Oxford Elections: wither the Tories? Oh, yes.

The Tories know what it's like to be a minor party in cities like Oxford. Here, they haven't won a seat in this millennium and recently have only picked up hand-me-downs on the Council.

The Conservatives have polled very poorly in all by-elections since 2006. Going back to that year's main elections, when half the city's seats were last contested, they came behind the Greens. But, at least at that point they focussed their resources, fighting seats they thought they could win (like -- oh, dear -- my own Headington); this time, they are attempting the strategy of stretching themselves as thin as skin undergoing cosmetic surgery.

Bad choice, guys.

The electors know it's a sham, an attempt to fool the electorate into imagining the party which once called itself nasty -- probably because it was considered a brand-leader in xenophobia and homophobia -- has some chance in a tolerant city like Oxford. They don't.

The New Tories, who desperately try to be Blairite ten years after that went out of fashion, have written to all Oxford households encouraging them to 'go green'. That's even though the Conservatives locally are not in favour of the city's recycling revolution. But, at least, if Tory voters took their leader's advice, they would be voting for the third-placed party rather than the usual Conservative doldrums of fourth and final place.

It was a Tory Prime Minister who, on achieving that office, proclaimed: 'I have climbed to the top of the greasy pole.' His latterday Oxford colleagues are still slithering at its foot.

The definition of hypocrisy

Chutzpah is not a term usually associated with Andrew Smith, former Cabinet Minister and, for the time being, New Labour MP in Oxford East. From those who know him, the highest compliment is 'he's a nice man.' Commentators have been less kind. But, considering what Mr Smith has just managed to do, perhaps assessments should be revised.

Mr Smith was not among those yesterday who rebelled against their own government over Post Office closures. It's not really his style: he prefers to be considered a loyalist to the Blair / Brown administrations. When he was in the Cabinet, that was understandable. Quite why he continues -- unless he's the only person who thinks he has a chance to return to the long table in Downing St -- is not so clear. Let's be charitable and say it is out of conviction: he actually believes in the policies for which he votes. There would be something honourable in that.

Problem is: he started the week waving off from Oxford Rail Station a local journalist weighed down with 'Save Our Post Offices' petitions. The journo departed with Smith's endorsement ringing in his ears - and, in return, Mr Smith got the coverage in the local paper, complete with unflattering photo. So, on Monday, Mr Smith was determined to save post offices from cuts imposed by the Labour government; by Thursday, he was voting with the Labour government in favour of those same closures.

Mr Smith has not bothered to explain what made him change his mind, so we can only speculate. Perhaps he baulked at the fact that the motion postponing closures was proposed by the Conservative party -- that's understandable, especially when the Tory tradition of privatizations made the cutting of public services something of a national pastime. They are no doubt hypocrites, but they're left standing on the foothills in comparison to the heights of hypocrisy that Mr Smith has managed to scale so rapidly in one short week.

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Mr Smith has slipped up, as he has done time and time again. And only weeks before local elections in Oxford. But, perhaps this is where Andrew Smith's Machiavellian skill truly lies. After all, Labour on the City Council, despite being the largest party, sit comfortably on the opposition benches. They're not very good at it, but it seems to suit them. Indeed, they may well realise that their best way they can assist Mr Smith in his desperate attempt to hold on to his ultra-marginal seat, only 963 ahead of the LibDems, is to stay stuck there, in opposition. They probably judge being in administration a tough challenge -- and they'd be right that it's beyond their competence. So, Mr Smith's singular act of hypocrisy might not be an act of folly by a mediocrity but a skilful move intended to do what it will surely achieve: remind people exactly why they shouldn't vote New Labour in May. Then again, he needn't have bothered. We can do that well enough, thank you very much.

Rowan Williams and the Mastery of Politics

The Archbishop of Canterbury is not feted for his deft political touch – nor would he want to be. He has been cursed, by fellow bloggers as well as by print journalists, with the most opprobrious epithet applicable to someone in public life: he’s ‘academic’. And academics, as we know, are out of touch and, worst of all, naïve. So much might be inferred from his reported reaction to the media coverage of his speech last week: he is said to be ‘shocked’ at the backlash. Frustrated, dismayed, perhaps, but surely not ‘shocked’ – that makes him sound wounded and repentant. But he’s got no reason to be queueing in line for the confessional.

Dr Williams has been caught by the unusual weather we’re having: after all, silly season is supposed to be months away from early February. If there had been other news for the journalists to waste words on, his speech would have struggled to win column-inches. As it is, the press-gang must have been straining to squeeze a sound-bite out of a text which, it is true enough, is rather wanting in a certain rhetorical elegance. But it clearly wanted to stir a wide debate – it’s just a pity it has not done so yet.

The headlines and the comment articles to date can hardly consitute an intelligent response to his lecture. But the furore itself will have its use: a speech which otherwise would be forgotten will attract more attention over a period of time and a debate may follow. It may be then that commentators come to terms with what the Archbishop was actually saying.

It seems to me that what Dr Williams was arguing was part of his wider critique of the West’s international policy following the 11^th September bombings. It’s an interpretation that, in a softly-spoken matter, sets challenges for liberalism. There are, he emphasises, fundamental rights which no religious morality could trump – but, equally, we should not fool ourselves that those rights add up to a complete code of behaviour. Some rules of conduct are established for ourselves by the communities in which we participate; those rules should not be challenged by the state simply for the sake of having an all-encompassing universal law which would assume all individuals are alike. It is a plea for pluralism, and for a recognition of the limits of what western ‘liberal democracy’ can helpfully export to other cultures. It is argument for everyone being equal before the law, but not the same before it.

However brief a summary this is, it should be clear that, for liberals, what Dr Williams said is problematic – in the best possible sense. He is challenging us to think further about our liberalism in the new context we find ourselves. In suggesting the limits to liberal democracy, he is not denying it has benefits but rather asking us to define its identity more clearly than is usual.

Which all sounds grist for the scholarly seminar, rather than for the public arena. We might pause to wonder how depressing it is that the public arena is thought unsuitable for intellectual discussion. But we might also wonder why Dr Williams said what he did, when he did. It was a challenge not just to governments and to the chattering classes but also to his own church – in the run-up to the General Synod. His picture of pluralism is one in which, it could be argued, the curious position of the Church of England as the church of the state should be in doubt. Perhaps – just perhaps – if the Archbishop has happened to trigger a discussion which will eventually lead to consideration of disestablishment, that might not have been completely unintentional. Though, naturally, the artful politician would claim himself ‘shocked’ when matters turn out to take that course.

Neighbourhood E-Forums: how would you use them?

I have a question for you, gentle readers. We -- or, rather, an estimable local resident with the support of (among others) her local councillors and under the auspices of the City Council -- have recently set up an e-forum for our ward and the neighbouring area. It's got c. 80 members having been on-line and public for only a day, and a whole range of issues are already being aired. Hoorah, I say, and then I ask: what next?

I've got some ideas about what I think the forum could achieve and how it could really be e-democratic. But I want your views and your advice. What do you think would be a suitable lower percentage of the local population to have involved? How would you judge its success? And with what would you compare it?

I look forward to your comments. And, by the way, if you happen to be associated with Oxford's elevated elder sister of Headington, or live nearby in Marston, Barton, Risinghurst or Wood Farm, do join us at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm/

Huhne and Cry

It was all going so well. A leadership election which I, for one, feared could enter the Olympics in the long-distance tedium category was actually proving a credit to our party. We were seeing two true Liberals reminding us of the core beliefs which we share; they were ably showing the world how different we are from what Ming, in one of his last good acts as leader, dubbed the cosy consensus. And I was still honestly undecided about whom I would support. All that ended today.

I doubt any of us are so naïve as to imagine that either camp in this election is above a spot of off-the-record briefing and less-than-flattering commentary on their opponent. In fact, if either camp wasn’t capable of it, I wouldn’t want them on the ballot paper: sending a guileless leader into a room with the other parties would be like asking the lamb to sit down with lions who’ve forgotten the Bible’s punch line and are feeling a bit peckish around teatime. All along, it has seemed that Huhne’s campaign has been less adept at this skill than Clegg’s – since his launch, his coded comments have been the more noticeable. That, indeed, might be forgivable from the man the media sees as ‘the other candidate’, the one who has to play catch-up. But there is a line somewhere, faintly drawn but definitely present, and it’s been crossed.

So, the Huhne team produced a briefing document on Clegg’s apparent flaws and gave it a florid title. I don’t have a problem with that, if they are competent enough to keep it to themselves. But either they showed it to the press or they couldn’t stop it getting to them. Either way, if Hogwarts ran a course in the dark arts of politics, Huhne clearly would be enrolled – and would prove to be no Hermione. On The World this Weekend – where, incidentally, Steve Goddard, future MP for Oxford East, gave an excellent interview – Chris Huhne just made it worse: he apologised for the title of the document, but not for its substance. If you are going to play bare-knuckle, you don’t say ‘sorry’ as you do it. If, on the other hand, you want to be Mr Nice, you’d play contrite. Encore: nul points.

Of course, there’s another level of irony. The implication of Huhne’s own version of a dodgy dossier is that a politician can’t change his mind or develop in his views. One wonders where that would leave the contributors of The Orange Book who later wanted to distance themselves from its ‘economic liberal’ extremes. If you are going to accuse your opponent of ‘flip-flops’, you better make pretty sure you aren’t open to the same allegation.

I had suspected that this election would be more about presentation and personality than about fighting for the policy heart of the party. In debates like that on Question Time, that has been the case. On that programme, when the final question came about ‘what is your opponent’s best quality?’, I was hoping that one of them would have the humour and the chutzpah to begin their answer: ‘he’s a good loser – and, if you don’t believe me, test it.’ Sadly, that clearly can’t be said of one of the candidates. Mr Huhne is proving himself a bad loser even before the votes are cast.

Shorten the timetable!

My friend, the geo-mutualist, makes a good argument for something more awe-inspiring than a two horse race for the leadership of our great party, and he calls on Cowley St to extend the timetable. Of course, what we want is an opportunity to showcase the talent and the intellectual vitality within the LibDems while the camera falls, briefly, on us. But if it does turn out that what we have on our hands is single combat between two former MEPs of, shall we say, similar pedigree, can't we just shorten the timetable for the whole thing and get it out of the way?

OK, I realise it's not possible. Constitution and all that. But there is a danger that a head-to-head for the leadership won't look as much like a titanic struggle as arm-wrestling on the Titanic. In all honesty, won't some of those who've counted themselves out think again? Let's have a debate worthy of our party.

If it goes on like this...

So, all credit to the silver-haired lethargo for having an organised campaign. Chris Huhne declared this afternoon and is already sending me an e-mail. Impressive, considering he couldn't have known this eventuality would arise before Monday.

And it's not even as if it was a foregone conclusion that he'd stand: after all, as he tells me (and every other LibDem whose address is available), he talked about it with 'family and friends'. Groan. First misjudged cliche' of the e-mail.

And what's this? 'It's disgusting that we live in a country where a child born into poverty has a life sentence.' That's a new take on ASBOs. But 'disgusting'? Sounds like he's eaten something highly unsavoury. He could have tried: 'we should hang our heads in shame that we live etc etc' And 'has a life sentence'? It may come as a surprise but being poor doesn't necessarily mean you're a natural born killer. We know what you mean, Chris, just about -- but it's unlikely most people would untwine your opaque phrasing.

It sounds to me as if he needs to get some good speechwriters around him. He's quick of the mark, but has he tied his shoelaces?