Labour's Dilemma

Labour members join because it is a party rooted in the real world of work, fighting for decent wages and conditions, for everyone, not just for themselves. It has values, of mutuality and altruism, instead of self. It defends against abuse of power by employers, landowners and the governing elites.

To be capable of electoral success, Labour must appeal, it is said, to those who are comfortably off, more self-centred as well as to society's more vulnerable. To ignore the middle class, it is argued, is to eschew power and thus the chance of doing good. We must pretend we are not unselfish in order to act unselfishly, no matter that this pretence goes against what we stand for.

What would you do: stick to principles and risk staying in Opposition; or compromise and have the chance of more votes and of putting decency into practice (assuming the mask does not slip)? It seems to me that looking a bit Tory will fool nobody. Those wanting to have their deeply held values represented will be let down whilst those looking for a more money-centred politics will head for its real proponents. Tory-Lite is nothing.  Look at the outcome to the LibDems of succumbing to the siren voices of power. No, despite the risks, a Party of principle should not simply follow votes. It can only hold its ground if it holds by its values. These can and must form the basis of its immediate role, in Opposition. There is a real and vital role, right now, for Labour, if it has the courage to be so clear in its stance, in: promoting our membership of the EU; defending the Human Rights Act; supporting decent, living wages; enabling Labour councils to build Council houses in their thousands; preventing selection from regaining a hold on education; fighting tooth and nail to stop social security cuts and more. Who knows, if Labour opposes well, maybe the votes will follow?
Tom Serpell

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