Loyalty in politics?

Anyone in their right mind will say that loyalty is a good thing, will they not? Certainly the opposite is frowned upon. If we say someone is loyal to their spouse, that is only what is expected from their commitment. If we display loyalty to our employer, this is what we are paid for. But loyalty can be played like a card in the political game without quite the same clarity. An MP voting loyally for their party (as instructed by the Whip) may please the hierarchy but will this same action be seen as loyal to the wishes of the voters of their constituency or even to his/her own conscience?

"I have been a loyal Labour all my life" you hear on the doorstep How can this be when the Labour leadership can swing from Michael Foot to Tony Blair in such a life-time? Is this the same Party in each case, to which loyalty is expected? You could argue that the loyalty is to the values of the Party rather than to the Leader with some credibility yet does anyone seriously believe that such divergent leaders espoused identical values? We can but hope. Similarly how can we find the common factors linking the leadership candidates, when one is berated as a "Tory-lite" and another as a "Socialist voter-repellent"?

So when we cast our vote for Leader or Party, how are we to select if not on blind loyalty? Perhaps for the values we as individuals conclude matter. If power trumps principle, in our thinking, so be it. If principled opposition is enough, go for that. But probably the second worst loyalty in this context is that based on habit - "I have always voted X". The worst? "My [father/mother/family] has always voted X".

Humans are tribal, so it is understandable that the wish or habit of a chosen tribe is followed but in 21st century Britain most of us adhere temporarily  to several tribes. In this context, individuals need to be clear on  our own values to which we are loyal. Then we can vote accordingly, avoiding choices which may let us down.
Tom Serpell

The State we are in.

Political parties differ according to the philosophies which guide them. A fascist state requires total submission to centralised control. A communist state would be run by the people, acting collectively. For the last 35 years or so, this country has been governed along what has become known as neo-liberal lines, in which individualism and market forces are set above collective good or planned communities. Even the Labour Party, founded to promote "common endeavour", has acquiesced in this tendency, acting merely as a brake on its extremes rather than promoting an alternative philosophy.

The evidence of history, even within recent times, shows that markets and enterprise, Gods of the Right, cannot function effectively without State input, to invest in both pre-commercial research and infrastructures; and to bail them out from the consequences of their wilder behaviours. Freeing individuals and corporations from paying taxes both deprives the State of the wherewithal to fulfill its role and creates a society of greed and inequality, where those who can, thrive, but those who lack the emotional, intellectual, physical or economic resources flounder without a safety net.u

The society resulting from the Small State is thus unequal and nasty, with it's individualism an obstacle to a shared culture. The happiest society in Europe is widely acknowledged to be in Denmark, which has high taxes, a benevolent State and low inequality. Our current government seems to value money above the happiness or even the well-being of its citizens. Labour needs to spell out much more clearly the sort of society which can be built on its true philosophy; a society in which payment of reasonable taxes is not belittled but welcomed; in which the State has a clear and laudable role, not so much in managing resources as in planning and directing them towards society's priorities; setting and policing standards and expectations. Above all, a Labour country will foster mutually supportive communities rather than self-seeking individuals. Without a strong State working with others, how will we be able not only to care for all citizens but also share in investing to address those macro-issues which transcend borders: climate change; migration; multi-national corporations and conflicts? Selfish individuals and corporations, no matter how financially successful, and tooth-and-nail competition offer little interest nor any means of doing so.

With thanks and apologies to David Burrell
Tom Serpell
@uckfieldlabour

What sort of revolution?

The Pope, the Dalai Lama, Christine Lagarde, Thomas Piketty. What do these have in common? All point to the ever-increasing inequality in the World as damaging, even potentially socially destructive and, as such, unacceptable. Yet we have a governing party which seems set upon a strategy to increase the wealth of the haves at the expense of the have-nots. Throughout history such arrogance and unfairness has generally led to a fight-back, with the feeling that only revolution can bring about an equal society. Sometimes this has taken a bloody form, as in France and Russia. Recently the uprising of the dispossessed younger generation of the Arab countries has shown that such a recourse is not a mere tool of history.

Today we are witnessing an attempt at a revolution through the very means civilised leaders would advocate: the ballot box. In Greece, an uprising of discontent caused and fuelled by the arrogant demands of unaccountable oligarchs and bankers outside the country, is being responsibly channelled via election and referendum. If this fails, what further options will be open to the hungry, poor, sick and shamed people of the country which gave birth to democracy? Will they meekly accept decades more austerity at the behest of the undemocratic oligarchs of Europe? Or will they take others steps, with tragic and awful consequences? Alexis Tsipras is being demonized by the Establishments of the world when we should be thankful for his courage in attempting a peaceful revolution. We should look with concern as our own government does more to make this country unequal and its people deprived of entitlements they have earned, for fear that here too the wrong form of revolution is not stoked up. We need our own Tsipras to prevent this. We should empathise with and support the Greek people today of all days.

Read me!

Why bother? http://uckfieldlabour.blogspot.com/2015/06/why-bother.html

Why bother?

L
On Saturday, we marched.
In May we campaigned.
We blog
We tweet.
We try.
But what for?
A socialist, I live in a safe Tory constituency, rural and largely affluent. But there are people here as elsewhere who are not affluent, who need the support of the State, even just for a while. So should I simply admit defeat and not bother? It would be so easy, would it not? To do nothing. After all, I am OK; and my pathetic attempts to be seen or heard get nowhere. Don't they?

THEY would love this. If there is no opposition, they win not only the battle but the war. If I lie down in face of the cruelty wrought on others, am I not as culpable as the perpetrators? If I can see the problem and a solution but do nothing to make things better, am I a democrat or even a human being worthy of the name?

Even in a losing situation, if I care, I must try. I must shout pointlessly. I must object without being heard. I must write to the ether. I must wear out my shoe leather. It will make no difference but I must not do nothing. For if I do, nothing will ever change. If Voltaire and Paine had not written; if Wilberforce and Ghandi had not campaigned; if the Pankhursts and Tatchell had said nothing, how would the World be today? I am none of these, nor of their stature but I care, I think, I articulate, so I must do something, no matter how inadequate. Maybe, just maybe, joining with others, even in small numbers, we can voice a viewpoint which may drag others towards a degree of sympathy for this and away from the worst options. I am not alone. I find friends, support, solidarity and purpose in politics. This is the point.
Tom Serpell

Has the Left forgotten Greece?

Not much seems to have been said by our politicians about Greece of late, despite the ongoing existential crisis it is suffering. Is this because we have no role to offer; no ideas; or just other pre-occupations? Could it be that we are so terrified of going the same way that it has become a taboo subject? Surely there is plenty to say about a fellow EU member and democracy, which sits in mortal danger of being bankrupted by the very international oligarchs who have the power to rescue it. Its people have been so deprived by the machismo of its creditors that almost half are unemployed and many go hungry. Whatever the causes for this - and of course some lie in their own behaviour over decades - surely this treatment of fellow Europeans is unacceptable; and all in the name of money?

Perhaps lack of focus from UK is occasioned by the "me, me, me" culture of the victorious Conservative Party here, infecting minds and media. We too are told it is good for us to go without for the sake of "the economy" [for which read "the Establishment"]. Surely as fellow austerity victims, the British people can have fellow-feeling for Greeks? We too surely must protest against the assumption that medicine to be effective has to be nasty for the patient. We should look with admiration and perhaps more than a tinge of envy at the leadership shown by Tsipras and Varoufakis. They are in a titanic struggle to deliver the will of the people of Greece, who are so fed up with austerity but still emotionally bonded to Europe. It is hard to imagine any leader in this country having such courage in the face of the big guns aimed at them.

In case we may fall back on the differences between our case and that of Greece, let us also be clear just what the real agenda of the IMF, EU Commission and banks is: to get rid of the elected government of Greece which stands up to them, no matter its democratic credentials. They aim to bring it down by enforcing bankruptcy if necessary, in order to restore their own placemen and make sure that money comes before people again, as it does to our Government. Of course Labour should be supporting Syriza and we should be hearing a lot more about what is happening in Greece than we do. We are all Greeks now and should use next Saturday's march to say so.

Surely there is something to be said for principles?

Much is being written and said about Labour's need for unity. What is not to like? But was the party that lost the election noticeably divided? Surely not. Ed MILIBAND had led for 5 years, gathering plaudits for leading a united party, even despite doubts about his apparent leadership qualities stressed by commentators. Was there too much focus on control of the message, to retain that semblance of unity? Probably. Did the Tories, a party notoriously divided over Europe and more, lose? No.

So now, despite this background, we members are urged to unite behind one of a number of would-be leaders, most of whom are saying they were not in favour of aspects of recent policy to which they agreed until May 8th. Such is unity. Is unity then our duty or responsibility? Surely not. It is surely up to potential leaders to unite us. This is what leadership means. The Labour Party is a broad church, like the Conservatives and LibDems. This means that is is home to those of the far Left and far Right of Labour politics. We should not be asked to give up sincerely held beliefs and principles in the cause of making someone of whom the media disapproves least look like a unifier. It is for a true leader to accommodate the diversity of the people and inspire them to unite under Labour values, a vision for the country's future and active opposition to the government. John Smith was widely reported to be one such.

For now, I shall promote as leader the candidate whose version of Labour most closely tallies with my own: @JeremyCorbyn4Leader He has little chance of getting into the race, let alone being elected but only he appears to be standing on a clear, socialist platform, to which he has been consistent for decades. Could he unify Labour? There is only one way to find out....
Tom Serpell