Lets show some humanity to migrants

We ask readers to use your influence to persuade the UK Government and EU Council of Ministers to act at once to alleviate the living conditions of migrants in Europe. To date, many pronouncements have been made and some action taken to reduce the flow of desperate people both into Europe via Italy and Greece and internally between France and UK but little has been said or done of a humanitarian nature.

 

Whether they are asylum seekers or not, all are human beings, mostly with no money nor possessions. Many have suffered long and severe privations even before arriving at our shores. Whether welcome or not, they all deserve treatment as fellow humans: sustenance; health care; shelter; hygiene and respect. It is shameful that this country and our equally affluent neighbours cannot find it in our hearts and collective pockets to provide what we would certainly contribute were these refugees in a far off land. Humanitarian action is a sign of strength, not a weakening of resolve in border policy.

 Surely we can collaborate with our partners in Europe to establish and resource proper camps in key migration bottle-necks, be these Lampedusa or Lesbos, Kos or, parochially, Calais? Such a step would not only show our humanity but actually impose some order on the chaos and even permit processing of asylum applications without the risks to life and limb currently taken by so many desperate people who are surely our collective responsibility.

Language is politics

Words are the vehicles of ideas. Great art can, it is true, convey feelings and even concepts to some degree but almost always by implication. Explicit ideas require words if they are either to be articulated,  communicated and understood. Bloggers use written words; parliamentarians use speech. In whichever form, users of words have a responsibility commensurate with their position and audience. One would hope that great responsibility of this kind would be vested in those in whose hands trust is placed to manage great matters, such as running governments. How disappointing it is when, too frequently, those to whom we should look for responsibility choose words inappropriately, especially on matters of great sensitivity. In recent weeks commentators, political leaders and their messengers have seen fit to describe fellow humans as "cock-roaches", "swarms" and "marauding", as if those they refer to are lesser beings. Words like these do not belong in public discourse about innocent and often vulnerable migrants - for it was in this context that they were applied. Whatever political burden migration may place on a country, those concerned have human rights. Many are where they are because it is intolerable to be where they came from. They are all people like those who belittle and demonise them, who are more fortunate.

We should all respect them and demand similar respect of those who are fortunate enough to have a public platform. On such platforms, words should be chosen which lead to the speaker as well as the objects of their speech being respected. This applies equally to those jockeying for esteem and positions of power over others. Disrespect for opponents is becoming all too prevalent in party politics. Misusers of language who know better deserve no respect. Politicians should note, if they wish to be re-elected.
Tom Serpell

Mine is not a lone voice in this part of the country

There needs to be a credible alternative movement to counter the inexorable drag to the right that Blairism has engendered for the last 18 years.  Contrary to many media commentators, I believe that there is more of an appetite for more left wing ideas than many believe, especially amongst the young who are being systematically disenfranchised by the ruling regime, unfortunately enabled by the current labour leadership.  (As far as I am concerned HH's stance on the welfare bill was shameful, and AB's equally risible).

I work for a local housing charity/association and I can see how support for those most vulnerable in society is being corroded systematically on a daily basis, dressed up as the  war on "scroungers", (despite more than 50% of housing benefit being awarded to those in work).  This narrative really needs to be challenged but I don't see that happening under YC, AB or LK, therefore JC has my vote as things stand.  I just want to see a true opposition and just do not see that happening under "Torie-"Lite".
Cheryl Herriot
East Hoathly

This selection process is ridiculous!

Could the Labour Party really have found a worse system for choosing a new leader than it has?

A General Election lasts just 8 weeks, for 20m voters to elect 650 MPs, across the whole country. We are told that it requires twice that length of time for 0.25m members, most already relatively familiar with the candidates, who are armed with up-to-date contact lists, to select just one person (2 if you consider the deputy counts). This has to take place against the background of a rampant Tory Party, wreaking havoc with the lives of those whom Labour should be protecting, yet hardly noticed while the factions fight like rats in a sack. What a shambles and disgrace.

 

It had already been widely acknowledged that Labour made the mistake in 2010 of letting Tory lies about who was responsible for the deficit off the hook whilst Ed Miliband was elected, so what does the Party do but repeat the mistake and do it all over again? Osborne commands the media, claiming as "progressive" his imposition of yet more penal penury on the neediest; and the Party which should speak for them and to them argues among itself but publicly.

 

If hustings are essential, hold them daily over a short period, filming them for streaming or broadcasting. Let candidates publish their CVs and manifestos online so that anyone can read them at will. But 16 weeks of uncertainty, back-biting, neglect of Opposition and just looking incompetent is inviting oblivion, no matter who wins. We cannot wholly blame Ed M for resigning after his rejection, but maybe on reflection the Party should have been more loyal and persuasive of him at least to oversee the transition. As it is, those responsible for the process are every bit as culpable for whatever period is we have in the wilderness as the leader who arises from it.

Tom Serpell

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.