I don’t know why, but it seems to me that whenever the NUS appears in the press, it always seems to be for something cringeworthy, at best. However, somehow the referendum on disaffiliation we voted in last year was nullified and never repeated, and thus the NUS still officially represents us. I realise that as a commentator, I’m meant to comment on things. However, on this occasion, I don’t think I need to do that: I’ll just present the facts and let you draw your own conclusions.

The NUS Executive, without consulting university representatives, decided to spend roughly £40,000 on a campaign about tuition fees. However, they thought that issue-based campaigns were far too boring, so they decided to make it party specific by adding the Liberal Democrats’ logo on all the posters and billboards. Because of this, they became non-party campaigners,
as defined by law, and as the sum spent exceeds £20,000, they were meant to register with the Electoral Commission; at the time of writing the NUS are yet to do so.

Just imagine the size and quantity of these billboards, if they’re worth £40,000! As you read this, the NUS activists behind the campaign are driving them around Labour-Lib Dem marginal constituencies, trying to convince former Lib Dem voters to vote Labour.

Having done my research, I think this is the first time the NUS is officially and openly spending our money on a party specific election campaign. They are not campaigning against tuition fees – they are campaigning for the Labour Party. Conveniently of course, the fact that Labour introduced tuition fees in the first place in 1998 and then tripled them in 2004 somehow managed to escape the attention of the NUS Executive Committee.

I daresay no one can accuse me of being a Liberal Democrat sympathiser: but what this campaign is doing is unnecessarily negative and antagonising. I’m delighted the NUS cares about the way I vote. However, I have a request: can those of you in NUS positions please not spend our money on a campaign which is explicitly telling us who to vote for?

Those Lib Dem MPs did indeed break their promise. However, I suggest it’s time that we start being mature about things and realise that if we don’t have a majority government, parties have to enter coalitions and compromise?
If the public wants a multi-party system, they need to accept no party will ever be able to translate its manifesto into policy in its entirety. I don’t think many of us expect the NUS to actually represent us and make our lives better anymore. But frankly, I think spending our money on a party-political campaign whilst most likely simultaneously breaking the law (an investigation is ongoing) is simply beyond the pale.

Can we please have another referendum on disaffiliating? Ideally one the result of which will actually count this time. In the meantime, I’d suggest that we all think about ways in which £40,000 could have been spent to actually make a positive difference to the lives of UK students.

With the majority Tory government we now have, it is clear there will be a referendum on whether or not Britain should stay in the European Union. We will need to have national debate on Europe and the UK’s position in it, and I can only pray that it is a sensible and mature debate.

Many people on the Left try to avoid having such discussion by simply portraying anyone who asks questions about the EU as a xenophobe or some kind of ultra-right fool. In a classic attempt to discredit your opponents rather than having to confront them in a rational exchange of opinions, these people are the main reason why unsavoury, hard core anti-Europe parties are on the rise throughout Europe. With UKIP, the Front National, the Finns’ Party, Podemos, the Danish People’s Party, you need mainstream parties to be critical of the EU when appropriate. Pretending it’s all roses is intellectually lazy and disingenuous, and people just don’t buy it.

I was born in Europe, and my family still live there. I can afford to study at Oxford only thanks to money I get because I’m an EU citizen. I’ve worked for several EU-related organisations. In fact, I ran for the European Parliament with the Czech Conservative Party last year. And, believe it or not, I’m a Eurosceptic.

Being a Eurosceptic is not about having some kind of irrational, superstitious contempt for the Continent. It’s about recognising that there are some things that the EU does wrong, and admitting that perhaps in some areas we went too far in transferring national powers to Brussels. It’s about talking openly about the fact that over the past decade or so, people have started to feel very alienated by the EU and that the EU elite has often pushed for things on which there was no consensus across Europe.

Almost half of the entire EU budget is spent on subsidising French farmers, who then go on to spill their milk outside the Élysée Palace when en grève. Over £130 million a year is spent on the travelling circus that once a month sees the European Parliament decamp from Belgium to France. More and more laws and regulations are passed in Brussels which Westminster gets no say over, despite the fact that they affect British people and businesses. Is Cameron really that crazy for wanting to have a conversation with EU leaders about whether it’s perhaps not the right time to change some of these things?

It’s like when you’re in a relationship (not that I would know): pretending there are no problems at all if it’s clear there are some will help no one. Studies and public opinion polls show us that more and more people all over Europe are raising their eyebrows, and to pretend that nothing is happening is quite frankly arrogant. Let’s have a sensible debate about facts in the run up to the 2017 referendum. A debate in which there is no room for prejudice and belittling of our political opponents. I believe the British people, being the sensible bunch they are, will make the right decision when it comes to it.

Every election is a moment of national political mobilisation – that’s why they’re so exciting. Things get very emotional in the run up to polling day, and a couple of days after that. But once the dust has started to settle, people often start asking bigger questions. Is our political system a good one? Should we change it?

Virtually without exception, a great number of self-proclaimed experts on British constitution emerge after every election. We’ve now heard how our electoral system is rotten, how the entire political structure is about to disintegrate and how hugely undemocratic, unfair and unjust the Westminster model of government is. Those who lost the election now claim it’s because of the First Past the Post system rather than because of any fault on their side. But do you know what – I actually think the UK political system is great.

There is no objective yardstick against which we can measure a political system: fairness is a vague concept that means different things to different people. If you were given a tabula rasa and you could create your own country with its political system completely up to you, you would face many trade-offs. For example, what’s more important: the stability and clarity of First Past the Post or the more accurate representation you get with PR? Checks and balances like in the US or fusion of powers like in the UK? 

The grass is always greener on the other side. Whilst many people in this country are very envious of the proportional systems used by most countries on the continent, many European nations go on about how much they wish their system was more like the one in Blighty. In Europe, you get parties which only focus on a teeny part of the electorate, get six or eight percent of the vote and make parliament a very unpleasant place. It’s no coincidence that the Polish president, hoping to be re-elected in the ongoing election at the moment, has promised to introduce FPTP in Poland. Similar conversations are being had around the globe.

And let’s not forget: had the most recent election happened under PR, we would still have a Tory government. It’s just that it might be forced to repeal gay marriage under pressure from Northern Irish Unionists, or kick out those bloody Eastern European immigrants stealing our university places (like myself) under pressure form UKIP. You are quite right: we are now governed by a majority government which received just over 37 per cent of the vote. But remember: that’s exactly 37 percentage points more that the last coalition manifesto received.

For countries aspiring to democratise, the UK has always been the first point of call. Some people believe that it would be fairer to replace our system of government with a continuous series of marches and demonstrations (or ‘demos’ apparently – so good to see the radical Left using ancient Greek), but I simply don’t buy that. Go live in Russia or the Stans in Central Asia for a couple of years – after all, they use PR, so they must be really democratic – then come back and tell me how rotten Britain is. I’m seeing my auntie in Moscow this summer, feel free to join me.

I love political debates. Over the past couple of years, we have been arguing about what party should govern this country. However, it seems that this debate is now over: the electorate have settled it for us.

People across the country decided to surprise everyone (probably including themselves) and return a Conservative majority government. The Tories made gains at the expense of Labour in predominantly working class areas like Wales or the North (#Balls). But some people only seem to like democracy as long as it delivers the right result. For Oxford’s radical left, the result was far from ideal.

The sheer and utter contempt for the millions of ordinary votes expressed by so many people at Oxford is quite frankly staggering. Guess what: most of the electorate are not white boys from Eton and the South East. Most of them are not selfish, ignorant or stupid. Facebook over the past week or so really has shown that radical left are exactly what they accuse the Tories of being: nasty, mean and arrogant.

Guys, you lost, and the mature thing to do would be to ask why, so you can fix it for the next election. Instead, some of you have decided to spread vitriol, and refer to us, Conservatives, using words for which my granny would smack me. You have the audacity to claim that the Tories are elitist, whilst claiming that the voters are stupid and don’t understand, because how on Earth could anyone ever vote for the Tories? There was a surge in Tory support among ethnic minorities, young people and the LGBT community – please get a grip and stop telling me I’m a self-hating gay (and foreigner) for voting Tory.

We now hear how the Tory government has no mandate, as it only got a majority because of our rotten and discredited voting system. This is the very system the public overwhelmingly supported in a referendum a couple of years ago. Where were these voices when Labour got a staggering majority of 179 seats with 43 per cent of the vote in 1997? Or in 2005 when the Tories got a million more votes in England but a hundred fewer seats? Everyone enjoys the game when they’re winning: the real test of character comes when you start losing.

As is always the case, the vast majority of people are very sensible. Most of my Labour and Green friends shook my hand on Friday, said ‘Well done’, and started preparing the campaign for 2020. This is one of the (many) things the rest of the world – and me personally – admire about the British: your ability to control and manage your emotions and handle them in a mature manner. Most people don’t feel the need to insult me, most want to talk to me about politics.

Respect for James on the right here; while I disagree with him on virtually everything (I bet he even likes Marmite), at least he actually campaigned for Labour and fought for what he believes to be right, like a grown up. A huge well done to everyone who did the same, whichever party they supported.

We all want to make Britain a better place, we just disagree over the best way to do it. However, ultimately it’s the voters who decide what the best way is, and in 2015, they decided it’s the Tory way.

There is probably no point trying to convince any students how to vote in the General Election, surely we’ve all made up our minds by now. The background of this article gives you a clue as to who I’m voting for (or rather would be voting for if I could: #foreign). But I would still ask you for one thing: vote so that you actually determine who gets to govern this country.

The one thing about this election people will remember is how messy it’s all been. So many parties, seven-way leader debates, uncertainty. The simplicity, clarity and effectiveness of the good old two-party system all seem to be disappearing.

Many people got really angry with the Lib Dems for breaking their promise on tuition fees. But don’t blame them, blame the British electorate. Broken promises are inherent to multiparty systems. If no party commands an overall majority, coalitions have to be formed, and parties will have to sacrifice some of their policies in the process.

There is nothing fairer about proportional representation or multiparty governments: you get coalition agreements that no one ever voted for. Look at Israel, where far-right parties with about five per cent of the popular vote almost entirely control a highly divisive and controversial foreign policy that has made them no few enemies, and then ask yourself whether the our political system is really that bad.

And look what these small parties are doing to Britain. If Labour is the largest party, it will have to enter some sort of deal with the SNP, and the Nationalists will get to dictate the terms of that deal. A party with less than four per cent of the popular vote – a party for which 92 per cent of the people in this country can’t even vote for – will dictate government policy.

imilarly, if the Tories are the largest party and have to rely on UKIP or the DUP (much, much less likely than the earlier example as UKIP and DUP are very unlikely to get more than 10 seats between them), our country will be subject to policies very, very few people will have voted for.

The next government will be either Tory or Labour. The next Prime Minister will either be Cameron or Miliband. That really is the choice we all face, and we should all pick between the two.

If I were really mean, I would say I love the Greens for example – they literally eat Lib Dem and Labour votes, thus helping the Conservatives in many marginal constituencies, including, incidentally, Oxford West and Abingdon. You may dislike that, you may think our electoral system is unfair, but you have to face the reality. Vote Tory or Labour, and actually have a say on who runs the country.

I hope your hangover isn’t too bad when you read this on Friday – be it caused by Bridge or by celebrating or drinking down the sorrows after staying up all night to watch what promises to be the closest-fought General Election in recent memory. But remember: the hangover of being run by people who want to break up our country could last five years.

One thing that shocked me when I moved to the UK from Eastern Europe roughly five years ago is how it is acceptable to be a communist supporter among young people here.

Even at Oxford, the number of people who think it’s a totally legitimate ideology is very high. Wolfson has organised a communism-themed bop, and Wadham JCR (sorry, Student Union) was going to vote on whether or not to fly the USSR flag to celebrate the end of World War II later this week. I know what you’re thinking, and no, I’m not kidding.

Let me reassure you – I do not intend to stage a protest and shut this bop down. I believe every JCR (or GCR for that matter) should be allowed to host whatever event they like and whilst I might find some of them objectionable, I don’t feel I’m in any position to tell people what to do.
What I find staggering, however, are the double standards so many people hold about the two great evils of the twentieth century, communism and national socialism.

Everyone at our university – I should hope – and the vast majority of people in this country would feel absolutely appalled, shocked and mind-blown if someone suggested to host a Nazi-themed bop or fly the Third Reich flag: and rightly so, of course. If someone were to upload a picture of Hitler or Mussolini wearing a party hat as their cover photo on Facebook, they would probably be reported to their college and disciplined. But turning Stalin into a fun, cuddly little creature is totally cool?

So many people at Oxford talk about no-platforming extreme views as shown by the reaction to the OSFL debates in Michaelmas last year and whilst I disagree with them, I would say they have a valid and intellectually defensible claim. What I can’t get my head around though is that after saying we shouldn’t platform Le Pen because she’s a fascist, they’re more than happy let the Oxford Marxist Society sign up members at Freshers’ fair.

They say it’s different, because communism is an ideology of liberation. I’m sorry, but I don’t buy this. The only reason why it’s become acceptable in the UK to be a communist is that the UK has never fought this poisonous ideology directly and has no direct experience of it. Go to the Czech Republic or Poland and you’ll be arrested for denying the crimes of the Soviet rule.

There actually are people at our university who want to fly a flag which symbolises a regime which killed around 20 million people, systematically used rape as a weapon in warfare, and targeted Jews, gay and disabled people in its killings. Flying it is neither cool nor hip: it’s beyond the pale.

Communism is not cool, and communist dictators are not bop costume material. When Prince Harry wore an SS uniform to a fancy dress party a few years ago, he was sent to Auschwitz to realise there are things one doesn’t joke about. I wonder whether it might be worth organising a trip to a few Siberian gulags.

While those of us shocked by the General Election result piece together what has happened, a new government is steadily working out what policies it will implement for universities and students. Some of these will be a continuation of existing or halted policies. The cuts to Disabled Students Allowance (DSA) which were delayed until 2016, with some changes coming in 2015, look like they will now go ahead. That means disabled students could have to fork out £200 for specialised equipment they need. Vince Cable has now left his post as Business Secretary, which puts a sale of the student loanbook back on the cards, something George Osborne said he was considering during his recent speech to the Confederation of British Industry.

The postgraduate loans system may now be introduced, chiefly a £10,000 loan for taught masters students. But this is capped at under-30s, and only covers part of the expenses. Taking out this loan would also add to the repayments many of us will be making as undergraduates. In other words, as a response to higher fees and debts deterring access to higher education, the government has prescribed – you guessed it – higher fees and more debts.

The big question is whether tuition fees for undergraduates will go up. It has become increasingly likely that the government is considering this, and William Hague, Conservative Leader of the House of Commons in the last Parliament, repeatedly refused to rule out a fee rise when asked. Whether the government is able to get through another fee rise will depend on the strength of the British student movement. If all non-Tory parties voted against higher fees (and the DUP and UKIP are likely to do just that) the government could only survive nine rebels from their own benches.

Given that five Tory MPs who rebelled against increasing fees in 2010 are still in Parliament, if students can cause enough trouble around the threat of a fee rise, especially in Tory-held student marginals like Derby and Southampton, then the government might not risk their chances over a move that would threaten both party unity and public image. Looking at the Lib Dems’ recent decimation at the polls, it is clear that the issue of student fees is one that resonates deeply with the student population and the public at large.

The final possibility is among the most worrying. The Conservative party has a long-held disregard for students’ right to organise, and for unions in general, so a fresh round of attacks on student unionism may be on the cards.

In 1972, Education Secretary Margaret Thatcher led an assault on the rights of students’ unions to campaign politically, which was defeated by NUS, and John Major brought it back in 1994, in what became the Education Act.

If higher fees are posited by the government, and then the student movement fights back, we may have a fight on our hands for our democratic rights too.

Last week’s election result was a disaster for the British Left, and the utter devastation that could be inflicted upon our public services, institutions and the British working class can now most likely only be held back by the benevolence of a few Tory backbenchers combined with the militancy of an anti-austerity movement that has been at best waning and at worst dead since 2012.

Labour supporters have come up with their competing theories as to what went wrong, all of which have some validity and clearly played a part in a defeat of unexpectedly crushing proportions. It has become clear that problems with Ashcroft’s polling, which over-estimated the Labour lead, the ‘shy Tory’ factor, and finally the scare tactics of Tories in England evoking the spectre of the SNP all combined to squeeze Labour’s vote.
In addition to this, in a dozen or so constituencies a break off to the Green Party and smaller left parties handed Cameron his majority by electing Tories at Labour’s cost.

But why did it go so badly for Labour? It’s true that ‘economic competence’, a battle Ed Miliband could never have won as soon as Labour lost that bankrupt argument in 2010, ate away in those crucial English marginals. Yet Labour’s problem was not just that we lost a few Tory votes off the edge, it was that our core voters didn’t turn out at all. Given a lacklustre manifesto where the genuine radicalism of Ed Miliband was held back by the influence of the ‘zombie Blairites’, who had come back to life after the death of New Labour to haunt the current party, Labour just didn’t inspire enough.

The way back for the Left in England is to look to Scotland, where a huge upsurge in working-class political participation has taken place. It’s true the SNP are not a left-wing party, and it’s also true that they have the backing of Rupert Murdoch (quite possibly because he knew they would all but destroy Labour north of the border), and that they are very soft on austerity. Yet by putting out a radical message, they tapped into years and years’ worth of popular discontent and feelings of disillusionment towards ‘the establishment’, which, unfortunately for Scottish Labour, meant them.

Labour’s problem is the Left’s problem. The party’s failure over not just the last five years but the last few decades to match the industrial decline of its heartlands with a newer and more innovative organising strategy has brought it to its knees. For all the New Labour talk of “we’re all middle class now”, there are many more people who feel the sting of Thatcherism through low wages, high rents, a repressive and uncaring welfare system, long queues at the foodbank or waiting times in the local hospital.
It’s Labour’s and the Left’s job now to tap into people’s anger, to organise them locally in campaigns against the social injustice they face, and translate that anger into a politics of the Left.