Oxford Labour
I don’t want to host a discussion about the local elections in general, and those in Oxford in particular, but I thought I’d just post a link to the new Oxford Labour website, created by Jo. There’s plenty on there, including our manifesto for the city and a note about each of our candidates.
The last week has been mainly about pounding the streets, as you’d expect. Ten days to go.
I have very little time for this internet thing at the moment (and what time I have I feel like I should be doing something else with), but I happened to notice that a lot of people have got very excited about something called the Euston Manifesto. There was even mention of it in the Guardian and the New Statesman. Doubtless if I were to go to technorati and plug it in, there would be hundreds of posts.
Couple of things spring to mind, in no particular order. Why are most of the founders and signers men? Why is it the same bunch (many of whom I have met and like) operating under a variety of different names? (But then, unlike when they launched www.stopkensracism.com and every time they publish another copy of that blasted Democratia (there’s supposed to be a Y in there somewhere, but I don’t know where) I have yet to receive fifteen or seventeen emails in a bunch from the same address, so I should be better disposed to this Euston thing).
On a political point, I’ve read the document, and agree with most of it in a broad “well that seems sensible”-sort of way, but it is of course far more noticeable what is left out than what is in. I’m confused about how supposed lefties can write a new manifesto for the left with barely a mention of poverty and seemingly no awareness of class and the affect that has on what you can expect from life. The new dividing line is about where you stand on dictatorship, eh? Well, no; it’s where it always was, unfortunately.
Good luck to the labour party in Oxford.
We’ll be thinking of you in Manchester!!
> Why are most of the founders and signers men?
I don’t have any stats on the gender balance of the signers and it’s too late to try and work it out by people’s first names, but bear in mind that a lot will have come from blogs, from political blogs, and the world of ideological rants and willy-waving, so it may be that women are generally less well represented here. And we have only had the “web launch” - all sorts of real-world events are planned.
If you have you own theories, I’d be interested to hear them. One the face of it, the ‘message’ doesn’t imply (to me) any gender bias.
The “class” issue is being discussed here at the moment:
http://www.dirtyleftie.co.uk/?p=93
To me, the mere word “class” would add little value to the discussion, but turn vast numbers of people off, as well as taking us down a blind Trot alley. Something like “institutionalised poverty, social immobility, etc.” would express it better. Section ‘B-5′ and ‘C’ do talk about poverty, but the intention is to establish principles, rather than specific policies for tackling it. The EM may be encouraging people to be more open to different political views, but it’s not about replacing political parties as instruments of change.
> The new dividing line is about where you stand on dictatorship, eh?
Don’t think the EM is saying that that is *the* dividing line, but that there *is* a dividing line on support for democracy. If you don’t have that, then even if your dictator allows you enough food and a standard of living, you’re poor and oppressed in so many other ways.
Sorry for the typos - you need a Preview button!
Best of luck for next Thursday!
B4L - I do think it’s about time we started talking about class again rather than using euphemisms. And that discussion at Dirty Leftie is singularly un-enlightening as to your thinking in leaving it out.
You are, of course, right about democracy being one dividing line: my criticism is that it appears to be the only one given any prominence in the EM.
But I will take my hat off to your group for starting some interesting debate on and offline.