Despite standing five strong and committed candidates, we did not win any seats this time.
On the face of it, this is deeply disappointing. However, context is all-important, and it is clear that there were several conflicting factors coming into play.
First, this year saw a significant increase in turnout. Turnout rates in council elections across England were noticeably up, not only compared to last year and the year before, but compared to the fairly steady levels seen over the last ten years (sitting firmly between 32% and 35.6% across all English authorities). This national rise in voter engagement was reflected in Oxford, with overall turnout this year being 43.5%, up from 37.5% in 2024 (a change of +6) with some wards seeing a more dramatic increase in turnout, including three of the wards where we stood:
Given the national pattern, it is fairly obvious that the extra people coming out to vote were largely (and understandably) driven by national issues, which meant that it was the national parties that benefited from the increased turnout, rather than local parties like the IOA. This put us at a disadvantage.
A further factor that contributed to this, was the presence of Reform on the local election ballot. In the previous city council elections in 2024, Reform did not stand any candidates. Their first serious foray into local politics occurred in Oxfordshire County Council elections in 2025.
This year they stood candidates in all but one of the 24 wards in Oxford, and clearly drew votes based on national issues.
Furthermore, we have seen a significant increase in support for the Green party, both nationally and in Oxford – again, driven largely by national issues and trends.
So, the situation is very different to 2024, when we successfully won 4 seats, and were close to winning three more. In this year’s elections, we were competing against 5 national parties, not three, in a context where many of the public specifically voted to express their discontent with the current government – even though local councils only have responsibility for local issues.
This approach to voting has effectively been endorsed as valid, because the media, political pundits and MPs themselves have interpreted the recent results as a comment on the Labour government, and it is these very results that have been the catalyst for a potential leadership challenge to the Prime Minister.
Nevertheless, we held our own in these elections as a force to be reckoned with. Broad public support from voters helped our candidates come second in four of the five wards where we stood, pushing the other national parties (other than the party that won) into 3rd place or worse.
It is also notable that the national parties clearly saw us as their main threat in the wards where we stood. We heard from local people that some national party candidates and/or their supporters had said as much on the doorstep, and this was also evidenced by the amount of effort and resource they put into their campaigns in the wards with an IOA candidate. They were acting strategically to target their resources against us. Unfortunately, their campaigning also resorted to smear tactics using emotive and inaccurate labels, along with some bullying tactics against our candidates or our supporters in some wards. This is gutter politics at its worst.
So, against all this background, we can be pleased that we still drew significant numbers of votes. Furthermore, people contacted us prior to the election expressing disappointment that there was no IOA candidate in their ward. We have strong support from people who want us to represent them. And for that reason, we must continue the fight.
Huge thanks must go to all our candidates. They worked extremely hard talking to as many people as possible in their wards, understanding the key local issues, and reflecting those priorities in their campaigns. We are also very grateful to those IOA members who were actively involved: delivering leaflets, door knocking, and supporting in a variety of other ways. It is this teamwork that lies at the heart of effective campaigns.
The key question for the future, of course, is how we can succeed in this ‘first past the post’ system when the political landscape is currently so fragmented, and likely to become more so.
Sir John Curtice, the well-known British political scientist and professor of politics at the University of Strathclyde, is acknowledged as a leading expert on public opinion and electoral behaviour, and he has observed, following May’s elections, that politics in the UK has become highly fragmented (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8p4yn448vo).
So, in the next local election, we will need to challenge and win against five (or maybe more, by then) national parties, who have the benefit of more resources and national marketing campaigns.
We are now carefully reviewing our options. There are several things we could change about our approach – building on all the valuable lessons we have learned through our first three campaigns.
We could, of course, give up – but we know there are people who want us to win, and for whom we believe we can only do better than the current incumbents on our councils.
The fight does feel like David against Goliath – but remember who won in the end!
Author: Dr. Anne Gwinnett