The poverty of wealth in Market-World

I need money. I like to have enough of it. I am lucky enough to have enough, though I am not rich. I can live a comfortable life, without excess. Lucky me, when many cannot be so fortunate. I also hate money, for what it can do to people, myself included. It can make you spend more than you want on crap you do not need. It can make one simply want more of it, which in turn makes one greedier, selfish, grasping. And greed is both unbecoming and leads to regrettable behaviours.

In our Market-World, you are supposed to want more of both money and possessions, as the manifestation of success. If you have lots, you may be placed on a pedestal, given honours, lauded, whether it was earned or unearned. Above a certain level of income, it becomes impossible to spend it all, but this does not seem to inhibit the desire for more, always at the expense of someone else. To make more, you may have to do down someone less grasping, less competitive, less entrepreneurial. If you run a small business, you are supposed to want to make it bigger, no matter that it may satisfy you need to feed and clothe yourself, your family and staff. Oh no, you must be entrepreneurial to be successful. It is not enough to be happy or content. Satisfaction is failure in Market-World. Poverty is unthinkable shame.

Irony is lost on politicians, it seems. For those propounding light-touch, low-interference government, business support is only on offer for those businesses aspiring to high growth, not to those who want a sustainable, long-term income. Greed and growth, consumption, conspicuous and vacuous wealth are today's gods, with churches called "Westfield" or "Dubai". Are these churches worth attending, when all you can do there is spend more or envy those who do? What do they offer in the way of comfort, culture or happiness?

I do not want to do without money, nor what it can do for me, my family and my interests but I see every reason to try to find ways of reducing society's emphasis on lucre as the main measure of success, for individuals or for governments. There are other values for humanity which should surely be given their chance as yard-sticks of success: peace; fairness; well-being; generosity.... How successful is this country in these?

Are some people really superior to others?

Are some people intrinsically superior in value to others? I do not mean in financial worth, for that is all too glaringly the case. No, I mean should some be regarded as better people than others? There are morally good, financially successful, genetically stronger, more handsome, more likeable....many differentiators but do they make it OK for some to look down on others? Put it another way:  are some humans inferior? Should some be looked down on because they look different, have been less fortunate, simply have less?
I pose these questions in the light of today's politics. One could be forgiven for thinking that my questions could or even should be answered in the affirmative, to listen to Government policies on welfare, taxation or border control. Yet all of my upbringing, education and acquired world view says "No!" All people should be entitled to equal respect, to rights. But if this is so, how can we allow those who simply have less (or nothing) to be demonized, excluded from basic sustenance and shelter? This country is supposed to be a beacon of democracy, good governance, liberal values and justice. Ha! We have to stop preening ourselves if we think so but look at how other countries we like to say we are better than to find out the reality. Look at how welcoming Germany and Sweden are being to refugees. Look at how Denmark equips itself to look after the less fortunate of their successful economy. If we care about values, let us elect a government which has some of the sort we aspire to, instead of one which sneers at difference and misfortune.

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.

Whom is Labour for?

In the post-industrial age, with smaller workforces and collectivism more challenging in the workplace, the "natural constituency" of Labour has diminished like mist on a sunny day. Yes, there remains the important historic and emotional tie between Party and Unions but these too have seen their ability to recruit and organise dwindle as the nature of the workplace has changed and vindictive Tory legislation has bitten.

Success as measured by the Coalition merely counts the wealth growing in the off-shore coffers of the plutocracy. The unequal society on which we now - again - live illustrates clearly the need for a party willing and able to represent those whose economic and social prospects count for so little to the current government.

With values of altruism and mutuality, the Labour Party is clearly the only political entity which offers any voice for the under-paid, unpaid, isolated, disabled or ignored of Britain's 21st century. The problem is to persuade this majority to see itself as belonging to the Labour banner. We have been persuaded to see ourselves as individuals first, community second. The politics of individualism have dominated the consumerist, shopping-as-leisure marketplace we are told we occupy. What we really have is millions of people with common needs, for well-being, happiness and social cohesion as well as enough money.

We are a society in which care for others is second nature but belittled by low wages and status. Labour must lead a campaign to revalue caring for others' wellbeing and the caring professions in particular to where they belong, financially as well as emotionally; at the same time setting free-loading and gambling in their proper place in the hierarchy of respect - far below the carers, manufacturing, creative and digital workers. And let our party resile from this courting of "hard-working families" which so damages the esteem for those who are unable to work, no longer work, cannot find work or have no family. Let Labour be the voice of its true constituency: those who find themselves, temporarily or permanently unfairly treated by the economy.

Neither the size of the cake nor of its slices are beyond choice

What does “public services” mean? These are not simply services used by the public, which can be offered by anyone. They are those services deemed essential to everyone, provided by the State. We now see that to the Right, these are a nuisance, to be minimised because of their drain on the exchequer. They have placed much delivery beyond true democratic accountability in the name of cost reduction [despite considerable reorganisation cost], at the same time removing  the State’s competence at delivery, resulting in dependency on corporates working under “commercial confidentiality”; and with little concern for the motivation of the remaining public sector workers.

So what about Labour from 2015? We know that the Coalition’s reforms of the NHS are to be repealed; and that care is to become one with health. We know that there will be a return to qualified teaching and some refocus on local government. But we also know that Ed Balls foresees further massive cuts in public spending. How then are public services even to be sustained, let alone restored to meet the needs of a growing, ageing population and generation of young people lacking proper prospects? Surely the size of the public services cake does not have to be determined by Osborne for a future Labour budget? Borrowing is not a dirty word; nor is taxation.

Where do we find the Party’s vision for the role of the State and the slicing of the budget cake? What are its spending priorities as between, say, social care and defence; or even between support for the City and infrastructure investment? When some areas of expenditure are ring-fenced or apparently sacrosanct, like defence or HS2, how come continued or reenergised public services – matters that affect the daily lives of people in need – are treated as the first port of call for cuts – by a Labour Government?

Yes, the [re-]advent of local strategy boards for health and education may help redirect funds in those silos but we see no clarity about how these bodies are either democratically accountable nor how their work is joined to other local strategic needs. Populating boards with temporarily interested but unelected parents or patients merely pretends public engagement, when the real expertise must come from professionals. How will transport strategy interact with health, employment or skills strategies under such narrow boards?

Surely we should be looking for a realignment of government spending – the whole cake - with the needs of the population over those of "the economy" as a  purely financial construct. Surely remuneration for public services workers could be set in line with the value recipients would place on their work. Is not the care worker looking after someone’s elderly parent more skilled and valuable than someone gambling with bank deposits? The size of the cake and of its slices need deciding by Labour values, not the inherited assumptions of this vicious Coalition.