Be afraid of fear

Is fear a good basis for choice of government? Fear of more of the same? Fear of change and the unknown? Fear of foreigners? These are the agendas of demagogues but do Farages and Brands make for good governance? Surely not. They simply criticise whilst offering no viable solutions or alternative government. We should vote for outcomes, goals, for a country run better according to our beliefs, needs, values.

Recent debate has suggested that, with no overall majority for any party likely, we may enter a period of huge uncertainty or even paralysis, undesirable, no matter how it arises. Nor do alternatives taking place elsewhere in the World look much more attractive to believers in democracy. Disregarding the chaotic aftermaths of popular discontent with past governance in Libya or Syria, the stability now offered [and apparently liked by many] in their countries by Putin, Sisi and even Erdogan can hardly appeal. This sort of autocracy we should indeed fear.

The probability of a hung Parliament is created by citizens' hunger for something better suited to their perception of the country's priorities. For an increasing number, this means not more of the same, of the familiar, stale formal groupings. But for all of the imperfections of our sclerotic system, responding to fears may lead to results we will find useless or even abhorrent. Perhaps we need instead to work to change our institutions from within rather than dumping them in favour of a vacuum which may be filled by less desirable solutions. Until it proves to fail, let us hold fast to voting Labour for a more equal, less fearful society.

The Left has no realistic Kip-like alternative

The idea of UKIP's ghastly representatives being electable is repugnant but nonetheless appears to be growing in reality. Tories in particular, frustrated that their party is not quite unpleasant enough, can now see an alternative to entrust with their votes. This has been available for years but has only now become a real option because it is conceivable that their chosen Kipper could actually be elected.

True, some disenchanted Labour voters may go the same way; but for those on the left this option should not be conceivable. For disenchanted lefties, a close examination of alternative manifestos should lead to a mass exodus towards the Greens. Their current policy list is as close to an ideal socialist prospectus as you could realistically wish. So why not vote for them? They do, after all, have an MP and other elected representatives.

The answer I would offer is that they lack that likelihood of victory which the Kippers have discovered. The Greens have yet to build the bandwagon effect that Farage has created around UKIP. With little prospect of influence in the lobbies, a vote for Green still looks like a wasted one, no matter how sensible their policies. I wish it were otherwise. For now, the recourse for those who would like a more socialist country and government must remain to work on Labour from the inside, to persuade the leadership that it is more important to grasp the opportunity to set the country on a new course than to lose mass support and stay in opposition by presenting themselves as slightly nicer managers of the country's resources than Tories.

Tom Serpell

Politics begins at home?

So if Whitehall-centred government puts people off politics; but if politics is too important to be ignored [for the country has to be run], what then?

Real politics is about real needs in the communities of the country. Yes, we need defence [perhaps less than those in Whitehall like to tell us]; yes, we need international relations; yes, we need a State. But when MPs talk about cost of living issues, how well do they really understand what they are talking about? These are people remote from the issues on which they pontificate and legislate. To inform themselves they pay other well-paid people to conduct research but the realities of daily life for millions pass them by unnoticed. They seem more interested in helping businesses to thrive than voters, despite businesses bemoaning government interference at every turn.

In cities, towns and villages citizens know how scarce are affordable homes; how expensive is child-care which allows them to go to work; how absent and expensive is convenient public transport; what school clothes eat up from a budget; how time and energy poor it can be just to lead a normal life. For citizens with disabilities or without paying work, life is tougher still yet politics seems so rarely to be about the needs of real lives. Percentages pay no bills.

Real politics happens when women dispossessed of homes occupy disused flats. Real politics happens when spare allotments are made over to feed hungry locals. Real politics happens when public service workers face migrant workers being exploited by private sector businesses. When the main parties start to understand and address the real needs of real people, they deserve our votes much more than when they argue over who can score points in debate or which can be the most business-friendly.

Grandstanding and polls do not lead to engagement

As the summer's big political news items fade behind us - the Scottish referendum, the major party conferences, yet another ridiculously costly and pointless war - I find a thread connecting them all - their irrelevance to everyday life. Surely these issues, of huge importance to those with or seeking the drug of power, are a world away from daily concerns, yet it is these which occupy the media. All three major parties support bombing Iraq again. All backed the No campaign in Scotland. All engage in personality assaults which are completely non-constructive. No wonder voters are disengaged, disenchanted and looking at alternative ways of expressing their interests.

Then there are the headlines. What makes the news? Not the serious issue of a deeply unequal society nor the alternatives to war but the foibles and peccadilloes of people to whom we are supposed to look for leadership and decision-making. A lapse of memory is cataclysmic. Stupid behaviour destroys a career.Someone changes allegiance. These may be of personal significance but why should they dominate the media for the millions to whom they mean nothing? How will page after page of prurient analysis of these pin-pricks make for a better country? Parliament has become a club as inaccessible and irrelevant to most people's lives as the MCC or R&A Golf Club, run by a clique for a coterie of similar types.

How then can respect for politics be renewed? To be taken seriously by voters, as the people's party, Labour has to revive its values, its collective roots, using the media real people use in everyday life to hear and become more relevant again; and stop being Tory-lite proponents of an unnecessary austerity imposed to preserve the power of a tiny minority. Of course we do not have to pay off the deficit in one Parliament. Of course Cameron will look better at running his own choice of economic strategy. Of course we do not have to spend billions on armaments and wars we have no business to be in. Of course it is not right or essential to demonise and deprive the worst off. Come on Labour - what are we for?