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.

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. 

 

 

A vote for a Labour MEP is a vote for One Nation

Labour's determined focus on target General Election marginals is understandable. We must win in Hastings, Brighton Kemptown and other winnable seats if we are to get rid of this frightful government. Why voters should turn out in other instances may seem less obvious. Take a constituency like Wealden, for example. One of the safest of safe Tory seats, Labour has just 200 members and absolutely no chance of winning even a County Council seat any time soon. But what about those 200 Labour members and the perhaps 10% of voters who emulate them at election time? Some of us are passionate Labour supporters. What are we supposed to do with our energies, our ideas and our votes?

Around the country there are many constituencies like Wealden, mostly rural or coastal, where Labour supporters exist in minorities, marginalised from national polity. Some say "Go and help in your nearest marginal". Some do. But this is not always feasible. Rural life is quite isolating. Public transport is often non-existent; and running a car expensive; and canvassing does not suit everyone. And why should we ignore the needs of our own communities in favour of somewhere with which we have no connection? Rural and seaside areas have particular issues of deprivation which, electoral priority or not, need to be taken into account by policy makers. "One Nation" must mean all communities matter, not just key metropolitan marginals. It is for this reason that Labour Coast and Country [@LabourCC] has been set up, to enable Labour people living in Tory seats to connect with one another, across constituency boundaries, to share our common needs, feel less isolated and create critical mass to influence policy.

But we still have enthusiastic Labour supporters largely ignored by the Party; and communities outside the focus of policy, both with insufficient voice. Neither can elect representatives who can channel our needs. Or can we?

In May, the country will be invited to go to the polls to elect MEPs. Turnout will be low. Focus will be on UKIP's fate rather than Labour's. Between European elections we hear almost nothing about the work of the European Parliament or our representatives there. Each of these represents a huge geographical area, such that their visibility in any community is minimal and their names are unknown to most voters. So why should we engage in this election? Apart from whatever they actually achieve on our behalf, for rural Labour supporters voting for MEPs is the one chance we have of actually electing representatives of our own Party. Let us actively support those who genuinely support the rural agenda.

A Libertarian Budget?

The Chancellor has won praise from the Right for his innovative approach to pensions. This at first glance confirms him as a libertarian and opens a wide divide between the Tories and Labour, which must be welcomed as the arguments shift from managerial to ideological. Surely Labour can win in a battle over fairness?

However, closer examination may lead to this analysis being questionable. If a libertarian approach aims to remove the State from having any role in people’s lives, his policy on annuities fails. It purports to enable those retiring to have full control over their own pension pot, without being told by the State what to do with it. Libertarian? Apparently.

But if we compare this to the Right’s reliance on markets’ self-control, it can be shown how, when this fails to be the case, as it often does, it is the State which has to step in to bail out failures, again and again: the banks being a case in point. So when (not if) people fail to foster their assets effectively for their retirement, where will their needs be met? By the State, of course.

The fallacy of the Right is that its ideology sounds attractive – let everyone hold onto their own money as far as possible - but that this has been shown not only to be a recipe for failure but to place greater reliance on the State than it would claim. It also favours the ruthless over the fair and is likely to lead to the most unequal society, as we have now. How Labour can support this flawed policy is perplexing and should be challenged.

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.

Why do we accept the language of success for high inflation?

The Cabinet, the City, the construction sector are all at pains to celebrate the rise in property prices as representing "recovery" as London and the South-East housing sales prosper. Double digit percentage house price rises are hailed as evidence of good news for the economy.

But hold on - let us explore the reality here. Is not the real truth that the South-East is experiencing inflation, at a level which in any other sector would be regarded as near disastrous and which would lead to Tories clamouring for wage cuts for lower paid workers?

Then there is the Princess Royal adding her two pennyworth, using her enormous insight into the needs of rural people to reject the building of new towns in favour of infilling villages and market towns whose transport and schools infrastructure are already inadequate; where there are few jobs; and house prices and rents are uncontrolled.

People in rural areas of the South-East are infected by the London bubble as the capital's real estate is mopped up by non-resident rich, leading those whose work is needed to buy in an ever-widening radius just for affordability. Such jobs as there may be in the areas affected are increasingly out of reach of workers forced themselves to move away to lower-cost towns, from where travel is rarely easy.

What measure do you prefer, GDP or a happy country?

The influential book "The Spirit Level" [Why Equality is better for Everyone; Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, Penguin 2010] has said it. Economics soothsayer Joseph Stiglitz has said it. Now even the EMF, after years of advocating bank recapitalisation and austerity as medicine for broken economies has said it: inequality is wrong. Awareness of this has long been a major factor behind progressive politics, principally on moral grounds. It is simply not right that some people are rewarded for what they do in huge multiples of the remuneration available to most, when they exert no greater discernible effort and merely happen to have talents "the market" elects as more valuable. In many cases inequality stems from no effort at all, merely from wealth acquired by inheritance, accident or good fortune.

Those now leading the campaign against inequality no longer need rely on moral indignation as the basis for arguing against it. These researched and credible sources have now concluded clearly that it is wrong economics. Inequality is damaging because too much wealth is sucked out of the economy into overseas vaults (literal or metaphorical); and too little into the hands of those whose work has contributed to its creation and who will spend it in our local businesses. The problem with this realisation is that it has little traction with those who run the economy, the very plutocracy whose wealth is so divisive. These strive to ensure that their power is perpetual and that the rest of the people are pacified by being led to believe that we live in a democracy, rather than under an oligarchy of the rich. While there is still a chance for democracy to exert itself, we must wrest power back to the wider population and regain control of the country's assets and levers of power for the good of the 99%. We need Parliament, the law, the infrastructure and proper tax management to be in accountable hands, so that inequality is reduced and a fairer society created. The Economy is not just about GDP but about the wellbeing of people.