Its groundhog day in the country

Angry of Wealden sends off his letter to his elected member, a Tory, naturally. The rebuff is received, polite but firm. No dice for humane revisions to policy. Lets try the Labour Party? Our concerns meet a dead end, with no elected members. End of politics for the rural dweller. What other recourse is there?

Well, there must be some, because the values and passions of socialists cannot simply be ignored, brushed aside. this way lies extreme blood pressure or a complete negation of Labour Party membership.

The first realisation must be that isolation does not mean total solitude. Surrounding each of us there are others, if only we are lucky enough to find them. shared values are a terrific social bridge. In our secret minority we may not wear our hearts on our sleeves for fear of pariah-dom; but perhaps we should, so that we can find or be found by these kindred souls. They too shout at Question Time, despair at the lack of Labour rebuttal, want to express their reasoned views. Linking up is the first step. This may be done informally - the pub is a good start - or in a more structured way, via the constituency party or other arranged group. There is strength and confidence in numbers as well as solidarity and company.

The collective view or rant achieved may then also remain unheard, of course and for the same reasons. What then? can Labour really ignore or afford to deny the local knowledge and passionate support of thousands of such individuals and pockets of socialism spread throughout the no-hope constituencies, merely treating them as cash cows and target-seat fodder? No. a way must be found to bring their voices, energies and know-how into play, not least because these represent a common experience of rural living and political needs. Living in the country is not all cows and Range Rovers. It is expensive; has fewer and poorer services and the transport to reach them. It is not to put us into Defra's hands as off-shoots of a now minute farming world. Link us up and we few are many. Turn the party towards our needs instead of just looking at party efficiency. Meet these needs and urban needs will probably be satisfied too.

@LabourCC

From little acorns ..... @LabourCC

There is something of Ground Hog Day about elections in "safe" constituencies - safe, that is, for the regular winner. For the regular loser in such a seat, nothing much changes. No voice; no representation; invisibility. Coastal and rural constituencies typically remain in Tory hands, decade after decade, so what are we Labour voters to do? We may mount a campaign of sorts, with few resources and little support, only to achieve yet another failure. Not only does the hard work of activists and candidates prove fruitless but those voters who, against the current, give their ticks to the inevitable loser give only false cheer to the campaigners and are then not represented. This presents a strong case for PR; but failing this, is there nothing we can do in our rural isolation to stimulate change?

In Wealden constituency, one which is typical of this dilemma, we have just selected a candidate to fight the General Election on May, who brings an approach which seems worth sharing, in case its precedent may help others selecting PPCs. Solomon Curtis, our appointee, is young. He sees that his youth equips him with one particular advantage: the ability to communicate with his peers. Young people? In East Sussex? Not perhaps in the Labour Party of today but what about tomorrow? Older candidates may carry the baggage of experience but they will be of limited appeal to a new generation of voters. The older Labour voter will tick his box anyway.

We are excited by the idea of building Labour afresh, from the students and NEETs of our towns and villages. This may not win us seats in the forthcoming campaign nor even the one after; but it could bring new activism to bear, raise the profile of Labour in apparently barren soil and build a new core of Labour voters who may gradually challenge the complacency of the land-owning classes. The future is theirs anyway, so let them make it the way they want it. We old oaks should nurture these energetic acorns.

Tom Serpell

Fairer to whom?

A fairer society seems to be a claimed objective for all political parties, which makes specific building blocks of this the only true differentiators voters can use to separate them. To the Right, fairness seems to centre on the self: what is fair for me; how I can hold on to my money without sharing it through taxation. Presumably, in primitive societies survival - looking after oneself first - makes sense. If you die you can do nothing for anyone else even if you want to. This Maslovian priority seems less valid in 21st century Western societies, where most people have more than all they need for subsistence and can look more widely for applications of resources.

To those on the Left, priority is given to a wider good or a collective, sharing of the cake. The social unit comes above the individual, so taxation is a leveller rather than theft. Regrettably, there are too many parts of our country where "Me First" voters predominate. Just listening to vox-pop interviews in by-election high streets shows this - ever focussing on how government decisions impact the individual rather than wider society. Even is such areas, though, there will be a number with a different take on fairness, frustrated by their invisibility and lack of agency. Parties of the Left claim the mutual agenda but their supporters in Right-dominated areas are left high and dry when it comes to representation.

It is for this reason that Labour, Coast and Country has been formed, to build a platform for rural and coastal voices (for these have historically been dominated by regressive parties). In such areas there are issues particular to that environment, beit agricultural, maritime or touristic. Labour, Coast and Country is embryonic but already active, via website, blog, Twitter, Facebook. A rural manifesto has been initiated, a conference held and a first publication drafted. Ultimately, LCC will offer a platform both online and off, for Labour members across the nation to link up, express views and experiences and aggregate policy contributions in a virtual "constituency sans frontieres". This way, Labour can become fairer to all its potential voters, develop meaningful policies for the whole economy and engage with social conscience wherever they may live. This way lies a fairer society, according to Labour values.

Labour, Coast and Country can be found at www.labourcoastandcountry.com and followed on Twitter @LabourCC

Tom Serpell

Energy as a Rural issue?

Now that Green Dave (as was, until his Chancellor persuaded him otherwise) is thinking of withdrawing support from Onshore Wind; and in the aftermath of the fracking threat in West Sussex,  energy is now a rural issue.

 

Wind Farms are rarely found in urban environments, requiring space, wind, and low impact on people [because of the number affected]. Therefore they must be located, if anywhere, either at sea ("OffShore") or in the countryside ("Onshore"). Dave's Mates own most of the latter, though, and are starting to make noises. Now that those who wanted to cash in on the generous compensation for hosting turbines have done so, he is persuaded that supporting this form of wind energy generation, the lowest cost one, is no longer attractive. One must not upset one's friends, must one? No matter that the country appears to need both more energy and lower costs.

So should Labour now take up the cudgels for Onshore Wind all the more strongly, as the lower-cost renewable energy source currently available? Or should Labour take an environmental stance against further rural eyesores? Who are we to please - or displease, most?

 

Labour seems at last to be moving towards a devolution agenda, which may enable local communities to develop their own strategies and even to invest in their own infrastructure needs, energy included. The sorts of energy local authorities could afford whilst responding to local geography, would include on-shore wind, fracking and solar. Labour could usefully consider developing policy in this area whereby not only land-owners receive compensation but so do affected local communities.  This could take the form of discounted energy prices for those most affected,  not just the land-owners.

 

Rural Labour supporters do not often seem to count in determining policy, small in number as we are, but here is an issue where combining rural viewpoints into a coherent lobby might make great sense and carry some weight.