Wednesday, April 30, 2025
Blog Page 496

Opinion – We’ve Left: Supporting Remain is Political Suicide

0

The pollster Peter Kellner predicted in early 2018 that 450,000 net Brexiteers were dying per annum. On this logic, he suggested that by 2020 Britain would want to remain in the EU for the foreseeable future. An opaque cloud of smog descended on Remainers, in which the inevitability of our farewell was soon veiled.

Politicians who are/were Remain, or are in some way sceptical about Brexit, must realise that any remark about their incredulity is political suicide. Jess Philips recently fell into the trap of Brexit-scepticism. She wasn’t the first or last. She revealed to Andrew Marr that the prospect of re-joining was not far-fetched, and would depend on the circumstances of the post-Brexit economy. Whether you agree or not, Philips evidently forgot the outcome of the recent election/ Jo Swinson’s apologetic face at having led her party to ruin was seemingly not imprinted in Philips’ mind.

The election was fought on ‘getting Brexit done’ and that is what 43.6% of voters choose to do, compared with the meagre 11.5% share to the Liberal Democrats, the only mainstream pro-remain party.  

Remainers, becoming Remoaners, still do not believe they are in the minority. While the vote in 2016 may have been a battle over a percentile, last year’s election saw a rise of 47 seats for the Conservatives. The change in demographics which pollsters, Remainers and Remoaners predicted by 2020 were unequivocally incorrect.

Wounds need to be licked and placards put aside. Brexit-sceptics need to accept the facts – that Britain wanted to, and voted to leave the European Union, twice.  

Hopeful Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has been praised as Shadow Brexit Secretary praised for moving forward on the question of Brexit. Although Starmer seemed an obvious choice for the next leader, his Brexit policy is misted by ‘Remain fog.’ Starmer’s recent decision to call on Labour to back the reintroduction of free movement within the EU, bringing the issue of migrant toleration to his campaign. Immigration, and the press hounding of migrants, was, of course, something in which Brexit was won on. It was based on an accumulation of concerns, mounting from 2004 onwards, in which the government did not impose immigration restrictions as many other countries did. The way in which any future leader of the Labour Party can hope to ever win back any seats – and dare to hope to be back in a government – is by incorporating Brexit into their strategy for the ‘future’. The electorate is passionate about climate change, and their ‘Green New Deal’ may gain traction with voters, but not if they do not incorporate what Britain has already voted on.

The party most disillusioned, and still clinging to Remain, are indeed the Liberal Democrats, who have been thrust even further into the political wilderness. The disunity of Remainers in the election was what Johnson was betting on for his victory, while the Lib Dem input was the final nail in the coffin for anyone wishing to remain in the EU. Swinson’s apology to the party at having failed to win and unite remain voters was lacklustre and ineffectual. Swinson’s apology should not go out to just her party but to the electorate more widely. It was the Lib Dem’s attacks on Labour rather than the Conservatives, with their huge misjudgement about the political mood and desire to split the Remain vote, which has caused the great loss.

James O’Brien was forceful after the election in hounding Labour for their misjudgement, and specifically Corbyn in letting down the electorate by sticking to morals rather than concrete and popular policy. But this is a responsibility in which Labour and the Lib Dems share: their Remoaning has forced many people into another five years of Tory majority, with a further rise of the use of foodbanks (up by 23% in the last year) and some 30,000 deaths, the Royal Society of Medicine say, are due to austerity policies since 2017.

The election was always going to be fought on Brexit and it was both parties’ failure which has contributed to the continuation of such Tory policies on our society.

The prospect of re-joining the EU has become a lifeline for Remainers to hold on to. The prospect of rejoining the bloc in the future is, of course, a possibility. Just as Britain joined the EEC in 1973, after over ten years of rebuff from de Gaulle and the hostile political climate around immigration in the ‘70s, we can theoretically join again. There is some tract to say that gaining support for the Re-join movement would theoretically be doable. Brexit has been won on ‘promises’ of sovereignty, independence and heightened British trade. If these promises are not adhered to and Johnson’s deal is substandard, then there is the possibility for such a movement. But those people who want that to happen must bide their time, for Brexit has to fail, and people have to believe it has failed, for a re-join movement to ever widespread support.

Where re-joining the EU seems most probable in Britain is in Scotland and Northern Ireland. With Sturgeon gunning for a second independence referendum, since 55% of Scots voted to remain part of Britain in 2014 but 62% voted to remain in the EU two years, is certainly credible. Donald Tusk, former president of the European Council, has been positive about the prospect; while he cannot interfere with diplomatic conventions in a different country he suggested their application as an independent country would be welcomed. Of course, there are limits to this: re-entry into the common market would mean Scottish adherence to the EU’s fishing policy, something deeply unpopular. Scotland also doesn’t qualify fiscally for membership. Recent data has put their deficit at 7.2%, while member states are required to have a deficit below 3%. These issues are rectifiable, sure, but independence would need to be won against the government voters before they would even be able to apply for membership of the bloc. The process is one that would take time but may have popular support.

The question of Ireland and border controls has festered around discussion of Brexit since the proposition of the ‘Irish backstop.’ After the recent surge in popularity of Sinn Fein, questions about Ireland’s future and the possibility of reunification have risen again. Southern Ireland as a member of the European Union, would automatically pull Northern Ireland in if they reunited so that the whole of Ireland would be part of the EU. Any border between North and South has severe historic connotations, and Ireland understandably never wants to return to full separation. While the customs border would be moved to the geographical border between the islands, crossed by a ferry, this poses the question of what the need for a separate North and South is. If Northern Ireland is part of the customs union and has to go through checks into mainland Britain anyway, why not remain part of the EU bloc? But there is no saying that Northern Ireland would decide to do this. It’s all conjecture.

While there is the possibility of one or both of Northern Ireland or Scotland re-joining the EU, this will be undertaken outside the parameters of Westminster and would largely leave Britain (simply England and Wales) more isolated than ever. Accepting Brexit has therefore become grave importance, and Labour and the Lib Dems must wake up and incorporate Brexit into their strategy if they ever want to be in government again. Prospects of re-joining the EU should not be overstated or clung onto. As the ‘second referendum’ of the election revealed, Britain wanted to leave, and we have left the European Union.

Oxford City Council releases latest rough sleeper street count

0

Oxford City Council has released its latest rough sleeper street count for the month of November 2019.

The council counted 43 people sleeping rough on the streets of Oxford on one night in the month, representing a 16% decrease from September and a 4% decrease from the 45 people counted in November 2018.

Although street counts cannot give a complete picture of homelessness in Oxford, the Council uses the measurement to guide its trends of the number of rough sleepers over time.

Breaking down the numbers, the Council said that 9 of the sleepers were female, whilst 37 (79%) were male.

Meanwhile, 14 people sleeping on the streets had returned to them after being previously accommodated, the same proportion as those in September, whereas two rough sleepers who had accommodation in Oxford chose to sleep out on the night.

There was one person who was newly verified by the outreach team (OxSPOT) as sleeping rough for less than six months, yet 9 al- together were counted as having been on the streets for less than half a year.

Furthermore, 27 people (61%) had been sleeping rough for more than six months, whilst the number of those homeless in Oxford for over a year has increased from 21 in September to 26 in Novem- ber.

Whilst the number of those people sleeping rough who had local connections with the city and the Oxfordshire area increased between the two months, the number of those from elsewhere in the UK and from the EU had fallen.

The street count found that the two most common support needs for those sleeping rough were alcohol issues and mental health needs, with 18 people identifying with each of these.

The count found that nearly half of those sleeping rough had four overlapping and complex needs.

Caution should be taken with the numbers released, as the Council warned, noting that street counts cannot capture common scenarios of rough sleeping such as people sleeping in stairwells and sites not visited or accessible to street counters.

A county-wide estimate of rough sleeper numbers has been compiled by Oxford City Council and other district councils.

This will be released on 28th February to coincide with England-wide statistics collected by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

Commenting on the November street count results, Councillor Linda Smith said: “the key to helping people off the streets is effective engagement and this begins with the first conversation with someone experiencing rough sleeping.”

Smith, who is an Oxford City Council cabinet member for leisure and housing, added that “We anticipate that the opening of Floyds Row in January will help us to sustain this reduction in the number of people experiencing rough sleeping in Oxford.”

According to the homelessness and housing charity Shelter, an estimated 280,000 people were sleeping rough or living in temporary housing in England at the end of 2019.

This represents an increase of 3,600 on 2018 and 23,000 since 2017.

Renowned playwright calls for equality in Oxford speech

0

Louise Wallwein, the acclaimed poet and playwright, gave an impassioned call for progress and equality in a speech in the Sheldonian last Wednesday.

Wallwein stressed the importance of pushing for equality, despite inevitable setbacks, say- ing: “What we’re fighting for, we’re not always gonna win now … we’re always gonna be fighting. There will always be someone that is unequal.”

As a playwright, Wallwein’s notable works include her poetry collection Glue (2018) and her poem The Dropkick from God (1997).

In a wide-ranging address, Wallwein emphasised the broadness of the LGBTQIA+ community and unity within the community: “I believe we all have to stand for trans people … Don’t let anything break our community apart.”

Wallwein, who identifies as a lesbian, implored the audience to fight for equality for all peoples, saying “how are you going to bring them up? How are you going to stand by them?”

The working class Wallwein was entered into a foster home at birth by her parents in 1969. Her time in care was turbulent, she acknowledged, having been placed in thirteen different children’s homes and foster placements.

She overcame homophobic discrimination during her time in care, finding her “chosen family” in the form of the LGBTQIA+ community. Of the community, she said: “we’re family and we must stay family to each other.”

Introducing Wallwein, the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University, Louis Richardson, called her story “inspirational,” describing Wallwein as a “renowned and award-winning poet, playwright and performer.”

Richardson admitted the University had failed to admit enough students that had lived in care, saying there “[is] no greater testament to the amount of talent we are missing than the current speaker.”

After Richardson’s introduction, Wallwein looked to the ceiling of the Sheldonian and said: “how does a working class butch dyke end up here?”

In her speech, Wallwein used poetry to illustrate her life, including excerpts from Glue, such as Dream Riding.

Beginning her remarks, Wallwein described her younger years, commenting “how did [I] survive everything that I survived? No idea.”

During her time in care, Wallwein was groomed and abused by older men within the care system. “What happened in Rochdale,” she said, “it happened to most kids in care. I’m not lying.”

Despite going on to achieve notable success, Wallwein was told during her youth that she “would end up in prison, or a prostitute, or dying.”

Glue, the story of Wallwein’s search for her birth mother, concludes with the two making contact after thirty years, and her mother not taking issue with Wallwein’s sexuality. As Wallwein put it, “I stood in front of the woman who gave birth to me and she didn’t judge me. How lucky am I?”

Wallwein, a committed socialist who doesn’t “believe in borders,” later said that she considered fighting anti-trans figures on social media to be futile. “There are no other sides. It’s just people in power who make lots of money off us all divided.”

Wallwein has been involved with a number of political causes throughout her life, including campaigns against refugee de- portations, apartheid, and Margaret Thatcher’s Section 28 which stated that local authorities and schools could not “promote ho- mosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality.”

The playwright’s care for refugees comes from, she confessed, her feeling of being “internally displaced in this country. I had no home.”

Wallwein was appointed an MBE in the Queens Birthday Honours in 2018, and won the Best Performance Manchester Culture Award in 2019.

Christ Church to hold LGBT+ services

0

Christ Church Cathedral will host a series of inclusive church services for Oxford’s LGBT+ community. The services, called Sacred, will take place over a six-month period, with the first on 23 February. It will be led by Revd Marcus Green, who identifies as gay, and will include sung worship, a sermon, prayer, and a chance for people to socialise after.

Speaking to Cherwell, Revd Green said that Sacred “is aimed at LGBT+ people who value the more informal worship and Bible-based preaching style, but who some- times feel that the evangelical side of church life doesn’t always value us as LGBT+ people.” Green, the author of a book discussing Christian attitudes to sexuality, said: “People can expect informal worship and good preaching with lots of Bible but absolutely no condemnation. Everyone is welcome. And we will offer a safe space for people to pray.”

Revd Green will be accompanied by Jayne Ozanne, who will preach during the service. A prominent Oxford activist, Ozanne visited the Pope last year to give him a copy of her memoir and share her experience of conversion therapy. She has been described by The Independent as “one of the Church of England’s most influential evangelical campaigners.”

The Christ Church College Chaplain, Revd Clare Haynes, said: “We’re delighted to be able to be hosting this new initiative in the Cathedral and hope that Sacred can be a welcoming, safe and inclusive space for all people. Some people have been hurt in the past by their experiences of church, and so to hold a service that proclaims clearly that we want to witness God’s love seemed to be a good thing to do.”

Despite attempts in Oxford to welcome the LGBT+ community, more traditional views still exist amongst the Church nationally. Last month, the Church of Eng- land was forced to apologise after it stated that sexual intercourse is just for married heterosexuals. More than 3,500 people have since signed an open letter to the House of Bishops, initiated by Ozanne and three other people. The letter declares that the statement “has significantly damaged the mission of the Church and it has broken the trust of those it seeks to serve.”

Louis Wallwein MBE is delivering a lecture on ‘working call queers’ for the History Faculty and the Oxford Centre on Life Writing is hosting a symposium.

The initiative has been created by a group in the Diocese of Oxford, including Christ Church’s college chaplain, Revd Clare Hayns, and Revd Philippa White.

The services will occur once a month over the next six months.

City Council’s £35,000 #WeAreOxford fund opens

0

Oxford City Council has announced that the £35,000 #WeAreOxford fund is open for applications.

This fund is “for organisations to deliver activities and events that bring people from different backgrounds together to build long last friendships.”

Successful grants will be between £500 and £5000 and may “include social activities, community events, cultural, and educational or sports [sic]”.

Applications close on 9th March.

The central government is providing the money with the aim being “to strengthen communities and support migrants” following Brexit.

This is an extra grant, on top of the Council’s existing programme for grants, which includes small community grants and grants for voluntary and community groups.

On the aims of the #WeAreOxford fund, it states: “The aims of the fund are to support organisations to: bring people together from different backgrounds so they can spend time together and build long-lasting friendships.

“Encourage community organisations to set up activities and events that enhance community cohesion and integration, and finally to encourage organisations who represent different groups to work in partnership with each other.”

It will fund organisations including “community organisations, voluntary groups, charities, not-for-profit organisations, schools and educational institutions and sports clubs”.

On its website, Oxford City Council states “[w]e prefer applications where groups or organisations are working in partnership with each other”.

They “will prioritise areas of the City with the highest levels of diversity. These are Littlemore, Wood Farm, Cutteslowe, Leys” and prefer ongoing to one-off events.

Marie Tidball, Cabinet Member for Supporting Local Communities has said of the fund: “This grant fund gives a significant boost to the community activities that we can support as the Council.

“By bringing people together in community activities we aim to create a shared experience and help strengthen bonds across communities around what we have in common.

“The last three years has been difficult for everyone as the Brexit debate put so much national focus on our differences.

“Now we want to celebrate what we have in common, and build connections at a local level so that everyone feels part of Oxford.

“The #WeAreOxford grant fund will enable groups to organise activities that are right for their localities, age groups, and communities to build stronger connections for the future.

“This fund enables us to do even more to support our communities. I’d encourage organisations to look at how they can help build cross-community links.

“We would welcome joint applications that help different groups work together, and ideas that use the great assets the council funds like community and leisure centres as affordable venues at the heart of their local area.”

Kaya Axelsson, Oxford SU’s VP Communities and Charities, said: “As a student, and an international student, my world opened up completely when I started attending local public community events.

“When people are brought together in informal settings that changes our networks and provides us new pathways for building a community and a city together.

“I look forward to any event coming from this grant.”

After launching the campaign last month, Councillor Susan Brown said: “the Brexit debate has divided our country over the last three years. And now, we need to focus on the things … we share.”

The University and Oxford Hub have been contacted for comment.

Green Templeton elects new Principal

0

Sir Michael Dixon has been elected the new Principal of Green Templeton College and will assume the position in September 2020.

Sir Michael has previously served as the Director of the Natural History Museum in London for over 15 years, having announced last year that he would retire from the post.

Whilst Sir Michael was Director of the Museum, its attendance almost doubled, from 3 million visits a year to 5.3 million. Sir Michael has also overseen the delivery of the museum’s Darwin centre, its biggest single development since the 1800s, which opened to the public in 2010 to widespread acclaim.

In 2014, the success of Sir Michael’s tenure as Director led to a knighthood in recognition for his services to museums.

Prior to his role as museum Director, Sir Michael worked for two decades in scientific, technical and medical (STM) publishing with John Wiley and Sons and Thomson Corporation and later served as Director General of the Zoological Society of London.

The college is a graduate community with a focus on business and management, health and medicine, and social sciences.

It has around 600 students from over 70 countries, with more than 300 fellows.

On his election, Sir Michael said: “I am delighted that the Governing

Body of Green Templeton College has selected me to be the next Principal. “I look forward to building on the

legacy of previous Principals in making the college a vibrant, stimulating community for research and learn- ing where fellows and students can thrive.”

Sir Michael will be replacing Professor Denise Lievesley, who has stepped down after five years as principal.

On her successor, she said: “Green Templeton is a vibrant international community focused on bringing academic research of the highest quality to bear on real-world problems.

“I have enjoyed my time as Principal immensely and will miss our magnificent students and staff. I am proud to pass the baton on to Michael and look forward to hearing about the continuing success of the college.”

Storm Ciara destroys part of Oxfordshire Wildlife Rescue

0

Storm Ciara, which has ravaged much of Britain and parts of mainland Europe over the course of the last week, has turned its wrath upon an Oxford animal sanctuary.

Oxfordshire Wildlife Rescue, based in Didcot, is now faced with a large rebuilding job after “significant damage” partially destroyed the rescue centre’s ‘Hedgehog Hospital’, forcing the emergency relocation of the hedgehog population among volunteers.

According to the centre’s Face- book page, the total cost of the damage is £2700, as well as breaking the ‘spirits’ of volunteers.

A video posted to the site illustrates the scale of the damage, showing a roof partly caved in and a cluttered and chaotic interior.

The founder of the organisation, Luke Waklawec, spoke in the video, outlining the scale of the problem facing the centre:

“It’s not just the structural damage – we have lost the ICU (intensive care unit), which we had literally just bought, and the microscope and cages, they are just beyond repair. The electrics are knackered.

“We’ve put countless hours, days, months and years into this – for nothing.”

Mr Waklawec, writing on Facebook, also commented that the storm has left the hedgehog hospital “unstable and totally unsafe to use”:

“In the mass of destruction we have lost several vital pieces of equipment and very much possibly the building itself.

“At this moment in time we are unfortunately unable to take in anymore hedgehogs until we can establish or fix the new hospital and replace all broken equipment lost in the mess.

“This is a very bitter blow for us all here at OWR as the hospital was nearing completion and we were ready to move to our bigger location with funding saved up. This may now have to put back”.

The hedgehog hospital was itself the product of a fundraising campaign last year.

Now a new fundraiser has been launched to help with the reestablishment of the unit, as well as to give money towards the construction of “a new location”.

The link to donate can be found on the Facebook page by searching ‘Oxfordshire Wildlife Rescue’.

Oxfordshire Wildlife Rescue is an emergency response Wildlife Rescue unit that covers the Oxfordshire area.

They rescue, care and rehabilitate all sick, injured and orphaned British animals.

Jesus professor one of GQ’s 50 most influential people

0

Sir Nigel Shadbolt was recognised by GQ for the work he does with the Open Data Institute, which GQ describes as the ‘“not-evil” WikiLeaks’.

He co-founded it with Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, in 2012.

Professor Shadbolt is also the Principal of Jesus College and a Professor in the Department of Computer Science where he specialises in human centred computing, a new and increasingly important field in AI.

The President of the Jesus College JCR congratulated Shadbolt on their behalf, saying “we are very lucky to have such a caring principal.

“He’s really made our college a better place. Huge congratulations to Nigel! We are all very happy for him!”

He was also congratulated by the University and the department of Computer Science via twitter.

Shadbolt and Berners-Lee’s brainchild, the Open Data Institute, was created after both worked as Information Advisors to the Coalition government, where they supervised the release of many public data sets as open data.

It specialises in the use of open data to support innovation, training and research by governments and private companies.

It receives funding from the UK Technology Strategy Board and includes Deutsche Bank and Ocado Technology as its members.

In GQ, Shadbolt has propounded the benefits of increased use of AI, saying “every aspect of how individuals, corporations and governments function can be more effectively managed with the right application of the right data.”

However, in light of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, he has also argued that “consumers and citizens should be empowered, not oppressed by data and its analysis.”

This scandal demonstrated how data mining could be used to political ends without the knowledge of the public or authorities.

The personal data of up to 87 million Facebook users were acquired through the 270,000 Facebook users who used a Facebook app called ‘This Is Your Digital Life’, breaching the digital terms of service.

Furthermore, data has left it possible for political actors of all sizes to launch software strikes with increasing force, such that Professor Shadbolt has called for ‘enforced conventions, treaties and limitations’ in the digital world.

This may be in response to increased tensions over foreign government interference in elections through digital means, including alleged Russian interference in the 2015 US Presidential election and the 2016 UK EU referendum.

Strikes can also be launched by individuals, like when the NHS was subject to a cyber attack causing the shutdown of hundreds of thousands of computers in 2017.

As well as specialising in data and AI, Professor Shadbolt has researched and published on topics including cognitive psychology, computational neuroscience and the Semantic Web.

Some of his current research focuses on the theory and practice of social machines, applications that succeed by integrating humans and computers.

This will lead to greater support from machines in ways that seem more similar to humans as through the accumulation of data and use of AI machines can resemble closed loved ones.

Interview with Professor John Curtice

0

Remind me never to do an interview again. Not that speaking to Sir John Curtice – Professor of Politics at the University of Strathclyde, Britain’s leading psephologist, BBC election analyst and all-round nice guy – wasn’t deeply enjoyable. I’m an election-nerd, he’s the doyen of elections so there’s no way our chat would not be enlightening. But whilst I’m very marginally enlightened in psephology (the science of elections, for the uninitiated) I’m deeply unenlightened technologically. Failing microphones, bad signal and Skype mishaps almost conspired to prevent our interview. Fortunately, Sir John had a saint’s patience, and once Eduroam pitied me, I settled down to chat with a man who has forgotten more about elections than most PPE students will ever know.

Professor Sir John Curtice is most well-known as the BBC’s go-to election analyst. Like a psephological Rachel Riley, he crunches the numbers, works out the swing and tells Huw Edwards what the hell is going on. He’s been a reassuring presence on our screens, and a popular one. Despite his insistence to the New Statesman (Cherwell’s less highbrow older brother) that he “didn’t want to be a media celebrity”, Sir John’s polling wisdom and Professor Branestawm looks has meant he’s acquired a big social media following, including Twitter’s remarkable page “Is John Curtice on TV?”. His fame is well-earnt though; through exit polls and quality analysis, he’s successfully predicted general elections for BBC viewers since 2005. With his interest and involvement in elections going back much further.

“My first political memory is the death of Hugh Gaitskell and the subsequent Labour party leadership election. I followed the 1964 election, particularly the day after when it was quite close and we weren’t sure whether they were going to get a majority.” Nail-biting election results aren’t a recent development then. Before long the future Sir John was at Magdalen doing PPE, revealing “I was clear it was the politics I was most interested in.” From there to graduate studies at Nuffield and an eventual PhD which was on the Liberal Party. It was here Sir John was first pulled into the election-telly nexus. At Nuffield he was taught by David Butler, “the telly Don of his age”, as Sir John put it, and his 1970s equivalent, essentially. It was through Butler’s ubiquitous television appearances that Sir John became involved in the glamourous world of BBC election analysis. His job was “to sit behind [David] in the BBC studio in 1979. My primary job was to sit with a programmable calculator and be able to calculate the swing very quickly, should the BBC computer system go down,” fortunately, “it did in rehearsals but actually didn’t do so on the night.” His first job, “was looking at what’s going on and trying to provide the occasional piece of advice. Most of which he largely ignored, but there we go.”

It was characteristic of Sir John to play down his undoubted brainbox status and play up his luck. But his first big break at the BBC came from his own initiative. With a colleague at Nuffield, he persuaded the BBC to let him give an instant analysis of the 1981 London Council elections using the Oxford university computer. Leaving aside that it was the University’s sole computer, what Sir John was doing was ground-breaking for British television. It might sound old-hat now, but “instant analysis for television was at the cutting edge of what you could do with digital technology” then. After that symbolic entrance, Sir John has “been involved on the production sides of BBC elections for the last 40 years,” he states, “the rest is history.”

Indeed it was, as Sir John has had a front-row seat at every election since Mrs Thatcher swept to power in 1979. So with all that experience, I asked Sir John if he could provide any historical comparisons for last year’s remarkable election result. How similar was the Tory smashing of the so-called “Red Wall” which was erected in Blair’s landslide of 1997, where, as with Johnson’s capture of traditionally Labour seats like Workington in 2019, Blair (“Call me Tony”) took seats like Enfield Southgate which were supposed to be as solidly Tory as a strongly-worded Port and Policy speech…

Sir John was sceptical, revealing “it’s certainly true that in 1997 Labour won constituencies it would not usually be expected to pick up. One example is Scarborough. I remember a Channel 4 news thing going off to Scarborough and the interviewer saying that according to the opinion polls the Labour Party could win Scarborough. It seemed incredible but Labour dually won Scarborough. I think what happened in 2019 is probably more analogous to what happened in Scotland in 2015.”

That was the year the SNP swept 56 of Scotland’s 59 Westminster constituencies, overturning decades of Labour dominance. “The point about some of the seats the Labour party lost in 2019 is that they had become more marginal relatively recently,” he said, “in many ways 2019 is the end of the story because these were seats were moving away from Labour under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. They moved further after Brexit. The loss of Leave voters by the Labour party is partly the story in these seats.” Comparing to the Scottish story in 2015 he echoed, “the analogy, of course, is that the 2014 Scottish independence referendum destroyed Labour’s longstanding electoral basis in Scotland. Sure, I think in 1997 in terms of seats, but in terms of the consequences from a referendum then 2015 in Scotland is probably the closest analogy.”

I asked, what was it that’s been driving voters away from Labour? and “therein lies the long tell.” Sir John started by unpacking Labour’s experience in Scotland. Rather than shooting the nationalist fox, New Labour’s devolution settlement meant what “we discovered fairly rapidly was that if you provide an environment in which the question is who can best run Scotland as opposed to who would be best to send to Westminster then voters gave a different answer.” As Labour stumbled, the SNP built up support, winning a majority at the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections. This got them the thing they most wanted (asides from a Braveheart sequel), an independence referendum. John continued, “the problem for Labour, once we got into the independence referendum, was twofold. One is that independence is not simply a left/right issue. Labour is a party that exists to articulate arguments about inequality and the role the state should play in dealing with inequality. It struggles when you’re asking questions about constitutions.”

It was, of course, time for that dreaded B-word, and just why so many former Labour voters backed Leave in 2016 and Johnson in 2019. John revealed that “academic research essentially says Labour’s problem among working-class voters is the combination of Blairism and Corbynism” and thus we can see, “on the one hand abstentionism amongst working-class voters goes up. Basically, New Labour was perceived to be close to the centre. Labour became seen much less as being working class in its image. So rebranding as New Labour means you start losing voters in these constituencies.” The other factor was Brexit, which caused Labour to lose ground with these voters somewhat in 2017, but especially in 2019. This was because “Brexit is again not a left-right issue. It’s an issue that divides social liberals against social conservatives. Left-wingers were just as likely to vote for Brexit as right-wingers once you define it as the role of the government dealing with inequality in the economy.” That was the crux of it, he says, “it’s an issue that splits the Labour coalition. As we saw in 2019 they tried to sit on both sides of the fence but ended up falling off.”

I was intrigued by the social liberals versus social conservatives point he raised. Remembering I was writing for Cherwell and not auditioning to be a paler, more English and less talented Andrew Neil, I asked if he thought the impact of more people going to university than ever before both explained the instinctive social liberalism of young Brits and their greater likelihood to back Labour and Remain. He revealed, “it’s old versus young and it is university educated versus those who with little in the way of education or qualifications. These things are related, but… independently.” He goes on that, “there’s what I call enculturation. Younger people have been brought up in a society and educational system in which they’ve been socialized into the idea that the UK is a multicultural, multiethnic country.” He states that “the second cultural thing is that the experience of university tends to make people more liberal. So there’s a cultural thing going on, but there’s also a real interest difference.” Sir John explains how younger people with university qualifications are more likely to migrate than those older voters, and that was “reflected in the Brexit referendum”.

Is it as simple as that? Are we stuck with the inter-generational conflict in Britain? Sir John laughs, well “that’s the $64,000 question about Brexit and immigration: to what extent are these issues going to continue to dominate our politics. It’s something to which we don’t know the answer.” He explains how getting Brexit done doesn’t mean the future’s all bright for the Conservatives. The strong identification of voters with Leave and Remain means that these polarities might take a long time to shift. But as they skew older, the Tories can’t rely on Leavers forever. “At the moment everybody’s going around saying ‘Oh God, Labour’s in a terrible state’. Let’s think about what the future looks like for the Conservative Party. Unless Conservatives can make ground in your generation and those not so much older than you then they are going to be in trouble.”

I asked, surely, despite all the anxiety, this must have been a great decade to be studying elections? “Yeah, especially a psephologist in Scotland. It’s an extraordinary political time.” Sir John started to get philosophical (as well as psephological) at this point, pondering “it’s fascinating that much of the debate about Scottish independence and about Brexit are about relatively familiar themes. They’re both about sovereignty, about identity, about whether you’re better off on your own or in combination with somebody else economically. The major difference is that Brexit was about immigration and the Scottish referendum wasn’t, but there’s a credible similarity in these arguments. They are intense arguments that cause very high levels of political debate. And to that extent, yes. Of my six and a half decades, certainly, the last decade has been the most interesting.”

With that Sir John was off. Whatever the next decade holds politically – another four elections, another Scottish Independence referendum or a second EU Referendum, having Professor Curtice presiding over the results will be a reassuring constant in the sea of political lunacy. Long may he continue.

Queer Victoriana: Sex in the City

0

In 1881, The Sins of the Cities of the Plain was published privately in 250 copies. It purports to be the memoirs of Jack Saul, a rentboy or “Mary-Ann”, and is one of the most explicit pornographic gay novels of the 19th century. For the hefty sum of four guineas, one could read in intense detail about the scandal of Thomas Boulton and Frederick Park, two Victorian cross-dressers who were tried at Bow Street Magistrates’ Court in 1871.

            This strange book is important because it represents the emergence of a now important trope in Queer writing: sex as solidarity. It is pornographic, but not gratuitously so. Its intimate descriptions have the intention of defending unfortunate souls such as Boulton and Park. Jack Saul spends the night in the transvestite couple’s rooms and the next day has breakfast with them “all dressed as ladies”.

            Traditionally, and a cynic would say this is still often true, gay writing was fixated on sex, and barely connected to the real world. Pornography, straight or gay, was loud, obscene and often amusingly so. What The Sins of the Cities does differently is to depict believable and close homosexual relationships. Indeed, the author’s descriptions of meeting covertly in Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens are imbued with a joy and fear known viscerally by gay men in London both now and then.

            Such realism is not matched in the book’s authorship. Many different people have been suggested as its composer, not least the renowned pornographer James Campbell Reddie. Another suspect, to use a sadly operative word, is the Pre-Raphaelite Jewish painter Simeon Solomon. While this ascription is largely based on the circumstantial evidence of Solomon’s friendship with Boulton and Park, Solomon did try his hand at sexualised penmanship at various points in his life. His A Vision of Love Revealed in Sleep, a mystical tale of Hebraic voyeurism, published as a prose-poem in 1871, has much in common with the shifting sands of The Sins of the Cities.

            Solomon was a man for whom the lasciviousness of meeting in Pleasure Gardens and dressing up in costume was second nature. He would often entertain the likes of Charles Algernon Swinburne and Dante Gabriel Rossetti in his rooms, dressed as an intoxicating Arabian prince, or otherwise more literally intoxicated. Perhaps unusually in the history of Queer Victoriana, he was able to enter a form of popular culture. Walter Pater wrote of how Solomon’s painting Love Among the Schoolboys was incredibly common to be hung on the wall of any Oxford undergraduate aspiring to popularity. It played a double role, signifying both the student’s fashionableness in having his finger on the pulse of artistic modernity, and, more putatively, noting to his friends his openness to experimentation.

            The Sins of the Cities is part of a genre not as uncommon as one might think. The Victorian period, with its explosion in printing and London’s particular densifying in the period, meant that a book of such explicitness could go unnoticed enough not to arouse attention, except by those who wanted their attention aroused. Indeed, it is easy, and not unfounded, for 21st century commentators to see the period as a time of intense oppression of homosexuality, where one could barely move for a threatening copper on every corner. In reality, when Boulton and Park were tried in 1871, since there was no evidence of anal sex (one wonders what the relevant authorities were looking for as evidence of this), and, despite the prosecutors’ best efforts to persuade otherwise, dressing in women’s clothing not being a crime, they were acquitted of all charges.

  At the risk of creating my own obfuscating metropolis in this article, I shall introduce a further book to push this point. Around 1888, an odd text by “Walter”, entitled My Secret Life, began to appear in London in several volumes. It is a sprawling and disorganised collection of, at times, quite repellent writing about growing up gay at public school and in adolescence. It is at once beautiful – as an insight into the confused and developing mind of a Victorian gay boy: a 19th century Sex Education – and obscene – the narrator is a clear pervert throughout and damages his own body in his escapades. The point is thus: to find gay characters in 19th century literature, one needn’t search for masturbation in classic novels (see Eve Sedgwick on Jane Austen), or read only between the lines to find David Copperfield’s latent lust for his various father-figures. That is not to say there is no value in doing these things, only that 19th century London offers up its own homosexuality with great fecundity, and it is perhaps there, where the sex was actually happening, that we should start looking, rather than in the nooks and crannies of the classics.