Dr. Jack J. Matthews
  • Home
  • Academia
    • Overview
    • Publications
    • Talks
    • Poster Presentations
    • Teaching
    • Media Work
    • Collaborators
  • Consultancy
  • Politics
    • Politics
    • Student Politics >
      • Oxford
      • NUS
  • Boards
  • Blog
  • Contact

Address to Codsall High School Presentation Evening

10/11/2017

2 Comments

 
A few people have asked for the text of my speech from Presentation Evening 2017 at my old school, Codsall High, so I thought I'd put it up here:

Introduction

Good evening ladies and gentlemen, and congratulations to the students of 2017.

Tradition dictates that at this moment someone of note stands here and delivers an uplifting and aspirational speech, propelling these young men and women to great things.

However, unlike what is usually expected at this point, I am not a person of note.

I have not toiled every morning with training and exercise, propelling me to gold at the Olympic Games

I have not shown the courage and determination of those who have overcome serious illnesses

And I have not got a rags to riches story that took me from Wolverhampton to leading a tech startup worth millions.

I am just a scientist from South Staffordshire, whose phone number Mr Johnson still has – and so I find myself back at Codsall High, 10 years after I was here, collecting my A-Level certificates.

Realism

This is the part where I’m meant to motivate you all with inspiring anecdotes from my life. But before we get to that, we must first lay a foundation of brutal realism – he says, as the Senior Leadership Team turn in their seats fearful of the direction their chosen speaker has taken!

A sense of realism is import in promoting achievement – whether that target is your task at work for the day, or your life-long dream. Inspirational Quotes alone will get you nowhere – it’s never the successful people who are endless sharing them on facebook!

So here it comes: Life. Isn’t. Fair. The best person for the job doesn’t always get picked. Good people have bad things happen to them. We still live in a society where prejudice and discrimination exist
.
Some would take what I have said to be an excuse to give up. That if the cards are stacked against you, there’s no point playing the game. On the contrary, the lesson is that you have to learn to battle on, keep trying, and succeed. To be the kind of person I mentioned at the start of my remarks, a survivor, an Olympic champions, or a tech millionaire, you have to be able to put failure and loss behind you, and keep going. So my message to all of you, whatever your future plans, is accept the unfairness early, and battle on and keep trying. And while human nature may mean our world is never perfect – we, and yes, that means you too, can strive to chip away at it and make it a little better.

Surround yourself with great people, and seize every opportunity.

However, brutal realism isn’t going to get you anywhere on its own. Being surrounded by amazing and supportive people makes a real difference. I was lucky to go to some excellent schools with teachers who pushed and encouraged me. Now the students in the room may not remember the teachers I am about to mention (maybe the parents will!), but they really are the unsung heroes of our communities, and so are worthy of our time this evening.

My first school was St. Chad’s in Pattingham – then led by a fierce, but fair head teacher – Mavis Fox. Jane Nicklin too, who some here may have known when she took over from Mrs Fox, was key to encouraging me to pursue my love of maths and science at a very early age. I still remember clearly the day, in Year 2, when she decided to push me ahead in maths, and ensure I was always challenged.

At Bilbrook Middle I was further encouraged by great teachers like Miss Scott and Mr Woolridge, Mrs Noble who improved my reading and writing by bribing me to read Harry Potter for a treasure trove of house points, Mrs Londsale who fostered by love of the biological sciences, and Mrs Barlow who taught us not only French but a sense of justice and fairness. They were all ably led by the superb Welshman, Mr Hughes (I can see a theme here Mr Harding!).

Then at our fine school here, it was names like Mrs Lloyd in Geography, Dr Green in Physics, Miss Jones in Maths, Mrs Brakenridge in Chemistry, Mr Galley in Music, and, and I’m glad to say she’s still here teaching, Miss Martin – who managed to push me over the line with my English GCSE – a grade without which I wouldn’t have gone on to study at Oxford. We should also remember that great head at the top – Ted Liddy, a man who promoted not only academic, but also sporting and vocational excellence.

It may seem over the top to list these influential people – but it is right that at a time when we are celebrating achievement, we recognise that we don’t get there by ourselves. The educational excellence highlighted here tonight is the product of both your hard work, and a constant drip feed of support from those around you. In recognition of those who have propelled us to where we are now, not only at this school, but at all those we attended beforehand, and indeed the families who are with us tonight, please join me in a round of applause as a show of thanks:

As you go forth into the next stages of your life, be sure to surround yourself by those who challenge and push you forward, and join institutions and companies who employ and invest is those kinds of people.
As well as ensuring you have a supportive environment around you – there’s one other piece of advice I’d like to recommend to you – grabbing every opportunity that comes your way. If we accept my first point, that life isn’t fair, and that sometimes you won’t get what you actually deserve – then it is only through repeatedly seizing upon all and every opportunity that you will reach your goals. Plus you can never know where those opportunities will take you:

Journey Through Oxford
When I was a student here, it was suggested to me that I consider applying to Oxford – something that was, at the time, an unusual move for a student at Codsall High. So I gave it a go, and following my interview, was admitted to study Earth Sciences at St. Peter’s College. You may have heard a lot about Oxford admissions recently in the news – but here’s the fact that you won’t be told: many more of our state school students would get into Oxford, if only they applied. We need more students from schools like ours to give the opportunity of an application to Oxford a go – it can really change your life.

At the end of my first year at Oxford, an email was sent around the department by a postgraduate student, asking people to apply to become his field assistant for a 6 weeks expenses paid expedition to Newfoundland, Canada. Many of my fellow first years didn’t apply – thinking it would definitely go to one of the more experienced students in the years above. But I gave it a go. At interview it transpired that the trip leader grew up down the road from here in Seisdon, and was an avid Wolves supporter. But more importantly, while at this school I had done two pieces of geography coursework on the Long Mynd near Church Stretton in Shropshire – an area of geology of equivalent age to the rocks of Newfoundland, and so of interest to my interviewer. And two months later, I was standing with him on the coast of Eastern Newfoundland, studying some of the most amazing fossils known to science. You’ve got to be in it, to win it – seize every opportunity.

Later in that field trip, having been joined by Professor Martin Brasier (a man who became my mentor and to whom I owe so much), we were exploring the coastline of the Bonavista Peninsula – site of John Cabot’s first discovery of North America by a European in 1497. We came upon a fossil unlike all the others in the area. Following years of study, we finally published and named that fossil, Haootia quadriformis, in 2014, describing its delicate structures that represent the oldest evidence of muscular tissues ever found. However our scientific peers have now gone further than our original reserved report, and Haootia is now regarded as the oldest known conclusive animal fossil in geological record.

I think it is fair to say, that without Jane Nicklin pushing me in Year 2, I wouldn’t have been in a position for the teachers at this school to propel me to our countries greatest University. Without having given an application to Oxford a go, I wouldn’t have been in a position to apply to go to Newfoundland. Without going to Newfoundland, I wouldn’t have been part of the team that found the oldest fossilised animal, and without that, I likely wouldn’t have be admitted for and then awarded a Doctorate in Earth Sciences from Oxford last year. Without a doctorate, I would have not been able to take the opportunity to design and start my current research project – where I get to travel the world, combining my love of science and politics, to inform policy on how we manage, promote, and protect, our most important global fossil sites – so that local economies can develop thriving geotourism industries, while ensuring our natural history is properly conserved.

The next few years will define the direction of the rest of your life. Don’t be a passive traveler in the journey of life, simply going where the wind is blowing at that particular time. Instead, pick your own destination, track your own path, and yes, accept that sometimes storms will come your way that blow you off course. But soldier on, and with the right people around you, and the determination to seize every opportunity, however slim the chance of success, you’ll surely reach your goals, in whatever field that may be.

Congratulations once again to all those here this evening, and thank you for having me back in our great school, this evening.
2 Comments

Speech to Conservative Party Conference 2017

10/10/2017

0 Comments

 
At Party Conference 2017, I gave a short speech about the importance of funding scientific research. You can watch the speech on youtube:
0 Comments

EU Referendum: My Case for Leave

22/6/2016

3 Comments

 
Picture
There must be very few people who can be happy with how the EU Referendum campaigns have gone over the past week or so. Certainly, as someone who is voting Leave, I can in no way endorse everything the Vote Leave campaign has said. This is why I want to make my own case for voting Leave, addressing some of the big issues, and others that are important to me.

Unsavoury Allies
I’ve been disappointed to see people almost guilt tripping undecided voters into voting Remain, because Leave is supported by people like Nigel Farage. I get no glee from being on the same side of the debate as this man, but let’s look at the maths – there are two sides to this debate, there will be unsavoury people on both sides. Indeed, in the past week, the Remain vote has been endorsed by the Government of Hungary – run by a party that has been widely criticised for eroding democratic checks and balances and concentrating power for themselves through constitutional reforms. The Fidesz Party in Hungary represent everything many of my Remain friends campaign against. But this doesn’t matter. There are good, honest, and honourable reasons to vote Remain – the actions of Hungarian President Victor Orbán don’t change this. I am proud to support a campaign bringing together people I respect from across the political spectrum – I won’t be shamed away from my choice by those who seek to paint all Leavers as members of UKIP.

Science
One of my biggest surprises of the campaign has been the extent to which my scientific colleagues – usually silent on political issues – have got engaged. But more than this, it has been the extent of misinformation being used within the scientific community; a group of people meant to be dealing with facts. Erasmus studentships do not require EU membership. European Research Council (ERC) funding does not require EU membership: 16 non-EU countries take part in ERC funding, and countries like Switzerland and Israel are some of the most successful at receiving grants. The ERC tagline at the top of their website is “Supporting top researchers from anywhere in the world”. The scientists I know have been rightly skeptical about Government interference in research and Universities, whether it be the REF, TEF, or Impact reports. What I don’t understand is why this healthy skepticism disappears when it comes to politics at a European level? Fundamentally, I don’t think the exchange of ideas and collaboration that supports scientific research requires political union.

Our Place in the World
Many voting Remain have suggested that our influence and strength is magnified by being within the EU. That, within the EU, we are a big fish within a regional pond, and people listen to us. But this fails to recognise that whether we like it or not, we are part of a global ocean of businesses and ideas – and our regional ‘pond’ is only getting smaller. We can turn our back on the world, and remain with the illusion of being an influential big fish within the reality of an economic pond that is drying up, or we can leave and embrace the entire world, all its people, and every opportunity.

This is about more than opportunities for British people – it’s also about what we can offer to the rest of the world, especially the most forgotten. Immigration has been a key issue of the Referendum, and one that has not been conducted well. For me, I am in favour of immigration – it clearly benefits our economy and enriches our society. But limits are logical; only through controls can we ensure that enhanced public services match growing populations, that skills shortages are filled, and that public support is maintained. Moreover, by maintaining public support, strong public services, and a vibrant economy, our country is able to provide for a greater number of refugees from around the world. I want a level playing field, where the best, brightest, and most requiring of our help can come to the UK. If you want to control immigration, this level playing field can’t be built from within the EU.  

There’s an entire wonderful world out there – only through voting Leave can we be a full part of its future.

Democracy
For me this is the biggest question of the Referendum: What is the best way to govern our country in an ever changing world? While I don’t think I would now go so far as to call the EU undemocratic, it is certainly far from the system of Government I would like. I want power as close to the people as possible – and the EU has become the opposite of this. I want Government that can react quickly to issues as they arise and deliver solutions to genuine problems. Let’s looks at the problems surrounding the close of voter registration for this very referendum. Within a matter of days, Westminster had put forward, debated, and passed a new Statutory Instrument to extend the registration deadline – this simply wouldn’t happen at an EU level. With the necessity to get the agreement of 28 countries, the processes are long and laborious, preventing rapid response to pressing problems.

But more than this, I have deep issues with a body that calls itself the EU Parliament, but does not empowered those the people elect to be, what I would consider, Parliamentarians. For the EU Parliament can only approve, reject, or amend legislation. It cannot propose it. I want a democracy where the people’s representatives can propose change, and if the majority agree, bring it into effect. Where one individual, sent by their peers, can change the lives of many for the better. Great freedoms have been won through this process in Westminster, with individual Members of Parliament proposing a change to the law that makes a huge difference. The Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965, the Abortion Act 1967, and the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 are just a few of the laws on the statute books today because our Members of Parliament don’t just vote on the law – they make it too. This can’t happen in the EU Parliament. We can’t send our representatives to change EU law – or repeal old laws. This is no way to govern.

Some have promised reform, but I can’t believe it will be forthcoming. If the Prime Minister wasn’t able to deliver reforms in the run up to Britain possible leaving, then I can’t see it happening after a vote to Remain.
I believe Britain will be better of economically, and be more global in its perspectives if we vote Leave on Thursday. But most importantly, I believe we will be more democratic, with power closer to the people, and with voters having more influence over the decisions that affect their lives. This is so important, that even if I thought Brexit would cause a recession, I would still vote for it, for I would rather be a poor yet powerful voter, than rich with little influence to create change.
​
For a greater democracy, and a country that embraces all the world, I would encourage you to vote Leave.

3 Comments

Speech on NUS Referendum to OUSU Council

28/4/2016

1 Comment

 
The following speech was given to OUSU Council in 1st Week of Trinity Term, 2016, in favour of holding an NUS Referendum. Some sections were dropped due to time constraints, but the entire planned speech is given here:

Friends,

I rise today, nearly six months after my expected final speech to this body, to offer a few thoughts on this topic that has been so close to my heart for so long. The issue is too important to stay away.
As some of you will be aware, 2 years ago we attempted to allow all students the chance to decide on Oxford’s relationship with the National Union of Students. That opportunity was robbed from them. For reasons that are now a matter of public record within OUSU, I sought to overturn the result, following the discovery of evidence proving the vote had been rigged. Thankfully, the result was declared void – that is to say, in Governance, it is as if the referendum never happened. To this day, the students of this University have yet to be granted a free and fair poll through which they can express their opinion.

There are some who have argued that the NUS is no different from OUSU – and that if we accept the decisions of this Council, comprised of representatives, then so too must we respect the validity of NUS Conference. However this fails to recognise the important differences between the systems, such as the ability of any student to come and speak at this body, as opposed to the remote and inaccessible NUS Conference. But more importantly, should there be a build-up of poor decisions at our Council, once a year we hand directly to every student the power to reinvigorate our democracy with fresh ideas through our Sabbatical Officer elections. This is not so for the NUS. There is no direct democratic contact with the students they claim to represent. Their pool of political thought has become foetid, stagnant, and distant from the fast flowing stream of ideas we see every day in the students of this University. It is therefore down to us to offer our fellow undergraduates and graduates an unmediated channel through which they can test the waters, and consent to their continued association with the NUS. The time has come for there to be a referendum.

Those who stand in the way of devolving this important and topical decision into the hands of every member of this Student Union need to answer why they do not trust the very people they speak for here tonight.
​
Upholding the democratic values of student Government has been my primary aim across the 86 meetings I have attended of this Council. And over those 8 years I often heard people talk of the principle of “empowering students”. Well now is the time, more than ever, to live by that creed and allow everyone a choice in setting our collective destiny. Anything less would be a betrayal of the trust placed in every one of us.

1 Comment

OUSU Election 2015: Further Discussion

18/11/2015

1 Comment

 
Following my previous post, questions have been raised about my comments on Jack Hampton's management of his relationship with College. The following is a reply to a Facebook comment from Daniel Templeton.

---

Hi Daniel,

Thanks for getting in touch. I’m more than happy to debate these points. Firstly I would note that the issue you have raised below was just one strand of justifying my opinion – I would welcome discussion of my other points also.

The post by Chloe asserted that I had not made comment on Jack’s dealings with college immediately after the meeting. This is because at the time it would have been inappropriate to do so. Just as it has been rightly raised that Jack has a democratic mandate to follow – so did I, in that I had no jurisdiction in St. Catz. I also believe it would have been improper for a sitting Sabbatical Officer to have said anything along those lines. However, I have since been released from these burdens of Office, and have therefore decided to speak my mind.

The matter of not having a mandate to negotiate is a worthy one, but could this very same argument be used to ask the question “Does an Officer have a mandate to stick to a particular view of where the Common Room should be going, and not discuss middle ground with College?”. Because, as I mention below (if I am correct, which I may not be), what St. Catherine’s JCR has now  is a middle ground, not true independence. The ‘set in stone nature’ of the discussions meant that on a number of occasions I had to mediate the debate to prevent it deteriorating into stalemate. Students don’t win when we fail to engage with those who hold power – indeed, it is when we allow the dialogue to proceed, putting aside but in no way forgetting our strongly held opinions, that we make progress.

I believe this is exactly what I managed to steer the meeting towards – and the minutes should show this. Once we had separated the issue of legal independence, with that of financial independence, we were able to get the Fellow to explain their legal reasoning for the College's position. At this point I was able to argue that the Fellow was disregarding a particular Statutory Instrument, and that their argument was therefore mute. We could have sat there and simply said that what college had done was wrong (which it was!), but by changing style College were forced to reveal their reasoning, and this was found to be unsound.

As I mention above, I would ask the simple question of does St. Catherine’s JCR have independence? I may well be wrong here as the situation could have developed since I was last involved, but it is not true that unlike the majority of other Common Rooms, St. Catherine’s JCR continues to be legally regarded as part of the College? While the financial control has been restored to what it was a few years ago, Fellows still hold the legal right (and responsibility) to overturn JCR decisions. As I say, the situation may have developed since I was involved, but I would be interested to understand what ‘Independence’ actually means.

Jack is a good guy, and his long term commitment to bettering the lives of his students is clear. This is self-evident. But commitment isn’t enough. People may say my negotiation example is just an opinion, and the REF and Green Paper points are isolated incidents, but I think they are more indicative. I will illustrate this with one final example that I haven’t previously mentioned.

In the run up to the meetings with St. Catherine’s College, I spent a great deal of time, on the phone and via email, answering Jack’s various questions and providing my views on various college proposals. This is exactly what OUSU is there for. Much of the discussion hinged around arguments regarding the Education Act 1994 and the Charities Acts. I was very clear, indeed stating it conspicuously in the emails, that while the points I made come from many years’ experience dealing with these issues, what I had said could not be considered legal advice. I later discovered that my points has been used to support the JCRs case to college (which is absolutely fine) but had been specifically referred to as legal advice. This not only put me in a very awkward and potentially risky position, but the risk could have also extended to the Common Room.

We’re trying to pick a President who can represent 21,000 students to a University governed by some of the greatest minds alive today. Nothing short of the best will do.
1 Comment

OUSU Elections 2015: They're all good people, but are they good candidates?

17/11/2015

4 Comments

 

Below is an unedited copy of the final version of an opinion piece I submitted to Cherwell. It was rejected this morning for being "too one-sided". This after me being clear from the outset the I would be "opinionated and not pull my munches". So I once again find myself publishing something  on the OUSU Elections that Cherwell refuses to. Democracy is about having an opinion, and testing ideas. We can't do that if we silence the conversation.

---


This is without a doubt the most boring OUSU election I have ever seen. We have somehow managed to reach 6th Week without an ounce of spice to perk up the whole affair. The only exciting thing to happen so far was a Cherwell Broadcasting interview with the Presidential candidates from a skip in Somerville. So who’s to blame? Some responsibility must lie with the candidates themselves. For the most part I believe they are living in this mistaken world where being on a slate is a bad thing, and therefore they haven’t put the effort into finding candidates to join their teams. At least I hope that’s the reason, because if it isn’t, then they simply don’t care, and that means we’re all truly stuffed.

But what about the Press? Sure as night follows day, student journalists will take the easy option with a story. So while we have had an average amount of coverage, it’s mostly been bland regurgitations of candidates’ manifestos, with little analysis digging down in to the issues. Like a post-Park End chip sans a sprinkle of salt, it really doesn’t satisfy.

But fear not – your democratic seasoning has arrived. 

I’m going to focus on the contested Sabbatical Officer positions, because frankly Marina, Beth, and Orla have shown themselves to be pretty well set to serve in their Vice Presidencies (Graduates, Charities and Community, and Women, respectively).

So we move to the candidates for Vice President (Welfare and Equal Opportunities). Jenny Walker is running as part of the Welfair slate, and Sandy Downs is running as part of the BackJack slate – both have showed a deep commitment to the issues they are discussing, but for me it is Jessy Parker Humphreys, running independently, who has shone the brightest. What sets Jessy apart is their clear communication of not only the issues, but how they will get stuff done. Their ideas are bold and brave, but these are accompanied by a pragmatic outlook on what can actually be achieved within the Oxford system. Jessy will face a tough election as an independent, but their unique brand of radicalism rooted in reality is what students need, and they deserve to be a strong contender.

There are two candidates for Vice President (Access and Academic Affairs); Duncan Shepherd of the BackJack slate, and Eden Bailey of the IOU slate. Both have served as representatives on Divisional Boards. Duncan has been a JCR President, and Eden (who ran for the same position last year) has experience in a number of access schemes. I’ve worked a little with both of them, and they equally show the ability to process vast amounts of information, recognise the salient points, and present them in a way a University Committee would be responsive to. They have different personal politics, and different priorities when it comes to policies, but I would be equally happy to have either one take office. You should have a read of their manifestos and decide for yourself.

Finally, we have the two candidates for President; Jack Hampton of the BackJack slate, and Eden Tanner of The Big Picture. Eden is the current MCR President at St. John’s, and has a set of decent policies on providing training for Common Rooms, Societies, and Campaigns, and bringing students together through technology – building on her experience with the First Response App. But the policy I want to focus on is her promise to produce a ‘Welfare Vision’. Similar to the ‘Education Vision’ that I worked on with former VP Access and Academic Affairs, James Blythe, this would be a strategic document, setting out beliefs of the student body on this topic and the long term campaigning points we will focus on. It all sounds very sensible, and that’s because it is. So sensible that the current Sabbatical Officers are already planning to do this, and will have it all wrapped up before the next President even takes office. And Eden knows this. It is also disappointing that Eden’s wish to remove college autonomy so policies can be implemented centrally has not been discussed more widely. I’m not saying it is wrong, but it is a radical change that would have a deep impact on how our University is governed. It deserves much more scrutiny and questioning.

Jack Hampton, former JCR President at St. Catherine’s, has a manifesto that focuses almost exclusively on the matter of mental health provision, with some minor points including visiting every Common Room each term (that’s 74 meetings in a term of 55 days).  Mental ill-health is certainly a big issue, but Jack seems to have forgotten that this is also a topic very close to the heart of the current President, Becky Howe, who campaigned on a similar platform last year. To paint the picture that little is being done at the moment is disingenuous. But last year’s candidates aren’t the only thing Jack has forgotten – for his manifesto proudly states that he is “currently the OUSU representative on the Student Sub-Committee of the University Education Committee”. Except that he isn’t. He was, but he isn’t anymore. You may think I’m being petty, but precision is the name of the game when you’re a Sabbatical Officer – you can’t afford to forget which committees you do and don’t sit on.

Allied to this, at the recent hustings in Wadham, Jack had no idea of what was in the Higher Education Green Paper (this despite his slate retweeting an article about it a few days before). To put it in context, the Green Paper is the most radical set of reforms to be proposed to Higher Education in at least 20 years, and will probably be the single issue that dominates the 2016/17 Sabbatical year. And then, at the Central Hustings, we were told how the biggest issue facing graduates is funding (ok!) and that this can be solved by helping graduates apply to the Research Excellence Framework (No. Just No). The REF is the mechanism by which central government funds research at Universities. It has nothing to do with graduate students. You can’t apply to it. If I had said that in University Council, they would have never taken me seriously ever again.
​
For me, when I’m picking who I feel is best suited to being a Sabbatical Officer, it is less about the manifesto points, and more about who can be an effective advocate for students on the University stage. And I can’t, in all good conscience, having written what I have just now, and having seen first-hand Jack negotiate with his college, say that he is cut out for University committee life. Yes, I haven’t seen Eden in similar circumstances, and she has made an almighty gaffe with the ‘Welfare Vision’, but she knows her stuff, has shown a passion to engage every student, and will always give students the voice they deserve.

There is something I need to make very clear in conclusion, and this is a point often forgotten from elections in Oxford. Jack, Eden, and indeed all the Sabbatical candidates are running in this election for honourable reasons, with the best interests of students at heart – I have no doubt of that. But that cannot prevent us from asking serious questions of all of them.
​
We are about to elect 6 Sabbatical Officers to serve through one of the most important years in recent times. They will have to deal with the outcomes of a wide-ranging review of Higher Education, the implementation of the Prevent counter-terrorism strategy, any reforms the new Vice-Chancellor wishes to impose, the effects of Oxford’s upcoming Quality Assurance audit, and anything else that might crop up. These challenges need a committed and qualified team, the question is, who are you going to choose?
 
4 Comments

The Young Conservatives time has come again

7/11/2015

0 Comments

 
Written with Luke Springthorpe, for Conservative Home, this piece can be found here; www.conservativehome.com/platform/2015/11/luke-springthorpe-and-jack-j-matthews-the-young-conservatives-ti_me-has-come-again.html
0 Comments

OUSU Elections 2015 – Some initial thoughts

6/11/2015

1 Comment

 
Picture
So the manifestos have finally been released, and it’s a mixed bag of surprise and disappointment. The most noticeable thing is the number of positions with few or even no candidates standing. Due to lack of candidates, we will not be electing anyone for the following;

Clubs and Societies Support Officer
Common Room Support Officer
Graduate Academic Affairs Officer
Graduate International Students’ Officer
Graduate LGBTQ Officer
Graduate Welfare Officer
Graduate Women’s Officer
Mature Students’ Officer
Rent and Accommodation Officer
Student Parents and Carers Officer
Trans Officer
Women’s Officer
 
This is a very sad state of affairs. Responsibility must fall somewhat on the slates for not finding candidates – particularly The Big Picture slate who are only running Sabbatical Officers. Responsibility also lies on those who have recently expanded our Part Time Executive, for failing to see their projects through – the positions of Trans Officer, Graduate LGBTQ Officer, and Student Parents and Carers Officer have all been created within the last year, yet no one will stand for these positions. Be under no illusion, this lack of engagement will be used as an argument for the abolition of the Part Time Executive. This could well be the last time any Part Time Executive officers are elected in a cross campus ballot.

Further to this, the following positions are uncontested;

Black and Minority Ethnic Students’ & Anti-Racism Officer
Community Outreach and Charities Officer
Environment and Ethics Officer
Health and Welfare Officer
International Students Officer
Student Trustee (1 candidate for 3 positions)
Vice President – Charities and Community
Vice President – Graduates
Vice President – Women
 
This is a very disappointing position for us to be in. On a brighter note, there is a healthy number of independent candidates running for positions, something very much to be welcomed! And to be clear, I welcome independent candidates as I believe the field of play should be level – slates are still a good thing for our democracy, and the resistance of people to build them is misguided.

While Student Trustee will be uncontested, it is great to see 8 candidates for the 6 positions for NUS delegate. However, due to the NUS imposed gender-quota, several of the candidates already have their victory pretty much in the bag. The fight will be on for the remaining places.

The race for Vice President – Welfare and Equal Opportunities seems to be an interesting one. Sandy Downs of the BackJack slate, has a mix of policies from peer support, to suspended students and liberations groups. However, a quick read through by a grad like myself reveals the clunky phrase “in every College, including PPH’s and MCR’s” multiple times, which is both meaningless, and also reads to graduates as an empty platitude – something the entire BackJack slate will need to be aware of. Jenny Walker is running on the Welfair slate, the platform is very similar to that of Sandy, but with a little more detail of the tangible policies to be implemented. While the Welfair branding is bold and defining, it is not clear how this will convert into votes – there is no link to social media or a website. Jessy Parker Humphreys is also running for VP (WEO) as an independents candidate. With a simple yet effective manifesto with links to more information online, this is a lesson in how you don’t have to spend great amounts of time or money to make a good exhibition of your policies. Jessy also benefits from the clearest set of policies – regardless of whether you agree with them or not, the proposals are not wishy-washy; you can actually see, and understand, exactly what is being proposed. For Jessy, it will all come down to the electoral machine they can muster, but they have given themselves a strong platform from which to make an independent bid for high office.

For Vice President – Access and Academic Affairs there are two candidates. Duncan Shephers is the JCR President of Balliol, and running on the BackJack slate. It is obvious that Duncan understands not only the issues that will win him votes, but also the real issues that need to be tackled in the position. He has a strong platform that smoothly knits together, from unconscious bias in applications, through to effective outreach, and financial support. If anything, his manifesto is heavy on access and weak on academic affairs, with a single section on workload. Manifesto design, while forming a nice brand, doesn’t help lead the eye and bring out particular points of interest – and issue for all of BackJack. Oh yeh, and it’s designed by Will Neaverson, the former agent of the Jane4Change (2013) slate who (some would say illegally) ripped of a professional website to use as the slate webpage. #Awkward. The other candidate is Eden Bailey, a long term Divisional Board Rep in the Humanities, and candidate for the same position last year. Her manifesto design is what I would call ‘Classic NUS Block of 15’ – its different, separates ideas into different design areas, and for that authentic look, has cut-out style images, and text on scrumpled-paper background. Its memorable and defining, but suffers from the same issues as BackJack – too may blocks of text. On the policy side, Eden has many well thought through access policies, and, just like Duncan, only really talks about Academic Affairs with regard to workload. Boiling it down, their policies are very similar – it will be interesting to see how the differentiate from each other. What is disappointing is that neither of them mentioned the Higher Education Green Paper. Their term of office as VP will likely see the biggest overhaul in fees, the monitoring of access, how Student Unions are governed, and how quality education is assured, in a generation. We have known this Green Paper was coming for weeks – to have completely omitted it is worrying. 

For President there are just 2 candidates. Only a month or so ago it looked like there could be as many as 5 or 6 – but at least it is contested. Eden Tanner, running on The Big Picture Slate, has a wide platform of issues from training, to welfare, technology, and generally standing up for students. Her experience, and the issues she talks about, show she clearly understands what is going on, and how to solve the big issues. However, the way she discusses these topics may not be accessible to those outside the OUSU-bubble – will it make sense to the famous ‘Ordinary Student Member’? That, combined with a manifesto reminiscent of something produced on a Windows 95 machine, shows that Eden’s biggest problem is going to be getting her message across, and communication in general. Jack Hampton, of the BackJack slate, runs on his platform as a student representative on the University Committee known as JScEcSM (N.B. He doesn’t sit on this committee anymore as far as I’m aware) and as a former JCR President at St Catz. His policies focus on mental health, a link he shares with the rest of his slate, with mention of workload, punitive collections, and reading weeks. Aside from that there is little else, with a few statements about visiting Common Rooms and being accountable. My guess is that in his policy choices and slate composition, he is trying to repeat the success of current President, Becky Howe, who also has a strong mental health platform. He may not be standing on much, other than mental health, but he’s the candidate to beat at the moment.

I’ve got a great deal more to say, especially about the Presidential campaigns, but that will have to wait a while. Till then, let’s hope we see some new ideas flourish, some tired ones get put to bed, and a good campaign where the interests of students come first.

​Because at the moment, it’s all a bit naff. 

___

If you'd like to hear me moan some more / praise the new and wonderful policies and ideas yet to be announced, hear the results come in live, and get up to date new and commentary from a specially selected group of experts - tune in to Oxide Radio from 5.45pm on Thursday 19th November. 
Picture
1 Comment

The Secret Side to Roadtrip

1/11/2015

0 Comments

 
Following the news of the death of Elliott Johnson, a great deal of attention has been focused on Mark Clarke and his involvement with elements of the Conservative Party’s youth branch, Conservative Future. This has rightly raised questions and increased interest around the topic of activist welfare. However, it is also right to look at the structures involved, namely that of Roadtrip; a campaign scheme managed by Mark, where hundreds of activists were bused into target seats, with plenty of food and booze along the way. But what exactly is Roadtrip?

Detailed scrutiny of publicly available documents, presented below, reveals a surprising new side to Roadtrip, raising questions about who stands to benefit the most from this controversial campaign method.

Companies House records reveal that Mark Clarke is, or has been, a Director of at least 3 registered companies. The Trade Union Reform Campaign (Company No. 07890557) was incorporated in December 2011, to “campaign for reform of the laws and funding arrangements relating to trade unions”. The company was dissolved in February 2015. In a joint venture with Matthew Richardson, Mr Clarke created the Transatlantic Educational Alliance Limited in June of this year (Company No. 09628207). The purpose of this company is unclear. The other business is that of CampaignUK Limited (Company No. 09314216), created with Mark as the sole director on the 17th November, 2014.

Picture
The CampaignUK page on the Companies House website, showing Mark Clarke as Director
CampaignUK is young, and has therefore not yet had to file certain documents that would shine a light on the nature of its business. However, records from the Intellectual Property Office, expose a worrying set of affairs that provide an insight into the purpose of this company.

On the same day that CampaignUK was incorporated, the company filed the necessary documentation to trade mark the term ‘Roadtrip’ for the purposes of political advertising, opinion polling, and canvassing (Trade Mark UK00003081802). The trade mark entered the official register on the 13th March, 2015. This was followed on 15th June, just a few weeks after the General Election, with the filing for the trade mark of ‘Roadtrip2020’, which was granted on 18th September, 2015 (Trade Mark UK00003113297). 
Picture
​Details of the Roadtrip trade mark on the Intellectual Property Office website
Picture
Details of the Roadtrip2020 trade mark on the Intellectual Property Office website
So the terms ‘Roadtrip’ and ‘Roadtrip2020’ are now trademarked for use within political campaigning, with the rights owned by CampaignUK; a company whose only Director and shareholder is Mr Mark Clarke.

It is important to note that there are perfectly legitimate reasons to trademark Roadtrip. Putting aside whether you think it is effective or not, Roadtrip may be a brand that should be protected. But if this is true, surely this should be done by the Party itself – the Conservatives name and logo is trade marked by C&UCO Services Limited, a company registered to Conservative HQ. Shouldn’t Roadtrip be held in the trust of our Party, for the benefit of every activist and campaigner? I feel deeply uncomfortable about having hundreds of volunteers giving up their free time for the good of the Party, when the brand they campaign under is completely controlled by a private individual, and one I don't have a great deal of confidence in anyway.


I can’t think of a reason why someone with the best interests of the Party would seize the rights to the Roadtrip name for themselves. Can you? We can’t allow for one moment, the possibility that our volunteers will be questioning whether to attend campaign events because organisations other than our Party may be benefiting from their time. The methods we choose to encourage our activists in the run-up to 2020 must be more open – nothing less than next Government of this country is at stake.
0 Comments

What next for Conservative Future?

19/10/2015

3 Comments

 
I’m sure I can’t be the only member of Conservative Future who finds themselves in a bag of mixed emotions at the moment. On the one hand, for the first time since I paid attention to politics, we have a Conservative majority government – something to celebrate. But on the other hand, I find myself with more in similar to my Labour friends; lost and distant from my Party’s youth branch, with a sense of powerlessness to change anything for the better.

In September we lost one of our own. I didn’t really know Elliott Johnson that well, having only bumped into him a few times at Conference.  But I still feel an obligation to him, and to our organisation, to explore what went on, and ensure we learn out lessons for the future.

There are some who think by simply reading the commentary of Fleet Street, that some regulatory regime can be brought into being to stop this happening again. There are others, who, while making a great deal of noise on social media, fail to dig down into the issues of what went on. We cannot slip into the misguided notion that this problem can be dealt with in 140 characters. Because the real problem is a broken culture. A culture where our elections have become a glorified twitter parade, with more votes awarded for a photo with the PM, than an afternoon delivering leaflets. A culture where you can scheme and connive your way to the top, with no fear that you may actually have to implement your promised policies when in office. A culture, so alien to normality, that a grown man was able to slime his way in, with the tacit support of our  Executive, so that he could further his own political career, to the detriment of others.

What needs to be remembered is that our organisation is for everyone under-30. We are as much for the late twenties  young professional in London, as the early teens school-kid from Teeside.  And that creates both opportunities, but also a great responsibility of care. One our Leaders have neglected and our Party are only just getting to grips with.

Responsibility. A term that stands proudly in bold print on the back of our membership cards, but which we must all now ask, have we followed in recent months? Anyone who had anything to do with Roadtrip knew it wasn’t built upon the ideals of our Party – yet we didn’t do enough to speak out. But likewise those that were informed of issues did little to reassure that they were taken seriously, as I will now explain.

While not in any way comparable to the recent reports of the darker side of Mark Clarke, I had dealings with him from 2014 onwards. At the time, I had just finished my term as President of the Oxford University Conservative Association (OUCA), and Mark was keen to meet to discuss how we could support Roadtrip. Myself and some other senior officers of OUCA were asked to attend a meeting on May 30th, where instead of persuading us of the merits of supporting the Roadtrip project, we were instead berated, shouted at, and smeared. The fact that OUCA has been doing ‘Away Days’ as we call them, since before Roadtrip was even a thing, didn’t matter. The Eastleigh By-election, the Newark By-election, and the marginal seats of Walsall North, Telford, Chippenham, Swindon South and Sherwood all received campaigning sessions, as well as our local marginal of Oxford West and Abingdon. But that wasn’t good enough, because if you weren’t campaigning with Roadtrip, you might as well be at home in Mark’s eyes, as I’ve written about before.

Following what I had written, I contacted one of the (soon to be elected) candidates for the CF National Executive, to ask for a meeting so that I could discuss my concerns. We met on August 6th, and I outlined some of the issues I had with Mark, and the need for there to be change to the way CF ran its elections, that the slates themselves needed to be open and transparent about who was financially backing them etc., and that I hoped they would stand up for what was right, among a sea of Mark Clarke bootlickers. They attempted to reassure me, but I had little confidence they meant what they said. 

A few weeks later another soon to be elected candidate asked if I would meet with them. On August 16th, we had lunch in the Paddington area of London, and while a major topic was Conservative involvement in Universities and the National Union of Students, I made clear then the terrible way in which my fellow officers and I had be treated by Mark. I made clear that he shouldn’t be allowed near CF, and that it was a corruption of our democratic processes for him to be pulling the strings.

What followed was a CF election controlled by Mark. We all heard the rumours, and I wrote about some of my concerns at the time. Candidates would mysteriously drop out of the race, and some who were expected to run, didn’t even bother nominating. It was clear to see that the power of the ballot box had been undermined by cloak and dagger tactics behind the scenes.

At Party Conference that year, I learned that, in an attempt to source money for the Roadtrip project, funds from regional CF accounts were to be drawn in to the centre. So much for localism. As someone who had worked as part of the previous West Midlands regional executive to raise a great deal of that money, and who saw how effectively it was used to support our activists (compared to the inefficiency of Roadtrip) I was livid. I immediately messaged a member of the CF National Executive to ask for a meeting, and received a prompt reply so we met straight away.

Once again I expressed my concern, not only that the Party was not living by its own values, but also that Mark was controlling the show, rather than our own representatives. I also reiterated the underhand tactics at play against OUCA, with well-known and leading RoadTrippers spreading false stories of how OUCA had been blacklisted by the Party, in the attempt to drive campaigners away from our Oxford West and Abingdon Target Seat Campaign Days and towards Roadtrip. Clearly rattled by my accusations, this time I was met with a stronger defence, and my concerns about the direction that Conservative Future was taking were brushed aside. There seemed to be no grasp within our National Executive that having Mark Clarke at the centre of our organisation, leaching disunity and division in every direction, was even a bad thing.

So when the sad news about Elliott came through, followed by more information on who else was involved, it was, in the most shockingly predictable way, not a surprise. Because while my concerns paled into insignificance compared to those which have recently surfaced, they all had a common cause. A common cause in Mark Clarke and his foetid RoadTrip-or-bust mantra that bound our National Executive together.
And this is why we cannot move on while they are still in place. I know many of the National Executive have been greatly affected by the loss of Elliott, but they must recognise that we cannot truly come together as an organisation and recover from the exorcism of Mark, while those who still lead us were so assistive in his rise to power.

It has now been announced that the next elections won’t happen until June 2016 – probably a wise move to allow us all to deal with what has happened. But interim arrangements need to be put in place until then; because I fear Conservative Future will be deeply divided by the time of the May elections if that status quo remains. Those May elections are vital for our Party and our Country, and CF needs to be out there, working together, as one, for victory.

And while we are on the topic of the Conservative Future elections, there’s another point that needs to be made. There will certainly be much discussion of how we build the Conservative Future we all need; one that takes activist welfare seriously. This is right and proper. But those who seek to use the current situation for their own political advantage should be ashamed of themselves. Members need to be constantly asking the serious questions of the candidates – and their motives. What did they know about the recent events in CF, and what did they do about it? Is their social media presence over-inflated, when compared to their political actions? Are they the change we really, so desperately need?

It’s only right, that after saying those things, I should make my own position clear. My comments above are simply those of a concerned member, and nothing more. I have thoroughly enjoyed my time in various positions in CF, but I will not be standing in the upcoming CF elections.

With a Party Review in progress, a set of elections that need our support in May, and our own ballot to set the direction of CF in June, the next 8 months will be critical to the future of CF. I just hope we can all remember our personal responsibilities, as members and leaders, and do what is right for the good of our Party.
3 Comments
<<Previous

    Archives

    November 2017
    October 2017
    June 2016
    April 2016
    November 2015
    October 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    January 2014
    October 2013
    April 2013
    October 2012
    September 2012
    March 2012
    January 2012
    August 2011
    April 2011

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

    Image: Iceberg near Trinity Bay North, Newfoundland. Taken by Jack Matthews
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.