How often does the House of Commons get it right?

The vote on the limit on abortion tonight has disturbed me: I'm so used to thinking that the House of Commons will make a bad decision, even when the right one is obvious, that this has left me stunned. MPs show sense and an appreciation of fellow human beings? Surely not. But so they have by rejecting the moves to turn back the clock on this human right.

Interesting, though, that the Tory leader voted to reduce the limit by two weeks. Amazing how he calls other parties indecisive, when he himself acts in such a spineless manner: for goodness' sake, either be in favour of the human right to choose, or make it illegal. Don't dither in the middle, Dave.

Vote Tory, get Labour

If, indeed, she has bated her breath as she proposed, yet another by-election would be in the offing following Cllr Bance's self-suffocation. She was eager to see my response to the local elections, which I've been intending to post for some time, but only now have the opportunity.

There were two winners in Oxford: the LibDems and Labour. Both parties made a net increase in seats. Both achievements could be said to be remarkable: Labour against the national trend; LibDems against recent local tradition, gaining while in administration -- something Labour never achieved this decade. That said, congratulations to Labour on becoming the even-larger largest party (with proviso as set out below), and good luck. Cllr Bance, in particular, will make a good portfolio holder.

The losers: the small parties. Greens, IWCA -- but, most notably, the Conservative Party (who, for a long time, have been a minority interest in Oxford). In terms of votes, the Tories are now the city's third party, but they failed to turn that into any seats whatsoever, losing the two they had by defections. I don't know who was running their campaign, but whoever it was, they're not doing them any favours.

That said, the Tories did achieve something. Coming a close second in my own ward of Headington (due to Chris Clifford, a candidate more assiduous than that party deserves) was not, for them, a success. What will please them more is that their increase in vote made sure that we could not take seats of Labour in some of the key battlegrounds. It's the Conservative Party to whom some of the new Labour councillors should be sending letters of heartfelt gratitude, for pretending they were contenders when they were only spoilers.

This is not to take away from Labour's campaigning vigour. They're street-fighters again, but it's not a pretty sight. For instance, they knew we were a threat in one ward so made an A3 leaflet about our candidate, quoting from an old blog post his reservations about this country's present drug laws. This would be acceptable if our opponents owned up to being old-style Conservatives, who thought our law-and-order system always worked. But they claim to be progressive -- an assertion already in doubt considering their attitudes on civil liberties or environmental issues, but made all the more problematic when they insinuate that prohibition is, oh yes, working so well. They might bluster that a big cause is worthy a small lie but, then, little sense of cause seems left to them. They're left with tactics and they sum them up: pygmies.

Are you Low-Carbon yet?

I had the pleasure of being involved in a new initiative in my ward yesterday evening: Low-Carbon Headington. There is already one low-carbon community group up-and-running in Oxford. With its launch yesterday, Headington is the second, with another hot on its tail.

Sceptics might ask: can a groups like this do anything? It's too early to promise success from Low-Carbon Headington, but there are positive signs. There was a real buzz in the room. We had Mark Lynas, author of Six Degrees, present to frighten us all with predictions of the catastrophes which might follow if we do nothing -- and, indeed, the disasters which will happen even if we do everything we must. Much of the work has to happen at an international level -- and demands real change from politicians, not just slogans (as, to be party-political for a moment, we're getting from the Tories right now). But I came away convinced that there are ideas in the community that can work with local action.

Part of the meeting was a 'post-it' session, where people jotted down their ideas and put them on a board. I had the job of trying to summarise them in 5 minutes -- an impossible task because there were so many, but here are a few of the themes which got repeated mention:

* local campaigns with shops and businesses -- in particular, encouraging an end to free plastic bags and persuading pubs not to have patio heaters
* 'greening Headington' -- especially, more trees in public and private spaces
* low-carbon transport -- car-clubs mentioned, as well as better cycling facilities -- plus Car-Free Headington Day, for which there are already plans
* pressure on government -- a call for carbon-rationing was particularly popular

There were many more ideas on the night -- and I expect there are many more out there among you. Do you have any suggestions we might add to the list and discuss at our next meeting at the Methodist Church Hall at 7:30pm on 2nd June?

What's the difference between Boris and Blears?

When the part-time MP known as Boris -- long before he became joke-candidate for London Mayor -- insulted the city of Liverpool, he made the long journey up to apologise. When Blairite Blears insults the council estates of Oxford, she stays at home and blames anyone but her tongue-tied self. Instead, laconic Mr Brown turns up for a cuppa at Andrew Smith's house.

Now, I wouldn't want it to be imagined that an unfavourable comparison of hazardous Hazel to Mr Johnson is some sort of praise for the latter. The point's that there's a way of responding when you've done wrong and Ms Blears' stubborn approach is not it. I doubt the clamours for a visit for her to give an apology in person will die down soon.

The presence of Mr Brown in Andrew Smith's living-room must be seen as endorsement of the present MP for Oxford East by the Prime Minister who was one of the architects of New Labour. I doubt that, though, impresses many people. After all, that endorsement works two ways: it means that Mr Brown can expect Mr Smith to be loyal on contentious issues. That he will, in other words, continue to represent New Labour to the people of Oxford rather than stand up for us in Parliament.

The same old story, then, as has been recently shown not just by Andrew Smith's two-faced approach to Post Office closures but also by his backing for hiking income tax for low earners up from 10%. His argument on income tax is apparently that evidence suggests this hike will only hit the young and single people. Oh, that's OK then.

Of course, there are problems with the 10% rate: LibDems have said for a long time that it would be better to bring more people out of income tax altogether, and that's patently sensible. But, if there is not going to be any really significant uplift in tax thresholds, having a lower rate was an acceptable second choice. But now even that concession to poor working people is going.

Clearly, it's not just Ms Blears who should make a personal apology. Messers Brown and Smith could have used their jamboree the other day to give a joint apology for letting down yet more people deserving of help. Another opportunity missed.

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.