FIGURES RELEASED THIS WEEK reveal that the gap between house prices and average earnings has been widening in Oxford over the last ten years more than in almost any other city in the UK.

London and Cambridge were the only British cities where the gap between house prices and average earnings increased more than it did in Oxford.

The findings were published by the think tank Centre for Cities, in their annual Cities’ Outlook report. It was revealed that the average house in Oxford cost 16.1 times more than the average yearly salary in 2014, which was £28,860.

By comparison, the average house cost 12.8 times more than an average year’s wage in 2004. The average wage in 2014 in Oxford was the eighth highest average in Britain.

The Senior Economist at Centre for Cities, Paul Swinney, told Cherwell, “At £555 per week, Oxford’s average earnings are relatively high on a national level, and well above the UK city average of £501 per week.

“However, its growing economy and its increased desirability as a place to live, work and invest have not been matched by any significant house building over the past decade, which has seen demand for existing dwellings reach unprecedented levels. Only two hundred new homes were built between 2012 and 2013, for example, indicating why house prices rose by ten per cent between 2013 and 2014.

“Over the ten years from 2004, Oxford’s house prices rose from 12 to 16 times average earnings. As our recent report on the UK’s housing crisis demonstrated, Oxford urgently needs to find new opportunities to increase its rate of house building, or it threatens pricing workers – and the businesses that employ them – out of the city, with long-term consequences for economic growth.”

Andrew Carter, Acting Chief Executive of Centre for Cities, added, “Five months out from the election, this report makes the strongest economic case yet for the next government to step up to the challenge of investing in the long-term success of our cities, and build a brighter future in which more people and places can contribute to, and share in, prosperity and growth.

“The stark picture the report paints of the enormous gap in the fortunes of UK cities over ten years underlines why a ‘steady as she goes’ approach must be scrapped. We must move from thinking that bundling up new funding streams with bureaucratic delays, or simply tinkering around the edges with well-intentioned announcements, will be enough to reverse trends that are becoming increasingly entrenched.

“Cities need long-term funding and strategic planning, and policies that go to the heart of addressing the key drivers of economic growth – including transport, planning, skills and housing.’’

THE OXFORD UNION has been criticised by students for producing a Hilary termcard with 64 per cent white male speakers.

The Union, who had promised an “incredibly diverse” termcard have come under fire after promising to challenge “the view that the Union is a ‘boys’ club’’, but presenting an overwhelmingly male line up.

The termcard, which includes notable figures such as Marine Le Pen, Al Sharpton, and Sarah Palin, includes three separate weeks in which there are no individual female speakers. Of the entire eight week term, the lineup includes only 15 women speaking in total, four of whom are invited for a feminism debate.

Opinion is divided as to whether the Union should have ensured a more equal gender and ethnicity balance for this term’s events, since 21 of the 31 individual speakers are white males. On the debates panel for Oxbridge admissions quotas, all of the speakers are white, and only one is female.

On the debate on institutional racism in the US, all of the panel are male. Three out of seven of the debates contain an all-male and all-white panel.

Annie Teriba, former member of the Secretary’s Commitee, said, ‘‘I’m saddened to see that yet again the Union has prioritised so many men over having decent representation.

‘‘I gather from certain well placed likes on Cuntry Living that some in the Union think that I’m supposed to celebrate the most talked about speakers: a woman who hates my right to choose, a woman who profits from feeding my insecurities and a fascist. The Union certainly knows how to make a girl feel special.”

Tim Squirrell, former President of the Cambridge Union and a speaker at the Oxford Union in 7th Week of Hilary, told Cherwell that the Union still has much work to do.

He commented, “The Oxford (and Cambridge) Unions have long-standing and
lingering problems with diversity. There are a lot of different causes: it’s partly to do with lack of women and other groups in positions of power and partly to do with those who are in those positions not accepting invitations as readily.

“At the Cambridge Union, quite a lot is being done to rectify our diversity problems, for example inviting only female speakers for a large amount of the time, or deliberately filling any remaining debate slots with female speakers.

‘‘Whilst we’re making some headway, there’s still a long way to go, and I’m not sure that I would go so far as to celebrate the diversity of our termcard just yet.’’

Helena Dollimore, former OULC chair, said, “When I pledged a gender balanced termcard in my hust to co-chair a political society in Oxford, members said it would be impossible. We did it, with less effort than I expected, despite the domination of politics and that party by men.

“Apologists will always say gender balancing is impossible and will lead to poorer quality speakers. It’s not only quite easy if you actually try, but can lead you to invite speakers who end up being even more interesting.”

However, not everyone agreed. Lewis Hedges, a PPEist at Univ, said, “I think the problem here is twofold: yes the Union aren’t getting enough women to come and speak, but there also aren’t enough women high enough up in
their fields to invite.

“This system of patriarchy is both excluding existing women from speaking and preventing many such young women from rising to a place of prominence in the first place”.

The Union did not respond to our requests
for comment.

Yesterday, Oxford University confirmed that it will become an accredited Living Wage employer in April 2015. At the same time, Oriel and Wadham announced that they will also be seeking accreditation.

All three institutions do currently pay all directly employed staff at least the Living Wage, which is currently set at £7.85 for everywhere outside of London. Their commitment means that they will now pay the Living Wage to all who work on site, including third-party contracted staff.

Following official announcements from Wadham and Oriel, Pembroke College have also committed to accreditation following a meeting of their governing body. Ben Nabarro, Pembroke JCR president, commented, “This has been a central issue for the JCR and it’s fantastic to see Pembroke commit to accreditation. Pembroke does currently pay the Living Wage but it’s important to give staff the security of a binding commitment. Colleges have an obligation to be responsible employers.”

OUSU’s Living Wage Campaign has been lobbying the university since 2011 to accredit. Fergal O’Dwyer, the campaign’s co-Chair, said, “This is the most significant event in the campaign’s history. Getting the University to accredit has always been our most salient aim, and I’m proud of the work that the campaign has done toward achieving this.”

.@UniofOxford Pro VC for Personnel & Equality with the @OxfLivingWage campaign celebrating the @LivingWageUK decision pic.twitter.com/00V1QPo7Kz

— OUSU (@ousunews) January 23, 2015

Stephen Goss, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Personnel and Equality) commented, “I am very pleased that the University is taking this step. It guarantees the Living Wage to all our employees and will ensure that, as we revise or set up new agreements, the staff of contractors who work regularly on our premises also receive the Living Wage.”

Ruth Meredith, OUSU VP (Charities & Community) was also exultant at the news. She said, “Today, we have finally won. By accrediting, Oxford University is making an unequivocal statement that poverty wages are unacceptable, and have no place in our community. They are listening to the voices of the people who work with and for them, and taking it seriously.

Speaking to Cherwell, O’Dwyer stressed that, although this is a significant milestone, it’s vital that the campaign use this momentum to push for every college to become accredited, saying, “With the success at the central university, the focus now turns to those colleges who still refuse to accredit or even pay a Living Wage. We’re encouraging people to start college campaigns. The central University has set a massive precedent: there is now no excuse for poverty pay in Oxford.”

The Living Wage Campaign are planning to host an equipping session where those who have led successful campaigns can share tactics with others looking to push for accreditation in their own colleges. It aims to help students who are unfamiliar with the college’s decision-making processes or bringing motions to the JCR.

Henriette Willberg, Wadham SU’s Charities, Environment and Ethics Officer, was one of the leaders of Wadham’s campaign to accredit. She said that Wadham’s decision was the result of “the continuous campaigning and engagement that has gone on within the college and all those members of the SU (over 230) who signed the open letter. We hope that Wadham’s accreditation can lead the way for other colleges in the near future.”

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER Nick Clegg has spoken out against the expansion of Campsfield House Immigration detention Centre, arguing that there is not a “clear case” for the proposals.

Clegg declared, “The Home Office needs to improve the speed and accuracy of immigration and asylum decisions. This will reduce demand, help save money, and mean we can eventually close centres such as Campsfield House.”

The prospective Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate for Oxford West and Abingdon, Layla Moran, supported his remarks. She said, “I am delighted the Deputy Prime Minister has backed our calls. The ‘needs case’ for this expansion is now even less convincing.”

His decision to speak out against existing plans contrasts with Prime Minister David Cameron’s response to an open letter from 21 local organizations in December, which called for the withdrawal of plans to expand the detention
centre.  

In the reply, the Head of Detention Operations at the Home Office, Karen Abdel-Hady, confirmed that a planning application had been submitted and that if approved, would “provide modern accommodation and facilities” and “meet the strategic objectives of immigration enforcement”.

Abdel-Hady’s response went on to defend the Immigration Removal Centre, arguing, “Detention and removal are essential and effective parts of immigration control but it’s vital it’s done with humanity and dignity.”

Having previously expressed her disappointment at the response from the Home office, an Oxford researcher working on deportation and immigration detention was this time “extremely pleased” with the Deputy Prime Minister’s decision to speak out against proposals to double the size of Campsfield.

Dr. Melanie Griffiths told Cherwell, “The UK is unique in Europe for having no maximum time limit for immigration detention, meaning that people have no idea how long they might be detained for, with many incarcerated for months or even years. It is also an extremely costly process, at £36,000 per detainee per year, and causes immense damage to individuals and their families.’’

“Given all this, rather than seek to expand detention space yet further, we should be looking into cheaper and more civilised means of operating an immigration system. I welcome Clegg’s recognition that we should call for the end of this cruel practice.”

She went on to say, “Depriving a person of their liberty simply for administrative inconvenience is abhorrent.”

Oxford University’s Amnesty International was equally keen to back Clegg’s comments, with their President commenting, “We are pleased that the Deputy PM has condemned the expansion plans and hope this represents
a growing trend.”

“UK law and the Home Office’s own policy guidance clearly state that detention should be used sparingly and for the shortest period necessary. Yet these recent rapid expansions suggest that rather than ‘sparingly’, detention is being increasingly relied upon to warehouse migrants simply for administrative reasons, a proportion of whom will never be removed
from the UK.”

Dr. Griffiths was keen to encourage people to express their views on the issue using the Detention Forum website.

A statement prepared by OUSU’s Student Executive Officers about the expansion plans declares, “Campsfield House should not be expanded: it should be closed down. Detainees at Campsfield report frequent abuse – just last month the detainees themselves staged a protest against the violent treatment of one of their number – and are systematically denied their basic rights. That Campsfield is run for profit by a private company is also troubling.

“Migrants are not criminals. Many of the detainees in Campsfield faced persecution in their countries of origin and came to Britain needing our help. As a country, we are under an obligation not to mistreat them. Sadly, our immigration policy remains inhumane, and places like Campsfield are testament to that.

“That is why it is the position of OUSU to oppose Campsfield House, and therefore we deplore plans for its expansion. We are glad that many Oxford students and academics – including nine heads of colleges – agree with us on this issue, and we will continue to lobby the government to close Campsfield.”

The planning application for the extension to Campsfield has been deferred to the Cherwell District Council planning committee meeting on February 19th because the applicants ‘need more time to resolve the highways issue’.

Neither the offices of David Cameron nor the Liberal Democrat party responded to requests for comment.

An Oxford news agent’s who planned to stock the latest edition of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has done an abrupt U-turn after receiving threats.

The publication features a cartoon on its front page depicting the Prophet Muhammad crying and holding a sign declaring “Je suis Charlie”. This edition was printed in the aftermath of the murder of the magazine’s staff and a police officer on January 7th 2015.

The newsagent’s, Wendy’s News on Broad Street, originally ordered 500 copies of the controversial magazine. Due to popular demand from customers, a further 500 copies were ordered, so that 1,000 copies were expected to arrive earlier this week.

However, a worker at the newsagent’s, who wished to remain anonymous, has informed Cherwell that these orders have now been cancelled. He admitted that they had received some threats, but denied that this was the reason for the cancellation of the order, saying, “We did not know much about the magazine and now we have found out about the contents we have decided against stocking it.”

Thames Valley Police told Cherwell that they were “called yesterday morning [January 20th] to a newsagent in Broad Street, after receiving a report that a threat was made to the shop the previous night [January 19th] on the telephone.”

Tawfiq Hamid, President of the Oxford University Islamic Society, commented on the newsagent’s decision to stock the paper, “He is of course free to sell what he likes but it just seems strange for a Muslim man to sell a magazine that is openly anti-Islamic, each to his own I suppose.”

A worker at Wendy’s News later explained more specifically that he had been unaware that the publication contained a depiction of the Prophet Muhammad, and that, had he known, he would have refused to stock the
magazine. His reasoning behind the decision was solely due to customer demand, claiming that “over 600 customers asked me to stock it”.

BBC Oxford reported that the decision to cancel the order was due to threatening phone calls and Facebook abuse received by the newsagent’s, including threats to burn the shop and break the windows. The Thames Valley Police confirmed to Cherwell that they received report of a threat made to a newsagent’s on Broad Street.

A second Oxford newsagent’s, Honey’s on the High, has ordered 300 copies of the most recent Charlie Hebdo, which is expected to arrive today. They have no plans to reverse this order.

An employee told Cherwell that they were aware of the threats Wendy’s News had received, but that they had not received any such threats themselves. Honey’s of the High have placed a sign in a prominent position, apologising for the delay in the arrival of the stock, but assuring customers that they will be sold. 

#CharlieHebdo magazine running late from suppliers 🙁 Will update once in stock.

— Honey’s of The High (@HoneysofTheHigh) January 16, 2015

Cherwell spoke to a customer at Honey’s of the High, Chris Hardy, who wished to buy a copy of the most recent Charlie Hebdo.

He said, “I’d like a copy because of what it stands for and represents at the moment. I’ve read Private Eye, which is the nearest English equivalent for generations. What I think it stands for is that there must be freedom to
speak.”

The attacks in Paris fuelled a debate about the balance between freedom of speech and publication and the offence of religion. In this case it was the publication of cartoons which caused enormous offence to many Muslims.

In relation to this debate, Tawfiq Hamid, the President of the Oxford University Islamic Society commented, “The debate has turned into Islam vs freedom of speech, with no textual support to the implicit notion that Islam has a problem with freedom of speech. The overall tone of the debate is excessively Islamophobic and helps to build a general air of mistrust around Muslims in general, while in many cases inciting hatred against innocent individuals, such as we have seen reflected in the subsequent attacks against the Muslim community.

“Tomorrow, being Friday, ISoc will meet at about midday to pray and then chill while eating some (hopefully warm) sandwiches for lunch. We’ve also arranged a cheeky spot of 5-a-side for the evening. I just wanted to say that this, for me, is ‘living Islam’. The lives of Muslims are so different to what we see in the media and it’s sad that at the end of the day the only debate around Islam tonight revolves around ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘extremism’.”

Adam Ismail, a Muslim Law undergraduate at St. Catherine’s College, commented, “I don’t agree with the magazine covers produced by Charlie Hebdo but I respect the right of free speech and publication. There should be a right to insult and make fun of religion. I think that is fundamental to the freedom of speech.”