Wednesday 25th June 2025
Blog Page 551

Moran keeps majority in Oxford West

0

Layla Moran has been re-elected as MP for the marginal Oxford West and Abingdon.

Moran, an MP since the 2017 General Election, beat the Conservative PPC by almost 9,000 votes to maintain her seat.

Moran’s victory increases the gap between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party after James Frederickson gained only 38.1% of the vote.

In 2017, Moran won the seat by a mere 816 votes, ending Conservative Nicola Blackwood’s seven-year tenure.

Rosie Sourbut, the Labour PPC, received 4,258 votes, while the Brexit Party candidate, Allison Wild, received 829.

With a turnout of 76.4%, this election proved to be a highly contested event, centred heavily around Brexit.

The re-election of a Liberal Democrat in Oxford West and Abingdon echoes the wishes of the 70% of constituents voted to remain in the European Union in 2016.

Moran is one of 11 Liberal Democrats to be elected as MPs, but the Conservative Party will form a government after winning a majority.

Liberal Democrat leader, Jo Swinson, narrowly lost her seat of Dunbartonshire East to the SNP by 149 votes.

Labour stays strong in Oxford East

0

Anneliese Dodds has maintained her seat as Labour MP for Oxford East, winning 57% of the vote.

Dodds was first elected in the 2017 general election in which she gained over 35,000 votes. Gaining 28,135 votes, this election narrows her majority.

A Labour safe seat since 1987, Dodds gained more votes than the other seven candidates standing in Oxford East.

Turnout was down by 5.5% when compared with 2017, with 63.3% of constituents turning out to vote.

Conservative PCC, Louise Staite, gained 20.9% of the vote, whilst the Liberal Democrats’ Alistair Fernie gained 13.9%.

The Green Party’s PCC, David Williams, gained 4.8% and the Brexit Party gained 2.3%, while the three Independent candidates amassed 499 votes between them.

Despite Liberal Democrat and Labour successes in Oxford, the Conservative Party will form a government under Boris Johnson after winning a majority.

Dodds, an Oxford graduate, was an MEP for South East England from 2014 before her election as MP in 2017.

Vote swaps: the heart of tactical voting

0

As the UK goes to the polls in what is dubbed the “Brexit election,” some Remain voters are going the extra mile to make sure their vote has the maximum impact. Increasing numbers of people are choosing to swap their vote with someone from a different constituency, switching allegiances in order to unseat an undesirable candidate.

‘Vote swaps’ are particularly common in marginal constituencies, where only a small number of votes are required to swing the overall percentage in favour of a different party. Tactical voting – when voters pick a party or candidate other than their first choice in order to reduce the margin of the other most prominent candidate – is by no means uncommon, with a poll by BMG showing that one in four people plan to vote tactically. However, vote swaps are a newer phenomenon, and have been propelled into the limelight by an increasingly loud anti-Brexit discourse.

“This was a direct response to people on the street coming up to us and talking about the issue,” said Pamela Armstrong, a committee member for the collective ‘Cheltenham for Europe,’ who founded a Facebook group for vote swaps along with her friend Nikki Robson. “At first, we thought it would just be about linking our own [local] constituencies and we were a little surprised, when we went live, to get requests from all over the United Kingdom. I even had one from Antarctica which was a huge surprise to us.”

Robson and Armstrong set up the Facebook group in May 2019 with the aim of bringing together voters whose primary concern was remaining in the European Union, and initially it had 156 supporters. That number has now grown to more than 7,000 members, with up to 50,000 engagements per month and a month-by-month reach of two million. Whilst Robson handled the business end of the process, matching voters and supporting them through the swaps, Armstrong handled publicity, advertising the group on Twitter.

Armstrong, who swapped her vote for the first time in this election, said that for participants, votes “are so precious to them because it’s as if they hold them in their hands close to their hearts, and they will not let it go. I got the sense that it is a very great responsibility, and it does count. You’re switching your allegiance into a constituency where there is a very real chance that the Pro-remain candidate will be returned to parliament. And both vote swappers are doing that. It’s win-win.” 

Many people are hailing tactical voting as being especially important in the 2019 election, with approximately 50 marginal seats which the Conservatives could lose as a result of tactical voting. Despite the exit poll predicting that the Conservatives will win a working majority, with YouGov’s final poll predicting a gain of 50 seats for the party, in their biggest majority since 1987, there is a great deal of speculation that tactical voting could pull the rug from underneath their feet.

Tom de Grunwald, who runs the vote swapping website Swap My Vote since 2015, said vote swaps go a long way in hyper-marginal constituencies, citing the example of how the Conservatives won the Richmond Park constituency by just 45 votes in the 2017 election, with vote swappers providing 10 percent of the swing towards the Liberal Democrats.

“I think it has really affected the way people think about politics. The idea of voting is to vote for who you want, but we have such a bad electoral system that many people literally waste their vote. In 2017, 22 million votes were wasted. I think it [vote swapping] normalises tactical voting, it means that people understand the electoral system better.”

This year, de Grunwald says there have also been unexpected “unionist” vote swaps between the Labour and Conservative parties in marginal Scottish constituencies, in order to avoid Scottish National Party victories, as the latter is lobbying for Scottish independence. However, he says the “lion’s share” of vote swaps are still between progressive parties.

58-year-old retail assistant Caroline Donnelly was one of the many people who used Armstrong and Robson’s group to organise her own vote swap, as well as for three members of her family. Although a staunch Labour supporter, Donnelly voted Liberal Democrat in Cheltenham, as there were just 5,000 votes between the current Conservative MP and the Liberal Democrat candidate in the 2017 general election, whilst Labour trailed more than 20,000 votes behind. In exchange, her swap partner voted Labour in Warwick and Leamington, which is a marginal Labour-Conservative race, with just over 1,000 votes separating the two in the last election.

Anti-Conservative rhetoric is strong within the group, with Armstrong saying, “The Tories have systematically closed down democratic debate in parliament.” For Donnelly, however, the issue is about more than just Brexit, which she views as an elitist move to avoid paying tax. Having previously worked as a nurse for the NHS, she said it had been “devastated” by austerity, and that her own two sisters, who are both disabled, had “suffered severely with austerity cuts. The services they use have been removed and it’s really affected their health. So, I’ve seen the direct results of that.” 

Donnelly found out about the group through a social media link and said it was “a great idea. It’s really easy. Both my husband and daughter had queried, ‘How do you know they’re going to do it?’ And I said, ‘Well, it’s trust, you know.’ It’s kind of made me want to look more widely at other constituencies and how they do, usually I don’t think about Warwick but I’m going to be watching that one tonight. It’s sort of bringing people together to look beyond your own constituency.”

This sentiment is shared by Chair of the Liberal Democrats in the Isle of Wight, Anni Adams. Her party stood aside for the Green Party in her constituency and many others across the country, in a pact known as ‘Unite to Remain,’ in which parties stood aside for one another increase the possibility of pro-Remain candidates winning in certain constituencies. Adams swapped her vote with a Green voter in Cambridge, as she was unable to vote Liberal Democrat owing to the Isle of Wight candidate standing aside.

“It was the first thing that came into my head that I wanted to do, because of my position here, to be able to explain to people not being able to vote for a party I believe in,” Adams said. “It was a genuinely lovely moment this morning going to the polling station and texting my vote swap, taking a photo and saying, ‘You win mate, you’ve got my vote,’ and her saying the same to me.”

Adams, who vote swapped for the first time this election, added: “It’s nice to find a community that believes the things you do in a time that is so divisive and has split the country, and Westminster hasn’t done very much to create unity across the board. Things like Vote Swap, Unite to Remain have given the opportunity for people who are like-minded and want the same thing to put tribal party politics aside in the hope for a better future.”

Other voters have a history of swapping – 39-year-old marketing manager Paul Ahearne swapped votes for the first time in 2017, using the ‘Swap My Vote’ random voter matching programme, and voted Cheltenham Liberal Democrat in exchange for a Labour vote in Portsmouth. “I think it has an effect, but from what I read after 2017, swapping appeared to decide the margin of victory rather than which party won,” he said.

He believes that although some seats may have changed hands due to vote swaps, the number of changed seats is still not high enough to swing the overall victory in either direction. “Cheltenham will be a lot closer this time because of it. [It’s] hard to tell the effect of actual swaps versus those being pragmatic though… I think it gives the opportunity for those open to pragmatism to vote with a clear conscience.”

The UK adopted its current first-past-the-post voting system in 1950. Parties including the Green Party have lobbied for proportional representation to be used instead, but the 2011 Alternative Voting Referendum produced an overwhelming rejection of the idea. However, the current system continues to be criticised for ‘gerrymandering,’ or manipulation of electoral boundaries, and its implicit encouragement of tactical voting.

Tactical voting has had a tangible impact in previous elections, with widespread agreement that it ensured a greater majority for Tony Blair in the Labour Party’s 1997 election victory. Anti-Conservative voters deliberately switched to the Labour Party in order to avoid a Conservative victory, and Blair, alongside former Prime Minister John Major, has encouraged tactical voting in the 2019 election.

Ahearne said he is particularly concerned about gerrymandering and called the UK’s current electoral system “shoddy.” Adams agreed, saying “For example, taking the Green Party and how many people voted for Greens and how many MPs they have just doesn’t reflect at all what the nation is voting for. And same with the Liberal Democrats. This two-party system which obviously isn’t working, hasn’t been working, because you sit then in the hung parliament situation.”

Donnelly concurred, saying vote swapping was a less than ideal option. “I’d love to be able to vote Labour and [for it to] mean something, but the voting system we have doesn’t allow for that, unfortunately. So, a new system of proportional representation would be much more to my liking. I’ll do it [vote swapping] because it’s the lesser of the evils but my heart would be much happier if I was voting Labour directly with a direct impact.”

“The system is broken,” added de Grunwald. “We need proportional representation, we desperately need seats to match votes. We’d actually probably have better governments if we had coalitions. If voters can do that, which our vote swappers can, why can’t politicians find solutions that actually compromise in the interests of all people?”

Although de Grunwald adopts a non-partisan approach on his site, for the users of Robson and Armstrong’s group, this election is about holding back Brexit.

“I think we need to deconstruct the word win,” Armstrong said. “We’re on a high road to nothing if we think we’re going to win in the normal sense. Parliament has done what we Remainers needed it to do, which is simply holding the line. My hope is that with this election, we will simply hold the line again, and continue to hold the line. And holding the line is winning.”

However, it looks as if the UK is now on course to leave the European Union, with the Conservatives winning 47 more seats in the 2019 election. The vote swappers were unsuccessful in ensuring a victory for the Remainers, but they do seem to have had an impact – in Cheltenham, where many people swapped to vote Liberal Democrat, the Conservatives were re-elected with a much reduced majority, winning by just 981 votes, compared to 2,569 in the 2017 election. In the Isle of Wight, however, the Conservatives increased their majority.

“Tactical voting hasn’t worked in this election,” said de Grunwald. “[But] vote swapping did help make it more proportional – there were some seats whose margins were affected by our users. The voters who were swapping did affect the results where they were swapping.”

Adams and others in the group expressed horror at the unexpectedly bad performance of the more progressive parties, but they are hopeful tactical voting could have more of an impact in the future. “[As for] how much it will back an impact going forward, I’d like to think a lot,” said Adams.

One fact is clear – UK voters are changing the way they think about the electoral process. Although vote swapping is still a relatively new phenomenon, 6.5 million people voted tactically in the 2017 election, according to the Electoral Reform Society. That number is likely to have gone up in 2019, and going forward, it is likely that the British public will increasingly think twice about how best to use their vote.

No home, no vote, no option

0

“Same old, same old as far as I’m concerned,” said 46-year-old Shamen Hazzard, a rough sleeper in Oxford, dismissing the prospect of voting in this year’s general election.

It’s a sentiment expressed by many voters as the UK holds its third general election in five years, following trips to the polls in 2015 and 2017. For some, this year is a chance to have their say on Brexit – for others it’s the climate election, and for some it’s about austerity.

Yet there is one group of people routinely ignored by voters and politicians alike – rough sleepers. In Oxford, where homelessness is an increasingly visible issue, the city council’s November 2018 estimate suggested there were 94 people sleeping on the streets.

The homeless community has also been rocked by at least six deaths of homeless people in the last year, with five people dying in a three-month interval between December 2018 and February 2019, which prompted the council to ask for an independent investigation into their deaths. Rough sleepers are varied in their levels of political engagement, but there is a universal feeling that not enough is being done.

Hazzard, who has lived in Oxford most of her life, spends most of her time outside Sainsbury’s, trying to make enough money to get into a hostel for the night. She says she will not be voting this year, and that she never has. “Just because I don’t get it, you know. [I] don’t understand the ins and outs of the politics and after every election, it seems like everything they say they’re going to do, don’t happen [sic]. So there’s no point.”

All the major political parties have responded to the housing and homelessness crisis, with the Conservatives pledging to “end the blight of rough sleeping by the end of the next Parliament,” expanding initiatives such as Housing First.

Meanwhile, Labour also plans to “end rough sleeping within five years,” by making 8,000 additional homes available. The Liberal Democrats have the same target, and plan to also scrap the Vagrancy Act, an 1824 piece of legislation often used to criminalise rough sleepers.

However, Hazzard believes political parties don’t really care about homeless people.

“It’s all clouds in the sky,” she said of targets set to end rough sleeping. “They’re closing homeless places down and that, and taking funding away from sport and all that, so what do they expect to happen? It just gets worse.”

In a statement this year, the Council said: “Overarching national issues like welfare reform, precarious private renting and austerity-driven cuts to mental health and social care support services drive the shocking rise in street homelessness. In Oxfordshire these cuts include more than £2 million a year in countywide housing support for single people experiencing homelessness.”

Volunteer at the homelessness collective Oxford Open House, Lucy Warin, told Cherwell: “It’s dire. For me this year has been the first year where I’ve become one of those hundreds of thousands of people working in a job where I watch people die because of austerity. And it’s been very difficult. But on the flipside, I think that this election has seen all of the political parties talk about homelessness and its relationship to the housing crisis in a way that I’ve not seen before.”

Warin led a drive to ensure homeless people had the chance to vote in the election if they wanted to, going into homelessness services and helping people fill in the form they must complete if they have no fixed address. On polling day, she helped people get to the booths, especially those with mobility or health issues.

“There’s definitely a lot of people feeling disenfranchised,” she added. “We’ve seen lots of people who just feel pretty hopeless. I’ve not seen any of the political parties actually reach out and try to talk to people on the streets. I think Labour have got some great policies around housing and helping people on the streets.”

Although political opinions are divided among homeless people as in any other demographic, she said there was unanimous dislike of the Conservative Party, who many hold responsible for the rise in street homelessness, especially due to the roll-out of Universal Credit from 2016 onwards as a replacement to the old benefits system.

Warin said: “Everyone hates the Tories. A big factor is universal credit. Universal credit is widely hated and is quite often one of a number of factors in a situation where someone’s become homeless, so people really hate the Tories for that. There’s quite a spread, so I’d say most people are either Brexit Party or Labour.”

She added that the drive was not aimed at raising support for any of the parties, but rather making sure that those who wanted to vote had the means to do so. “We’re not explicitly partisan. We’re definitely explicitly anti-Tory as anyone with a brain working in housing and homelessness would be. These are people who’ve got much bigger things [than politics] going on in their lives. So, what we’re trying to do is make sure nobody doesn’t vote because they’re having an awful time with their housing.”

Warin is not alone in her mission to get homeless people on the electoral register – Paul Roberts, CEO of Aspire Oxford, a charity working to help homeless and disadvantaged people find employment, is also encouraging homeless voters. “We are hosting our ward’s ballot boxes in our premises and as an organisation we are encouraging all our project participants to vote,” he said.

Hazzard was not convinced by the voting registration drive: “They do try and get us to vote and that, I just don’t want to. Some people came when I was down the day services at the night shelter and tried to get me registered to vote, and I didn’t do it.”

However, the push for increased political engagement has resulted in some homeless people signing up to vote. 42-year-old Kevin Barber, who has been sleeping rough for seven months after losing his home when his parents died and splitting up with his partner. He said he’d voted for the Liberal Democrats, with Brexit being one of the key issues on his mind. Despite his housing situation, he says homelessness was not a defining factor in his decision.

“There are too many homeless people on the streets. It’s gone too far for building extra houses for homeless people because there’s thousands of us. It’s going to be a no-win situation as far as I’m concerned, anyway,” said Barber.

He added that he felt politicians were unaware of homeless people and thinks the reason homelessness is increasing is because of higher-level politics. As for the solution, it’s “building more hostels, really, and affordable rooms to rent. And it’s hard, it’s really hard.” He insisted he’s tried to get help, saying it has only resulted in “a dead end every time.”

Unlike Hazzard, he believes it’s important to vote and that homeless people be made aware that they can vote although “if they do or not is a different matter. They’re probably lost, or they haven’t bothered voting, it just goes straight over their heads.”

Warin agreed, saying: “I think what I’ve personally found is these people are so rarely asked for their opinion. They live in a world of service, delivery and playing the system, and for us to turn around and say, ‘What’s your opinion?’ is just something that happens so rarely. I’ve had some really wonderful chats this election, some particularly eye-opening conversations.

“I think the one thing I just really hope for… I’ve been doing loads of canvassing, and one thing I come across is indecision. And what I’ve been saying is if you don’t know who you want to vote for, think of the most vulnerable people, who probably won’t vote, and vote for what’s best for them.”

Statistics show that homelessness has increased by 165 percent since the Conservative government came into power in 2010, according to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. The figures, dated from January 2018, estimate that at least 4,677 people sleep rough on any one night in England.

Barber is unsurprised by these figures. “There’s hundreds here, in Oxford alone, let alone all over the country. It’s only going to get worse, as far as I can tell.” He believes rough sleeping would have increased under any political party, and this thought is echoed by Hazzard, who says it would have happened “even if one of the other parties were in power.

“Everything else gets seen to before homeless people.”

Tory balls-up!

0

The Oxford University Conservative Association has lost £4100 due to the cancellation of its Michaelmas ball.

Scheduled for the 2nd December at the Malmaison Hotel, the ball sold only 30-40 tickets, Cherwell understands.

A senior OUCA source, who wishes to remain anonymous, told Cherwell: “This [MT19] term’s President has lost the association £4100 on a ball which was cancelled because not enough tickets had been sold – that’s £1300 on a venue and £2800 on a band.

“While planning an event which failed to take off is understandable, the bad part is the negligence he showed by not reading the contract with the band – he finally agreed three weeks before the event that we should cancel this very expensive band, but then discovered that the contract he had agreed to said that after four weeks before the event it wasn’t possible to cancel without paying the full fee.

“When asked how much the association had lost this term in a council meeting the President said ‘that’s immaterial’.”

Michaelmas term President Toby Morrison offered the following comment on the cancellation: “Unfortunately, the OUCA senior committee decided after much deliberation that we had to cancel the OUCA Ball 2019: Starry Night.

“This, as ever, was due to a plethora of factors. Issues with catering at the Town Hall, meant that it was no longer a viable option. We attempted to move to Malmaison, however, we were not happy with the earlier end time and lack of space for the band. Therefore, we decided the best course of action was to cancel the event.

“We are currently in the process of offering all those who bought tickets a full refund, and they have our most sincere apologies that the event is not going ahead.”

Previous financial trouble saw OUCA lose its university affiliated status in 2009, when an unpaid debt, incurred at a charity event at the Cavalry and Guards Club on Pall Mall, led to the University disaffiliating from the association.

Founded in 1924, OUCA has been home to Oxford Conservatism through thick and thin, aided by notable patronage. The Honorary President of the association is MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, and its patron, former Prime Minister Sir John Major.

Former Presidents of the association include Dominic Grieve, Jeremy Hunt and Margaret Thatcher.

Santa Claus pays special visit to Oxford Children’s Hospital

0

Patients at Oxford Children’s Hospital received a very special visit from Father Christmas today.

Arriving in a Puma HC2 helicopter rather than his usual sleigh, Santa himself brought with him bags of presents for the hospital’s young patients. Festive cheer was all around thanks to Santa and his friends at RAF Benson, who organised the trip.

Children and staff alike gathered to watch his arrival with delight at around 10:45am. He landed in style on the helipad of John Radcliffe Hospital. Santa and his team of RAF helpers then made their way to various wards, handing out over 80 presents and leaving even more under the hospital’s Christmas tree. Children on Kamran’s, Melanie’s, Bellhouse-Drayson and Tom’s wards received gifts and visits.

Erica Watson, a health play specialist at the hospital told the Oxford Mail:

“We’re extremely grateful to RAF Benson and Father Christmas for their continued support and donations this Christmas.

“Lots of children and staff came to watch Santa arrive by helicopter, including the children from the Pioneers nursery. This is a highlight around Christmas for them all.

“It was lovely to welcome some of the squadron helping Santa to give out the presents to the children on the wards. It was a very special event for all the children and their families who really enjoyed watching Santa arrive by helicopter.”

The visit has become an annual tradition, lifting the spirits of many young patients spending the festive season in hospital. It is one of a series of visits this year, following appearances from Oxford United players and the Sleigh2Give campaign on the wards.

Oscar Wilde’s Ring Returns to Magdalen College

0

A solid gold ring given as a gift of friendship by Oscar Wilde to his friend William Ward has been returned to Magdalen College almost 20 years after it was stolen from the college library.

In a ceremony held on the 4th December, the ring was presented back to the college by George Crump, a commodity trader who had helped track the ring down.

Police were called to the college library in the early hours of the day after May-Morning in 2002 when Eammon Andrews, formerly a cleaner at Magdalen College, climbed through a skylight and removed the ring from its display case. He smashed the glass covering the cabinet containing the ring and escaped with the item, alongside a set of rowing medals awarded to the college in 1910 and 1932.

Forensic scientists managed to trace Eammon using DNA from blood left at the scene. He was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for the theft, served alongside a further six years to which he had already been sentenced for an earlier burglary.

By the time police tracked down Mr Andrews, the ring had already been sold to a scrap dealer for £150, a fraction of the £35,000 it is believed to be worth. Fearing that the ring would be melted down and sold for scratch, Magdalen offered a reward of £3,500 for information leading to the ring’s safe recovery. Almost twenty years later, in November this year Arthur Brand, a Dutch art detective, tracked down and retrieved the ring. Mr Brand was able to identify the precious item by the inscription on the exterior of the band which reads “Gift of love, to one who wishes love” in Greek.

According to Mr Brand, rumours circulated in the art underworld that a Victorian ring with a Russian inscription had appeared on the market. Mr Brand recognised the description as that of Oscar Wilde’s ring (if the Greek were mistaken for Russian). Working with William Veres, an antique dealer based in London, and George Crump, the son of a well-known casino owner with knowledge of the art underworld, Brand retrieved the ring for return to Magdalen College.

It is understood that the recovery of the ring is linked intimately with the famous robbery at Hatton Gardens, and the ring apparently emerged shortly after almost £200 million of jewellery was stolen from the safe deposit facility in 2015.

Oscar Wilde attended Magdalen College from 1874 to 1878, where he read the Greats (classics). It was at Magdalen College where he met William Ward, also a student at the college between 1873 and 1876. Wilde referred to Ward affectionately as ‘Bouncer’ in much of their correspondence.

In the year of Ward’s departure, Oscar Wilde and Reginald Harding gifted him a ring shaped like a belt and buckle, and cast in 18-carat gold. As well as the Greek inscription on the outside, Wilde inscribed the friends’ initials “OFOFWW & RRH to WWW 1876” (Oscar Fingal O’Flahertie Wills Wilde & Reginald Richard Harding to William Welsford Ward 1876) on the inside. Ward donated the ring with a set of letters written between the two friends to Magdalen college at the end of the 19th century.

In a now-published letter, Wilde wrote to Ward: “I am so glad your people liked the ring, and if the Greek lines you quoted to me would fit it would be charming. Perhaps however our initials inside and [Greek Inscription] outside would be all that would fit conveniently.”

Interview: Rosie Sourbut, Labour candidate for Oxford West and Abingdon

Rosie Sourbut is not only a candidate but also a third year English student at Somerville College. I ask her first what it’s like being both a student and a candidate.

She replies that “The response has been really good – because the Liberal Democrat and Conservative candidates are only in their thirties I feel quite comfortable. People have asked about my experience and I have admitted I am a student, but I have done a lot of campaigning in the past on issues such as violence against women and the climate crisis. I think people realise I have a lot to offer.

Labour talk a lot about the ‘green new deal’, yet they still want to re-industrialise, using green technologies that haven’t been perfected yet. I ask Rosie how she envisages a Labour Britain being re-industrialised successfully, whilst also keeping to the target of net-zero emissions by 2025?

“The manifesto is proposing the creation of new jobs within green technologies. We plan to create 400,000 new green, ‘clean’ jobs and climate apprenticeships across the country – these will be highly skilled jobs in creating green technologies.

So, whilst we are increasing employment, investing socially in infrastructure and improving quality of life, we’ll also be combatting climate change. I think this is the most positive aspect of our manifesto.

Regarding the proposed reduction in tuition fees, how is this viable under our current budget?

“The issue with student loans at the moment is that most people are very unlikely to ever pay them back… it is a massive debt burden on the government and it is not sustainable. Education should be for the benefit of everyone. It is an individualistic, Conservative view to say that if you are educated you will earn more and should therefore pay more for education. Labour look at it like this – if we have a more educated population, this is beneficial for everyone in society. Education should not further the class divide.

A big question around Labour is Brexit. Recently, Jeremy Corbyn made a statement about remaining neutral on the issue of Brexit – how do you feel about having a leader of the Labour party who isn’t really sure about Brexit, or how to move forward on this issue?

“I personally campaigned for Remain in 2016 and I have pledged that I will do the same at the next referendum. I think the Liberal Democrats’ offer of cancelling Brexit is unrealistic; they’ll never get a majority government to be able to do that, and it would ignore the fact that over half of voters opted to leave.

The Labour offer is to have as good a deal as possible with the EU, but a much softer Brexit than the one Boris is going for, which will reward the elite of society. We would then put that deal back to the people – they can then decide, when they see the final deal, whether or not this is what they wanted when they voted for Brexit. This is what should have been done in the first place.The Prime Minister has put forward an election because he needs support for his deal – a deal which has been the result of years of tedious negotiations. Do you believe that the EU has an incentive to renegotiate a new deal with Jeremy Corbyn, even though Corbyn has not made clear whose side he is on?

“Theresa May and Boris Johnson immediately took a lot off the table at the beginning of their negotiations… they went straight in and tried to negotiate a hard Brexit. A hard Brexit isn’t in our interests, and neither is it in the European Union’s. The EU have been very patient so far and I think they will re-negotiate, for their sake.

We know, if Labour got into power, we would have to renegotiate and look at a completely new deal. How do we move efficiently from here, and what might Jeremy Corbyn’s deal look like?

“The Conservatives have had three years to negotiate and they haven’t… they have done nothing but act irresponsibly. Brexit is distracting political energy from the most urgent issues, such as climate change, and people just want to get it over with. A Labour deal would protect the peace in Northern Ireland, protect worker’s rights and protect the environment. A Labour Brexit deal is not something to fear.

Do you feel confident in Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership?

“Yes – I am excited by the manifesto we have released and by the way we are gathering the best research to save the environment and improve quality of life across the country. It is a radical and hopeful manifesto, that is also fully-costed and fully achievable.

It rejects the notion that austerity is the only way, as was accepted under Ed Miliband. If you invest long-term in your country, you will see the development of a fairer society.

This is an exciting prospect, and its great to see that people are listening and appreciating that. The terms of the debate do not have to be dictated by the Conservatives.You’ve said that the manifesto is fully costed. Jeremy Corbyn has proposed a nationalised care service – how do you find this as a proposition? Is it financially viable?

“I’ve spoken to a lot of people who are very excited about this aspect of the manifesto. We are going to transform the care system, and create a Living Wage – people working in crucial caring jobs should have enough to live on.

We are going to make sure that, whether you’re wealthy in retirement or not, you are still going to receive the help and care that you need. There should be a support system to help all of us and allow us to live in dignity.

There’s a lot of concern about how quickly Labour are becoming what looks like a communist party. It’s currently quite a radical movement, proposing almost complete nationalisation – do you think there’s a danger in how far it’s gone?

“I don’t think it is a communist manifesto… if you look at countries like those in Scandanavia, they are already doing everything we want to do. We are not proposing a utopian communist vision, but rather a viable reality.

We are not going to let the elite of this country tell us we must continue to suffer… we live in one of the richest countries in the world, and we have the means to take care of everyone.

The Liberal Democratic and Conservative manifestos are not fully-costed and all of their proposed policies involve short-term injections… we propose long-term solutions, thinking about the infrastructure we need to tackle the climate crisis and ensure people are growing up healthy and fully-educated.”

Interview: James Fredrickson, Conservative candidate for Oxford West and Abingdon

0

After a day of canvassing and lengthy hustings, James Frederickson is full of energy as we sit down in Leon for a ‘short and snappy’ chat. With everywhere else already shut, a sign that it’s far too late for chit chat, we launch right in with the obvious: Brexit.

With a background in digital technology, Frederickson is a new candidate in Oxford West and Abingdon taking the reigns from previous Conservative MP, Nicola Blackwood who lost by 816 votes to Layla Moran in 2017 after 7 years in office.

In such a marginal constituency that has been passed between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats for the past 40 years, this election could go either way but it is sure to be dominated and determined by Brexit.

Frederickson guesses that from “the mood music on the doorstep”, there will be a thousand votes in it again. Frederickson voted and campaigned for remain across Oxfordshire in 2016. His position has changed considerably since, stressing not once but four times in 15 minutes, that the country must respect the outcome of the referendum.

The Green candidate for Oxford West and Abingdon stood down earlier this month to unite the remain vote in the constituency. With Frederickson representing the ‘leave’ vote, I ask why a constituency, of which 70% chose to remain in 2016, should change their vote three years later.

“Well, bear in mind that I not only voted to remain but also campaigned to remain as we talked about in the hustings,” he says. “When we were campaigning in that referendum there was a very clear promise at that time made by every single political party who was engaging in that referendum.”

“Paddy Ashdown famously on the night said: ‘Woe betide any political party that seeks to frustrate this outcome, the country has given its steer and all politicians should work together to deliver that.’ And I remember knocking on doors, regularly during that campaign and the importance that people placed on how they were voting in that referendum transcended party lines and I promised that whatever the result was I would respect it.”

A Council Member for West Berkshire since 2015, Frederickson is relatively new to the political scene in Oxford, but he sees no disadvantage between him and the incumbent MP, despite the potential for the leave vote to be split between the Conservatives and the Brexit Party candidate, Allison Wild.

“Across all parties, I think there is a lack of people that have a good grasp of digital tech, and bearing in mind our MPs are the people that make the decisions about how that’s regulated and understood and legislated on, I think people welcome a new generation with that background coming into Parliament.”

“It’s for each individual political party to make their decisions, every single politician that stands to be elected should do it on their own grounding, don’t go and blame people for voting one way or another, you should be convincing them about why they are voting for you,” he adds.

I steer the conversation away from Brexit towards, arguably, a more pressing issue. The Conservative party has moved away from green policies in recent years, but Frederickson outlines the importance of smaller units of housing in Oxford’s city centre to advocate more sustainable travel and affordable housing in one. More broadly, he sees the Conservative environmental policy as the most realistic because of the need to restrict debt.

“If you look at Labour and the amount of money that they proposing to borrow to £28 to every £1 that the Conservative plan, your debt ratio to GDP is going to sky-rocket, and money doesn’t grow on trees,” he says.

“Ultimately, debt is just borrowing from a future generation. So if we’re talking about actually we need to have a future generation in mind, you’re kind of undermining your argument if you’re going to saddle them with enormous amounts of debt.”

Campaigning for the Conservative Party in 2019, Frederickson faces opposition because of the controversial nature of its leadership. Boris Johnson’s reputation fails to phase the candidate, however.

“I always look to judge them by the policies that they have actually backed and pushed,” he says, using the examples of gay marriage and London’s public transport to highlight the former Mayor’s more favourable political positions. Frederickson adds that Johnson is a much more favourable option than Jeremy Corbyn even though “he’s got a certain style, he shoots off the hip more often than he should, but a lot of people admire that he isn’t this kind of robotic politician that’s just going to spout out lines.”

Corbyn is not the only party leader Frederickson criticises, referring again to the need to uphold the need to respect the result of the Brexit referendum.

“The idea that Jo Swinson, calling herself Liberal and Democratic said, ‘Oh, if there’s a second referendum and the result is leave, we would not support it. Our MPs will always choose remaining in the European Union, no matter what the result.’ That’s just ripping up liberal democracy. That is the most appalling position for me, and I imagine many people won’t be voting Liberal Democrat this time.”

We finish with the doorstep pitch, why should people vote for him over Layla Moran or Rosie Sourbut? His first response is to focus again on the Brexit argument. “If you want your politicians to stand by their promises then elect one that says they still stand by it, even though their own view was different to it, finding one that stands by the promise that they make you I think is key if we’re going to fix politics in our country.”

“I think I have something to say to both sides of the referendum, dogma is ugly, I think it alienates people. If you feel like your MP isn’t even approachable you can alienate half your constituency already, so I’d hope that my honesty in regard to my position on the referendum gives that,” he adds.

But, despite Brexit somehow seeping into every aspect of our conversation, we finish on a more unique note with his experience in digital tech.

“[Digital tech] can resolve the environment problem. It can play a big role in fixing some of the issues in regard to protecting our environment, by enabling people to live longer in their own homes, particularly in light of an aging population, how we think about building homes etc.”

“It is an area of expertise that is massively underrepresented in the House of Commons. It’s where our constituency is a leading innovator and it would be my honour to represent it.”

For the Record: Cameron’s Memoir

0

The lack of response to Cameron’s long delayed autobiography is indicative of the longer demise of the style of politics Cameron epitomises. Outsold by Blair and Thatcher’s biographies and overshadowed by the political events of the day, For the Recorddid not appear to make a splash beyond the numerous interviews Cameron gave to promote it. The book garnered less attention than Cameron’s interview on the Today programme where he admitted he had persuaded the Queen to make a tacit intervention in the Scottish independence referendum.

Indeed, the book reads like a death knell to a recent yet completely forgotten politics, one Cameron might describe as ‘decent’ and ‘compassionate’ but others termed the ‘Chumocracy’. When Cameron began his campaign to be Conservative party leader he had the support of just fourteen MPs. Seven of those fourteen remain in parliament: five lost the Whip on the 4th of September (some have since had it reinstated), and the two others are Boris Johnson and Michael Gove. Cameron had adeptly pitched himself as the great moderniser the party needed for electoral success. In reality this amounted to a pragmatic managerialism necessary for a party that was £20 million in debt and far more interested in internal than external battles. He now pulls no punches when describing what the state of the party would have been like under his ‘thuggish’ rival David Davis: ‘nasty, brutish and short’. 

The revolution in the party’s outlook since can be gleaned from the change in their electoral strategy. In 2010, Cameron gained more seats in one night than any other Tory leader since 1931 and firmly established a Conservative Party of Middle England. The Tories performed best in the South East and were now pitching themselves to the liberal, metropolitan middle class who had grown weary of Labour. This is in stark contrast to the 2019 electoral strategy which hedges the moderate Remain Tory vote against the de-industrialised Leave North. Johnson’s belief in ‘divide and conquer’ would have shocked any pre-2016 conservative strategist who believed their job was to convince the country that was exactly what the party would not do.

This book begs the question of whether a leader like Cameron could ever rise to the top in the Conservative Party again. That the first chapter of the book is devoted to the creation of the Coalition in the two weeks following the 2010 election demonstrates the pride Cameron took in his ability to compromise and convey responsibility during a time of national crisis. This too was the focus of Clegg’s 2016 book that sought to reverse the belief that from coalition arises weakness. However, it is clear that Cameron grasped the wider picture far sooner than Clegg, knowing that he would benefit at the polls at the Liberal Democrats’ expense regardless of how the Coalition played out. Always one step ahead, when George Osborne advised Clegg not to support raising tuition fees, Cameron disagreed assuring him there wouldn’t be too much backlash. The Conservative political intuition was sure-footed, whereas Clegg’s sense of duty was bruising.

Peculiarly, it is Cameron’s dry sense of humour that is the most illuminating aspect of For the Record. He is self-effacing, gently mocking his Home Counties upbringing, and at times scabrous (Chris Grayling and Iain Duncan-Smith may be left red-faced). His funniest anecdotes are at the expense of foreign leaders. He recalls the time when he went outdoor swimming at the G8 summit, which prompted the never to be outdone Berlusconi to show an old photograph of himself in a bathing suit to the other leaders much to their confusion.