The results of the Single Transferable Vote election for the election of the Chancellor of Cambridge University are shown above.
Congratulations to Lord Smith of Finsbury who won the election. We wish him well in his new post. The announcement of the result by the University of Cambridge is here.
Some observations on the results:
- Only 25,054 voted. All Cambridge graduates were eligible to vote, but only a small fraction of the electorate actually bothered to vote.
- In fact, about ~2000 voted in person, so the number of those voting online (~23,000) was also much less than those who registered to vote online (~34,000).
- The alumni outnumbered the members of Regent House (or the staff) and so were the dominant bloc in the election.
- Lord Browne did somewhat worse than expected. Many had tipped him as the favourite, but he was beaten by Lord Smith, Dr Mohamed El-Erian and Ms Sandi Toksvig. He was less transfer-friendly than his main competitors. It would seem that the considerable baggage that accompanied Lord Browne eventually took its toll.
- If the election had been run under first past the post, there would have been a different winner — Dr Mohamed El-Erian. It was the transfer of first Prof Evans’ and then Lord Browne’s vote, which went substantially to Lord Smith, that proved decisive and controlled the fate of the election.
- The main surprise to us was the very strong showing by Ms Sandi Toksvig, who barely campaigned at all. If she had campaigned as strongly as the others, then she might very easily have won. We were only able to identify one campaign video by Ms Toksvig.
- Ms Gina Miller’s vote transferred substantially to Ms Toksvig, suggesting that the argument for a female Chancellor resonated strongly with some sections of the electorate.
- It was a very creditable performance by Prof Wyn Evans, running on issues of bullying and precarity, to beat a household name with much campaigning experience, Ms Gina Miller.
18 Comments
SPARTACUS · 23 July 2025 at 21:03
The University oligarchy lost! But I very much doubt Lord Smith will stop the rot!
Xerxes · 23 July 2025 at 21:32
Good point. Lord Browne was backed by the Masters of Trinity and St Johns (2 richest Colleges) as well as other Heads of Houses.
And Lord Browne has bought a house in Cambridge, which is presumably now completely redundant 🙂
SPARTACUS · 23 July 2025 at 21:23
The substantial transfer from Lord BP voters to Lord Smith suggests the University establishment feels secure. Bad news!
SPARTACUS · 23 July 2025 at 21:28
Bully Institute Directors, moraly corrupt Heads of School, Masters of Trinity and John’s, Registrar, incompetent ProVCs, American Queen VC, immoral Head of HR, and others are not happy but are very relieved! The rot is assured to continue! The decline is now unstoppable!
Jay · 23 July 2025 at 22:03
That is correct — the hierarchy are relieved.
Suppose Gina Miller had won. We would have just had to tell her about one of the many Cambridge scandals, & it would have ended up on the front pages of the Guardian. She would have been their worst mightmare. Not sure they would have found Wyn Evans or Sandi Toksvig easy either (for rather different reasons).
The hierarchy would have preferred Lord Browne, but they’ll be content with Lord Smith. I can’t see Lord Smith rocking any boats. He seems to have become less of a firebrand in his old age.
Bloody right · 24 July 2025 at 11:32
Bloody right!
Excam · 24 July 2025 at 13:25
Smith probably would have never won without Wyn’s campaign. He owes his victory to that.
You can see it from the way the second preference votes from Wyn’s ticket went to Smith (and also El Erian), but the key factor was how Lord Browne’s campaign became completely derailed.
SPARTACUS · 24 July 2025 at 15:13
My fear is that Uni top leadership (VC, ProVCs, Registrar, Head of HR, and other accolites) will now entrench even more and perpetuate their disastrous management. Bullying, arbitrary decision making, dictatorial Institute Directors, huge legal bills, gagging of staff, secretive handling of investigations, gross misinterpretation of the Statutes and Ordinances, toxic atmosphere, downward spiral of excellence, growing deficit, will keep getting worse. They know Lord Smith will not challenge the status quo even though he was not their choice.
On another note I wonder what ‘deals’ were done in the background for some to support Lord BP, including amazingly a former VC! Pay time might turn ugly…
PrivateEye · 24 July 2025 at 19:19
“On another note I wonder what ‘deals’ were done in the background for some to support Lord BP, including amazingly a former VC! Pay time might turn ugly…”
Eye Spy the Chairmanship of the Board of the Francis Crick Institute
Will Lord BP keep his promise? 😉
Jay · 24 July 2025 at 19:16
This is an important point. The campaign against Lord Browne worked.
The hierarchy did not get the person they wanted. We derailed his campaign.
Andy · 24 July 2025 at 23:10
Who would have thought, an open democratic process did not allow the insiders to install a continuity candidate from outside with no knowledge of the university or the abuses their backers were involved in…
The process has been healthy for the university. Public debate about bullying did not destroy the institution. Instead it opened up a needed debate and honest calls from candidates to take seriously and redress the issue. The university doesn’t need to go around suing people who seek to engage the facts about internal misconduct and seek an honest and open dialogue on how we can improve things and do better.
Lord Smith knows enough of the rumour mill I imagine to be aware of who’s been naughty at the top of the organisational hierarchy, as well as have seen already a few insider misdemeanours by now. With a ten year horizon I doubt he wants his first year to be derailed by scandals that were neither his own doing nor part of his vision for the university.
21percent.org · 25 July 2025 at 07:22
Agreed.
Given the size of the vote — Wyn Evans beat a household name Gina Miller and almost equalled Lord Browne — the 21 Group has a mandate to pursue some of these matters, especially bullying.
We will be writing to Lord Smith next week, requesting an urgent meeting.
As you say, it is in Lord Smith’s interest that his Chancellorship is not overwhelmed with these issues in his first year or two.
TigerWhoCametoET · 29 July 2025 at 10:06
Thank you for this. Please let us know his response and what more we can do to support you.
deputy dog · 1 August 2025 at 20:23
Maybe Wyn should ask Nigel Farrage to come along too since Reform got 15% of vote in last General Election compared with Wyn’s 11%. Nigel has more of a mandate!
21percent.org · 2 August 2025 at 10:13
By comparison, the winner Chris Smith got 18% of the vote.
Wyn Evans got 11% of the vote. Seems reasonable to regard it as a mandate.
Of course, we should not really need a mandate to act against bullying — just humanity and kindness.
TigerWhoCametoET · 2 August 2025 at 10:56
That, and legal compliance.
SPARTACUS · 24 July 2025 at 20:24
Private eye you seem so well informed! I am getting the popcorn out to watch this space!!!
Eileen Nugent · 31 July 2025 at 12:52
Well done Wyn on running this campaign for Chancellor focussed on the core issues that are negatively impacting the lives of many individuals in Cambridge and in other higher education organisations. It has become popular to defend free speech and academic freedom but the defence of such ideals in a university that continuously refuses to reinstate an academic after an unfair dismissal the university readily conceded – as demonstrated in the case of Dr Catherine McKenzie – is highly irrational. Those such as yourself who address the practical barriers to free speech – the organisational maintenance of individuals in years-long stress-hold positions to strongly inhibit an individual exercising their free speech and/or academic freedom – offer a more practical defence of free speech and academic freedom, one that avoids the irrationality of defending something in words – free speech/academic freedom – that the organisation through its organisational actions makes extremely difficult for an individual to do in practice – refusal to comply with a reinstatement order obtained by an academic after an unfair dismissal (strong inhibiter of individual free speech/academic freedom).