My half-full glass is emptying

I think I have always erred on the side of optimism, even if not always proved right. The world is full of fine people, lovely places and myriad opportunities, at least for many. To some degree I only became so upbeat when I had left the artificial structure of the world of work. Although navigating a career requires seeing and grasping opportunities and employing one’s creativity, the imposed hierarchies and procedures can dampen and hide human nature and personality.  Once exposed to people as people, my half-full glass began to fill up more. Already blessed with my family and friends, exposure to a community and groups of like-minded people has been revelatory and enriching. Men and women of wide diversity of experience have entered my life - or I theirs – offering the opportunity to learn from them and review previously held opinions. Life after work has been sweet. Human nature; kindness; community mutuality; individuals’ creativity and talents give hope for the future.

And yet: around this good fortune, a world has been evolving which is depressing to hopes and instincts and causes worry for the generations of my children and theirs. The legacy my generation may leave is a disgrace when compared to the opportunities we “baby boomers” have had.

Yes, life expectancy has improved all over the world and many more people have some share in the progress made by humanity. But we humans too have caused climate change and extinction of species which no action can halt immediately. It is people who start and fight wars for the sakes of their own egos, power and enrichment. It is people whose racism, greed and lack of perspective lead them to espouse nationalism, protectionism and self-serving elitism. Inequality of opportunity is perpetuated in a world of inequality of wealth and education. A world in which faith in fictions can defy scientific evidence is a world in which other irrationalities to be justified for the protection of power.

So wars continue, killing and driving millions away from the homes, peace and livelihoods to which they are entitled. States can invest more in arms than in education or care for the vulnerable, justifying the deprivation by claiming threats to stability whilst money is made from the supply of death. This too is a manifestation of human nature.

I became political because it seemed important to espouse and encourage the better human values in the governance of the country. It seems to me that there are more people in the world with goodwill than those who are malign and greedy. The trouble is that the latter seem the more powerful, more organised and more effective. The Right acts; the Left talks. That being the case, my glass is emptying and I feel very sad for the future. The only hope must be that the next generations are better than mine at instilling decent values in governance. Sorry kids!

Was Voltaire right?

In a previous blog, I mentioned Voltaire as a major figure in Europe’s and thus our culture. Challenging the roles of religions, rulers, war, and ideas then in the ascendency; wit; Anglophile; humanist and author, he is a towering figure in the development of political and philosophical thinking. In his great satire, Candide, his innocent young hero, is faced with the follies of the great and the good of the times but can find no sense in them, despite their being presented as inevitable according with the prevailing determinist philosophy of the times. If, regardless of circumstance, the well-meaning individual had no free will and could do nothing to change things, surely s/he should content him/herself with “cultivating the garden”. The inevitable conclusion of having no agency is to do nothing.

Today, politics and events seem to be approaching a condition of near-determinism: where nothing can be done to oppose those in the ascendency. Someone decrees that something is true: it becomes fact. Someone is appointed leader of the country, with no bow to democracy: then claims a democratic mandate to put into effect actions she had previously opposed. Someone opposes the policies being advocated as bad for the country: and is dubbed a traitor. An opposition party supports the greatest constitutional change in decades which its members oppose. Millions with a desire to oppose have no means to do so.

So what is today’s Candide to do? Is it the case that things are inevitable; that we have no agency; that we must merely cultivate our garden?  Philosophical thought has moved on. We are supposed to have and exercise free will. The belief system of the Right would hold that we should be in control of our own destinies; whilst the Left supports collective action for the wider good. This being the case, we should be in a position where citizens can vote against the prevailing authority; but with the official Opposition nowhere to be seen; and with large parts of the electorate living where they have no prospect of electing even a local councillor, how meaningful is enfranchisement?

Maybe Voltaire was right. We should cultivate our garden but not literally, as an expression of disengagement, but metaphorically, starting at the grass roots; working for the values we espouse within our communities, to be and feel useful. Like charity, politics can begin at home – or in the “garden”.

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.

Naked politics

Perhaps all politicians should study life drawing.

Drawing nude people may not seem the most obvious training for the cut and thrust of the world they aspire to - nor for any other job except artist. So what am I saying?  I am a long-time life artist. Every body, every pose is different, and complex. Merely outlining the shape with any realistic proportions is hard enough; but to portray the 3-dimensional object is more so. Then there is a person there too, alive and with a personality.

Artists like life drawing both because of the endless variety and challenge on which to apply their skill and creativity and because it demands a degree of concentration which is rarely possible in everyday life. This in itself is quite stimulating.

This is not to say that other interests are not equally absorbing, so why should I single out politicians for this particular hobby-horse of my own? What have I learned from it which makes it so relevant?

It is because to have the opportunity to draw a nude person is a privilege, demanding of respect. Models are people - extraordinary or ordinary, just like everybody. They may arrive in fine cars or on foot,  dressed up in finery or wearing jeans but when they remove their clothes, they are simply human beings. We ask no questions as to where they went to school, what their job is, how much they earn, where they live. We focus on just them. Stripped of all trappings by which assumptions can be made about them, we can only draw what we see. Every body is as interesting and as complex as every other one. We can only treat each model as an individual, unique and of equal value, with equal respect, doing our best to repay their generosity in exposing themselves for our scrutiny.

Now would it not be good for our leaders to see everyone as of equal worth, deserving of equal respect? It might even do them good to expose themselves to the scrutiny of others, without hiding behind the usual carapace of image and uniform.

Tom Serpell

Why bother? I think, therefore I write.

I suppose that the vast majority of people in any democracy give little attention to politics between one election and the next. Perhaps they express a view here, shout at the TV there, blame "them" for something or everything - but this does not make them political. Put it another way, as my wife does: "it must be great to be a Tory, not having sleepless nights worrying about other people's poverty or life chances, just thinking about their own interests."

A quiet life, unbothered by the stress of electoral failure, inequality, poverty etc sounds terrifically attractive, so lets not bother any more. No politics. No volunteering. No community work. Just stand back and wash one's hands of it all. It is someone else's fault or responsibility. Or is it?

If it seems wrong, perhaps it is. If it is wrong and you can see it, why is it up to someone else to do something or at least to draw attention to it? The trouble with being alive is that you do see things and what you see may demand a response. For some people, injustices identified cannot be ignored. For many, there may be few options available when facing the un-ignorable but even a voice raised above the silence of others may be of some use. Almost everybody has access to some means of communication, even if this is limited to one's own circle of acquaintances. Signing one of the endless petitions now available online may seem devalued by familiarity but, like electoral votes, it only takes enough people to ignore them for apathy to let those against whom the protest is aimed off the hook. Enough voices, letters, signatures, tweets, blog posts, marchers, and votes can make a difference.

If you are cursed with a social conscience, not bothering really is not an option. Doing something can get it off your chest and contribute to the noise others are like-mindedly making; and make a difference. So I have decided, after a pause for thought, to continue to use my advancing years to send my thoughts into cyberspace; as well as doing small things in the community which might otherwise not happen. Happy 2016.

Tom Serpell

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.

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.

Is it any wonder people are fed up with politics as it is practised?

Children are brought up from their very earliest years to be polite. This includes speaking respectfully to and about others. School reinforces this principle and workplaces only work effectively by putting it into practice. Society has learned over time that discrimination against people on the grounds of who they are rather than what they do or say is a form of ill-manners deleterious to social cohesion. It is not rude to say someone is gay, black, Muslim, foreign or female; but it is anti-social to treat these as factors on which to base attitudes or behaviour. We know this so clearly that laws have been put in place to ensure compliance.
Even without laws, common sense says that manners are a lubricant of a peaceful society. If someone is rude or offensive to another, it is not surprising if this creates tension or reaction which in turn may lead on to aggression or worse. Recognising this, Parliament set in place rules for behaviour and language which the Speaker enforces. But take the same body of people away from the discipline of the House and they act like unruly children. MPs in particular - often egged on by journalists in search of a story - have become the very exemplars of how not to behave in a civil society.

Name-calling by the very highest in the land sets the sort of example which damages the efforts at upbringing invested in those who should be admiring them. This is made even worse when these same supposed leaders use their rhetorical platform to belittle not just their political opponents but the very voters whom they are supposed to represent. The demonization of the weak by the strong shows the corrupting effect of power in its worst light and devalues politics.

Leaders in society have a far greater duty to behave as we all should, just because they have set themselves up as leaders. Yet in politics today, some of these may be the very cause of their own demise, as the people whose support they crave find that politicians' standards of behaviour are infuriating, belittle their messages and leave them looking to other ways of expressing their values. This may be doing considerable harm to our country. They should look at themselves before criticising others.

Politics begins at home?

So if Whitehall-centred government puts people off politics; but if politics is too important to be ignored [for the country has to be run], what then?

Real politics is about real needs in the communities of the country. Yes, we need defence [perhaps less than those in Whitehall like to tell us]; yes, we need international relations; yes, we need a State. But when MPs talk about cost of living issues, how well do they really understand what they are talking about? These are people remote from the issues on which they pontificate and legislate. To inform themselves they pay other well-paid people to conduct research but the realities of daily life for millions pass them by unnoticed. They seem more interested in helping businesses to thrive than voters, despite businesses bemoaning government interference at every turn.

In cities, towns and villages citizens know how scarce are affordable homes; how expensive is child-care which allows them to go to work; how absent and expensive is convenient public transport; what school clothes eat up from a budget; how time and energy poor it can be just to lead a normal life. For citizens with disabilities or without paying work, life is tougher still yet politics seems so rarely to be about the needs of real lives. Percentages pay no bills.

Real politics happens when women dispossessed of homes occupy disused flats. Real politics happens when spare allotments are made over to feed hungry locals. Real politics happens when public service workers face migrant workers being exploited by private sector businesses. When the main parties start to understand and address the real needs of real people, they deserve our votes much more than when they argue over who can score points in debate or which can be the most business-friendly.

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?

No wonder politics is despised

Government in thrall to capital
Policy decided by electoral considerations over national interest
Arms exports determining foreign policy*
Peerages for party funders
Personality over values
Success measured by GDP rather than people's well-being
Wealth on a pedestal while weak are demonised
Super-rich allowed huge income rises while social security is destroyed
Police policing the police
[*Let us not forget that it is our ally and customer Israel which commits atrocities in Palestine; and another, Saudi Arabia, which funds the awful ISIL. What sort of foreign policy is this?]
These are just some of the reasons. All of them can be addressed but only by a Labour government.

Can political parties still command mass support?

It looks as though political parties have had their day, as voters (or rather non-voters) find new ways of collective thought and action. Organised politics has failed miserably to understand or adopt digital media, which are by now quite long-in-the-tooth. Single issue collectives like Stop the War, Hacked Off and UK Uncut have larger “memberships” than the parties. Online petitions regularly attract 10s and 100s of thousands of signatories.

So what can or should the parties do about this? Their portfolios of policies are as likely to put off adherents as to win them. A supporter of Policy A may be as strongly opposed to Policy B. And how can a Leader in today’s media’s preferred presidential politics possibly appeal sufficiently ever to be good enough?

It seems to me that the agenda and language of politics has to be shifted towards values, with a party’s policies described in terms of their consistency with these. A leader with values is surely a match for one with fewer or worse, regardless of how his/her looks may seem to the image-conscious.

It is surely not too late for Labour to espouse new media actively, to link itself to campaigns of others making as well as to its own supporters. The Party must see how digital communities work, not by preaching or imposing barriers to engagement but by creating conversations between people with common interests. Today’s digital policy seems at odds with this. Members receive regular top-down messages, usually accompanied by a request for money. How off-putting is this?

Take rural issues as an example. Voters living in the countryside far from the conurbations which set most of the political agendas have very distinct issues of isolation and cost of living not appreciated by the metropolitan majority. They are fewer in number but still have rights and needs; as well as being a significant minority which Labour should certainly not ignore. Yet how else can these voters have a collective voice if not by connecting them? The same can be said to apply to other otherwise isolated categories like disabled people, freelance workers, the care sector. If Labour could offer individuals the means to connect to others of similar interests, it would be better informed on these issues and rebuild collective behaviours under a common banner. And if Labour does this, perhaps it can justifiably ask voters who are not members to tick its box; and voters who do not buy the whole package will tick that box because the package contains what they need.

Tom Serpell @uckfieldlabour