a beginning:

• Apply arms embargo on Israel, ie stop selling our arms to them
• Propose UN sanctions
• ProposeUN safety zone along Gaza's borders
• Hold an International conference to problem-solve the creation of a sea-port for Gaza
• Unilaterally delist Israeli and illegal West Bank goods from import

Note the use of "propose", - even this goes too far for the vote- and finance-conscious Government we suffer from in UK currently. Therefore it must be up to Labour to show the leadership so lacking elsewhere. Come on Ed - lets help the poor people of Gaza instead of wring hands and tutting.