I feel like I should blog reflections on my first year of being a councillor. But I’m tired and it’s late, so instead here’s me in my element, glass of wine in hand and dignity flying out the window as I try out twirling in councillor robes at mayor-making last week…

Update: more silliness over at the Deputy Lord Mayor’s place, where he has a You Tube clip of the sub-medieval pageantry of the Lord Mayor’s Parade on Saturday - not the bits where it poured with rain. At 00:24, you see me walk through the picture in a very fetching bonnet…

Remember that conversation with the Green on the polling station in Reading? The one where I motioned at the nursery being built next door as evidence of what a Labour government does? Turns out that 1,260 new children’s centres have been built in the last ten years, as have 1,106 new schools, I found out today.

No politician should expect gratitude for what they’ve done. And that’s never more true than with the gay community, happy to bank ten years of advances in gay rights, and preferring Cameron to Brown, according to this survey. I’ve spent part of my day watching the rerun of the 97 election on BBC Parliament, whilst getting my household chores done; as the camera cut to the count in Exeter, I was shocked by the vile homophobia that gay candidates had to face a decade ago from Tory MPs. A few years ago, lesbian and gay people were outside Parliament, campaigning in vain against bigoted Tory laws; in 2007, religiously-motivated homophobes are out there in Parliament Square, shouting in vain, as we’re on the inside getting new rights and new protection courtesy of a Labour government. How things change, and how quickly people forget.

The Rights of Man blog has published its key priorities for a minister for men (hat tip to Iain Dale, who really should exercise greater critical faculty about what he appears to endorse if he’s serious about becoming an elected pol):

Make improving the educational attainment of boys a political priority
Make the state recognise/support male domestic violence victims
Improve care and funding for prostate/testicular cancer sufferers
Make judges enforce child contact orders
Support equal parenting laws
Provide better help and retraining for unemployed men
Force a review of maintenance criteria where the mother has left her husband for another man, remarried or simply walked out with the children
Support anonymity for men accused of rape, unless found guilty
Improve care and support for men suffering from depression
Campaign against anti-male propaganda and male stereotyping in the media
Support equal sentencing criteria for men and women
Stop the political disenfranchisement of individual men by abolishing discriminatory all-women shortlists and priority lists

Now, before I start taking the nonsense bits apart, some of these points are right: improving boy’s achievement in schools; better treatment for male-specific cancers and depression; support to get long-term unemployed men, usually in former heavy-industrial areas, back to work. If I were to write a manifesto for things that need to be better for men, I’d add a few more points - about the corrosive effect of male violence and macho culture on men themselves, about the latent homophobia that limits men’s career choice and proscribes young men from entering child care and other caring professions, about the need to increase paid parental leave and massively decrease the hours that men are expected to work so that they get time to spend with their families or on leisure pursuits, and about the hideous health problems caused to men by alcohol.

Of course, the big difference between the manifesto to make things better for men that I’d write and this one, is that I’d write mine with the aim of making society better, the lives of women and men better. By contrast, these twelve key points (and I’m still surprised, given the usual intellectual standards of the men’s rights movement that it wasn’t entitled a MANifesto) seek redress, even vengeance, for the perceived slights to men. With supreme inconsistency, it recognises that women and men are different and have different needs, and yet proceeds to demand absolute parity in treatment for women and men - to the extent of calling for a minister for men just because there’s one for women. And this is the complete misunderstanding at the root of it: the author just can’t get his head round that trying to make sure that men and women aren’t massively disadvantaged vis-a-vis one another demands, occasionally and with clear evidence to justify it, treating them differently.

So, to the text.

Make the state recognise/support male domestic violence victims
Support anonymity for men accused of rape, unless found guilty

These two points are about denying the reality of men’s violence against women, by on the one hand belittling it by claiming that men suffer just as badly, and on the other hand, not recognising the scale of it, by claiming that women make false allegations of abuse.

The state does recognise male victims of domestic violence: they are mentioned in each policy paper on the subject, and men who flee their home in an emergency would be entitled to emergency housing and to housing benefit dependent on their individual circumstances just as are female survivors of DV. What the author of the paper is complaining about is that in the 70s, 80s and 90s women’s organisations, recognising that many women are financially-dependent on their violent husbands and partners, opened refuges for women to flee to. These are usually supported by women residents claiming housing benefit, and through grant or in-kind support from local authorities who recognise that violence against women is wrong. If the men’s movement thinks that there should be a refuge for male victims of DV in every local authority area, let them go out and prove the scale and impact of violence against men justifies it and then get organised and set them up themselves, as the women’s movement did, rather than bleating that the men must have everything the women do, no matter how unsupported by the evidence.

And no, you wouldn’t expect me to support the idea that every woman who incredibly bravely reports her rape to the police should be institutionally considered to be a liar. And it’s an interesting and illustrative choice of priorities, isn’t it, to put this in rather than attempting to increase the 15% reporting rate and the 6% conviction rate or decrease the horrific number of rapes in this country.

Make judges enforce child contact orders
Support equal parenting laws
Force a review of maintenance criteria where the mother has left her husband for another man, remarried or simply walked out with the children

These three points reveal the unpleasant misogynist views lingering in the background of this document, about the rights of men to control women who had the misfortune to marry or partner them, even after the relationship is over. It’s most clear in the final point, which is about the vengeance of the spurned husband on the wife who dared to leave him and reflects incredibly badly on its proponents. Making judges enforce child contact is similar: it feeds a view that all women are out to keep their children from seeing their fathers, which just isn’t the case. Judges can and do enforce contact of children with their fathers, even at times when there is evidence of domestic violence and when doing so makes the children distraught. Equally, equal parenting laws appearing in a manifesto about men’s rights shows it exactly for what it is: a demand that is about the father, and the father’s rights, and not wanting the woman to have something they don’t, rather than about the children’s needs. I strongly believe that both parents should continue to be involved in their children’s lives after relationship breakdown, but that inserting a second overriding presumption in child custody proceedings fatally undermines the other overriding presumption - that the needs of the child are paramount.

Campaign against anti-male propaganda and male stereotyping in the media

Forgive me, I’m not sure what the author means by this. If they mean combatting gender stereotypes in TV and encouraging young men to consider non-traditional careers and to move away from the notion that violence and machismo are intrinsic to being a man, then I might agree, but I’m not sure that is particularly likely.

Support equal sentencing criteria for men and women

Actually, I could support this, but I doubt for the reason the author does: twice as many women as men receive prison sentences for a first-time offence, yet women’s offending is much less serious than men’s, with most women being in prison for theft and handling stolen goods. And given the impact on children of women being gaoled and the huge number of women who have responsibility for children who are imprisoned, there is a case for using non-custodial sentences wherever possible for women. Once again, the author of the manifesto seems to think that absolute parity of treatment is more important than actual outcomes, whatever the devastating effect.

Stop the political disenfranchisement of individual men by abolishing discriminatory all-women shortlists and priority lists

Finally, we get to this old chestnut. It’s one point on which reasonable people may reasonably differ - and those who differ should vote for parties that don’t believe in guaranteeing women’s representation, like the Tories and Liberals.

You know, reading this, I worry about the women in this author’s life. There are lots of men in my life who I love deeply, and I strongly believe that my feminism is part of buiding a society that’s better for my brothers, father and grandfather, for my male friends and colleagues, as well as for the women I love and care about. I reckon that women getting paid more is a good thing if you’re married to one, for example. I reckon that flexible working makes it possible to be a good dad and a good employee. I reckon that reducing domestic violence and rape means that fewer fathers have to pick up the pieces after their daughters and granddaughters are abused. I reckon that abortion and contraception and divorce mean that couples get to make choices that are right for them rather than having their hand forced by biology or law. I reckon that paid parental leave gives lots of dads a wonderful chance to concentrate on their family rather than rushing back to work. I reckon that breaking down stereotypes about what women and men can do opens up opportunities for men as well as women, whether they want to play with dolls, enter the caring professions or become a ballet dancer. I reckon that feminism is good for men; why aren’t more men pro-feminist?

BBC Parliament is replaying their 14 hours of live coverage of the 1997 election results, starting at 9am. (hat tip - Iain Dale, who oddly doesn’t seem as enthusiastic!)

For those of us who’ve had all of our political formation under a Blair administration, the coming weeks promise to be unsettling, as well as exciting. Just how strange has become clear in the last few minutes - John Reid has just announced on the Politics Show that he won’t serve in a Brown cabinet.

Saw Tom on Newsnight explaining that he was backing Jon, but thought I’d wait for verification before blogging it. Tom’s just explained his decision on his own site. I’m very pleased. Although from a policy point of view, it’s unexpected, I can see the appeal to Tom of having an organiser and a doorstep campaigner as deputy leader.

I felt a bit guilty for not doing more this elections cycle. Oxford gets one year in four without elections, and I’ve really enjoyed doing other things like getting stuck into my new job, going on holiday, and trying to be a good local councillor. Still, last time we had a year without elections in 2003, I went to Reading, and after a long day I enjoyed a fantastic night at the count where, two months after the invasion of Iraq, we lost not a single seat. Seeking to repeat the experience a few years later, I jumped on a train south on Wednesday evening.

There is something about campaigning in a city not your own that’s really quite fun - other people do the thinking, and you can just go where you’re sent. I was in Church ward for the early leaflet, and spent the rest of the day in Park ward, doing a bit of delivery, a bit of telling and a lot of knocking-up (less amusingly otherwise known as Get Out the Vote).

I enjoyed meeting real Tories - we don’t have any in Oxford - though disapppointingly I wasn’t telling with a red-in-tooth-and-claw Thatcherite or with Cameroon-groupie, but a lovely older lady with a very upper-crust accent called Eunice, for whom I fetched a chair after it became clear that she wouldn’t last out her stint standing. Reading also has a developing Green problem, and the literature they put around to Reading residents hilariously talks about the difference a Green group on Oxford city council makes. Yet their variety of Greens want to end alternate weekly rubbish collections which would reduce recycling at a stroke, and, given that they have plenty of Tories already you wouldn’t have thought they’d be much room for an individualistic NIMBYist middle-class tax-cutting parade, but hey. Their race analysis is also slightly less advanced than that of our Greens in Oxford - one of their activists commented to one of ours that he didn’t realise there were so many “coloureds” in Park ward. I tried to wind up the Green who was on the gate with me, but disappointingly he didn’t appear to have any political opinions, nodding amiably no matter how outlandish and calculated-to-irritate-the-type-of-Green-I’m-used-to my statements became. It’s really upsetting when one’s foes don’t take the bait, don’t you find? I admit that I was in a pretty strong position, what with our telling constantly interrupted by building noise from the new nursery being built thanks to a Labour government and Labour council, and being able to point at that and the thousands like it all over the country when asked what a Labour government is good for, but I still thought it was a poor show from the Green. No Liberals anywhere in Park, though - very refreshing, though there were some borrowed OULD students in Church ward: I know because their reaction when teased affectionately about whether they needed to shave yet was to declare indignantly that they were at Oxford University, didn’t we know!

The telling was but a brief interlude in the constant trudge of election day. Up and down the Wokingham Road, back and forth between the committee rooms in Liverpool Road and College Road, over to the London Road for a change of scenery. Not having had weeks and months of trudging preparation, my feet didn’t last out as well as usual, and I had to go and buy extra plasters and insoles at teatime ready for the last push. I was really ready for that first pint at five past ten last night.

Unfortunately the Reading election officials had made an incomprehensible decision to postpone the count until today, so there wasn’t to be a repeat of 2003’s fabulous night at the leisure centre. There wasn’t to be a repeat in terms of the results, either: Tony Short, who I had worked hard for all day, lost by seven votes to a Tory. Labour lost seven seats; we’re still in overall control, but it’s not a happy day. One is always convinced, in such tight races, that one should have just knocked on that extra door or tried harder with that potential voter reluctant to go to the polls at 9pm…

You know the scale of the crisis in housing in Oxford, so here’s some news to gladden the heart: the Mirror is reporting that Gordon Brown is to allow councils to keep rent money from council housing, and relax the rules that prevent councils building more council houses. Oh, I hope the Mirror’s sources are good. I can’t do better than their editorial:

The return of the council house would be a glorious legacy for any government. Local authority accommodation is the only way to rescue thousands of low income families from over-crowded, squalid or expensive homes. Gordon Brown’s ambitious plan to sanction a huge building programme will excite Labour’s traditional supporters. With councils now constructing as few as 100 new houses a year, those on waiting lists have little hope. Not every family can afford to take out a big mortgage and buy their own home. The return of council, or social housing as we must now call it, is an initiative that will be worth voting for.

Best wishes to all readers of this blog on Mayday. Today is of course also the tenth anniversary of Labour’s election; I’ve been reading Adrian McMenamin’s day-by-day account of the election campaign from within Millbank with interest - I bet tomorrow’s installment will be worth a look. Tom’s posted about his memories of the day, as has Luke.

This year is Oxford’s one year in four without elections; thinking about how much hard work it was last year and the year before, I can’t say I’m not glad. I’ll be in Reading tomorrow night and all day Thursday, heping them hold onto a Labour council.