Oxford elections round-up
One of the uses of the internet is that stories that aren’t picked up by the MSM (apparently, that means “mainstream media”) get an airing. So, in the spirit of that, and in a continued avoidance of the state of the party in the rest of the country, I thought I would post a round-up of Oxford local elections coverage from the blogs and t’internet.
As you’re here, you’ll have read my thoughts.
Here are some thoughts from Andy Lomas, our candidate for Barton, who was unlucky enough to have missed out by just four votes. His website is called Cole not Dole - and here’s why.
The Virtual Stoa celebrates the hard-won one-party-stateness of Jericho.
The Oxford Inciter, who must live near the Virtual Stoa, is not so pleased; at least he pays me the faint compliment of suggesting that I may be “somewhat brighter than the average in Oxford’s Labour Group”, but I’m not sure he is a fan of local politicians at all:
If, when playing Scrabble, you find yourself with a completely useless set of letters, you can throw them all away and take another set. It is a pity you cannot do that with politicians. There are one or two whom Oxford would miss, just as some of your Scrabble letters are worth keeping, but it would otherwise be great to get rid of them all and start again.
The Don draws the wider lessons.
A blog called Socialist Unity appears to think that the IWCA and Greens losing in Oxford is a defeat for the left: they might think so, but it won’t be a Green or IWCA administration that turns Oxford into a living wage city. That’ll be the Labour party.
Oxford Respect note their 6.5% for their single candidate in Cowley ward, which gives me a chance to link to this delicious Q&A to a commenter on an earlier post about how their candidate would be as a councillor.
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.
Update: Jock has now posted his thoughts. He’s not particularly happy with us quoting his views on drugs to the local electorate, I gather.
David Rundle has now responded as well. Apparently the Lib Dems did really well in the elections and if we don’t want to legalise cocaine and heroin then we should not claim to be progressives.
Actually, David is being kind. If you don’t want to legalize cocaine and heroin you’re accessories to murder, in my opinion…:) Maintaining a criminal network in charge of the world’s estimated third largest global trade sector is collusion in all the suffering that gives rise to.
How ironic that the “people’s party” continues to maintain prohibition that, lets face it, was designed to stop the proletariat safely enjoying what the upper classes had gotten away with for aeons.
And yesterdays retrograde step by toker Smith is just more hypocritical grandstanding at the expense of peoples’ lives. Tough on the causes of crime eh - step one - get bloated statists out of our lives.
Has there ever been a better use of a smiley than this?
“you’re accessories to murder, in my opinion…:)”
You’ll be pleased to know that the police share your view that the leaflet was “fair play”. Thank goodness your government has withdrawn legal aid for civil cases, cos I feel sure I’d win a case for “derogatory treatment” of my copyrighted work.
Quoting a few out of context sentences from a blog is like me writing “I agree with the premise that mudering babies is wrong” and you quoting it as “I agree with murdering babies”. I cannot deny I wrote those words, but you know and I know that they do not convey the sense of what I was writing.
Still, I’m just happy not having had to trade peoples’ lives for a few extra votes…:) (There’s that smiley again!)
You’ll be pleased to know that the police share your view that the leaflet was “fair play”.
Did you really think that they wouldn’t? Has there ever been a case in British electoral politics where a political party has faced police investigation (or a successful civil action) for circulating the opinions of a rival candidate, in his or her own words? And - being a liberal and all - would you really want to live as a citizen in a state in which the courts played the kind of role in policing political speech that you seem to be advocating here, or a world in which politicians couldn’t quote the words of their opponents because of copyright issues?
I’m pretty sympathetic to your views on the drugs laws, as it happens, but I don’t begin to think that this post-election whining has any merit at all. And even if your views have been taken out of context (and I’m not so sure that they have, to any significant extent), you’re nowhere close to persuading me that “quoting a few out of context sentences from a blog is like me writing ‘I agree with the premise that murdering babies is wrong’ and you quoting it as ‘I agree with murdering babies’. The babies example would be grotesque misrepresentation; quoting a few out of context sentences on a blog is just that, which may or may not be disreputable, depending on what that context is and how much it matters for establishing the sense and point of what’s being said, and that is something that will vary enormously from case to case. Get a grip.
Oh, and just so we can be clear, would you have any objection to your political opponents quoting this sentence, “If you don’t want to legalize cocaine and heroin you’re accessories to murder, in my opinion”, in their literature in any future election campaign in which you’re taking part? And, if so, what is that objection?
In response to (1): not quite, Dan. Progressives recognise that the present drugs laws need radical reform. In what way would change them?
Coun. Rundle: are you therefore saying that people may only call themselves progressives if they believe “that the present drugs laws need radical reform”? Is your statement at [6] above intended as something that is necessarily true of anyone to whom you would accept that the definition “progressive” applies? Or is it intended to reveal a contingent truth about people who are by some other criterion or criteria progressives, viz. that they believe in the reform of the drugs laws? If not the former, would you accept that by failing to qualify the second sentence of your post [6] above with “some” (or an equivalent to show the statement was not intended as analytic), you are in fact saying something which is either palpably false (that all people who are progressives by other criteria believe in reform of the drugs laws) or the stupid thing that Dan said you were saying, and which you are, apparently, rather concerned to deny?
Mr Coats: Out of interest, if I were to place on a leaflet that “Jock Coats says ‘If you don’t want to legalize cocaine and heroin you’re accessories to murder’” and circulate it in the area around your house, would you mind? Would you mind less if I put a small smily face on the leaflet? If you would mind, may I ask why you would mind?
I guess that whatever I say on another’s blog is fair game - I’m unclear on the copyright situation regarding comments on others’ blogs or websites. On mine, the commenter has the copyright and responsibility for what they write, but are implicitly granting me a license to use those comments in the same way as I might use my own posts.
However, when someone takes wholesale a bunch of quotes out of context and makes a derivative work from them, conveniently missing out salient qualifications and reasons for the quotes they offer, for the express purpose of prejudicing my honour or character, there is a breach of my rights. The more that happens the more likely it is simply to stifle debate.
That is why I am angry about this leaflet, and am still considering whether to do anything about the breach of my copyright rights.
However, right now, I doubt I will bother to stand for election again. I am sick to the back teeth of government. Our democracy is decrepit, our governance structures heavy handed and hide bound and as a result ineffectual in meeting real needs. If I want to help the people who share concerns about issues I care about, such as housing, social enterprise and the like I think I’d still be better off doing such things outside of government where like minded people get to agree and work together rather than oppose for the sake of some political honour that fewer and fewer people care about.
And frankly, if Labour were that desperate to win that they had to cook up such tat to scare people into voting for them, it’s pretty pathetic. Perhaps especially given their candidate’s prior experience with drug related death. And why you would want to put out such a leaflet outside the context of an election other than to do me personal harm I have no idea.
Of course, I would expect you to quote the whole of the passage containing the quote, ie:
If you don’t want to legalize cocaine and heroin you’re accessories to murder, in my opinion…:) Maintaining a criminal network in charge of the world’s estimated third largest global trade sector is collusion in all the suffering that gives rise to.