This is why we should oppose privatisation

"I told you so" is always unpopular, especially when justified. Despite Labour's early experiments, progressives have long opposed selling off assets or contracts for public services. We are accused of being doctrinaire in doing so. Now that the evidence is coming to hand of how it has worked, let us examine whether we were correct in our opposition for other reasons.

This month has just provided one example: Hinchingbrooke Hospital. As long ago as the previous Government, this hospital was failing to meet targets and economically. Eventually, the incoming Coalition decided to privatise it, contracting a hedge-funded firm called Circle to turn it round. This process has been under way with some impact for several years but now, under the continuing austerity and inexorable rise in demand, Circle is unable to meet is shareholders' profit expectations and decided to withdraw. Who will pick up the burden is not yet clear but ultimately this will be the tax-payer. Yet again, the State is called on to rescue the private sector from the effects of markets. Familiar? I should think so. You doubt me - want examples? How about the banks?  Who rescued them from their gambling debts? How about public ICT and military procurement? How about Southern Cross care homes? Or East Coast Mainline? Or Olympic Park security (G4S)? Or A4E. Or Serco... the list goes on.

Has not the myth of the excellence in management of the private sector yet been laid to rest? Let us just see how privatisation is flawed:

• it is about making profits for investors from taxes paid by the public;
• it employs lower-skilled workers to replace skilled - and do a worse job, whilst leaving the State less-well prepared to step back in;
• it picks the low-hanging fruit, leaving again the State to deal with the most complex and skill-demanding roles but without economies of scale;
• it is far from infallible, as its proponents would seem to suggest;
• it can [and does, frequently] walk away, leaving the State, which the Right so belittles, to pick up the pieces.

These are why privatisation of NHS is bad for us all. Labour must stop just banging on about privatisation without explaining why it is a bad thing, when the Right and its media buddies say otherwise. You were told.

Capitalism and Socialism: not such strange bedfellows

Atop the parapets of the Great Western Bridge in Glasgow are lanterns supported by cast iron figures of heroic workers, representing the women and men who made the wealth which made the city. Well-deserved, you may think, but what patronising cheek the architect of the Great Western Bridge had for the reality was and is again that those who toil are neglected, underpaid and ignored.

Surely nowhere in the world is there a finer monument to Victorian enterprise than Glasgow. Even today, when Thatcherism and new technologies have swept away the workplaces of thousands and the maritime heritage has been airbrushed from the sight of the visitor, throughout the city there remain monuments to the civic and business leaders of the Industrial revolution, in the form of fine streets, public buildings and even tombs. Indeed the latter, gathered into the huge Necropolis beside the lovely cathedral, perhaps sum up capitalism to perfection: ostentatious self-esteem in competition.

However, so effective has been the cleansing of the city of the real story of its wealth that one could stop and just admire it as the perfect product of capital. But who really made the ships, the steam engines, the buildings? It was not those buried in the Necropolis, surely, but those anonymously dumped in paupers' graves. The former certainly ordained that these things should be created but they surely did not wield the tools nor break sweat to implement them. No, this was the role of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children [yes, children] underpaid, living in overcrowded squalor in rotting tenements. The evidence for this description is maintained in records and displays at the Peoples Palace and elsewhere, though not so much is extant, for most has been removed. Is it any wonder that, living cheek-by-jowl with their employers' excesses, the workers should have been driven to a different political allegiance - to solidarity, mass action, to objection to the vast inequality of the great city, to socialism? Yet, then, as now, power lay not with the majority but with the wealth. Today, we once again have a growing economy in which inequality is demanded by a few at the expense of the rest. Glasgow of 150 years ago is with us once more and it is again socialism's time, driven by capitalism's divisive greed.

Happy Christmas

No sermon, just good wishes and big hopes for May 2015

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.