From little acorns ..... @LabourCC

There is something of Ground Hog Day about elections in "safe" constituencies - safe, that is, for the regular winner. For the regular loser in such a seat, nothing much changes. No voice; no representation; invisibility. Coastal and rural constituencies typically remain in Tory hands, decade after decade, so what are we Labour voters to do? We may mount a campaign of sorts, with few resources and little support, only to achieve yet another failure. Not only does the hard work of activists and candidates prove fruitless but those voters who, against the current, give their ticks to the inevitable loser give only false cheer to the campaigners and are then not represented. This presents a strong case for PR; but failing this, is there nothing we can do in our rural isolation to stimulate change?

In Wealden constituency, one which is typical of this dilemma, we have just selected a candidate to fight the General Election on May, who brings an approach which seems worth sharing, in case its precedent may help others selecting PPCs. Solomon Curtis, our appointee, is young. He sees that his youth equips him with one particular advantage: the ability to communicate with his peers. Young people? In East Sussex? Not perhaps in the Labour Party of today but what about tomorrow? Older candidates may carry the baggage of experience but they will be of limited appeal to a new generation of voters. The older Labour voter will tick his box anyway.

We are excited by the idea of building Labour afresh, from the students and NEETs of our towns and villages. This may not win us seats in the forthcoming campaign nor even the one after; but it could bring new activism to bear, raise the profile of Labour in apparently barren soil and build a new core of Labour voters who may gradually challenge the complacency of the land-owning classes. The future is theirs anyway, so let them make it the way they want it. We old oaks should nurture these energetic acorns.

Tom Serpell

Religion and politics should not mix

Through superior education and ownership of land, the Church of the Middle Ages acquired power to challenge that of monarchs until Henry 8 swallowed it into his realm. This survived the separation of monarchy from Parliament in the 17th century to remain the anomaly we have still today, of an Established Church. We thus live in a secular parliamentary democracy in which institutions pay deference to an unelected Head of State who also heads the State religion. Furthermore, this Church is given rights such as votes in the House of Lords and influence over the education of our children.

The very existence of Church schools, funded by the State, itself an anachronism, creates precedent whereby other faiths demand parity, so we now have tax-payer money funding faith schools which exclude non-believers, teaching different fictions, over which there is no public accountability and in a secular country with a State religion. How can this do other than fracture society?

The Labour movement certainly had its roots in non-conformist Christianity, with a strong ethic of serving others not just self. It is constitutionally committed to equality above all else. How is this served by schools which exclude on grounds of irrational beliefs? The worthy aspects of all mainstream religions may seem sound bases for political and educational doctrine but such ethos was lost long ago, leaving the example of the Established Church as one of hierarchy, power, wealth, deference and discrimination against women - the very antithesis of Labour values.

This hangover from the Middle Ages may look good in the rear-view mirror of the ageing Tory omnibus but must surely be challenged and addressed by Labour.  It must be time to separate Church and State once and for all time. Let religions survive and even thrive on the basis of convincing followers rather than by force-feeding the impressionable. Just as urgently, faith schools of all strands should ideally no longer exist but certainly not survive on tax-payers' funding, to perpetuate and proselytise myths of yesteryear. State-funded schools should operate to nationwide standards and practices. This is not the politics of envy but of equality. All it takes is the courage to do it.

Tom Serpell

Revealed: how Tories convince themselves they are right

Incensed by receiving an electioneering flyer from our local Tory MP and his inevitable successor [he is off to richer pastures, I gather]. Incensed but not surprised to find that it contains what purports to be a survey of voter preferences. But here is the thing - the only choices are between Tory policies!

Be ready to read that voters in Wealden think that reducing immigration is more important than capping welfare. Reasonable? Not when the choice is between "Reducing immigration" and "Cutting welfare" and not between immigration as an issue and welfare as an issue. "Building affordable housing" and "empowering women" are among choices but without any policy backing either.  It is all about which of their agendas we gullible voters support more and not about what we are most concerned by.

Similarly, how objective will the findings seem when they invite ranking of a number of possible policies when each is qualified by a positive spin? Take "Securing a cut in the EU budget" - described as "protecting British interests - but does it? How objective will the findings be when no other policies can be suggested? No mention of a Living Wage, which would increase tax take and remove welfare needs for migrant workers, for example. This might come well above some of the Tory list.

Then there is the most fatuous, disingenuous question of all: "Putting party politics aside and thinking about them as individuals, which of the main party leaders would you prefer as Prime Minister?" PUTTING PARTY POLITICS ASIDE? I do not think so. Nobody has a vote for who becomes Prime Minister - only for a local MP or councillor. So why ask the question if not for party political reasons, presumably in the erroneous belief that their relative ratings in polls will play out in where the X goes on May 7th?

I record these mild rantings today so that I can be reminded when this piece of waste paper is followed up with the next, that these finidngs will be entirely predictable because the questions are partial, misleading and fall short of any sort of validity in terms of methodology. I predict that these findings will include that: Tory policies are popular; and that no policies which attend to the economic and social miseries of millions of voters will feature. Betcha!

Tom Serpell

Is it any wonder people are fed up with politics as it is practised?

Children are brought up from their very earliest years to be polite. This includes speaking respectfully to and about others. School reinforces this principle and workplaces only work effectively by putting it into practice. Society has learned over time that discrimination against people on the grounds of who they are rather than what they do or say is a form of ill-manners deleterious to social cohesion. It is not rude to say someone is gay, black, Muslim, foreign or female; but it is anti-social to treat these as factors on which to base attitudes or behaviour. We know this so clearly that laws have been put in place to ensure compliance.
Even without laws, common sense says that manners are a lubricant of a peaceful society. If someone is rude or offensive to another, it is not surprising if this creates tension or reaction which in turn may lead on to aggression or worse. Recognising this, Parliament set in place rules for behaviour and language which the Speaker enforces. But take the same body of people away from the discipline of the House and they act like unruly children. MPs in particular - often egged on by journalists in search of a story - have become the very exemplars of how not to behave in a civil society.

Name-calling by the very highest in the land sets the sort of example which damages the efforts at upbringing invested in those who should be admiring them. This is made even worse when these same supposed leaders use their rhetorical platform to belittle not just their political opponents but the very voters whom they are supposed to represent. The demonization of the weak by the strong shows the corrupting effect of power in its worst light and devalues politics.

Leaders in society have a far greater duty to behave as we all should, just because they have set themselves up as leaders. Yet in politics today, some of these may be the very cause of their own demise, as the people whose support they crave find that politicians' standards of behaviour are infuriating, belittle their messages and leave them looking to other ways of expressing their values. This may be doing considerable harm to our country. They should look at themselves before criticising others.

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.