Was Voltaire right?

In a previous blog, I mentioned Voltaire as a major figure in Europe’s and thus our culture. Challenging the roles of religions, rulers, war, and ideas then in the ascendency; wit; Anglophile; humanist and author, he is a towering figure in the development of political and philosophical thinking. In his great satire, Candide, his innocent young hero, is faced with the follies of the great and the good of the times but can find no sense in them, despite their being presented as inevitable according with the prevailing determinist philosophy of the times. If, regardless of circumstance, the well-meaning individual had no free will and could do nothing to change things, surely s/he should content him/herself with “cultivating the garden”. The inevitable conclusion of having no agency is to do nothing.

Today, politics and events seem to be approaching a condition of near-determinism: where nothing can be done to oppose those in the ascendency. Someone decrees that something is true: it becomes fact. Someone is appointed leader of the country, with no bow to democracy: then claims a democratic mandate to put into effect actions she had previously opposed. Someone opposes the policies being advocated as bad for the country: and is dubbed a traitor. An opposition party supports the greatest constitutional change in decades which its members oppose. Millions with a desire to oppose have no means to do so.

So what is today’s Candide to do? Is it the case that things are inevitable; that we have no agency; that we must merely cultivate our garden?  Philosophical thought has moved on. We are supposed to have and exercise free will. The belief system of the Right would hold that we should be in control of our own destinies; whilst the Left supports collective action for the wider good. This being the case, we should be in a position where citizens can vote against the prevailing authority; but with the official Opposition nowhere to be seen; and with large parts of the electorate living where they have no prospect of electing even a local councillor, how meaningful is enfranchisement?

Maybe Voltaire was right. We should cultivate our garden but not literally, as an expression of disengagement, but metaphorically, starting at the grass roots; working for the values we espouse within our communities, to be and feel useful. Like charity, politics can begin at home – or in the “garden”.

We ARE European, even the Leavers

Brexiteers frequently talk of protecting “our culture”, demanding that newcomers subscribe to it, pass tests in it or generalising that “they” do not understand it. Do those who have been born and brought up here understand even what it is, ourselves? Do we have the right to talk about “us” as if there were still some race of Britons who form the core of the population, which is gradually being eroded by the pollution of immigration?

What can “our culture” be? This is a hybrid country, a federation of nations with their own cultures, mixed with a long history of new ingredients contributed by arrivals from many and varied parts of the world. The truth is that this is a nation composed of a huge variety of ethnicities, forming a culture enriched by each and all of these. Whenever there was a British tribe, it was before the histories taught even in our most reactionary institutions. Angles, Jutes, Vikings, Romans, Huguenots, Irish, Jews, West Indians, Bengalis, Somalis, etc – these are the ingredients of our happy melting pot.

What are the fixed points, then, which we build on, using these new ingredients? The weather – for this occupies minds, typically? Nothing to be proud of there. Chaucer and Shakespeare – but how many citizens are familiar with them? Our history – largely related as kings and queens, wars and battles, imperialism and theft? Our sports – which may have been invented here but at which prowess is far from unique?

The truth is that whatever we can identify as indigenous, our political and moral philosophies are rooted in ancient Athens, our science in the Arab world, our art in Italy. More recent cultural icons in this country are not home-grown. Are not Dante, Beethoven, Voltaire and Leonardo influences on or of our culture?  Our museums and galleries are packed with the works of great artists from all over the world, to be admired and even [though I am not in favour] retained as national heritage against repatriation claims. This is not to decry our home-grown national treasures, merely to declare that we are a part of a Western European culture over 2 millennia old; and that to focus on home-grown alone is to narrow our appreciation of what makes us tick or the world a better place.

The mantra “British x is the finest in the world” is mere propaganda put about by those who lack the experience or learning about the wider world. It is bandied about nonsensically in relation to our army, our football, our beef, our healthcare, and more. Put any of these to true comparison and perhaps the jingoism will prove hollow. This country is a fine place to live, with fine people and much to celebrate but it is not so very different and doubtfully superior to others. Rather, it is a part of the cultural mix of a long-evolved international society, which it is folly or tragedy to deny. To claim superiority for it is sheer hubris.

 We could [and this seems to be where Brexiteers would take us] define our heritage on ethnic purity but this has been tried before, with disastrous results. We must not go there again. Anyway, who wants a dreary diet based on what our geology, climate and “true Brit” talent might allow us?

Heroes and villains

The controversy occupying the media over the legacy of Martin McGuinness is nothing new. It seems to suggest that people need to pigeon-hole the notable dead in a binary way. They must either be “a Good Thing” or “a Bad Thing” in a Sellars and Yeatman history. But how many people are really either good or bad, saint or sinner? Throughout history great impact has been made by figures whom you might not want to leave alone with a family member. Even the very great may have feet of clay. Occasional media surveys to identify “greatest Briton” regularly turn up Oliver Cromwell and Winston Churchill as candidates but both had bloody escutcheons. Then there are the “terrorists” turned “statesmen”, the judgement of whom depends as much on one’s political allegiance as on objectivity: Castro; Begin; Arafat; Mao and so many more.

Even in more peaceful arenas those on a pedestal of achievement may have pretty undesirable traits. Artists like Picasso, Simenon and Gill, whose work is so special, would not win many feminist votes; whilst Caravaggio, an artist of pivotal importance was a convicted murderer.

Gladstone, Lloyd George, Major; and further afield Kennedy, Clinton, Mitterand, to name but a few, were far from pure when it came to behaviour yet remain respected in the rear-view mirror of politics. Perhaps hindsight, though, only works after memories had dimmed of the misdemeanours and when the legacies have been seen to have been sustained over time. One suspects that McGuinness will remain in the history books as the first republican power-sharing minister of Northern Ireland, whilst the number who cannot forgive his violent past will dwindle. Like everybody, he was not one thing or the other but a human being with different sides to his life which made him who he was. Perhaps we have to accept that there is a price to be aid for the Good Things.

As if things were not bad enough. Welcome to May's World

A common attribute attached by its friends in the media to the Tory Party in the past was that, whether or not you liked its politics, it was the party of competence. Can this still be said with today’s cabinet? Surely not. Whether because the new managerialism adopted by ministers exposes their inexperience; or through their mistrust of the professionals of the Civil Service; or because we have a cabinet appointed not for their abilities but to buy off party factions, the endless series of ill-advised and subsequently binned initiatives, mainly aimed at headlines more than the well-being of the electorate, suggests that we have a very poor government. The evidence? Nearly ten years on from the financial crisis, national debt remains unresolved and the only solution offered is to take ever more from the mouths of the less well-off of the electorate. After almost 8 years of Tories in charge, there are funding crises in health, social care, prisons, schools and local government; increasing child poverty and deprivation for disabled citizens; and shortages of nurses and GPs.

Last week, the Prime Minister begged priority for Brexit in aid of avoiding a second Scottish referendum. It looks very much as though this same pretext applies to every aspect of government responsibility. Does this mean that we can at least be confident in her running a good Brexit? Again, let us look at the evidence. Who does she entrust with the ministerial responsibilities associated with this top priority but three rejects, egged on by others: Johnson, Fox and Davis all yesterday's rejects who have reason never to have been given any sort of responsibility; whilst their cheer-leaders are the bastards of the past, IDS, Redwood et al. No cause for confidence here.

Through no fault of the Tories, we have a pathetic official Opposition, which spends most of its energies pleasing its fan club or fighting with its internal opponents instead of calling the government to account, led by someone without the intellectual sharpness to do so. More effective opposition comes from a country, Scotland, with an ejector seat to threaten, which, if exercised, will actually destroy the United Kingdom. She sidelines this but at her [and our] peril.

As if the unnecessary Cameron referendum was not bad enough, we have a worse future ahead in Brexit, made yet worse by the paucity of talent negotiating it, whilst the country goes to the dogs in the hands of second-rate, inexperienced, self-justifying ideologues who care more for money than for people. Welcome to May’s World, our future.

The Will of the People

Remember “taking back control” and “America First”? Meaningless yet seductive slogans which opponents failed to counter. Now, “the will of the people” has taken over, sucking in not only the very people whose will is to be obeyed but almost every opponent of Brexit, so much so that the official Opposition imposed a 3-line whip to support the government, in favour of what most of its own voters rejected.

Of course, in a democracy it would seem that the will of the people should be paramount. But should it, when those same people and their ancestors have won the right to delegate their decisions to elected representatives? Then there is the breath-taking idiocy of presuming that “Yes” or “No” to a simple question can represent the will of the people over the most complex political issue they will ever face.

Now, this 2016 Yes/No “will of the people” is to be exercised regardless of the outcome of two years or more of multi-faceted negotiations. If the Prime Minister in 2019 or 2020 says she has a satisfactory parachute for our flight into the unknown, adopting it will be called “the will of the people”. If she says that she does not and we must leave Europe via ejector-seat, this too will be “the will of the people”. Two utterly different solutions, both ascribed to the Leave vote. Whatever one person, the PM, says, will be treated as “the will of the people”.

Not only is this palpable nonsense but it is alarming in two further respects. First, there appears to be no significant opposition to it, leaving us as if in a one-party State. Second, it removes all vestiges of democratic legitimacy from the greatest change to our governance in decades. This stands to add UK to the growing list of countries being run as unopposed virtual dictatorships: Turkey; Zimbabwe; Russia etc. What are we doing to our children’s future; and all for a slogan? Who will dare to go against the so-called "will of the people"?

Tom Serpell

Blog name change

You may notice that this blog has a new name, as have the Tweets associated with it. Why?

I have just cancelled my Labour Party subscription. This has been done with great sadness. I am a socialist, so Labour should be my political home. Even living, as I do, in a ward, district, division and constituency in which there is no prospect of electing anyone who can represent my views, I have actively supported and campaigned for Labour, because of its values. Labour should be the government for this country but when the current leadership opted to support Brexit, I could no longer see it as worthy of its name and heritage; nor of my subscription.

Socialism has always embraced internationalism and solidarity among working people and the disadvantaged everywhere. 40 years of building on this principle in Europe has now not even been defended; nor have those on either side of the Channel living and working as Europeans.

By adopting a 3-line whip in Parliament, Corbyn failed to fight for what the vast majority of Labour supporters voted in the referendum; as he fails to oppose the government effectively while he concentrates on factional in-fighting. He is not the only guilty one. The right wing of the party has disloyally failed to support the elected leader, making this infighting inevitable. Were there any sign in Labour of either a potential leader who could rally the party; or a vision for Labour's future raison d'etre which anyone in the shadow cabinet could articulate, staying in could be more worth fighting for but at present even opposing the Tories seems beyond them.

I shall continue to challenge and rail at politics as it evolves. Ironically, I shall be no more on the side-lines outside Labour than inside, because of where I live. I have a number of like-minded friends both inside and outside the Labour Party; and believe there to be thousands in similar electoral conditions who may yet sympathise with and respond to the position I am taking.

In sorrow and in anger
Tom Serpell

An Industrial Strategy for Labour

Political history would suggest that Theresa May’s proposal for an Industrial Strategy belies her Conservatism. The phrase “Industrial Strategy” generally describes how a government will actively engage in the country’s industries and Tories generally do not espouse intervention in the private sector – apart from helping its share-owners get richer.

Labour itself, a more intervention-inclined party, has a mixed track-record in this. National priorities, of course, demanded that the WW2 government in which Labour played a very large part mandated how productive capacity was turned to the essentials of the war: food and arms, principally. Attlee’s government from 1945 then nationalised what it regarded as national priorities, of energy and transport, not merely to serve the nation’s needs better than self-serving private companies could or would; but also to introduce standards of workplace safety and workers’ rights, with considerable success.

However, attempts at selective intervention in the ‘70s by Tony Benn proved both disastrous and that politicians lack the expertise to pick “winners”. A cautionary tale, which may have put off subsequent leaders from emulation. Now, the Tory government looks to be trying a variation of this approach, by selecting sectors to foster with investment and other support. This presents Labour with a multitude of challenges: the need to respond; the need to do so in a way which is not just “we would do it a bit differently”; and the desirability of a 21^st century socialist industrial strategy for the country.

It need not be seen as reactionary to look again at public or preferably social ownership. There is palpable public support for taking the railways and energy into publicly accountable management. There is, though, much not to like in the idea of selecting for support sectors merely on their growth potential as the Tories seem to have, not only because this choice may prove as unsuccessful as Tony Benn’s but because it is likely that shareholders, managers and workers in ignored sectors may be less than enchanted to be left out.

Then there is the issue of the nature of intervention and its objectives. History suggests that government financial initiatives have helped shareholders more than jobs or productivity. Hitherto, jobs have been a key objective. Today, functions, especially in manufacturing, may be more productively performed by machines or robots than even low-paid workers. This is hardly a social driver for strategy. So what is intervention for? There may be strategic sense as in 1945 in consideration of national needs beyond the mere profit growth of some companies which have little need of help. Food and energy security and concomitant reduction of imports, for example, in the post-Brexit period, may become of increasing importance again. Climate change suggests a strategic need for carbon-free energy technologies.

These or all sectors are surely best run by those who know their business, without interference from the ignorant. What could be of significant value to any or every sector include: innovation from scientific research, supported by a supply of STEM graduates; banking sympathetic to innovation; and [like the Tories – they can be right about something] infrastructure to facilitate logistics and high-speed secure data, nationwide. Facilitation is surely better than interference.

In other words, Labour should indeed have an Industrial Strategy, socialist in flavour, but differentiated from the government’s by better serving the whole nation’s interest and avoiding the problems of the past. The consultation’s focus on jobs, though laudable, may be less desirable and achievable than one on economic security. Labour may be better re-cast as the champion of the consumer than just of employment.