Closing Shop

I've been getting very lax at updating this blog recently - indeed, I was reminded to do so by a Council officer last week! (You know who you are...).

Anyway, I think I'll try to focus on keeping www.richardhuzzey.org.uk updated, as I don't seem to have time to write on national politics and random musings here... Best service for Lib Dem blogging in Oxford remains www.stephentall.org.uk, which (if you're reading Lynne!) thoroughly deserves to win the Lib Dem blog award.

The Headington Shark

It's exactly twenty years this month since the erection of 'Untitled - 1986', the famous Headington shark that won the wrath of Oxford City Council's planning inspectors. It was erected by local man Bill Heine, as a metaphor for Cold War and nuclear proliferation issues.

The dispute over planning permission for the sculpture eventually found its way to Michael Hestletine, then the relevant Secretary of State. His officers reported:

It is not in dispute that this is a large and prominent feature. That was the intention, but the intention of the appellant and the artist is not an issue as far as planning permission is concerned. The case should be decided on its planning merits, not by resorting to 'utilitarianism', in the sense of the greatest good to the greatest number. And it is necessary to consider the relationship between the shark and its setting .... In this case it is not in dispute that the shark is not in harmony with its surroundings, but then it is not intended to be in harmony with them. The basic facts are there for almost all to see. Into this archetypal urban setting crashes (almost literally) the shark. The contrast is deliberate ... and, in this sense, the work is quite specific to its setting. As a 'work of art' the sculpture ('Untitled 1986') would be 'read' quite differently in, say, an art gallery or on another site. An incongruous object can become accepted as a landmark after a time, becoming well known, even well loved in the process. Something of this sort seems to have happened, for many people, to the so-called 'Oxford shark'.

The emphasis is mine, and I think the inspector was certainly accurate in his predictions about the role the shark would come to have...

Just for amusing background, Bill Heine is now one of Radio Oxford's most popular presenters, and regularly roasts Oxford City Council members and officers. Is that biting back, or what?

The Death of the Labour Party

An excellent and thought-provoking piece by a guest contributor over at PoliticalBetting.com. Read it.

Oxford Defections

I've been avoiding blogging on the two recent defections from our City Council group. I always got along with the two individuals well on a personal level, and they've always been kind, friendly and pleasant to me. I'm annoyed that they left - both it seems for such trivial reasons - but I didn't see anything to be gained from commenting personally.

However, freshly returned from holiday, Stephen has put things brilliantly.

Lib Dems 3 - Others 0

The excellent week for the party continues. Three of our star players have put the ball in the back of the net. After Ming's superb intervention in the Enron case - where he *made* a virtual non-story into a genuine political issue - comes another score. Nick Clegg has been challenging the government's secrecy over just how much ID cards will cost. Taken with Chris Huhne's able tackle over the Thames Water story, it has been a great week for media coverage.

Just shows the media can occasionally take notice. The key lesson seems to be that it's necessary for us to be a distinct shade of opinion in order to get attention. It's not surprising, I suppose, that where journalists want a binary story, the third party can only muscle it's way in when it is distinctive from both the government and the official opposition. Being better at expressing the same opinion doesn't seem to cut it.

The Ming story - where he clearly found a niche issue and played to it - is probably the best example. I gather a lot of the early problems in his leadership were due to key vacancies in his staff, and it's clear that his back-up team for PMQs is now up to the standard of his opponents, and the quality squad CK led.

And they didn't even have EARS...

In the course of work today, I've been reading this 1840 circular, issued to Whigs in Illinois (including Abraham Lincoln), with instructions on how to campaign.

Political activists may be amused to see how little has changed...

January, 1840.

GENTLEMEN:--In obedience to a resolution of the Whig State convention, we have appointed you the Central Whig Committee of your county. The trust confided to you will be one of watchfulness and labor; but we hope the glory of having contributed to the overthrow of the corrupt powers that now control our beloved country will be a sufficient reward for the time and labor you will devote to it. Our Whig brethren throughout the Union have met in convention, and after due deliberation and mutual concessions have elected candidates for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency not only worthy of our cause, but worthy of the support of every true patriot who would have our country redeemed, and her institutions honestly and faithfully administered. To overthrow the trained bands that are opposed to us whose salaried officers are ever on the watch, and whose misguided followers are ever ready to obey their smallest commands, every Whig must not only know his duty, but must firmly resolve, whatever of time and labor it may cost, boldly and faithfully to do it. Our intention is to organize the whole State, so that every Whig can be brought to the polls in the coming Presidential contest. We cannot do this, however, without your co-operation; and as we do our duty, so we shall expect you to do yours. After due deliberation, the following is the plan of organization, and the duties required of each county committee:

(1) To divide their county into small districts, and to appoint in each a subcommittee, whose duty it shall be to make a perfect list of all the voters in their respective districts, and to ascertain with certainty for whom they will vote. If they meet with men who are doubtful as to the man they will support, such voters should be designated in separate lines, with the name of the man they will probably support.

(2) It will be the duty of said subcommittee to keep a constant watch on the doubtful voters, and from time to time have them talked to by those in whom they have the most confidence, and also to place in their hands such documents as will enlighten and influence them.

(3) It will also be their duty to report to you, at least once a month, the progress they are making, and on election days see that every Whig is brought to the polls.

(4) The subcommittees should be appointed immediately; and by the last of April, at least, they should make their first report.

(5) On the first of each month hereafter we shall expect to hear from you. After the first report of your subcommittees, unless there should be found a great many doubtful voters, you can tell pretty accurately the manner in which your county will vote. In each of your letters to us, you will state the number of certain votes both for and against us, as well as the number of doubtful votes, with your opinion of the manner in which they will be cast.

(6) When we have heard from all the counties, we shall be able to tell with similar accuracy the political complexion of the State. This information will be forwarded to you as soon as received.

(7) Inclosed is a prospectus for a newspaper to be continued until after the Presidential election. It will be superintended by ourselves, and every Whig in the State must take it. It will be published so low that every one can afford it. You must raise a fund and forward us for extra copies,--every county ought to send--fifty or one hundred dollars,--and the copies will be forwarded to you for distribution among our political opponents. The paper will be devoted exclusively to the great cause in which we are engaged. Procure subscriptions, and forward them to us immediately.

(8) Immediately after any election in your county, you must inform us of its results; and as early as possible after any general election we will give you the like information.

(9) A senator in Congress is to be elected by our next Legislature. Let no local interests divide you, but select candidates that can succeed.

(10) Our plan of operations will of course be concealed from every one except our good friends who of right ought to know them.

Trusting much in our good cause, the strength of our candidates, and the determination of the Whigs everywhere to do their duty, we go to the work of organization in this State confident of success. We have the numbers, and if properly organized and exerted, with the gallant Harrison at our head, we shall meet our foes and conquer them in all parts of the Union.

Address your letters to Dr. A. G. Henry, R. F, Barrett; A. Lincoln, E. D. Baker, J. F. Speed.

Ben! Ben! Ben! Ben! Ben! Ben! Ben!

This post is a strange mix of compressed comment and anecdote. I'll deal with the comment first, and then move to the anecdote, yesterday, that genuinely quite moved me.

I am still a bit too shattered to write much about the absolutely fantastic result this morning. I involuntarily fell asleep mid-conversation as we were driving home at 5am.

I gather that this is the Tories' most showing in a by-election while in opposition since the 1930s. The young Tories were certainly on top form last night, smirking fixed grins as they swilled around outside the Civic Centre. I suppose for Tories who've got involved in politics since 1997, turning an ultra-safe Conservative seat into a super-marginal must seem like a romping victory.

It was very amusing to chat with a Tory councillor for Bromley, when telling in the morning. He despised Cameron with a passion and complained that he far preferred the UKIP literature and UKIP policies to the ones they used in their own literature. I liked him very much, because he was affable and scarily right-wing; he reaffirmed all my prejudices about the Conservative Party.

A poster on Political Betting has put better than I could a rebuttal of Bob Neill's whinging:

The Lib Dem campaign was not ‘nasty’ or full of ‘personal attacks’. The Lib Dems simply pointed out two relevant facts;
1. Bob Neill lived in Tower Hamlets, not Bromley.
2. Bob Neill already had three jobs and planned to contunue as GLA member if elected MP.

This is the equivalent of the Tories in Cheadle pointing out that Mark Hunter did not live in the constituency or Labour in Hodge Hill pointing out that Nicola Davies worked for a mobile phone company.

‘Nasty’ was the part of the Tory campaign in Cheadle which linked a headline ‘Mark Hunter’s Criminal record’ with a newspaper headline about a rape case, and the Labour organising physical intimidation of Lib Dem walkabouts.

There is a clear difference between the two.

Bob's speech amounted to little more than, "in thirty years of politics, I have never had to suffer the indignity of actually winning voters' trust rather than relying on it by default. How do you sleep with yourselves for actually campaigning against me?"

I don't think Lib Dems should be defensive about the two points on which Bob's suitability was questioned. It beggars belief that he didn't tell the Bromley Times that he'd resign from the GLA, when they first called him "Two-Jobs-Bob". Greg Hurst writes in the (London) Times that, "although the Conservatives are protesting at the Lib Dem tactics in Bromley, their campaign in Cheadle was a similar one targeting the Lib Dem candidate in Cheadle as an 'unpopular outsider' but went even further in their personal attacks".

There are a lot of errors in reports circulating the internet about the by-election. Firstly, the Tories did use Cameron in their literature. In one of the only policy-based leaflets of the campaign, they proudly announced that lawyer Bob Neill had succeeded in convincing David Cameron to scrap the Human Rights act. Deciding on the Human Rights Act as their key policy for two of the final leaflets of the campaign beggars belief. Secondly, the Tory campaign was not as local as is being made out. It seems that Cameron's crowd are hoping to blame local Tories for the result, but outside helpers were brought in to lead the campaign, just like the Lib Dems do.

My anecdote of the by-election is about an eighty-year-old gentleman who I visited in the afternoon, to remind him to vote and to ask him to switch to us from Labour. He told me he'd already been, and had broken a continuous record of voting Labour since 1945, when at the age of twenty he'd voted for Clement Attlee's government. I told him it was a great honour that he'd trusted us with his vote that day, shook his hand and let him get back to the TV.

While the Tories should be humiliated at their incompetence and lack of appeal in their own heartlands, the real story for me was that gentleman, and how the hardest of hard Labour vote is switching to us. Since 2001, Labour voters have been flocking to the Liberal Democrats, but it is only now that we are seeing a genuinely historic process -- the utter eradication of a tribal Labour vote. Taken alongside the number of Tories who also switched to us, I suspect it is part of a broader trend of greater fluidity in politics, with more voters making up their minds during election campaigns. Is tribal voting dead? If not yet, then it is certainly dying.