Labour's choice of words

There may be a cost of living issue, as food and energy prices rise, but this mantra is beginning to sound stale and even misses the point. For many in our unequal society it it not so much that costs have gone up as that incomes are artificially and ideologically depressed by this vicious oligarchy of wealthy elitists. With millions out of work not receiving a Living benefit and millions more in work which does not pay basic bills, the political failure must be seen as one of pay rather than of prices.
Until Labour articulates the realities of life for those it seeks to represent, it will continue to look like another metropolitan clique, instead of an empathetic friend. UKIP has illustrated the power of simple messages which hit the spot for their minority following, now Labour needs to do the same for the majority by correctly diagnosing the problems people face and saying how it will govern, preferably very differently from the Coalition. Let's hear more about social security, independent living and proper pay; and less about strengthening banks, more austerity and tired old phrases.

#Labour must challenge the Establishment not be part of it

Across Europe, traditionally dominant parties have been rocked by the support for anti-Establishment movements. These are neither all left nor right. Some are anti-austerity; others anti-EU. All seek to wrest power from long-established, dominant power blocs.

Labour under Blair strove and succeeded in becoming a part of The Establishment, friend to bankers, media bosses and big business. It is surely time to return to Labour as a movement for change, challenging the powers that be. The 1% represented so consistently by the Tories controls not only a disproportionate amount of the wealth and earnings of capitalism but also of the levers of power. Labour leaders increasingly try to look and act like these, instead of representing the 99% and trying to change the power base.

There is both a tribal vote for Labour and support for it as a party with values and principles, particularly relating to fairness. Farage, Le Pen and Tsipras have shown that there is a desire on the part of voters to be led by people who connect with them and who are prepared to stand up to the powerful, stand up for the weak, and have the courage to endure some unpopularity in the name of doing what is needed.

Labour is and should be the party of Europe; of women; of ethnic minorities; of the disabled; of the economically excluded - and say so, even if some powerful interests do not like this.

One Nation includes disabled and mentally ill citizens

To plagiarise Oscar Wilde, this Government seems to know the cost of everything and the value of no-one. Its treatment of disabled people shows just how fixated it has become on reducing the role of the State and on cutting expenditure, at the expense of people’s well-being. If profit is not attached, expenditure has no point to them.

Attacks on Disability Support Allowance; arbitrary assessment of disabled people as Work Ready; the threatened closure of the Independent Living Fund; withdrawal of support for moderate disabilities; the Bedroom Tax; slashing of adult social care budgets. These are just some of the ways in which the Coalition has focussed its ideologies against citizens. Yet as citizens, all have rights and needs. Just as people’s needs for education, healthcare or transport differ – yet are accepted as entitlements to a degree – disabled people’s needs should not be the focus of this clearly deliberate attack, which smacks of “untermensch”-ism. It seems that Tories regard all claimants as scroungers to be deprived of social security entitlements.

Whatever the ideological basis for these cuts, whether reduction in the size of the State or, worse, a deliberate demonisation of people unfortunate enough already, this has little to do with economics and rides roughshod over rights. There is a failure of joined-up thinking to be overcome, as those cast aside from, for example, educational support, are left less likely to find jobs, which the Tories seem to regard as a panacea. Labour must ride to the rescue of disabled people and restore their right as citizens to public services, both as a moral issue and a pragmatic one. These are voters, after all and a significant minority in need of championing [11.6 million people have a limiting long-term illness, impairment or disability in Great Britain (Office for Disability Issues, 2014)]. The mantra of “independent living” sounds great but lack of support at home for disabled people can leave them having recourse to GPs or A&E at far greater cost to the exchequer. Personal Assistant support, essential for prolonged independence, is under-funded and lacks mandatory standards.

Where parties do agree is on the desirability of integrated, personalised health and care, to maximise independent living. This is a genuine win-win model, being better for the user and more cost effective. But even here, Labour must not follow the Coalition path, which has led already to thousands being outside social security, either by virtue of changes in eligibility criteria, harsh sanctioning or by falling outside the radar, perhaps through loss or a carer. Anyone can become disabled; but their ability to deal with the consequences depends on availability of resources. So far, disabled citizens have been hit disproportionately harder by cuts than most. Labour must listen to them; ensure their individual needs are assessed; then be their advocate and rescuer. Labour must ensure that it reinvests in effective public services, provided to acceptable standards. What higher duty does a State have than the well-being of its citizens?

Tom Serpell

VOTE - then demand change

Turnout for this week's European Parliament election is expected to be low but there is every reason for anyone concerned at the direction of travel of this country to make their mark. First, Europe and our place as a key player in it must surely demand stronger Labour support than has been forthcoming from the shadow Cabinet to date. It must be our future. Second, (and I make no apology that this point has been made on this blog before) for Labour voters in most rural areas,  this is the only chance we get for our tick to count, with every other election dominated by Tory incumbency. Third, every vote which is not for the pseudo-non-racists of UKIP must be registered, to keep their pernicious influence away from power.

So our top candidates - Annaliese Dodds, John Howarth, Emily Westley for the South-East - must be given every chance.

But this support cannot be unqualified. How many voters between elections hear or see any evidence whatsoever of the work of their chosen representatives - let alone know their names? We hear much that is critical of Europe's institutions, their members' lifestyles and expenses, so how about demanding reports on their achievements? MEPs are at least democratically accountable so lets support them this week but be very demanding of transparency and value every other week in return.

Tom Serpell

Rus in urbe

As a countryside dweller I regularly write about the particular issues facing people like me, isolated by geography and historical allegiances of political parties. Labour, Coast and Country is working to create means for rural lefties to act collectively, across boundaries.
Some of the factors driving this campaign to reduce our isolation, though, apply to town dwellers. Isolation comes about from a variety of causes, not just where you live. Just as we hicks in the sticks share metropolitan concerns for rents, welfare, housing etc so urbanites may recognise some of the particularities of country folk. Not least among these can be isolation, a key issue which Labour should actively address. City crowds mask the presence nearby of citizens who, for no fault of their won, find themselves outside the mainstream. They may lack money. They may have mobility issues or sight impairment which prevent them from actively availing themselves of what the city has to offer. They may simply be lonely or suffer from mental health issues which lead them to stay indoors. Whatever the cause of their isolation, they are as important as citizens and voters as anyone. Labour can ill afford to ignore votes wherever they may be found and, as with remote rural supporters, ways need to be found to engage with everyone if we are truly to be One Nation.

Labour Coast and Country is exploring how to bring solitary voices together. Perhaps some of the same tools need to be applied towards enfranchising isolated people wherever they are.

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

What future for affordable and social housing?

A Google search for "Section 106" yields, as top advert: "Avoid Affordable Housing". Lawyers touting services to enable property developers to circumvent the needs of local communities. This is the tip of the iceberg which exists to support Big Construction; and it includes the Coalition. What hope can there be that any return to mass house building will include ANY lower-cost homes for those who need them, when the massed ranks of investors and their cronies in Parliament are arrayed against them, hidden behind a single clause in the Town and Country Planning Act?

Section 106 of this Act, backed up by more recent "clarifications", gives developers the escape chute from inclusion of social or affordable homes in new estates. It is clear that the very purpose of the Act was to ensure that developers had to provide Local Authorities with funds - "the essential provision"- towards infrastructure and social housing needed for the local community, through the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Yet the get-out provided by Section 106, whereby reduction of overall scheme profitability below 17.5% enables the developer to escape the "essential provision" belies this intention; and invoking it has now become standard practice.

With house-building already below half of the rate required to meet demand in this Parliament, the shortfall has increased under the Coalition by an extra half-a-million houses. The Government is certainly failing the working and non-working people of the South of England who need to live near work but cannot find homes. Then in April Clegg announced that new Garden Cities and now all new developments can be built without social housing.  With neither sufficient build nor provision of an affordable element, could the Coalition really be expecting NOT to get back into power?  Could they be inflating a house price bubble whose burst the next Government will have to suffer? They are certainly doing big favours to land-owners, landlords and developers. Luckily, there are fewer of these than there are would-be householders. Labour has to get the message out that only we will free up land, control rents, build council houses and demand a proper affordable housing sector.