Randomly Selected Article or Link

This story caught my eye. It seems a bit bonkers really. Though I know the law is changing is respect of standing for election, but it seems you can judge your fellow citizens at 19 but not yet represent them:

New JP, 19, youngest in country: A 19-year-old law student has become the country's youngest magistrate, the government has confirmed.

Fair play to Miss Tate - if you can, do - it just strikes me as odd that you can get selected by a "local advisory committee" but not elected by a plebiscite.

On the subject though of making the bench more representative of the community, I think this is a fudge personally. A year ago I took a friend to his speeding hearing at Rugby magistrates and was sitting there all day waiting for his case to be heard, despite arriving well before the doors even opened as we were advised to do in order to get dealt with early. Apparently, if he had taken a brief along, he would have been seen earlier. Frankly I don't think it's relevant - if they tell you it's first come first served they should stick to that. Just because someone might be paying for representation shouldn't mean the rest of us have to wait all day.

All day there were whole families trooping in and out and hanging around. It was clearly a day out for people who wouldn't or couldn't pay their child support or who had breached their DTTO. It all made me feel that the time and money that processing these sorts of cases through the magistrates courts was certainly not in the community's interest. Most were clearly "regulars". Well known to the court staff and the duty solicitors.

Okay, so it's not the snappiest of campaign slogans, and it will probably attract the interest of oh, maybe about four people on the entire planet, but Oxford City Council needs some direction, and I happen to be available, as they say, to put in my tuppence worth. The council was plunged yesterday into a quandary over its political complexion when Labour unsurprisingly held onto a byelection seat in Hinksey Park ward making them formally the largest party group on the council.

First, a declaration of interest - I am of course a Liberal Demcorat member and have friends in the council group and on the executive board. And whilst I have every confidence in them to make the best job of some difficult portfolios I simply don't believe that the arrangement that has obtained at the Town Hall since the May elections is the best thing either for the Liberal Democrats or for the city as a whole.

Oxford City Council is seen as a basket case and has been for some time. I heard it again this week from a county council officer. And there are even more intense financial pressures ahead regardless of political control such as funding "decent" homes, decent leisure services, bringing down the cost to the city of homelessness as well as massively improving what ought to be core functions such as council tax collection rates are overdue and extremely urgent.

This isn't the time or the place to go into apportioning blame. Like the county council before it, the city council has had nobody in overall control politically for six years now and in that period it has seen effectively four chief executives, three housing chief officers and three planning chief officers. At the beginning of this period of political uncertainty came the challenges of Labour's local government "modernisation agenda" which meant that not only were the old familiar days of majority government gone, but that whoever did govern had to do it on new and uncertain terms.

The new emphasis the government wanted to see on "partnership working" in local governance is a particularly difficult one, I suspect, to realise here in Oxford where the civil authority is really a minnow compared with the influence in the city and the world of its very raison d'etre, the university - the City Council is never going to be quite in charge with that elephant in the bed! But be honest, who has even heard of the Oxford Strategic Partnership* let alone found any way of engaging with this no doubt august and sincere body? Whilst we have a resident population not much greater than, say the Isle of Wight, our history as the foremost place of learning, invention and discovery on the planet (well - I love the place, I wouldn't want you to think I was doing Oxford down in any way just because I have a bee on about the political situation in the city!) puts immense pressures on us. Thinking again about the Isle of Wight it's probably the equivalent of having Cowes Week every day of the year (and still having a monarch and court in residence too come to think if it!).

The only thing that is clear is that the electorate of Oxford are not convinced by any of the parties' pitches enough to trust them to take on these challenges alone. It is no secret I don't think that had I been elected in May I would not have favoured the Liberal Democrat group trying to go it alone in a minority single party administration. In the first instance I would have been wary of a Labour group seemingly wanting to step back from their part in the responsibility for the city's current plight. In a situation where any time between now and the next set of elections a single other party could decide they've had enough and unilaterally make life very difficult for the Lib Dems I would be wanting to step back and force Labour to accept some of that responsibility.

When I lost in 2002 and began to get involved in single issue type voluntary activities where basically everyone was there with a common purpose, such as Oxfordshire Community Land Trusts, I at one stage thought of setting up a new and different political "party" - codenamed the Co-operative Commonwealth of Oxfordshire(!) - that people of all parties and none could sign up to that would effectively bind them to working for the interests of Oxford and Oxfordshire above any consideration of existing party affiliation. This is what needs to happen now. And the council (mostly through the councillors) needs to promote this model of consensus - putting Oxford first - and finding ways of tapping into the enormous potential and goodwill of the residents of Oxford to assist them.

As a Liberal Democrat I believe we have always had a high regard for localism and devolution, that decisions should be taken as closely to the people that are affected by those decisions as possible, and involving them as much as possible, and that as much sovereignty as possible belongs with individuals and families whose lives should be facilitated rather than circumscribed by any collective government necessary. And our second mantra is that where representative government structures are necessary, they should as fairly and proportionally as possible represent the opinions of the citizens expressed at the ballot box.

Whilst we're not going to get the latter any time soon, because they target hard and locally we do have two minority political parties that help keep other shades of opinion at the table and prevent a one or two party state (and of course leave us more likely to have no overall control), the former, more and deeper devolution, has more recently become the mantra of Labour's Department of Communities and Local Government. So with the Greens plainly pleased with their fiefdom of the St Clement's Soviet, the IWCA frequently focussing on local issues so much it seems that they eschew "whole Oxford" type council activities as irrelevant to their electorates' priorities, and now Labour being fed the double devolution line from the very top in spite of their more local (and probably more ideologically honest) reservations, there is a perfect opportunity for both devolution and consensus.

All parties at the Town Hall need to be sure that they have elected leaderships committed to working together, the inevitable compromise, and engaging in debate without party prejudices. Put as much out to Area Committees as possible. Let areas select the bulk of the executive and hold them accountable for taking collective responsibility - it seems a fair way of creating a multi-party executive that has to function together for the good of their constituent areas. With each area having an executive member, even those things that are normally reserved to the executive could be devolved by allowing the area executive member to make decisions on the spot based on the deliberations of the area committee and public participation (I would make the areas parishes too in the longer run so they can have tax varying powers).

And get rid of bits that the city council does not need to do or is not best suited to doing. Personally, I'd see the two biggest of these as leisure centres and housing ownership and management. Both are services to a small minority of Oxford residents. Those Oxford residents that do use them, either as swimmers or tenants, are hopelessly outvoted at the ballot box. Yet they pay enough to be able to demand a first class service. A Community Land Trust/Community Gateway approach to housing could see massive investment in public sector housing and at the same time make it more democratic by giving the real control to the neighbourhoods and communities of residents that make up the estates. An Open Capital Leisure Partnership could deliver first class facilities again with more control ceded to the users themselves. The best advert for good leisure centres is when the users/owners encourage their friends to join and participate.

Just these two would remove two of the biggest financial headaches from the council which is clearly struggling with far more mundane problems like collecting taxes, getting planning decisions processed and paying benefits on time. There are others - an enlarged and more democratic, membership based OX1 or similar could take over the running of the council's city centre property assets in another Open Capital Partnership to help ensure diversity and quality in the city centre, for example.

There are many ways out of this situation. The councillors have a duty to take the one that will be best for Oxford's residents and not for political advancement. To pretend that a council performing as badly as Oxford City is ready for any more responsibility before they sort out even how to operate together in a situation like they have at present is pure fantasy. What needs to emerge is a slimmed down council that brokers deals between devolved areas and partners delivering services. Who's going to take up this particular gauntlet?

* It might help give the impression that the Oxford Strategic Partnership actually did anything if the web page of their steering committee did not include a county council "deputy leader" who has not been deputy leader for 16 months, a city council "leader" who stepped down from the council in May and as chair a police commander that was promoted out of St Aldate's over a year ago now!

Technorati Tags: community land trusts, lib dems, localism, oxford

It's certainly an interesting idea, trying to get the wider public involved in determining your party's manifesto:

Tories invite public to decide on policy

David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader, has pledged an unprecedented change in policy making by committing the party to giving the public a direct say in shaping the Tories' election manifesto.

Mr Cameron is to launch a policy debate: 'I want us to end the age of top-down 'we know best' politics'

The Conservatives are to launch the most extensive grassroots policy debate in British political history, called Stand up, Speak up - The Nation's Dispatch Box.

In a letter being posted to MPs, constituency chairmen and candidates this weekend, and which has been seen by The Daily Telegraph, Mr Cameron said that he was determined to mobilise public opinion before deciding which recommendations of the 18-month policy review he would use to fight the next election.

But I'm not entirely sure about "unprecedented" or indeed how wise. When Lib Dem policy papers go out to consultation it's usually a public process. Sure we probably don't market it as much as we could but in recent years that has involved web discussion boards and the like, in which I happen to know Tory members have participated.

But we haven't done it with our manifesto. We've done it with our policy work. Our manifesto discussions have been internal, and for very good reason - it's our party that would have to implement them. Our manifesto is our "shop window" which is what draws support or not as the case may be. This seems like the "car boot sale" of manifestos - there might be some great deals, but there's going to be a great deal of tat you won't want on your manletpiece. One way of ensuring you're not just doing "we know bet politics" is to ensure that there is engagement and healthy debate within the party and that the membership is sovereign when setting policy from which the party picks its manifesto.

Study after study shows that it is the "usual suspects" - something like one per cent of the population apparently - that engage fully in such things. Yes, we should always be looking for ways of increasing that proportion, but like Blair's "Big Conversation" I suspect that this will turn out to be a gesture, and worse, has the potential of increasing cynicism in political parties as people are disappointed you don't take their ideas.

Technorati Tags: conservatives, politics, tories

I feel I've been tagged in a strange sort of a meme for my thoughts on Oxford's recent local election results by Antonia [From Oxford elections round-up]:

We await with bated breath the thoughts of Stephen Tall, no longer Lib Dem councillor for Headington, his colleague David Rundle, and the third-placed Lib Dem candidate for Headington Hill and prolific blogger, Jock Coats.

Well thanks, she just had to rub it in by mentioning that third place. I am embarrassed and humiliated to have come third. There are of course official post mortems to come yet on the campaign, but whatever their verdict, one simple fact is that I am a "bad candidate". Whatever fresh ideas I may have brought to the council (and I doubt my Labour victor will be doing much of that, sad to say), I cannot escape the fact that I hate knocking on strangers to talk politics with them. So for me, the literature and word of mouth amongst people who have met me outside that context is more crucial than for most. Such glad-handing ought to have happened long before the campaign proper started with voter ID canvassing in late March. And been followed up with a leaflet introducing me properly and extolling my virtues before the cross city campaign started with its more party led focus on whole city issues.

Then there was "that leaflet." On the last weekend of the campaign I had the dubious honour of having a Labour leaflet, apparently partly delivered by Mrs Dromey (I rather hope, Antonia, that you were unaware of that leaflet's existence when we exchanged pleasantries on the Friday evening), using quotes from this blog about drugs policy obviously intended to give the impression that if I won I would probably be found standing outside the primary school handing out various narcotics to the year sevens, or perhaps to their parents! Several opponents have commented that they thought it was one of the worst personal attack leaflets they had seen. I suppose I ought to feel flattered that Labour were sufficiently alarmed by my candidacy to feel the need to drag the contest into the gutter.

You can read it for yourself here. By my reckoning, it at least breaches copyright law (my moral right not to have my copyrighted work treated in a derogatory fashion or in a way designed to be prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author or director), if not possibly electoral law. Enquiries are ongoing. I am not a sore loser, but I was upset by it. I know it cost me both votes and reputation, even amongst my deliverers.

Anyway, enough of the campaign itself. Will I ever try again? I don't know. For many years, since in fact I was last on the council in 2002, I have wondered whether the present system of local government is fit for purpose. As an ideological descendent of the individualist-anarchists and a mutualist, I find the state, in all its guises, terribly coercive. I believe sovereignty should lie with the individual and he or she should only cede power upwards to representatives over things that they cannot arrange for themselves or in small groups or local communities. Local government is so tied down by Whitehall and Westminster that the current arrangements simply cannot be responsive enough to local peoples' needs.

The main reason I wanted to be on the council was to continue to promote, from the inside as it were, my mutualist agenda of hiving local authority functions off onto social, community led partnerships. The more things compete for the crumbs of council budgets within the tight control of Whitehall oversight the less satisfactory the outcome. Leisure services for example cannot hope to compete in quality at least with private providers while it is within the constraints of council budgeting. Similarly, whilst more difficult, I think the solutions to our housing problems are community led, rather than council, landowner and planning led.

Every time I've lost so far I've come out of the contest wanting to do other things that will make a difference one day outside the council structure. Almost as if to prove we can cope without the psychopaths who are so good at saying the right thing at the right time to get themselves elected. This time it is to continue to promote the social enterprise "alternative" for producing social and public goods and to work on promoting local community e-democracy.

• It will be interesting to watch Labour finally explain where they think there is a "£5m cash crisis" at the city council - reading the latest annual accounts I cannot see it myself. But there's another argument for local government reform - despite us being the tax payer/employers their finances are even more opaque than any company's I've ever seen.

• It will be fun to see Maureen Christian defend the Northway Playing fields from something or other she seems to think threatens them (certainly the only "threat" i heard was my own idea to see if we could fit a cricket square on there by budging up the two football pitches and see if we could get a local cricket team going).

• I think it will be a retrograde step if Labour succeed in removing planning decisions from area committees. They were not perfect there, but I have always maintained that was as a result of the bad legal advice that both sides in any disputed application had the right only to speak for five minutes each - where they have open discussion at area committees they manage to get better decisions and more fruitful interplay between applicant and objectors and a better outcome for both.

• It will also be interesting to see whether the Tories, who, despite not winning a single seat managed to come in second in many wards, and at least the ones in which they tried to put up a full campaign, will be able to keep up that level of work, for example, next year, when their declining reputation in control of the county is up for defending.

• And it will be interesting to see whether this marks the high water point for the IWCA, who lost two of their councillors.

• But I also don't really expect the city council, under any party, to set Oxford on fire with bright new ideas that will markedly change the quality of life for its citizens.

Finally, if anyone has any ideas about what little thank you gifts I can get for two teenaged Muslim boys who managed throughout to deliver most of the half of the ward for which we did not have regular deliverers - not a happy situation to be in at the start of a campaign and one of the first things I hope to put right for next time - I'd be very grateful to hear them! Their father has resisted all my requests for his advice so far!

...is at Her Majesty's Pleasure.

Was this the sort of democracy you envisaged when you talked about regime change:

Gays flee Iraq as Shia death squads find a new target. And apparently they're not having such an easy time being granted asylum because the Home Office doesn't want to give the impression that Iraq is not what you said it would be. Still, I suppose they could always try their luck in Zimbabwe, since that's now "safe".

History will be your judge. Oh yes. History. If anyone's still alive and free enough to write it.