I had a printed note on yellow paper through the door a few days ago. It was from Sue Ledwith, apparently the Labour candidate in North Ward. Perhaps printing her stuff on Lib Dem yellow is a cunning way to confuse the voters and pick up votes meant for someone else.
“Sorry we missed you”, it said. The last time I saw Sue Ledwith, I nearly hit her, so it as well that I missed her this time.
She was then (this was back in 2003) a vociferous advocate of the skate area then planned for Aristotle Lane Rec, and she stood up at a North Area meeting to speak for the yoofs who would benefit from it. The strongest ground of objection (there were several) was that its noise would make life a misery for those who lived near it. That was a point of no importance for Sue Ledwith. The people living on the estate beyond the proposed skate area should not mind the noise from the skate-boarders, she said, because they already had the noise from the railway.
The same stupid comment had already been made by a rather dim Labour councillor from another Ward. There is, of course, a world of difference between the occasional rumble of a train and the sharp crack of skateboards being flung to the ground for 12 hours a day. That was not the main reason for wanting to hit the woman. That was because she lives in Southmoor Road, comfortably out of earshot of the proposed skate area. The misery she was so keen to impose on the residents of Waterside would not have affected her.
This is an example of what is now known as Balls-Cooper syndrome. Balls-Cooper syndrome is a strong desire to help the disadvantaged at the expense of others whilst avoiding the burden for oneself. It is named, of course, for NuLabour’s “golden couple”, the unpleasant Ed Balls and his wife Yvette Cooper, the architects respectively of tax credits and home improvement packs. They are enthusiasts for tax impositions on the middle classes whilst having their own noses so deep in the trough of public funds that they are immune from the effects. The £600,000 they drew between them last year is, I assume, the reason they are called the “golden couple”. I am sure they were entitled to every penny under the generous terms which MPs give each other. £600,000 is anyway small beer compared with the money they have wasted on “initiatives” of one sort or another.
Waste is, of course, a good reason for voting for anyone except Labour in Oxford. Another is that what we really need here is a rise in the average IQ of those who make decisions on our behalf. I have no idea if Sue Ledwith is any brighter than her comment would suggest, but she teaches labour and trade union studies and women’s studies, which may be a pointer.
Her little bit of yellow paper, whilst full of the same anodyne guff as the rest of them, does at least identify the candidate. Today’s post brings six sides of paper from the Lib Dems which leave me no wiser as to the name of the person who is soliciting my vote. I think the Rat Lady is standing for the Conservatives – she is Dr somebody or other which presumably means she can at least spell her name, an advance on some of those who stand in the Labour interest. I imagine that sooner or later some Green will shake the twigs out his hair, identify himself as a candidate, and tell me how he plans to force me to live by his standards.
It is no wonder that we have all lost interest in politics. Like last time, the winner will be the one who is despised least by those few who bother to vote.