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

Winning women’s votes

How can Labour maximise its potential vote when women are so poorly represented in the corridors of power of industry or government? When gender inequality shows no signs of structural improvement, what surprise can there be if women stay away from the ballot on May 7^th? Here we are, 39 years after the Sex Discrimination Act, still with a substantial pay deficit for women in similar work to men; with decision-making roles in employment dominated by men; with women’s issues being a delegated minority responsibility in government rather than embedded in all aspects of policy. It should not even be an issue.

Women are entering the workplace as never before but mostly in part-time, underpaid, privatised jobs, often forcibly self-employed, which keep them from entering the hierarchies which would improve their income. Nor, apparently, have Trade Unions been sufficiently energetic in penetrating these workplaces to make collective representation possible.

Not all women have children but this potential career interruption has made it possible, if not excusable, for employers to categorise women as more suited to flexible working and less likely to achieve higher office. Childcare arrangements make it impossible for those of either gender – but mostly women -  with parental responsibilities to enter full-time work, which might start them on the ladder towards greater fulfilment, earnings and eventual influence. Even where the work they do is of huge value to society, as in child- and elderly-care, this value is not converted into proper reward, recognition and career path. Their time is so little valued by those who employ them that Personal Assistants’ travel time is not remunerated in many instances.

Specific actions a Labour Government should take include: mandating the Living Wage including travel time; mandating female and workers’ representation on employer Boards; effective regulation of equal pay; and active, open support for Unions which tackle the needs of lower paid sectors such as adult care, childcare, hospitality, cleaning and retail.

The capitalism accepted by all main parties favours rewarding investors over workers; and GDP over well-being. Only a resetting of values leading to a new set of priorities will properly appreciate and reward the work mostly done by women, whether in the home or in another workplace. Then men and women may take equal childcare and earning burdens and both participate to the maximum of their potential in careers and even Government. Then women may be enabled and motivated to make different choices, including voting for the politicians who have made these possible.

 

OK to be angry

Last week this blog centred on fear as a poor basis for political choices. But what about ANGER? Personally, I am not especially prone to succumbing to high states of emotion but my politics has been heavily charged with anger. It was fury at LibDem hypocrisy which led me, for the first time in my life to join a political party. It is anger which makes me seek a safety valve in tweeting and blogging, if only to save the TV from assault. It is anger at he treatment of fellow human beings by this Government which determines my allegiance to Labour. [Not that the latter is immune from my ire - its Byzantine processes and infuriating caution make it tempting to seek solace in more radical alternatives]

It might seem that anger, like fear, should not be the determinant of one's vote. We rationalists would wish the future to be based on evidence and human needs. But without passion we may end up doing nothing, for ourselves or for others. That way lies the sort of vacuum which allows the ruthless greed of the Right to move in unhindered. So let it out. Be justifiably angry. Let emotions give courage to do the right things.

Be afraid of fear

Is fear a good basis for choice of government? Fear of more of the same? Fear of change and the unknown? Fear of foreigners? These are the agendas of demagogues but do Farages and Brands make for good governance? Surely not. They simply criticise whilst offering no viable solutions or alternative government. We should vote for outcomes, goals, for a country run better according to our beliefs, needs, values.

Recent debate has suggested that, with no overall majority for any party likely, we may enter a period of huge uncertainty or even paralysis, undesirable, no matter how it arises. Nor do alternatives taking place elsewhere in the World look much more attractive to believers in democracy. Disregarding the chaotic aftermaths of popular discontent with past governance in Libya or Syria, the stability now offered [and apparently liked by many] in their countries by Putin, Sisi and even Erdogan can hardly appeal. This sort of autocracy we should indeed fear.

The probability of a hung Parliament is created by citizens' hunger for something better suited to their perception of the country's priorities. For an increasing number, this means not more of the same, of the familiar, stale formal groupings. But for all of the imperfections of our sclerotic system, responding to fears may lead to results we will find useless or even abhorrent. Perhaps we need instead to work to change our institutions from within rather than dumping them in favour of a vacuum which may be filled by less desirable solutions. Until it proves to fail, let us hold fast to voting Labour for a more equal, less fearful society.

The Left has no realistic Kip-like alternative

The idea of UKIP's ghastly representatives being electable is repugnant but nonetheless appears to be growing in reality. Tories in particular, frustrated that their party is not quite unpleasant enough, can now see an alternative to entrust with their votes. This has been available for years but has only now become a real option because it is conceivable that their chosen Kipper could actually be elected.

True, some disenchanted Labour voters may go the same way; but for those on the left this option should not be conceivable. For disenchanted lefties, a close examination of alternative manifestos should lead to a mass exodus towards the Greens. Their current policy list is as close to an ideal socialist prospectus as you could realistically wish. So why not vote for them? They do, after all, have an MP and other elected representatives.

The answer I would offer is that they lack that likelihood of victory which the Kippers have discovered. The Greens have yet to build the bandwagon effect that Farage has created around UKIP. With little prospect of influence in the lobbies, a vote for Green still looks like a wasted one, no matter how sensible their policies. I wish it were otherwise. For now, the recourse for those who would like a more socialist country and government must remain to work on Labour from the inside, to persuade the leadership that it is more important to grasp the opportunity to set the country on a new course than to lose mass support and stay in opposition by presenting themselves as slightly nicer managers of the country's resources than Tories.

Tom Serpell

Politics begins at home?

So if Whitehall-centred government puts people off politics; but if politics is too important to be ignored [for the country has to be run], what then?

Real politics is about real needs in the communities of the country. Yes, we need defence [perhaps less than those in Whitehall like to tell us]; yes, we need international relations; yes, we need a State. But when MPs talk about cost of living issues, how well do they really understand what they are talking about? These are people remote from the issues on which they pontificate and legislate. To inform themselves they pay other well-paid people to conduct research but the realities of daily life for millions pass them by unnoticed. They seem more interested in helping businesses to thrive than voters, despite businesses bemoaning government interference at every turn.

In cities, towns and villages citizens know how scarce are affordable homes; how expensive is child-care which allows them to go to work; how absent and expensive is convenient public transport; what school clothes eat up from a budget; how time and energy poor it can be just to lead a normal life. For citizens with disabilities or without paying work, life is tougher still yet politics seems so rarely to be about the needs of real lives. Percentages pay no bills.

Real politics happens when women dispossessed of homes occupy disused flats. Real politics happens when spare allotments are made over to feed hungry locals. Real politics happens when public service workers face migrant workers being exploited by private sector businesses. When the main parties start to understand and address the real needs of real people, they deserve our votes much more than when they argue over who can score points in debate or which can be the most business-friendly.

Grandstanding and polls do not lead to engagement

As the summer's big political news items fade behind us - the Scottish referendum, the major party conferences, yet another ridiculously costly and pointless war - I find a thread connecting them all - their irrelevance to everyday life. Surely these issues, of huge importance to those with or seeking the drug of power, are a world away from daily concerns, yet it is these which occupy the media. All three major parties support bombing Iraq again. All backed the No campaign in Scotland. All engage in personality assaults which are completely non-constructive. No wonder voters are disengaged, disenchanted and looking at alternative ways of expressing their interests.

Then there are the headlines. What makes the news? Not the serious issue of a deeply unequal society nor the alternatives to war but the foibles and peccadilloes of people to whom we are supposed to look for leadership and decision-making. A lapse of memory is cataclysmic. Stupid behaviour destroys a career.Someone changes allegiance. These may be of personal significance but why should they dominate the media for the millions to whom they mean nothing? How will page after page of prurient analysis of these pin-pricks make for a better country? Parliament has become a club as inaccessible and irrelevant to most people's lives as the MCC or R&A Golf Club, run by a clique for a coterie of similar types.

How then can respect for politics be renewed? To be taken seriously by voters, as the people's party, Labour has to revive its values, its collective roots, using the media real people use in everyday life to hear and become more relevant again; and stop being Tory-lite proponents of an unnecessary austerity imposed to preserve the power of a tiny minority. Of course we do not have to pay off the deficit in one Parliament. Of course Cameron will look better at running his own choice of economic strategy. Of course we do not have to spend billions on armaments and wars we have no business to be in. Of course it is not right or essential to demonise and deprive the worst off. Come on Labour - what are we for?