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 Elections: Why I'm Publishing A Candidates Article

19/11/2014

0 Comments

 
At 10pm, Wednesday evening, I was contacted by a candidate in this year's OUSU elections. They had been asked to write a comment piece by Cherwell, to be published online. 

The position is Vice President (Access and Academic Affairs) and the candidate is Catherine Jones (n.b. I have blogged how Catherine has received my vote). Other candidates for this position have received that same offer, indeed Eden Bailey (Right to Education slate) had her comment piece published online on Tuesday.

At 9:13 pm on Wednesday, the editors of the Cherwell, Ella Richards and Samuele Volpe, sent the following email to Cat;


Hi Cat, 

One of the comment eds has just forwarded an edited version on to us. 

Having a look, I'm afraid we can't publish the article in its current form. The original offer was for a 800 word comment piece on a manifesto point over the weekend; this is a bit different. 

This election has been notable in its lack of negative campaigning and the current piece in that context comes across as overly aggressive in a manner that Cherwell can't platform. While the sections about your own work are strong, the overall tone is starkly negative and out of joint with the other comment pieces written by candidates thus far. 

If you can rewrite the piece to focus primarily on your manifesto and experience then we would be more than happy to publish it and publicise Twitter first thing tomorrow. 

Apologies and please let us know if there's anything we can help with, 

Ella and Sam 



I find this response bizarre for a number of reasons. Firstly, until now, I don't think anyone has been more critical (or as people are so keen to rebrand scrutiny these days 'negative') than me. Yet this afternoon, Ella solicited another comment piece from me for Cherwell. My negativity obviously isn't that bad. Secondly, there's a giant elephant in the room. Ella Richards is a candidate in this election, running for NUS Delegate with the Right to Education slate. A clear conflict of interest, as Eden (the only VP Access and Academic Affairs candidate to have a Cherwell comment piece published at the time I am writing this) is also running on the Right to Education slate.

Before the polls opened, I spoke to Robert Walmsley, Deputy Editor at Cherwell, and also NUS Delegate for the Right to Education slate, asking how the potential conflicts of interest would be dealt with. I was informed that both Ella and Rob would have nothing to do with Cherwell's election coverage.

We now know that not to be true. Ella has asked me to provide comment for Cherwell, but much more seriously, she has made the decision to deprive a candidate of the opportunity to put forward their opinions, because they are 'starkly negative'.

It should be noted that Cats article was over the 800 word limit set by Cherwell, and also that they have given Cat the opportunity to rewrite her article. However this is not very helpful, just 20 hours before the close of polls, and 2 days after Cat's competitor's article was published. 

It is because of this that I have decided to publish Cat's article, so that it can be seen. I don't have the reach of Cherwell - nowhere near it - but its my attempt to redress the balance. I hope you will trust me when I say I would have done this for any candidate, had they contacted me with similar concerns. What worries me is that genuine debate and criticism is being stifled because people are too worried about seeming 'negative'. It's also hypocritical. Everyone seems to be more than happy to lay into Cameron, Clegg or Miliband when they have a stupid idea, but to expect the best of our own representatives - well that's going too far. The Oxford student establishment needs to get a grip quickly, and realise how democracy REALLY works. Because the fact is, being nice all the time doesn't give you  the best.

Correction: Robert Walmsley has been in touch with me to say that he only intended to refer to the election supplement that Cherwell produced last week, which neither he nor Ella wrote, and that he did not intend to speak beyond that.

*** START OF COMMENT PIECE ***


‘Calling out the crap’ - the race for OUSU VP AcAff

 Hi, I’m the ‘C’ in teamABC. My name is Cat and I’m one of four candidates for OUSU Vice President for Access and Academic Affairs.

I had hoped live husts and the recording of central hustings would have made the strongest candidates clear by this stage. However, poor turnout and OUSU’s failure to upload anything from central hustings has meant that this is not the case. This position is still too close to call.

To quote Jack Matthews’ recent Cherwell article, “If you haven’t even got the courage to call out your opponents on the policy proposals you know to be hollow and misplaced, how are you going to have the strength to take on a room full of Oxford Dons, and win for students? … Call out the crap, support the superb, and give students a debate they can get interested in”.

There is one day left of this election but here goes…

I would summarise Eden’s policies as well-intentioned, but misleading. Take her recent article in the Cherwell. Eden raises the important issue of the difference in the proportion of men and women achieving firsts, and implies that that the solution lies in changing the curriculum in humanities subjects.

Having had weekly discussions with the main researcher in this area (Dr Jane Mellanby, who sits on the University’s gender panel) and begun my own report on this, I can confidently state that the gender gap is not as polarised as Eden portrays. Eden’s focus on the curriculum in humanities is positive but flawed. The gender gap is an issue in SOME humanities subjects and SOME sciences. The evidence simply doesn’t support her claims. She overlooks and oversimplifies key issues.

As passionate as I believe she is, she is inexperienced. Read her manifesto carefully - she has done no access work at all. Her inexperience is leading to her making false claims. Take the hust at St Johns. She stated that Reach scholarships are not income assessed, and wants to ‘change’ this. She also offered, at Corpus Christi, to introduce meetings of Access Reps. These would be great policies. However, they already happen.

Her manifesto also states that she will support candidates from ‘flagged’ backgrounds. For those who don’t know, being a ‘flagged’ candidate means that you have either attended a low achieving school, live in a deprived postcode area, or have been in care. Eden outlines that in 2012 and 2013, 41 offer holders from these backgrounds withdrew before making it to Oxford. Like Eden, I want to support these offer holders.

However, in previous husts, Eden suggested that the main reason these candidates withdrew from the application process was due to perceptions that they are not ‘wanted’ by Oxford. Her solution? Send welcome e-mails and packs to these candidates. These pupils have had multiple points of contact with the university, including several days here during interviews and many colleges already send welcome emails. They are not withdrawing from their offers lightly. Whilst I respect her concern for this issue, I feel this superficial remedy is well intentioned but naïve, verging on patronising towards disadvantaged pupils facing huge barriers.

Greg’s idea of updating and increasing the accessibility of the underused alternative prospectus, and collating more admissions information online is great. However, Greg has misled voters, by falsely claimed on his campaign Facebook page that ‘Rustication has not even been mentioned by the other candidates in this election. Among thousands of words of manifesto pledges and 15+ hours of hustings, I'm the only candidate talking about students suspending.’

Sorry but no. Rustication policy is in my manifesto and is something I am fiercely passionate about. I have already taken steps to try and address this in my own college as part of Pembroke’s rustication policy working group last year. I thank him for correcting his post at my request.

He also rightly highlights mental health as a key issue in rustication. This is something I have personal experience of and it is a key focus of my team. 

To her credit, Flora has been involved in lots of Access work in Oxford. However, like Greg, Flora has misled voters, with her claiming in our hust at St Peters to be the only candidate promising to stop and review the current situation.

Again, no. Greg promises to ensure our outreach is evidence based, and I pledge to review best practice. Whilst we have all identified this as important, I believe I am the candidate with the experience and skills to conduct the research most effectively. I am currently Monitoring and Evaluation Officer for tutoring charity Jacari and have lots of experience of data collection and analysis. I will be playing a similar role for my own Uganda based scholarship charity assessing what works and what doesn’t.

Flora and I both pledge lecture recordings and an extension of library opening hours – these are ongoing battles and need someone with a track record of winning through committees. I have been on the Pembroke Development committee, academic committee, the Target schools committee and the Jacari committee. I have established Pembroke’s first ambassador scheme and increased the access budget. On lecture recording in particular, I am in a position to present strong evidenced arguments as I report on the benefits of technology in education later this term. As I hope this article demonstrates, I am not afraid to cut through hollow arguments and will therefore be able to advocate strongly for students on the 30+ committees the winner of this election will sit on.

I will provide resources for common rooms to run road trips to their access regions and create a university-wide database to match volunteers to initiatives by subject and region. Year 12s need subject specific information, ideally from local students they relate to. The current system makes this difficult by dividing volunteers by college. This is irrelevant to most access-background Year 12s, who often don’t know what a college is.

There are huge disparities between colleges in terms of how long students are permitted to stay during the vacations. St Johns’ students are entitled to twenty-one days’ vacation grant for academic purposes, whilst Pembroke grant nothing.

I am not going to claim that you should vote for me because my ideas are unique. There is a lot overlap in our pledges because they are things that need to change at Oxford. I am going to ask you to vote for me because I have the experience to do the best job with these pledges.

People who are voting because of personal contacts have already done so. Let’s not make this about who can knock on the most doors. If you haven’t yet voted, or weren’t planning to, please think carefully about who will make the strongest representative and successfully implement the changes discussed.

Polls close at 6pm today

please vote


*** END OF COMMENT PIECE ***

N.B. I don't actually agree with everything Cat says in her comment article, and it does not represent my views or opinions.

Eden Bailey's comment piece can be found HERE on Cherwell.

Out of fairness, I will also publish or link to Greg and Flora's comment pieces if and when they are put on Cherwell.


*** GREG'S COMMENT PIECE ***


I'm Greg – the independent candidate running to be your VP for Access and Academic Affairs.

I suspect anyone at the many hustings this week struggled to pick a clear winner for the position. Cat, Eden, Flora and myself all have plenty of relevant experience, so it's tempting to claim that any of us would do a great job. But I’ve just read Cat's snappily entitled “Calling out the crap”, and it's time for me also to scrutinize my competitors a little more closely.

I genuinely appreciate much of what Eden has to say. Her manifesto pledges barely overlap with those the rest of us have made and I'm glad she has presented these different ideas. But her statistics can be misused and not fully understood, for example in a headline policy related to flagged offer-holders, she quotes a different figure to the University’s official statistics (pages 41-46), further rendered meaningless by the lack of a comparison figure for non-flagged students. Cat points out she proposes introducing meetings between JCR access reps that already exist. These together lead me to question her ability and credibility in arguing persuasively and accurately on behalf of students.

Cat’s article focused extensively on Eden, so I’ll now turn the spotlight onto Cat and Flora. I think they offer little in the way of new suggestions, and of what is original, there’s good reason it’s not done already. Bold claim? I'll start with access.

Cat’s big new idea is to create a way to contact students studying from a certain region who study a specific subject, to help organise access events. So essentially, another mailing list, subdivided in a special way. It would be good, but all it will do is streamline existing processes. Students involved in access already receive emails asking for this kind of help.

Flora envisions a “digital access scheme”, where presentations about studying at Oxford will be delivered live over the internet to school groups. This addresses a real issue where those unable to travel to Oxford miss out on crucial information. However, in my manifesto I suggest filming open day talks and putting them online, accessible to all at any time. My proposal thus eliminates the problem which Flora’s addresses, but without presentations having to be repeated for each individual school.

An advantage of live online conversations would be the ability to ask questions. However, my proposed 'Ask a Student' feature within a new Alternative Prospectus website would enable questions to be asked at any time, not just during the presentation. The new Alternative Prospectus website is one of my big ideas, whereby the current pdf is replaced by a easily findable website with more information and features. For example, I’d put more interview questions online, with an indication as to the imperfect sort of answer expected. Currently schools with lots of applicants build up large banks of past questions, giving their students an advantage I wish to level.

A bolder policy of mine relates to the many gifted individuals who simply don’t consider applying to Oxford. It's unrealistic to assume schools will direct towards us the exceptional students they see only every couple of years. I would lobby the government for access to the information that would enable Oxford to directly contact outstanding students from schools/areas/backgrounds from which students rarely apply - for example we could personally invite such students to the UNIQ Summer School.

Onto academic affairs. Both Flora and Cat want us to believe they might succeed in extending library opening hours, something previous incumbents have already pushed strongly for. When campaigning for increased vacation residence (one of Cat’s policies) it’s hard to see why colleges would listen to OUSU more than they do their JCRs. Flora has given no indication of how she’d persuade tutors to give ‘more concrete academic feedback’, while Cat also recognises issues in the quality of some teaching, but her ‘report on best practice’ even sounds fluffy, and my experience of writing such a document as JCR Academic Affairs Officer is that tutors will rarely, if ever, change on account of generic advice.

My approach is to make departments publish both feedback received and actions taken as a result. This visibility would create accountability to student feedback, as departments will not want to be seen as unresponsive, and if they do nothing, there’d be evidence to be presented to higher university authorities.

Finally, rustication. Each year one thousand Oxford students suspend their studies. Each of us would continue campaigning for the rights of students suspending, on which there’s a long way to go. However I'm uniquely proposing that OUSU also investigate the root causes of intermission. This can't be done in colleges because the numbers are small, but across the whole university I anticipate clear trends would emerge. Only then could we take effective preventative action, confronting the underlying issues so that fewer students are forced to rusticate.

So that’s policy, but there’s something else important. A massive part of this job is representing students on around 30 university committees. Most people would dread it, but not me. I am (to the best of my knowledge) unique among the candidates in reading minutes of the University’s education committee. See too my research on the Norrington table’s correlation with college wealth from before I even arrived in Oxford -  it’s this sort of nerdiness and drive to present persuasive and reasoned arguments that would enable me to win the biggest gains for you in these committees.

I think this is going to be a close election. And with very likely a very low turnout, your vote counts very much. Voting takes about 60 seconds at http://ow.ly/EvgZb, closing 6pm today. Over to you.

My manifesto.

Eden Bailey’s manifesto.

Cat Jones’s manifesto.

Flora Sheldon’s manifesto.



*** END OF GREG'S COMMENT PIECE***

0 Comments

OUSU Elections: My Votes and Predictions

18/11/2014

1 Comment

 
Polls are now open for the OUSU Statutory Elections 2014. To find out how to vote, click HERE. Here’s my votes and predictions for some of the contests in this year’s elections;

President

Adam is on a simple mission to discuss OUSU democracy, but I don’t think he’s going to get many votes, and has failed to show his ability to be a student representative. This leaves me torn between Becky and Will. Becky has shone in hustings and manifesto, and his clearly a communicator who can present student concerns well. I also have confidence in Will’s ability to represent on the University stage, and am especially supportive of his long term strategic outlook reflected in his Minimum Expectations Charter.

My Vote: Im genuinely torn between Becky and Will. I’m going to see how they perform in the next few days of campaigning before I vote. Someone who can hack students well, can hack University Council well.

My Prediction: At the moment, I’m tentatively predicting a win for Will Obeney, but only because he has a larger slate and therefore greater potential to get the message out. If they fail to mobilise, expect me to reconsider. Whatever happens, it’s going to be close – Louis Trup’s email should get a few hundred more people to vote, and if they choose off the manifestos and videos, they’ll be in the bank for Becky.

Vice President (Access and Academic Affairs)

Eden has shown her commitment to this job by bringing light to the previously overlooked issue of dropout from flagged offer-holders. Flora is strong on access issues and has a longstanding commitment to that cause. Greg is a breath of fresh air coming at this from a different angle, and as an independent candidate – plus I love the fact he already reads Education Committee minutes. Cat’s manifesto, while offering no revolutionary new ideas, seems relatively well grounded, and she performed well in hustings. The fact is, they’d all do a good job.

My Vote: They’ve all shown their devotion to this area of work, and would do a good job, but for me Cat has shone above the rest in the past few weeks – of all the candidates she gives me the most confidence of being an effective student representative on the 30+ committees this position involves.

My Prediction: At the moment we have no idea what the ballot paper will look like, and this makes a huge difference in how well a slate is able to line (if you want to know more about this, message me, I don’t want to bore everyone!). If it’s like last year, it won’t induce people to automatically line for an entire slate. It is because of this, and because Flora didn’t do especially well in hustings, or on my radio show (which SO many people listen to) that I’m not predicting for Flora (For Oxford slate) even though she’s on the same team as Will Obeney (For Oxford’s Presidential candidate). If TeamABC have enough activists, Cat will take this. However we shouldn’t completely dismiss Greg Auger, his support from the Christian Union could bring about a great deal of votes, and Eden’s Right to Education slate should be able to put a great deal of attention into her race, with them having so many unopposed candidates.

Vice President (Graduates)

My Vote: Danny has raised some interesting issues in this election that haven’t been really discussed before, however knowing Nick as a friend (#ConflictOfInterest), I know that he completely grasps the necessary issues, knows how to steer a solution through the University, and has the necessary experience to do well in this role. Nick’s got my vote.

My Prediction: Nick’s For Oxford slate, comprising a significant Graduate cohort, will overcome Danny’s MCR Presidential connections, giving Mr Cooper victory.

Vice President (Welfare and Equal Opportunities), Vice President (Women), Vice President (Charities and Community)

My Prediction: Ali, Lucy, and Emily will all defeat RON (they’re uncontested and not incompetent)

Student Trustee

My Vote: I will be giving a preference to both Eden Tanner (For Oxford) and James Elliott (Right to Education). They have both shown themselves to be supporters of student democracy, and good governance. They have been committed Officers of OUSU, they know how it works, and I trust them to make the serious decisions associated with the position which involves taking legal responsibility for the organisation.

I will not, however, be giving a preference to Will Neaverson. I’ve known Will for a while now, indeed I was one of the people that got him involved with OUSU. I would say he was a friend (I’m not sure anymore), but that doesn’t come before the needs of my Student Union. The fact is I don’t believe he is a fit and proper person to be legally responsible for OUSU. His Scrutiny Report from Trinity Term shows that he has achieved very little in his time as Common Room Support Officer – indeed the committee said that he should “consider his position”. On top of this, he was behind the flagrant breach of electoral regulations in last year’s OUSU election, where he ripped off a flashy website to help support his slate. I also don’t think his manifesto points stack up – he claims to have ‘campaigned for and won a £400,000 uplift in OUSU’s funding’. I’m not sure how that was possible, as the work was done by Presidents dating back to Martha Mackenzie. I see no evidence he did any active campaigning for it. He’s failed to do the job he already has, he seriously cheated in our elections last year, and at times has failed to attend important meetings of the Executive and Council. He’s not getting my vote, and I don’t think he deserves yours.

NUS Delegate

My Vote: To be honest, I am left uninspired by the 5 candidates this year. The three that bothered to come to hustings were unable to name the date of NUS Conference itself, and most of the manifestos don’t seem to have been written by people who truly grasp what the positions is about. There are a few interesting segments about democratising NUS, but little about democratising their votes at conference. I want to see more commitments to be bound by OUSU policy, but go further than that, by actively bringing motions to OUSU Council so students can decide Oxford’s position on key issues. I’ll wait and see if any of them inspire me enough to give a voting preference to them.

Common Room Support Officer

My Vote: My vote goes to Joe Reason for 2 simple reasons. 1) He went to the central hustings. 2) He talks about Common Rooms in his manifesto, as opposed to Omar’s talk of JCRs (forgetting that 45% of students are represented by MCRs).

My Prediction: Joe wins by a small margin, because he pools enough support from people who always support the independent, and those who have lined against Omar’s Right to Education slate in other contests.

The other contested elections are Disabled Students Officer, and LGBTQ Officer. I don’t feel well versed in these issues to decide, and feel commentary on these positions is probably best left to those most affected by the issues these positions deal with (someone please provide some commentary and analysis!).


MORE UPDATES TO FOLLOW AS THE VOTING CONTINUES...
1 Comment

OUSU Elections: The Race for VP (Graduates)

17/11/2014

1 Comment

 
There are just two candidates for VP (Grads);

Nick Cooper is from St. John’s and is running as part of the For Oxford slate of candidates. He has previously held the positions of OUSU Academic Affairs Campaigns Officer and OUSU Graduate Academic Affairs Officer. He’s also sat on many committees within OUSU, and served as last year’s Returning Officer – something that could prove advantageous for him and his slate this year.

His manifesto promises a review of taught Masters degrees, and survey of student wellbeing, an agreed minimum expectation for supervision, continued campaigning on Graduate funding and accommodation, and work on increasing teaching opportunities.

The question for Nick is, how will he convert all his reviews and surveys into tangible results for Graduate Students? Indeed, some of these reviews have been done before – OUSU has investigated taught Masters courses twice in the past 5 years, and not a great deal has changed. Nick’s challenge is to show how he will be different.

Danny Zajarias-Fainsod is a former MCR President at Wadham, and currently serves as the Chair of the MCR Presidents Committee. This gives Danny increased connection to the vital Common Room Presidents who can be so vital to turning out the Graduate vote. Utilising these connections is going to be essential if he is to overcome Nick’s benefit of running on a slate.

Danny is focussing in on a few issues in his manifesto.  Firstly he wants to see many more teaching opportunities for Graduate students to assist them should they choose to continue down the road of academia. He also details how he would campaign to change the Universities politics and practices with regard to entrepreneurship and intellectual policies – he outlines how current protocols are more restrictive than supportive. Danny’s final point is on increasing Graduate engagement, and how he wants to see more grads involved with OUSU, their College, and the University.

As I have said with other candidates, now is the best time to engage with students. Danny highlights the important point of graduates being underrepresented in Oxford political life, however I’m not sure his policies are the kind of thing that will inspire people towards his campaign and OUSU. Teaching opportunities and organisations like ISIS Innovation clearly are issues that need resolving. But with little chat on matters such as supervision, transfer and confirmation of status, and accommodation, I feel Danny may have an uphill struggle to get the votes needed to win.


1 Comment

The Most Boringly Interesting OUSU Election in Years

17/11/2014

1 Comment

 
This post was written for Cherwell Online, and can be read here:

http://www.cherwell.org/comment/opinion/2014/11/17/the-most-boringly-interesting-ousu-election-in-years
1 Comment

OUSU Elections: The race for Vice President (Access and Academic Affairs)

12/11/2014

0 Comments

 
Vice President (Access and Academic Affairs)

We’ve got 4 candidates: 1 independent and 3 from the major slates. And dear old Re-Open Nominations.

Greg Auger, St. John’s, has served as JCR Academic Affairs Officer, as well as working as a Student Ambassador and on the UNIQ summer schools for prospective applicants. He is running as an independent. His policies include an investigation into the causes of students taking intermissions in their degrees, making departmental student representatives more visible and accountable, and making departments respond to student feedback. On the Access front he proposes changing how the Alternative Prospectus is published online, so that it’s more accessible. It will also be enhanced with the addition of comparative data on colleges. Greg says he will make a section where applicants can ask questions of current students online, expand the online list of past interview questions, and publish more open day videos. In a bolder move, he promises to lobby the Department of Education to allow access schemes to directly contact outstanding students in schools.

On the whole his manifesto is well thought through and achievable. His commitment to researching suspended status is to be commended, continuing the strong history of well-respected student led research. Greg’s Departmental Rep proposals are a little wishy-washy – people have been promising things like this for years, and with the new OUSU staff working in this area, it will probably be done by the end of the academic year anyway. But his heart is in the right place on the issue.

Eden Bailey is running with the Right to Education slate, is from Magdalen, and currently serves as the Humanities Undergraduate Divisional Board Representative. She opens her manifesto by talking about how Oxford should be more accessible, only for the entire page to be littered with inaccessible language like FHS (Final Honours Schools), Athena SWAN (A Charter developed to encourage commitment to combating underrepresentation of women in academia), CRAE (Campaign for Racial Awareness and Equality), and STEM (Science Technology Engineering and Maths). It shows she knows about all these important things, but leads to a document not so engaging for the wider student body.

Highlighting an issue I haven’t seen in a manifesto before, Eden commits more support to those applicants from the most underrepresented backgrounds who secure a place, but then drop out before the start of First Year. It is fresh perspectives like this that are what this election period is all about. There are also commitments to a central maillist for those interesting in access work, termly JCR access representative meetings, termly meetings of the Divisional and Departmental representatives, and much like the For Oxford slate, drop-in sessions to allow students to express their concerns.

A large chunk of the manifesto is used to discuss underrepresentation of specific groups, both within academia, and the taught curriculum itself. The data Eden presents is very convincing and certainly evidence enough that more needs to be done, especially for women and Black and Minority Ethnic students. However I fear the face value figure may mask deeper issues, such as preference in course selection. While too much to express in a manifesto, it is the ability to dig deeper and realise the wider contexts of an issue that will make someone a formidable student voice at the University table. I look forward to hearing more about this issue as the election progresses.

Cat Jones has served as Pembroke JCR Access Rep, and is running as part of the teamABC slate. She commits to increased JCR Access Rep support and meetings, to support colleges to expand the number of Access RoadTrips, and a University wide database for access volunteers. There are promises to work with the Vice President (Graduates) on concerns around graduate supervisors, to work on the issues of vacation residence availability and suspended student status, and to expand the student shadowing scheme. Cat also commits to a report on best practice for student feedback.

Cat has certainly promised a lot, including the annually reoccurring campaigns for increased library opening hours, and recorded lectures. These things have been promised so many times now, the commitment seems a little hollow without some explanation of how it will be done differently this time. In many ways this is something that covers her whole manifesto – I would have liked to hear fewer commitments, but more about how each one will actually be achieved. Cat is certainly talking about many of the right issues, but I certainly don’t think she will have time to achieve all of them.

Flora Sheldon has served as St. John’s JCR Access and Equal Opportunities Officer, and is running with the For Oxford slate. As with the rest of the slate there is a commitment to the Out of Hours pledge – a pointless waste of precious manifesto words that will neither secure votes, nor engage students in victory. However, in keeping with the slates more strategic and long term policies, she commits to a review of academic representation policy. This could go down very well with the University and help us no end, but I want to hear more about it (however I doubt most students will want to hear more about it). Her values are made clear with pledges to negotiate the best possible value for fee paying students, including extended library opening hours, recorded lectures, better academic feedback, minimum standards of training for DPhil tutors, and a commitment to lobby against a fees increase.

She promises to continue the work on suspended student status and make student disciplinary processes more transparent. On Access issues, she commits to support Target Schools, get more colleges to send students on Access Roadshows, have more online presentations to reach those applicants who can’t get to Oxford itself; and evaluate which access schemes actually work, lobbying the University to put their money behind them.

Flora’s ideas are much the same as Cat’s, but the ones that stick out are the review of academic representation, and review of access schemes – both of which have the potential to change University policy for the better. However, much like Cat, I think she promises too much, and gives too little detail. She also suffers from the same issues as the rest of For Oxford – a poorly designed manifesto that comprises large blocks on easily forgettable text.

Greg has a tough battle on his hands as an independent candidate, but has established a decent social media presence. Whether he can convert this into activists is another thing. Eden has some bright new ideas, and pulls people in by establishing with facts that the issues she seeks to solve are important. However her choice of language may not help – it reads like something more suited to a room of activists (like NUS Conference) rather than a campus wide election – the impact of fellow slate member James Elliott perhaps? Cat’s manifesto is well designed, and easily memorable, but as I previously mentioned, would benefit from a little more detail on what the problems actually are, and how they will be solved. Flora’s manifesto doesn't adequately get her key points across, though those that venture through the swamp of text may discover some interesting policies – if only they had a little more explanation.

There’s one big issue that we have not covered. The Vice President (Access and Academic Affairs) sits on at least 30 University Committees, probably more than any of the other sabbatical officers. On these committees sit people like Prof. Sally Mapstone, Pro-Vice Chancellor for Education; a formidable woman who, though a friend of OUSU, will not respond well to poorly articulated arguments. We need the very best in representation. People who stay abreast of the issues, know the facts, and can present a logical case for the student point of view. This is what I’m looking for in the next week. 

0 Comments

OUSU Presidential Race: My Thoughts So Far

11/11/2014

2 Comments

 
So. I’ve finally had time to go through some of the manifestos from this year’s OUSU elections, and here’s my thoughts. Agree? Disagree? Don’t forget to tweet with #OUSU2014!

President 

An interesting competition with 3 candidates, now that Sam Wiseman has pulled out. Re-Open Nominations there as well – the default contender for my vote until I’m persuaded otherwise.

Becky Howe, Pembroke, offers a clear set of policy ideas, going strong for welfare. Her manifesto, like the rest of her TeamABC slate, is simple, easy to read, and most importantly memorable. In a move I like to see, she speaks directly to students, saying she wants “to focus on the issues which effect students the most” – the question is, has she correctly identified those issues that students care about?

As well as many welfare points, she offers an ‘Oxford University Festival’ for clubs, societies, teams and campaigns. It’s nice, I like it. But you have to ask how it will be paid for, and if it really serves the purpose of ‘fostering a positive community’ that she talks about. It’s got potential, but I’m not sure it will reach out and grab students.

There are solid commitments to visit lots of Common Rooms (there goes ALL attempts at her having a social life while being President, but maximum #scrutiny points from me), and also to assist in college rent negotiations. I do think she goes a little far however, with her push towards a university wide commitment that there should be annual rent and charges discussions in all colleges – some Common Rooms may not want this and prefer the multi-year approach. #CollegeAutonomy

Her final point is on holding discussion forums on Lad Culture. For me, the devil is in the detail. I want to know more about how these will be different from previous ones, and engage exactly those who need to be engaged on this important issue, rather than the usual Common Room Officers. If not, it will just be preaching the gender equality message to the already feminist choir.

Will Obeney, Regent’s Park, is part of the For Oxford slate of candidates. His manifesto takes more time to set out who he is and what he believes, rather than going into much policy. His commitment to fight £16,000 fees, and to work hard on access and accessibility issues are good to hear, but he’s gone a little too far, and his lack of policies when compared to Becky does not look good. There is an Out of Hours pledge (where he is available to meet students a few hours a week) – something I don’t think students are calling out for and will not engage with potential voters. 

His saving grace is the Minimum Expectations Document. He talks a little about college inequalities, graduates, rents, and living out, and this piece of research will draw all of that together into something that will help define what students (especially in a fee paying world) expect from their time in Oxford (from College, Landlord, University, Council, etc). On the University committee stage this could do the world of good, as well as assisting negotiations in colleges. It is because of this that I have little worry about Will being a good student representative within the University. However, the policy idea is poorly explained, and comes across as a bit vague.

His manifesto hits the right issues, but indirectly, and presents itself in a way that appeals to those inside the OUSU bubble, rather than the wider membership. While his manifesto is more in keeping with the job description, and what can be achieved in 1 year, it may not be enough to convince the wider student body. It will all come down to the hustings, social and printed media, as to whether he can get his message across clearer. Time to stop talking about OUSU and start talking about students’ lives.

The final contender is Adam Roberts, Wadham College. Adam takes a radically different tack, calling for a wider conversation about reforming OUSU into a more open, democratic, and engaging institution. His headline policy is that he has no policies, and that he wants students to vote annually on policies to create a student manifesto, which he says will deliver a less centralised student union. He further promises to consult, on how this student wide democracy might work.

I really admire the conversation that Adam is trying to start, but it also makes me feel sorry for him. I not sure anyone else is the history of OUSU has spent as long as I have thinking about these issues, and trying to deliver change, but I can’t see Adam’s efforts engaging more students. Indeed, his proposals raise more questions than they answer. How exactly will this deliver increased engagement? What’s wrong with the current system? Will referenda/General Meetings with 1000’s in attendance allow the student body to have a complex debate and resolution on issues which don’t have a Yes/No answer?

Voters need something concrete to get behind. Direct democracy could be just that, but there is not commitment on what shape this will take – just a commitment to consult on how to consult.

Adam will certainly be making the debate interesting for those of us into governance, but in my opinion his message won’t travel far outside that small group of people who are already engaged. With all the talk about OUSU, and nothing about the everyday concerns of students (I long for the day someone stops me on the street to discuss the OUSU democratic deficit) I can’t see this campaign going far.

The Presidential campaign is going to be interesting, to say the least. Becky has a clear, memorable manifesto that is most likely to engage students, but Will has the bigger slate and therefore the ability to get his message across on the doorstep. Adam’s cause is honourable, but will almost certainly be fruitless. Now, in these elections, is the time for policies to be presented, debated, and selected by students. It is the annual occasion when we sort the Academic-Feedback-Session-Wheat, from the Mug-Painting-Chaff. With one week to go, let’s get sorting.

2 Comments

OUSU Elections 2014: Candidates Announced

6/11/2014

6 Comments

 
Its Thursday of 4th Week and that can only mean one thing - nominations have closed for the Annual OUSU Elections.

The full list of nominations can be found here:
NB - the press release incorrectly states that polls open at 8AM. They actually open at 9AM.
Nominations2014.pdf
File Size: 279 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

The headline news is as follows:
  • 35 candidates in total. 13 running for the 6 Sabbatical Officers, 14 for Part Time Executive roles, 5 running for NUS Delegate (there are 6 places), and 3 running for Student Trustee (there are 3 places).
  • There are 4 slates. TeamABC, headed by the presidential candidate Becky Howe; ForOxford, headed by the presidential candidate Will Obeney; Right to Education, assumed to be headed by James Elliott (candidate for Trustee); and Team Women comprising VP Women candidate Lucy Delaney and Womens Officer candidate Aliya Yule. There are also two independent candidates for President, Adam Roberts, and Sam Wiseman (who has already been labelled as a joke candidate online).
  • Independent candidates are also running in a number of the other positions (we shall talk more about these at a later date)
  • Four candidates for President, 4 for VP Access and Academic Affairs, and 2 for VP Graduates.
  • The Vice Presidents Charities and Community,  Welfare and Equal Opportunities, and Women, are all uncontested.
  • Several Part Time Executive positions received no nominations: Graduate International Officer, Graduate Welfare Officer, Mature Students Officer, Rent and Accommodations Officer, International Students officer, Community Outreach and Charities Officer, and Environment and Ethics Officer.
  • As mentioned above, NUS and Trustee will be elected unopposed, and there we no more nominations than positions available.

Overall, Im glad to see so many people running for President, VP Access and Academic Affairs, and VP Graduates. I hope it will promote true debate and engage people. However it is bitterly disappointing that so few have nominated for the critical roles of NUS and Trustee. These people really do need to be the best of the best - and I have some serious concerns about some of them - but that's for another time.

TeamABC are just running 3 sabbatical officers. This appears to be an attempt to not be seen as a mega-slate, however could restrict both their activist base and expenditure limit. ForOxford have gone for a more traditional model, but are very St. John's centric. Right to Education have played a blinder, having elected 4 NUS delegates and a Trustee before the starters pistol has been fired - they will have that extra expenditure, secured by running these positions, available to spend on their key battles in VP Access and Academic Affairs, Common Room Support Officer, Disabled Students Officer, and LGBTQ Officer.

At this stage, noone knows whats going to happen,  it's all a bit of a mess - just like me as a write this. I'm excited that the elections are upon us and there will hopefully be some good discussions, but angry and disappointed students wont get a choice in some key elections. It would be wrong to take that anger out on people like RightToEducation - they played their hand and have secured 4 NUS spots. They've done nothing wrong. Whose fault it is though, is still up for grabs......

More analysis to come soon, especially when we get the manifestos.....
6 Comments

The Silence that's Sapping our Student Union

31/10/2014

0 Comments

 
This comment piece was written for Cherwell Online, and can be found here:

http://www.cherwell.org/comment/opinion/2014/10/31/the-silence-that-is-sapping-our-student-union
0 Comments

The CF Elections do not bode well for 2015

19/8/2014

1 Comment

 
So I might as well start off as I mean to go on – these Conservative Future (CF) elections have been a complete farce. And I mean really bad. As I’ve previously talked about, there are issues surrounding the transparency of the announcement of the elections, and influence being exerted from some outside of CF. This election falls far from the mark of we should expect from our Party.

But it gets worse, and in a way that has potential effects wider than our own youth movement. As you are probably already aware, many of us had to individually register to get a vote, and even then there have been issues reported around people still not receiving their ballot, or not having votes within their region. And all the time, those CF members who have been paying their subs, campaigning in their constituency, but weren’t lucky enough to be harassed by a candidate reminding them to check they had registered for a ballot – go without. I bet there are some who don’t even know there is an election on.

This greatly concerns me. But then again I’m one of those people who gets very passionate about democracy and accountability – and I realise that’s not the most popular thing. So I’m going to frame this electoral car-crash in another way – why it doesn’t bode well for the General Election.

Anyone who has got more involved with campaigning than simply posting a few leaflets will know that elections are in many ways won and lost on data. The most important of which is the Voter Intention. If we know how people are thinking of voting, we can make sure that come May 2015, we can efficiently turn out the true blues, go and persuade the probables, and not waste any time chatting to socialists.

Collecting this data is one thing, but processing and presenting it is quite another. Our Party has a mammoth task of sourcing and collating voter intentions for all the key battlegrounds. If we mess up, we will almost certainly wake up to find Miliband in Number 10. No bacon sandwich shall be safe in Whitehalll. Oh yeh, and socialism.

So I raise the following question: If the Conservative Party is unable to look through its own membership data to identify who is under 30, and what region they live in, and assign them a vote accordingly – how can we expect them to hold and process the Voter Intention data that is so vital to our victory?

The thing is, for a Party machine that is meant to be good at this, CF Elections should be a walk in the park. We all volunteer this information, multiple times. We give it to our local associations who put it on Merlin; we sign up to Team2015; we may even hold position in CF that clearly show our eligibility to vote. Let’s be absolutely clear – for the most of us, CCHQ has the data is needs to give us a vote. For example, a week before I individually registered for a ballot, I received a CF email about doing some campaigning. That emails shows that HQ has me on a maillist of CFers.

The data is there – we either can’t process it properly, or someone can’t be bothered. On the first charge: if you can’t organise data on your best volunteers, how are you going to effectively mobilise them come election time; and do you have the skills to provide them with the Voter Intention data they need to win the battle on the doorstep? On the second charge: if you can’t be bothered to organise an election properly that is open and accessible to all members, then you are not a democrat, and you shouldn’t be in the Conservative Party.

This CF election is nearly done now, and though I have some very grave concerns about it, I also feel powerless to contest the processes and practices. Everyone has lost in this election – including all the candidates, for this has been an election controlled by outside forces (and to be clear I have no evidence that any of the candidates have anything to do with it). So to those fiddlers and the fixers, you win this time. You controlled from the centre and you took power away from the people. You are not Conservatives.

What we must do now is build a better system. One which empowers members to engage and get involved – for a member who feels they have a say in their Party, is much more likely to be a happy member. And a happy member knocks on more doors.

So whoever wins this election, let’s have a review to make sure this doesn’t happen again. To be clear; not a review that will detract from campaigning, and not one the will look to apportion blame for past events. We need a democratic review that has one thing in mind – how do we build a meritocratic Conservative Future, where every member is able to have their voice heard, and rise as far as their talents will take them.

To the new Conservative Future Executive: the ball’s in your court now.

1 Comment

The Rise of RoadTrip and the CF Elections

30/7/2014

0 Comments

 
For some time I have wanted to write about RoadTrip, and also, completely separately, about democracy within Conservative Future. However the beginning of the CF elections have drawn these issues together, and so the time now seems right.

RoadTrip is a perfectly reasonable concept: you get hundreds of campaigners from around the country to descend on one of the target seats, and give them a great experience that hopefully keeps them coming back. Seems fair enough. But my problems are with the way that it is administered, and the logic behind the leadership. For starters, there are questions about the selection of seats which are visited. The first RoadTrip went to support Aiden Burley, who was not even an MP in a 40:40 seat. So who is making the decisions on where RoadTrip goes, and how meritocratic is this process?

Building on that, we have to ask questions about when RoadTrip announcements are made. Twice now, RoadTrips announced only weeks in advance have clashed with long-arranged regional campaign days in the West Midlands, leading to very low turnouts in West Mids 40:40 constituencies.  RoadTrip is robbing Peter to pay Paul. And yet this could so easily be remedied – simply announce the RoadTrip dates in advance to that the CF Regions, Areas and Constituencies can work around them. I am amazed that following repeated requests through various channels, within a Party that is meant to stand for localism, we are still pilling on the support for a centralised one-size-fits-all campaign plan, which is damaging campaigning organised closer to the coalface. 

Just to be extra clear, because I know what conclusions some people will draw from this, I am not anti-RoadTrip. I am against the way it has been implemented.

Which neatly brings us on to the Conservative Future elections 2014, so far dominated by, you guessed it; RoadTrip! That’s right, the people who bought you centralised, we-know-best campaigning (do I hear cries of ‘Shame! Socialism!’?) are now running to be the leaders of our very own youth organisation. Now I know some of the individuals involved, and I like them, and in many ways they are unfortunate for being the first to raise their heads above the electoral parapet. But that must not prevent some very serious questions being asked of the democratic process.

If various online murmurings are to be believed, the RoadTrip slate of candidates was well aware that an election was on the way before the rest of us. Indeed the only formal announcement I can find that nominations had opened was a rare tweet from the Conservative Future account. I myself, as a member of the National CF Strategy Team asked earlier this month in emails and in a report, for guidance on when the elections would be. Answer there came none.

Are we to assume that one needs to be a RoadTripper to get access to this electorally favourable data? Wouldn't it be much better if we just had a set, defined, 12 month term of office, so everyone knows where they stand? And what of the mysterious campaign emails people have been receiving? Where did the list of email addresses come from? 

But let’s also look at what, or who, may be behind this slate. This slate is united in RoadTrip, and if the blogs are to be believed, have begun to amass funds to support the campaign. So why don’t they be open with us about where this money has come from, if indeed it does exist. In a general election we expect transparency in Party donations so questions about influence can be addressed. Its time all those standing in this election volunteered this information so that we can have faith that our democracy is not being unduly influenced from outside.

Finally, I want to look at the idea of a slate so united by one notion. As I have already said, I do know some of those on the slate, and have faith in their ability to fulfil the role; however wouldn’t it be better to have a little more political diversity? In the same way we would question a team comprised solely of individuals from London, is it healthy to have our leadership dominated by the notion that campaigning is the be all and end all. I am front of the queue when it comes to wanting more of our members to go and knock on doors, but I want to see a CF that is more than that. One that has a proper, grown-up relationship with HQ, where we are respected and listened to. One where we influence our parties debates, and not just deliver leaflets. One where we all genuinely work together, recognising the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches, and don’t work cross purposes.

I want to wish Alexandra and her team the very best for the election. I don’t want this to be seen as simple against a particular slate. Those that know me will confirm that as more information trickles down, other candidates will get the spotlight shone on them.  Overall I want to start a debate, so that this election can be different that the others. We need our leaders to open the window to questioning, but just as importantly we need members to ask those questions which are too long overdue.

0 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>

    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.