Oxford by-election

[gurrier]

But you're right: only the local IWCA members can come out with an adequate analysis of the result.

Come off it. Anybody can have a crack at an analysis and there's no telling who'll be the most 'adequate'. The local IWCA aren't necessarily best placed to analyse it at all - too close and personal.

Anyway, the gurrier school of punditry thinks the IWCA is coming up against a serious strategic problem. In a world where virtually everybody knows that our problems have global roots, and where electoral politics is held in very low esteem, there's only so long that you can keep your voters and supporters enthusiasm going for local elections (or at least give them some reason to suspend disbelief. People drift back into the coke vs. pepsi view of politics coz at least they can cheer on a winning team. Plus the labour party are obviously pretty damn ruthless and well organised when they want to be and the IWCA has reached that 'blip on the radar' size where they'll bother putting some effort into fucking them over.

 

[Matt S]

<shrugs> The day we win Northfield Brook is the day that we are the only party on Oxford City Council, to be quite frank. RESPECT might well be mocked if they had got 19 votes in a by-election, but then they wouldn't be able to say that they got 22% of the citywide vote last year, have 7 city councillors and 5 county councillors and the Oxford Mail touting the possibility of them running the council.... We stood because we wanted people to have the chance of voting Green if they wanted to - nothing more and nothing less. Certainly didn't deliver any leaflets or knock on any doors.

I am also genuinely confused over the 292 vote gap. I was expecting Labour to win this from the effort I had seen put in over the last week, but not by this kind of margin.

However, don't write the IWCA off - 2006 could be a disasterzone for Labour (they are defending seats all over the place) and the IWCA could well make another two (or maybe even three) gains.

Matt

 

[gurrier]

<shrugs> The day we win Northfield Brook is the day that we are the only party on Oxford City Council, to be quite frank.

Doesn't it bother you at all that you are in a party that the working class wouldn't touch with a bargepole (and with very good reason too)? You seem to be completely resigned to this situation and almost come across as if you blame them for their incorrigible refusal to vote for environmental taxes and so on.

RESPECT might well be mocked if they had got 19 votes in a by-election, but then they wouldn't be able to say that they got 22% of the citywide vote last year, have 7 city councillors and 5 county councillors and the Oxford Mail touting the possibility of them running the council.... We stood because we wanted people to have the chance of voting Green if they wanted to - nothing more and nothing less. Certainly didn't deliver any leaflets or knock on any doors.

Ouch. "certainly didn't". Anyway, as I'm in a generously non-sectarian mood, I might as well point out that 19 votes is hilariously bad. Doesn't the candidate even have any family and friends?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Doesn't it bother you at all that you are in a party that the working class wouldn't touch with a bargepole

Is there a great deal more working-class support for your brand of anarchism?

 

[poster342002]

I think gurrier does have a point about the Greens.

As a low-paid working class person, I feel distinctly uneasy about a number of their stances. And that's before we even get onto the issue of abortion - on which I understand the Greens are not entirely pro-choice? (correct me if I'm wrong on that, though).

Ultimately, I feel the Greens are at odds with W/C interests when it boils down to it.

 

[Matt S]

gurrier,

What is wrong with "certainly didn't"? It's true - we put a candidate on the ballot paper, that was it...which partially explains our low double figures vote.

As for 'the working class not touching us with a bargepole' - that is a myth with which I have dealt over and over again, and don't intend to get into a debate about for the umpteenth time. We represent almost the entirety of the East Area of Oxford now (on County and City Councils). This includes thousands of council homes, working class people of all faiths and cultures, many of whom would testify that the Green Party has done far more to represent them than the Labour Party ever did. That is why we have been re-elected there over and over again.

Yes, we don't do well in Northfield Brook, because we have few activists there and only enough resources (in terms of money and people) to fight elections across the parts of Oxford in which we have potential to win. Similarly, we don't do well in a lot of rural Oxfordshire - would you draw the conclusion from those results that 'the rural rich wouldn't touch the Greens with a bargepole'?

If you'd really rather the Greens spent time and effort interfering in an area which is an IWCA vs Labour fight, and you think that that would be a good strategy for progressive social change in Oxford, then fair enough. I suspect you just don't like the Greens though, and are trying to use this results as 'cast iron proof' that we are middle-class wasters. Feel free. <shrugs>.

 

[Matt S]

poster,

>>I understand the Greens are not entirely pro-choice?>>

Not sure where you've got this from? This from Green policy, as just one example...it would make no sense for us to be anti-abortion!:

P116 It is essential that women have greater control over reproductive health care. Many of the world's poorest countries have formal government policies - often assisted by development agencies - which further this objective and also thereby lead to more stable, sustainable population levels. The Green Party acknowledges that poverty alleviation and education are crucial for women in poor countries to be able to exercise their reproductive health rights and take control over their own family planning. The UK and other rich countries should do more to support initiatives - both globally and locally - which uphold women's rights over reproductive health, increase education and which address poverty and potential pressures on the global environment.

As for the feeling you have about Green positions, I would urge you to read GPEW policy at www.greenparty.org.uk. I suspect you would be surprised at the agenda of progressive taxation, anti-privatisation and so on that is an essential plank of it....

Matt

P.S. Also see:

H316 The Green Party will not support any change to the current laws on abortions which would aim to make it more difficult for women to obtain them. Such a change in the law would do nothing to address the underlying factors which lead to women seeking abortions. Instead, it is likely to drive them into going elsewhere for the operations - either overseas or to illegal practitioners in this country - which will increase both the distress and the health risks for those involved.

H317 The Green Party recognises that the decision whether or not to continue with a pregnancy is never undertaken lightly. The Green Party believes that counselling should be offered to every woman considering an abortion. However, the ultimate decision about whether or not to terminate a pregnancy should always lie with the pregnant woman who has to deal with the consequences of that decision.

 

[LLETSA]

You know what I mean. You can be pedantic if you like, or try to catch me out if you prefer, but I mean that Labour increasing it's vote against the national trend is surprising.

Now I'm leaving it unless there's something you really want me to answer. I'd rather leave the discussion until the people around the area want to offer their opinions.

It isn't pedantic to point out that the governing party increasing its vote or otherwise very much depends on people's reactions to what's going on in society. Current events are likely to make many people more conservative and seek the reassurance of the institutions and organisations they are familiar with-no matter how pissed off they might otherwise be with them.

 

[poster342002]

Matt S,

That is, obviously, more reasuring. I can't remember where I'd heard the abortion rumour from, tbh.

 

[belboid]

It isn't pedantic to point out that the governing party increasing its vote or otherwise very much depends on people's reactions to what's going on in society. Current events are likely to make many people more conservative and seek the reassurance of the institutions and organisations they are familiar with-no matter how pissed off they might otherwise be with them.

not that much evidence of that in yesterdays other bye-election (tho i doubt Labour put anything l;ike as much effort into it as they did in Oxford)

Walsall Willenhall South

Lab 862 (45.4%) +1.4
Con 486 (25.6%) -2.4
LibDem 399 (21%) -7.4
BNP 151 (7.6%) +7.6

 

[LLETSA]

not that much evidence of that in yesterdays other bye-election (tho i doubt Labour put anything l;ike as much effort into it as they did in Oxford)

Walsall Willenhall South

Lab 862 (45.4%) +1.4
Con 486 (25.6%) -2.4
LibDem 399 (21%) -7.4
BNP 151 (7.6%) +7.6

??????????

 

[gurrier]

What is wrong with "certainly didn't"? It's true - we put a candidate on the ballot paper, that was it...which partially explains our low double figures vote.

I don't know. To my eyes it looked like you were writing them off. Maybe I'm wrong.

Yes, we don't do well in Northfield Brook, because we have few activists there and only enough resources (in terms of money and people) to fight elections across the parts of Oxford in which we have potential to win. Similarly, we don't do well in a lot of rural Oxfordshire - would you draw the conclusion from those results that 'the rural rich wouldn't touch the Greens with a bargepole'?

Yes I would.

If you'd really rather the Greens spent time and effort interfering in an area which is an IWCA vs Labour fight, and you think that that would be a good strategy for progressive social change in Oxford, then fair enough. I suspect you just don't like the Greens though, and are trying to use this results as 'cast iron proof' that we are middle-class wasters. Feel free. <shrugs>.

You are right that I don't like the greens. But I certainly wouldn't ever call them middle-class wasters. Wet liberal politicians / management who come to self-serving compromises with capitalism every time they are given the tiniest chance. And I wouldn't bother looking at the English Greens for cast iron proof either. Over here, they've got about 5% of parliamentary seats, they happily sat in right wing coalitions, were the most enthusiastic supporters of regressive local taxation, stabbed the anti-war movement in the back, etc, etc. In Germany, they've been in governments that have bombed other countries and more such niceness. The English greens are on exactly the same track although on a smaller and less promising scale (and even you are sounding more and more of the politician and less like a person).

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Just a quick post so that people don't think I'm running away from a discussion of the IWCA's performance in this by-election; I am however off on holiday for two weeks in a few hours time, and have to pack all the camping gear in the back of the car.

I hope people will be patient and wait for the local Oxford analysis of this result; my only initial comment would be that compared to last time out the Labour Party hasn't increased it vote by that much, whereas we failed to get ours to the polling station. Any explanation of this would certainly include the very different amounts of resources (especially feet on the ground) that the two organisations are able to call on. I look forward with interest to revisiting this thread when we get back from (hopefully) sunny Cornwall. In the mean time best wishes and take care.

Cheers - Louis Mac

 

[Chuck Wilson]

Have a good time.

 

[Matt S]

>>(and even you are sounding more and more of the politician and less like a person).>>

Well, that was unecessarily personal. I've never shrunk away from criticising my party - I just think that a lot of your criticisms are plain wrong, and born out of stereotyping that doesn't usually hold true, in my experience (of course there are localities where it does, as with all stereotypes). Sorry if i don't agree with you, but I don't think that makes me less of a person!

Matt

 

[Random]

compared to last time out the Labour Party hasn't increased it vote by that much, whereas we failed to get ours to the polling station. Any explanation of this would certainly include the very different amounts of resources (especially feet on the ground) that the two organisations are able to call on.

I'd agree with that. Labour flooded the area for two months before the IWCA started campaigning on this, and they've really made their superiority in terms of numbers and cash pay off. Some people report getting about 10 phone calls in total from Labour just because they once said they might vote for them. All of this doesn't conceal the fact, however, that there should have been a bigger than 300-strong core IWCA vote. Personally I think this is because of the problems inherant in electoral politics -- people might like what the IWCA is doing in BBL, but it won't neccessarily make them want vote.

So I think the on the ground work goes on -- community patrols against the crack gangs, producing the Leys Independent, etc. -- there's been a real rash of elections in the IWCA core area, and hopefully there'll be a breathing space to concentrate on other stuff. When all wards are up for grabs in May 2006 Labour won't be able to flood the area with students and similar wankers from West Oxford. Labour have almost no local actuivists, whereas almost all IWCA people are based in areas to the East of Oxford, and the group is growing.

 

[gurrier]

Well, that was unecessarily personal. I've never shrunk away from criticising my party - I just think that a lot of your criticisms are plain wrong, and born out of stereotyping that doesn't usually hold true, in my experience (of course there are localities where it does, as with all stereotypes). Sorry if i don't agree with you, but I don't think that makes me less of a person!

Matt

Nothing personal about it - I don't know you and feel that you probably are a nice person. It is simply an observation based upon what you have written here over the last year or so. I wouldn't take it as any slight against your character. I think power and privilege (even in the minute levels that exist in local councils) have a corrosive effect on people and I don't think it says anything in particular about your presonality to point out that this effects you also. I know that it would have effects on me if I were foolish enough to think that self-aggrandisement and social change could be neatly accomodated in a political strategy, so I assure you that there is no personal insult implied.

I would also like you to clarify which stereotypes my opinion are based upon? I think that my opinions are based upon a fairly close examination of the trajectory of the Green parties in Europe over the last 20 years and a close examination of the policies of the Irish greens in particular, many of whose members are acquaintances of mine. I see nothing at all in the English greens to suggest that they are likely to deviate from that course (except they'll do it on a smaller scale).

 

[greenman]

And which party/organisation do you suggest lower middle class Greens should support/afflict with our obviously odious presence, Gurrier?

 

[gurrier]

And which party/organisation do you suggest lower middle class Greens should support/afflict with our obviously odious presence, Gurrier?

What? It would be nice for somebody to maybe offer a political defense of the greens and their strategy rather than just getting into a huff when ye are criticised. It doesn't exactly inspire me with confidence about your politics y'know.

 

[greenman]

That is just the point, isn't it - neither myself nor Matt do defend undefensible behaviour by Greens, indeed we have both attacked it on here. I could bore you rigid with my dislike of Cohn-Bendit, Fischer, Jonathan Porritt, Rudolf Bahro, etc etc etc. My point is that it is incumbent on those who imply that the Greens are terminally and by nature corrupted and useless to political and social progress to suggest what other organisation or approach those activists who work through the Green Party in England, for example, should work through?
The Greens are a crap political organisation. It is just that all the others are even crapper........

 

[Matt S]

>>I know that it would have effects on me if I were foolish enough to think that self-aggrandisement and social change could be neatly accomodated in a political strategy>>

Yes, obviously not at all personal.

I've had this argument on Urban 75 one hundred and one times before - to be honest, I can't be bothered to have it for the 102nd time. I have never said that the Green Party is perfect, that it is the only route to social change, or that it will not, eventually, be likely to become compromised enough that I wouldn't want to work within it.

However, that hasn't happened yet, I am doing really good things in Oxfordshire as a Green Party councillor, that I am happy are positive and helpful - so I persist in my membership. If I ever think that the negatives outweigh the positives, I'll resign. Simple.

Matt

 

[gurrier]

Yes, obviously not at all personal.

That's not personal. Getting oneself elected to positions of relative power over others is self-aggrandisement in my book, no matter who does it. It's not personal.

I've had this argument on Urban 75 one hundred and one times before - to be honest, I can't be bothered to have it for the 102nd time. I have never said that the Green Party is perfect, that it is the only route to social change, or that it will not, eventually, be likely to become compromised enough that I wouldn't want to work within it.

However, that hasn't happened yet, I am doing really good things in Oxfordshire as a Green Party councillor, that I am happy are positive and helpful - so I persist in my membership. If I ever think that the negatives outweigh the positives, I'll resign. Simple.

So, you're happy to put loads of work into building something up that you expect to betray your principles? I find this a really, really bizzare attitude. I'd prefer to abandon myself to the sopoforic opium of sky news and premiership football than to do the hard slog with the knowledge that the final effect of my work will probably be a nice parliamentary career for some weasel politician arseholes. Talk about defeatism.

 

[Matt S]

But that analysis makes no sense at all. *If* the Green Party becomes compromised in a decades time and I resign, that doesn't negate all the good things I have done as a councillor. They don't cease to exist! If I can't be a member of the Green Party anymore, I will still have secured money for social justice initiatives in Oxford, will still have installed solar panels on scores of homes, will still have stopped activists being evicted from council land, will still have defended asylum seekers...

It's your attitude that I don't understand - the idea that if something *eventually* goes wrong then it instantly makes all effort expended on good things beforehand pointless...

Matt

 

[rednblack]

It's your attitude that I don't understand - the idea that if something *eventually* goes wrong then it instantly makes all effort expended on good things beforehand pointless...

Matt

i agree actually...

 

[gurrier]

i agree actually...

That's coz you're a wooly jumper 'n sandal wearing, lentil-knitting middle class hippie (joke).

Seriously, though apologies for not getting back. I'm short of time at the moment and a proper response would require some effort. I'll hopefully get a chance soon.

 

[rednblack]

That's coz you're a wooly jumper 'n sandal wearing, lentil-knitting middle class hippie (joke).

don't get me me wrong, i diagree with the rest of what he said

 

[rioted]

...............Wet liberal politicians / management who come to self-serving compromises with capitalism every time they are given the tiniest chance..............

And of course, no member of the working class would ever do that. Why haven't we had a revolution years ago?

 

[LLETSA]

And of course, no member of the working class would ever do that. Why haven't we had a revolution years ago?

Not enough people rioting.

 

[rednblack]

Not enough people rioting.

or looting

 

[LLETSA]

or looting

Or wearing bandanas.