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.

Politics is education’s worst enemy

With the exception of 2 days for the annual celebrations of GCSE and “A”-Level results, media and political comment on education is constant and uniformly negative. “What is going wrong with xxx?” “What dreadful teachers!” “Labour’s way is wrong”. etc etc Even Labour spin is more about how its approach is marginally less bad than that of the Tories than visionary.

True, government initiatives over the last few years will surely damage the sector:

·         Reduction of funds for SureStart and nursery schools, so crucial as foundations for social mobility;

·         Fragmentation of school models, abandoning the comprehensive principle and universality;

·         De-valuation and de-professionalisation of teaching;

·         Loss of local strategic input, oversight and accountability;

·         Giving away of public assets such as playing fields;

·         Constant messing about with curriculum;

·         Focus on snap-shot monitoring instead of proper assessment of pupil progress;

·         Cuts and geographic variations in funding, resulting in patchy results for children;

·         Lack of proven improvement process for schools in difficulties;

·         Debt burden for students;

·         Neglect of FE sector; and more

Yet students are generally reckoned to be happy and able to achieve what they want from school and college, despite this apparent chaos. The unhappiness seems to lie with teachers, whose profession is so under attack; and with the inexpert but opinionated commentariat. Whose satisfaction should be paramount?

Labour must surely move on from its tentative critique of whatever the government proposes onto the high ground of its own vision, in education as in other fields. National standards; universal excellence in a common model; letting teachers take the lead; encouraging enquiry over information; investing in capacity to meet community economic and demographic needs; removal of divisive faith and private schools from State support; and enabling best practice to be identified, validated and shared, instead of being hidden away to protect competitive advantage. A strategic approach instead of a political, tactical one. A true alternative to the doctrinaire privatisation of the current government. And when it succeeds, education will be in the headlines only for those celebrations, without the negativity in between.

When Leaders had a sense of humour....

A past Labour leader’s response to pressure to engage in a progressive alliance [to the tune of “The Red Flag”]:

“The people’s flag is palest pink

It’s not red blood but only ink.

It’s sponsored now by Douglas Cole*

Who plays each year a different role.

Then raise our pallid standard high

Wash out all trace of scarlet dye

Let Liberals join and Tories too

And socialists of every hue…

With heads uncovered swear we all

To have no principles at all

If everyone will turn his coat

We’ll get the British people’s vote.”

Clement Atlee, 1939

[courtesy of “Citizen Clem” by John Bew. Riverrun, 2016 – highly recommended]

[*GDHCole was a socialist theorist and Fabian, 1889-1959. The reference to Tories is only partly ironic – there was much talk in 1939 of anti-appeasement MPs of all parties cooperating]