Committee to Defend Asylum Seekers:
 http://www.defend-asylum.org

National Coalition of Anti Deportation Campaigns:
 http://www.ncadc.org.uk

Is this the same Green Party who are in a coalition with the tories in Leeds!!!

No idea what GP are up to in Leeds (and I've heard lots of other bad things about them) but on this occasion they've done something useful and should be acknowledged even if you don't generally support them.

Another good link is
Campaign to Close Campsfield
 http://www.closecampsfield.org.uk/

Although it's not as uptodate as IMC, it does have other info and contacts.

obviously such a motion is a Good Thing, but what effect does it actualy have on Campsfield's expansion/ continued existence? i.e. is the council in charge of planning permission, or will central govt. be able to overide them? or is it just a PR thing, so journos can say that the expansion is opposed by local government?

It's mostly a PR thing, because this means that pretty much every aspect of local government that Campsfield touches (Oxfordshire County Council, Oxford City Council,
Kidlington Parish Council etc etc) are opposed to the expansion of the detention centre,
and calling for its closure. The non-symbolic decision came a few weeks ago from Cherwell District Council (I believe) when they refused planning permission for the expansion. This won't stop the expansion, as the Home Office can appeal to John Prescott - no nepotism there (!) - but it will delay it for up to a year, which is good news.

Mainly though it's good for local campaigners to point to the support of local
authorities, and it lets the detainees know, in some small way, that many people in
Oxford are opposed to government policies.

I'm not going to address the points about Leeds Green Party because they don't have
much bearing on a motion that Oxford Green Party got through about Campsfield. Judge
us on what we do in Oxford - I can't control what is going on elsewhere.

Matt

What do you mean "Suffice to say that as a result of a Green Party motion"? That doesn't suffice at all.

There are only six Green Councillors in a council currently of 47. Without other parties, or people within them, backing these sorts of motions they wouldn't stand a chance.

The credit goes to everyone of all parties who voted for the motion, not just the Green Party. I know you're what passes for a careerist in the Green Party (deputy leader of the group at 20, etc), but can you perhaps learn to give credit where credit's due to other parties too, and engage in grown-up politics?

Matt Sellwood is employing double standards, which perhaps shouldn't be surprising from a Green Party politician but I still find rather sad.

What do I mean? Well, where the Labour Party (not in Oxford) do something he doesn't like, and neither does the Oxford Labour Party, he attacks Oxford Labour Party for supporting a party that does such things. For example, attacking Labour Councillor Muir for the national Labour government's policies:

"I will say [...] that most of these problems are caused by the Labour national
government, Rick, of whom you are a supporter... "

But where the Green Party, outside Oxford, does things that other people, like Cleopatra, attack, he claims it isn't appropriate for him to comment:

"I'm not going to address the points about Leeds Green Party [...] Judge
us on what we do in Oxford - I can't control what is going on elsewhere."

This isn't a new and better approach to politics. This is hypocrisy made flesh.

Boris.

...of personal attacks against Matt Sellwood? I know Matt and he works hard to improve conditions here in Oxford for grumpy little swots like you. When was the last time you did something useful?

You do make a good point about Leeds, to an extent. Greens working with the Tories is despicable and I was appalled when I found out about it. But the actions of Leeds Green party don't have any effect on planning permission, Campsfield, how councillors spend their money, or anything that has to do with Oxford. The actions of the national Labour party do. Rick Muir should dissassociate himself with policies that compromise his ability to do his job as a councillor.

That said, could you come down off your soapbox now? The Campsfield motion was a Green Party motion - Matt drafted it and put it forward, the Green Party supported it, and the other parties didn't stand in the way. Well done them, medals all round. Whatever axe you have to grind, there are more constructive (and less irritating) ways to grind it than flopping all over the Oxford IMC looking like a twat.

So, questioning Matt Sellwood's judgement is a personal attack, and asking "When was the last time you did something useful?" isn't?

More double standards from the Green Party & its fellow-travellers. Ho hum. I thought they were supposed to be vaguely progressive and stand for integrity in politics, I suppose we all make mistakes.

I work for a number of community groups in Oxfordshire, thankyou.

As regards your points on the GReens and Labour: being part of a party, a party capable of taking power rather than a local party of protest, entails having things done in the name of your party with which you don't agree.

That does not in itself constitute a cause for resignation, unless you are painfully stupid, because it is still possible to be a member of a party and believe it by far the best vehicle for delivering the social transformation you want to see, and yet think occasionally that it does stupid things.

Refusing to associate with anyone or any organization that has policies with which you disagree is not a recipe for political integrity but for political impotence.

You add "Rick Muir should dissassociate himself with policies that compromise his ability to do his job as a councillor." Of course he should, if that's how he feels. And he has. He went on the anti-war marches, you can see that from his website. But that doesn't mean he should leave the Labour Party, or that his position is inconsistent.

Then you say
"The Campsfield motion was a Green Party motion - Matt drafted it and put it forward"

It's not exactly hard, is it? If improving people's lives were as easy as drafting the odd uncontroversial motion we'd have been living in the Promised Land for decades. Real political process is won inch by inch: as Kolakowski said somewhere or other: "democratic socialism requires, in addition to commitment to certain basic moral values, [...] an obstinate will to erode by inches the conditions which produce avoidable suffering, oppression, wars, racial and national greed and vindictive envy". At the level of local government, that means talking to officers about decisions which are difficult: becoming well-informed and being aware of the pain that certain decisions cause whichever way they go, being aware of the subtely and nuancing of decisions that at first sight look simple, and above all knowing whose interests you are there to favour and keeping them at the front of your mind all the time.

It means coming up with cost-neutral budgetary improvements to deliver social change, pace by pace on the march to a better and more equal society. JCR-style motion drafting is a luxury, something good, but not something to be especially proud of by itself, especially not when it's not your votes that are going to deliver any progress the motion calls for.

You say "Well done them, medals all round."
Quite. That was my point. It isn't a Green Party triumph in any sense other than it is also a Liberal Democrat or Labour Party triumph.

You ask "Whatever axe you have to grind, there are more constructive (and less irritating) ways to grind it than flopping all over the Oxford IMC looking like a twat."
I tell you, I dislike parties - any party - claiming credit for achievements not their own.

I grew up in the USSR in the days when everything that went well was claimed as the result of Communist Party intervention, and everything that went badly was the result of the Americans, in some way or another. To be honest, I expected better from Matt Sellwood, of all people, than this sort of facile posturing.

As for "looking like a twat", if that's the only sort of debate you can manage, it hardly says much for your intellectual and political skills. Why not go one step further away from enaging with arguments, and deport me to Siberia?

Boris Antonov.

I feel I should step into this discussion before it becomes really unpleasant.

One of the reasons I enjoy debating issues with Labour councillors like Rick Muir,
Dan Paskins and Mary Clarkson (among others) is that they are civil and make their
points with respect. Referring to me as 'hypocrisy made flesh' is hardly likely to
contribute to that sort of an atmosphere. It is exactly this sort of ludicrously
over-the-top reaction to the most innocent of posts that means people are driven away
from posting on this newswire.

I don't think that referring to the Campsfield motion as a 'Green Party motion' is
unfair or inaccurate - it WAS a Green Party motion, drafted by us, proposed by me and
seconded by another Green councillor. Yes, the other parties voted for it, for which
I give them due credit, but I don't think I'm pushing the boundaries of the English
language in claiming at least some credit for making it happen.

Boris seems to be irate at my questioning of Labour councillors and their policies -
I hate to break it to him, but thats part of my job. I am an opposition councillor - I
am duty bound to question and scrutinise, to always ask 'why' and 'when'. I am sorry
that he thinks me childish or naive in my belonging to the Greens...but that seems
based in some sort of personal animus towards my party than any really reasoned
position. For some reason, he believes that because I have put a motion forward on
Campsfield, that this is all I am willing or capable of doing. Far from it - I am
engaged in advising a number of community groups on how to access appropriate City
Council grants, am searching for solutions to the problems of air pollution in the
city centre, am working with campaigning groups to promote safer cycling in the city,
am working for the preservation of Oxford's green spaces, and a whole host of other
things. The Campsfield motion was just one of a host of measures - but one that I thought
OxIMC readers would be interested in.

I am well aware that social change can be a difficult, confusing and complex process -perhaps more than Boris gives me credit for. However, I am happy that Oxford City
Council is now against the expansion of Campsfield and committed to its closure...and
everyone who is against that monstrosity of a detention centre should share that feeling.
I am proud that I have done a little to help achieve that...and I will continue to do
the same - never underestimating the difficulties, but never ceasing to ask 'why'
either.

My sincere apologies for the long justification, but it is a hard thing to be personally
attacked on three separate occasions in one day on the newswire. If I have done something
to incur Boris' wrath, then I apologise...but I'd ask that he have a little respect
for my motives, and then perhaps I might be more inclined to post up my City Council
news here. Is it not a good thing that I am at least trying to give people my
perspective on things? After all, this is a place for 'passionate tellings of the truth'.

Matt

P.S. For the record Boris, I have condemned Leeds Green Party's decision, several times,
very vocally. I don't think that it compares to bombing innocent civilians in Iraq,
but I'm not happy about it and have said so. Just didn't want to derail this newsitem -
but that ship has already sailed....

Guys, guys, guys. Surely wee can debate the merits of people's positions without personal insults. Particularly in relation to two such committed activists. Calling Matt S a "careerist" is just Alice in Wonderland absurdism; asserting that Rick Muir is personally responsible for the actions of the Blair government reminds me more of the judicial process in the Soviet Union, circa 1937. Why do you feel the need to spit bile at progressive people in the public eye? Could it possibly be because they're doing something to fight racism, war and so on, and you ain't?

Mike :-)

Dear Matt,

I have a great deal of respect for many of the Green Councillors here in Oxford, yourself included. It nonetheless makes me sad to see the Green Party engaging in what seems to me to be fairly petty political pointscoring. I have been on "Close Campsfield' demonstrations in my time and it is an issue I feel strongly about, and not one I feel any of the political parties locally has a monopoly of glory on.

Sure you have some credit, but a motion is not difficult and to be honest if you'd posted something reflecting some genuine help you'd offered recently to Close Campsfield activists, rather than something which you admit yourself is "mostly a PR thing". It's a bit sad if you think what IMC readers are going to want to know about is the PR stuff (your para 4, last sentence) rather than the genuine social progress you are working towards all these things, don't you think?

My anger was directed at your line "suffice to say..." - I'm afraid to me it really doesn't suffice for a group that doesn't have a majority on the council, which at the moment is all of the groups. I, for example, wouyld be interested to know which councillors (if any) voted *against* the Campsfield motion - perhaps you could let us all know?

Sure, all credit to you for bothering to bring the motion, but since by your own admission it achieves very little and since it wasn't your vote or your Group that made sure it passed, it doesn;t sound all that great an achievement to be writing party-political press-releases about.

As for the hypocrisy charge, I'm afraid I feel that in the context of what you were saying it was perfectly fair. I feel strongly that if it isn't good enough for you that Cllr Muir dissociates himself from Labour Party policies he disagrees with, it shouldn't be good enough for you to merely dissociate yourself from Green Party actions of which you disapprove. To me Cllr Muir's attitude seems perfectly fair.

I am glad that you have now come off the fence and condemned the Leeds Green Party: good - perhaps you'll give the Labour councillors you mention in Oxford less of a hard time about the evils of the Blair Government? : )

As for my dislike of the Green Party, it's more disillusionment. Green politics is terribly important, and yet (ceratibnly at a national level in this country) the best the Green movement seems to be able to come up with is a sort of sanctimonious moralizing that puts people (myself included, not that I have a vote as a non-EU citizen) off.

No mass political movement was ever built on the back of the vaguely patronizing attitude to outsiders that the Green movement in this country seems, sadly, to exude. A movement whose leading spokesman in the national media, George Monbiot, produces articles which would scarcely pass muster at school-level Politics, is in a bit of a mess, which for a movement with an important role to play is a dreadful pity.

Of course opposition is there to ask why and when, and of course that is a deeply important function. I am not clear quite what I have siad which has given you the impression I believe otherwise. That is exactly why I feel that choosing to draw attention to yourself and the Green Party on IMC for doing something you yourself admit to be little more than a PR stunt that commanded cross-party support, seems, to me at least, a belittlement of your office and calling. But you, presumably, disagree. I think we may have to agree to differ on that.

In passing, I didn't call you (Matt Sellwood) a careerist, I described you as "what passes for a careerist in the Green Party". It was not intended unpleasantly so much as affectionately about the sort of people who get involved in small progressive groups in general - I am well aware that the Green Party is not an organization one joins if one is, in any normal sense of the word, a political careerist. My apologies if that remark caused especial offence.

Boris.