Do not blame Corbyn for Cameron's Folly

I am furious with Cameron. Why would I not be? He leads a party and a government both of which are at odds with my beliefs and values. My antipathy is permanent. No, my fury today goes beyond the norm. His arbitrary decision to put  the country through the forthcoming referendum will define his legacy. Not only has this led to a nasty, gratuitous distraction for Parliament and people but it could yet lead to lasting real damage to the country he is supposed to lead. Where is the leadership in gambling all our futures with such uncertainty over the outcome? This has been done for purely partisan motives. It will be small compensation that he will be the greatest loser.

There was never any need for this. Had he been a true leader he would not have derogated to an uninterested and under-informed public the responsibility for determining policy on immigration (which is what drove the referendum decision). Parliament is the place for such matters. This is what we pay MPs and PMs to do. Were he truly the Remain advocate he claims to be, he could not have taken the risk he has with all our futures. Whatever the outcome of June 23 (please let it be IN), this reckless gamble must go down in history as Cameron's Folly. Now that Out looks possible, the voices of the Remain Right are starting to point the finger of blame at Labour's performance in the campaign to distract public opinion from the truth. Let us be crystal clear: any failure was in calling the referendum in the first place and only one man carries the responsibility for that.

How do you feel about this EU campaign?

Dare one say it? The campaign which started this morning but which is in reality already 2 months old, is both boring and badly managed. Yes, the subject f EU membership is important. Yes, voting about Europe is, for us who live in safe Tory seats, the one occasion when our votes count. But the powers that be could hardly have done worse in terms of enthusing the electorate.

If I were a Brexit-er [which I am most decidedly NOT] I could at least be enthusiastic because this is such a simple, clear message. But the awfulness and chaos of the rival gangs could reduce this clarity to confusion and lose them their chance of prevailing.

Then there are the Remainers. Oh dear! Their case could be so strong but their message and presentation are so poor. As usual with anything run by the Tories, the focus is on money and foreigners, when the visceral, emotional attraction must surely lie in decades past and future of peace and cooperation. Instead, we have Johnny Foreigner against Colonel Blimp; gunboats against the defenceless; and, sadly, old-and-voting versus young-and-disenfranchised. As if it were not already bad enough that Europe as an issue historically attracts low priority in voter concerns and low turnout. Four months of bad-mouthing bigotry is no turn-on, will do nothing to give democracy a good name and may lead to a damaging conclusion when there was no need for the referendum in the first place. What a mess.

Tom Serpell

So how did it come to this?

Apart, of course, from the Treaty of Union, until very recently there was no apparent substantial existential threat to the United Kingdom –or so our political leaders seemed to think. They had agreed to a Scottish referendum; and had access to pollsters galore, so how did they get it so wrong? Surely the first duty of any Prime Minister is the defence of the nation, against whatever threat, presumably including secession – for how else do we explain the unanimity of the Westminster parties over the No campaign? Most leaders have clearly regarded even devolution as a threat to their power and failed to encourage a long-term federal solution which could have bound us ever more tightly together whilst recognising people’s hunger for more self-determination. This has been a huge mistake in the face of plentiful evidence, which Scots voters have now given us the chance to rectify.

Mistake No 2 has been arrogance. Delegating previously vilified Labour ex-ministers to carry out the dirty work instead of showing true leadership belittled the whole threat and allowed the result to be as close as it eventually became. The ultimate complacency.

Mistake No 3 was to fail to heed even those polls they did access at the time of the referendum agreement. The deliberate removal of the 3^rd option of Devo Max made the No option – more of the same – deeply unattractive to many. Accompanying this option with a badly drafted question, tactics of threat and bullying contrasted strongly with the upbeat, visionary campaign for Yes which has so nearly prevailed. Even as a PR man, Cameron should be dismissed for allowing this negative strategy, let alone for his dereliction of duty.

We are where we are, so whither England; whither Labour? The lesson of the Yes campaign for Labour must be to re-emphasise building a fairer society. It must define how it will offer some of the benefits won by Scots to disengaged English and Welsh voters. We voters must note how the Scots got what they really wanted by shouting loudest. Even we who live only 50 miles from the seat of power feel the lack of any agency. The SNP can be compared to UKIP, in tapping a vein of anti-Establishment feeling. Labour should back-track from its closeness to the City, to Big Money and to the other No parties and return to the grass roots from which it sprang, for this is where the disenchantment grows.

Cameron’s failures smack of his typical strategy vacuum; of reaction to pressures with back-of-the-envelope bribes rather than long-term vision. Labour must paint a vision for a better country now; and explain how it will bring it into being, to turn his mismanagement into something better for everyone.

Tom Serpell

@uckfieldlabour