Judge the book by its contents

The other day, someone asked me if I was a musician. Why? Because she thought I looked like one. I am not sure what a musician is supposed to look like, but even if I do, this would belie the reality. For I have not a musical bone in my body. So how much credence do we place on appearances? Surely too much. Take Ed Miliband, for example. He is pilloried by the right-wing media for his looks; yet his party remains unified and leads the Opposition in the polls consistently, despite this following a disastrous election only 4 years ago. This suggests that people see past the media’s insults.

 

Last week Tesco was found to have made a huge accounting error. Shares tumbled as investors took fright. The media and some of the public took great delight in this evidence of the fallibility of the mighty. Yet how many of those so delighting actually refuse to shop at Tesco – or Amazon, or Google or any other dominant brand? They perceive them as evil because of their power but continue to use them because of what they actually do.

 

There is much to be said for a retreat from deference to the powerful; even to challenging them. They – the 1% - cream off too much of what citizens earn, giving little back. But we do need people who are prepared to take on great responsibility, to make things work. We need leaders for communities, for workforces, for enterprises. These should not automatically be targets for brickbats. Our perception of them should be based not on superficial attributes, be these looks, success or even wealth but on what they do. If Tesco supplies more than 30% of the groceries of the country, this is partly because they meet the needs of millions of customers. If Tesco fails to deliver good value, customers can and will go elsewhere. If Tesco publishes erroneous figures, those who are concerned with such matters can and will review their stake in the company. These are manifestations of what the company does.

 

If Ed Miliband holds together an often fractious political party, develops a strategy for that party and for the country which people find credible and presents a team of electable candidates to the electorate, these are what he should be judged on. If I write a great symphony, judge me a musician. Otherwise, judge me for what I actually do, not what I may look like.

Tom Serpell

@uckfieldlabour

So how did it come to this?

Apart, of course, from the Treaty of Union, until very recently there was no apparent substantial existential threat to the United Kingdom –or so our political leaders seemed to think. They had agreed to a Scottish referendum; and had access to pollsters galore, so how did they get it so wrong? Surely the first duty of any Prime Minister is the defence of the nation, against whatever threat, presumably including secession – for how else do we explain the unanimity of the Westminster parties over the No campaign? Most leaders have clearly regarded even devolution as a threat to their power and failed to encourage a long-term federal solution which could have bound us ever more tightly together whilst recognising people’s hunger for more self-determination. This has been a huge mistake in the face of plentiful evidence, which Scots voters have now given us the chance to rectify.

Mistake No 2 has been arrogance. Delegating previously vilified Labour ex-ministers to carry out the dirty work instead of showing true leadership belittled the whole threat and allowed the result to be as close as it eventually became. The ultimate complacency.

Mistake No 3 was to fail to heed even those polls they did access at the time of the referendum agreement. The deliberate removal of the 3^rd option of Devo Max made the No option – more of the same – deeply unattractive to many. Accompanying this option with a badly drafted question, tactics of threat and bullying contrasted strongly with the upbeat, visionary campaign for Yes which has so nearly prevailed. Even as a PR man, Cameron should be dismissed for allowing this negative strategy, let alone for his dereliction of duty.

We are where we are, so whither England; whither Labour? The lesson of the Yes campaign for Labour must be to re-emphasise building a fairer society. It must define how it will offer some of the benefits won by Scots to disengaged English and Welsh voters. We voters must note how the Scots got what they really wanted by shouting loudest. Even we who live only 50 miles from the seat of power feel the lack of any agency. The SNP can be compared to UKIP, in tapping a vein of anti-Establishment feeling. Labour should back-track from its closeness to the City, to Big Money and to the other No parties and return to the grass roots from which it sprang, for this is where the disenchantment grows.

Cameron’s failures smack of his typical strategy vacuum; of reaction to pressures with back-of-the-envelope bribes rather than long-term vision. Labour must paint a vision for a better country now; and explain how it will bring it into being, to turn his mismanagement into something better for everyone.

Tom Serpell

@uckfieldlabour

 

Migration works both ways

Migration is only just beginning. Of course, it has always gone on, often with our country as a destination of choice, thanks to our socially liberal culture. As climates change, water becomes scarcer in some regions, power and employment shift and sectarian divisions turn into conflicts, more and more populations will be displaced and seek new homes.

Whilst ethical considerations and an inclusive society demand a welcome to those in extreme need, control of immigration is a legitimate political priority. Just how many oligarchs do we want buying up our best properties? How reasonable is it for public services to have to publish regulations or information in multiple languages? Why should incoming workers not be as subject to minimum wages as indigenous ones? How many jobs can actually be filled without recourse to recruiting non-nationals?

All parties need to address these issues but only one has a real solution and that is UKIP's desire to close borders. Such xenophobic initiatives have no place in our country, negating the positives of new earners, new cultures, duty and hospitality. Consider too its obverse, the emigration of British nationals to other countries. Would UKIP advocate stopping this too? We seed usually warmer lands with non-earning, often non-linguistic public service users in very large numbers. These are a burden on local resources, often not integrating nor enriching host communities. We should ask UKIP candidates their policy on this, perhaps, not least as Scotland may soon become either a source or a destination to be so controlled if it got its way.

Labour still has a very ill-defined solution to what will only grow as a policy issue. We in the affluent West, especially as a past imperial power, must not deny our responsibility to the peoples of the world; nor to our domestic voters.

Can there be good nationalism?

Perceptions of the nationalism as presented by SNP and UKIP seem to differ. Why should this be, when quite clearly both are nationalist parties and nationalism is widely condemned in principle as a dangerous, isolating ideology?

In part, perception depends on who is looking. Those of the Left will clearly see UKIP and its like critically, both because we come from the opposite end of the political spectrum and because they stand for all that we reject. Yet we see in the SNP something far less objectionable, despite it seeking, at least superficially, the same separatist agenda. Secondly, the message from Scotland's nationalists differs from that of UKIP, the EDL etc. It aims for democratic inclusion, consultation and cooperation rather than prescription. Even after separation it wants to engage in EU and UK, politically and economically as well as commercially. Thirdly - and here is the clincher - the SNP is voicing a desire for self-determination, or absence of remote control, which resonates with many voters on both sides of the border.

Adversarial behaviour to the referendum in Scotland brings out sympathy on the part of many. Had Cameron shown leadership in the fight for the union rather than delegating to someone he otherwise belittled; had a positive vision been depicted of the Union instead of mere criticism of Scotland's economics (its always all about money with the Tories); had the more popular Devo-Max option been allowed on the ballot paper, the chance of staying united would now be far greater. But he acted as Whitehall usually does, dictatorially, patronisingly, remotely and perhaps more in England's interests, it is Cameron who will have to live with the label of the PM who oversaw the break-up of a nation, whilst handing a part of it to its nationalists. Only time will tell if the latter were right or not but right now, it is quite easy to see why their form of nationalism looks attractive.
Tom Serpell

Democratisation of funding

The "yaa-boo" between political parties about sources of funds is rarely far below the surface nor is it very edifying. Today, a revolution is under way in how funds are raised for the Arts, social and community causes, which could change this. Crowd-funding allows those with ideas to raise money have them turned into reality not, as hitherto, by going cap-in-hand to some wealthy or powerful individual or institution but by appealing to those most likely to appreciate the outcome for small contributions, which can be aggregated towards a larger target. These contributors may be a future audience, the local community or just supporters. Each will be willing to contribute partly because they are asked for little; but each will be offered some form of benefit or reward. This process is enabled by the Internet, where well tried processes and hosts make it easy. The promise of funds occurs in the Idea stage, meaning both that resource for implementation is obtained but so is buy-in when the Idea becomes Reality.

How could this relate to politics, Labour in particular? First, Labour has the need and desire to engage more democratically with its supporters; and to raise funds in new ways. Second, many supporters get pretty fed up with endless begging messages from HQ without knowing on what money will be or has been spent. Third, many may be all too willing to make small contributions to those costs of which they most approve. The party, on an appropriate platform, could itemise options for contributors: investment in a nationwide network for rural Labour, for example, vs employment of social media specialists for CLPs, vs a campaign to stay in EU; to see which appeal most and to gain support from those who relate to the topics concerned. This model has proved effective in engaging support for petitions via 38 Degrees, Avaaz etc.

Target budgets can be set which must be attained before action is taken, making selection democratic and also creating a fan-club for the ideas supported. Use of such new but effective models will reinvigorate funding and energise younger voters into action teams.
Tom Serpell, @uckfieldlabour