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

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

3 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?
 
3 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

    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.