Read me!

Why bother? http://uckfieldlabour.blogspot.com/2015/06/why-bother.html

Why bother?

L
On Saturday, we marched.
In May we campaigned.
We blog
We tweet.
We try.
But what for?
A socialist, I live in a safe Tory constituency, rural and largely affluent. But there are people here as elsewhere who are not affluent, who need the support of the State, even just for a while. So should I simply admit defeat and not bother? It would be so easy, would it not? To do nothing. After all, I am OK; and my pathetic attempts to be seen or heard get nowhere. Don't they?

THEY would love this. If there is no opposition, they win not only the battle but the war. If I lie down in face of the cruelty wrought on others, am I not as culpable as the perpetrators? If I can see the problem and a solution but do nothing to make things better, am I a democrat or even a human being worthy of the name?

Even in a losing situation, if I care, I must try. I must shout pointlessly. I must object without being heard. I must write to the ether. I must wear out my shoe leather. It will make no difference but I must not do nothing. For if I do, nothing will ever change. If Voltaire and Paine had not written; if Wilberforce and Ghandi had not campaigned; if the Pankhursts and Tatchell had said nothing, how would the World be today? I am none of these, nor of their stature but I care, I think, I articulate, so I must do something, no matter how inadequate. Maybe, just maybe, joining with others, even in small numbers, we can voice a viewpoint which may drag others towards a degree of sympathy for this and away from the worst options. I am not alone. I find friends, support, solidarity and purpose in politics. This is the point.
Tom Serpell

Has the Left forgotten Greece?

Not much seems to have been said by our politicians about Greece of late, despite the ongoing existential crisis it is suffering. Is this because we have no role to offer; no ideas; or just other pre-occupations? Could it be that we are so terrified of going the same way that it has become a taboo subject? Surely there is plenty to say about a fellow EU member and democracy, which sits in mortal danger of being bankrupted by the very international oligarchs who have the power to rescue it. Its people have been so deprived by the machismo of its creditors that almost half are unemployed and many go hungry. Whatever the causes for this - and of course some lie in their own behaviour over decades - surely this treatment of fellow Europeans is unacceptable; and all in the name of money?

Perhaps lack of focus from UK is occasioned by the "me, me, me" culture of the victorious Conservative Party here, infecting minds and media. We too are told it is good for us to go without for the sake of "the economy" [for which read "the Establishment"]. Surely as fellow austerity victims, the British people can have fellow-feeling for Greeks? We too surely must protest against the assumption that medicine to be effective has to be nasty for the patient. We should look with admiration and perhaps more than a tinge of envy at the leadership shown by Tsipras and Varoufakis. They are in a titanic struggle to deliver the will of the people of Greece, who are so fed up with austerity but still emotionally bonded to Europe. It is hard to imagine any leader in this country having such courage in the face of the big guns aimed at them.

In case we may fall back on the differences between our case and that of Greece, let us also be clear just what the real agenda of the IMF, EU Commission and banks is: to get rid of the elected government of Greece which stands up to them, no matter its democratic credentials. They aim to bring it down by enforcing bankruptcy if necessary, in order to restore their own placemen and make sure that money comes before people again, as it does to our Government. Of course Labour should be supporting Syriza and we should be hearing a lot more about what is happening in Greece than we do. We are all Greeks now and should use next Saturday's march to say so.

Surely there is something to be said for principles?

Much is being written and said about Labour's need for unity. What is not to like? But was the party that lost the election noticeably divided? Surely not. Ed MILIBAND had led for 5 years, gathering plaudits for leading a united party, even despite doubts about his apparent leadership qualities stressed by commentators. Was there too much focus on control of the message, to retain that semblance of unity? Probably. Did the Tories, a party notoriously divided over Europe and more, lose? No.

So now, despite this background, we members are urged to unite behind one of a number of would-be leaders, most of whom are saying they were not in favour of aspects of recent policy to which they agreed until May 8th. Such is unity. Is unity then our duty or responsibility? Surely not. It is surely up to potential leaders to unite us. This is what leadership means. The Labour Party is a broad church, like the Conservatives and LibDems. This means that is is home to those of the far Left and far Right of Labour politics. We should not be asked to give up sincerely held beliefs and principles in the cause of making someone of whom the media disapproves least look like a unifier. It is for a true leader to accommodate the diversity of the people and inspire them to unite under Labour values, a vision for the country's future and active opposition to the government. John Smith was widely reported to be one such.

For now, I shall promote as leader the candidate whose version of Labour most closely tallies with my own: @JeremyCorbyn4Leader He has little chance of getting into the race, let alone being elected but only he appears to be standing on a clear, socialist platform, to which he has been consistent for decades. Could he unify Labour? There is only one way to find out....
Tom Serpell