Be afraid of fear

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

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

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

Grandstanding and polls do not lead to engagement

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

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

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