Friday 3rd April 2026
Blog Page 1345

“You should ask for big things from the people standing”

0

Every year, students from our own number step up to present their views on how they would make all our experiences in Oxford better. It isn’t easy. The people whose promises and claims have been set out in these pages, on social media, in manifestos and at hustings make significant personal sacrifices.

But, it is important you quiz them. Whilst many people may run because they want to improve Oxford, many who have previously been elected through OUSU elections have not truly cared about the things they have claimed to (or haven’t done anything about it). The recent history of OUSU is a story of those doing amazing work being held back by those who aren’t. You need to make sure that the people you elect are honest, genuine, capable, and committed.

Buzzwords will fly around like “representation”, “liberation” and “engagement”. Ask candidates what they understand these terms to mean. “Don’t let people hide behind the buzzwords. Ask for more effective representation, ask for concrete action to help the liberation of oppressed groups, ask who needs to be engaged and how they will engage them.

OUSU is changing — we are updating all our governing documents to make it easier for your elected officers to do things. We are expanding our activity to increase support given to RAG and clubs and societies. We are unifying the system of course reps and departmental representation. You should ask for big things from the people standing.

And make sure you expect a lot from those running for NUS delegate, Student Trustee and Part-Time Executive roles. Whilst they may still be doing their degrees, the people who fill these positions act as some of the key links between the Student Union and common rooms, campaigns and the wider national student movement of which we are a part. Don’t compromise on these roles as they can have a significant impact on your time in Oxford.

This time can be a great opportunity for you to say how crap OUSU is. And on many fronts, you would be right in saying that it isn’t great. But don’t be an armchair critic.

Get involved by looking at manifestos and voting. Ironically, you can do this from an armchair. So actually, feel free to be an armchair critic, just make sure you have a computer there and vote, even if you vote to re-open nominations.

I ran because I was tired of the same old rubbish coming from the people who represented me. I wanted a student union that did more for more people and did it better. You have the chance to change your student union and subsequently your experience as a student. You don’t even need to make a silly video or a manifesto do it. It does actually matter a lot, its not very hard to do and it will make me happy, so please do have your say.

Regent’s Park go meat-free one day a week

0

Students at Regent’s Park will have have one meat-free day a week, starting from next term, after the JCR passed a referendum last weekend.

The referendum, which lasted from Friday to Monday evening, asked, “should the college kitchens go meat-and-fish-free for breakfast, lunch and dinner one day a week, while retaining two options?” The college voted 65.7% in favour, with 30.8% voting no and 3.5% abstaining.

The college ordinarily provides two choices for every meal, one of them being vegetarian, and now for one day a week both options will be vegetarian. The arrangement will start from the beginning of Hilary and there will be a forum at the end of term to assess how students and fellows felt it went.

The reaction from Regent’s students was, as the result suggested, largely positive. One third year theology student praised the initiative, “I think it’s great when the whole college gets together and rallies around an issue like this one.” Another commented that despite not being a vegetarian or indeed a lover of “any greens”, he appreciated and supported the environmental arguments.

Regent’s Treasurer Will Yates commented, “It’s not often we get to gauge the feelings of the whole community on a matter like this and I think the community has made a firm statement of its values and beliefs.”

Others were slightly less positive. One first year complained to Cherwell that he’d prefer the college to concentrate on serving food at weekends than trying this new scheme.

JCR President Will Obeney commented, “Regent’s has a healthy history of progressiveness, from being one of the first colleges to fly the Rainbow Flag, to ensuring everybody receives the same food at formal halls. This referendum shows the college understand the unsustainability of our current diets, and the need for change.”

Somerville JCR voted last year to establish meat-free Mondays, only to see the MCR reject the motion and the plan was abandoned.

Wadham  meanwhile is well known for its sometimes-problematic relationship with veganism. Having established meat-free Mondays in 2010, in which only vegetarian meals were served for Monday dinner, it withdrew its support in 2012 by a margin of only five votes. This was then reversed in Hilary of this year, when Wadhamites voted to re-implement the measure.

The Wadham student union voted during Trinity term in favour of the extreme measure of having vegan food five days a week. This was also soon-after revoked with the college saying they had no plans to serve vegan-only food.  

Then SU President of Wadham College Anya Metzer told the Cherwell, “ I am very pleased to see other colleges promoting meat-free diets and hope to see this movement gross across Oxford. Cutting down meat consumption is an easy way to make a difference and with college-catering on board it is even easier.” 

Meatless Mondays is an international campaign designed to encourage people to eat less meat for environmental and health reasons. A recent Oxford study found that cutting to meat three days a week would save 45,000 lives as well as save the NHS £1.2 billion a year.

Regent’s decision comes on the back of the on-going ‘veggiepledge’: an Oxford University Student Union initiative to get students to turn vegan or vegetarian for some or all of November. The scheme has seen 250 students from over twenty colleges sign up.

 Xavier Cohen, OUSU’s Environment & Ethics officer, told the Cherwell that “It’s fantastic to hear that Regent’s have voted to back a meat-free day. I strongly get the sense that, with things like the success of #VeggiePledge, a shift is taking place in the university community towards the active encouragement of more vegetarian and vegan lifestyles.

“But I think we still need to be discussing this more. The ethical and environmental concerns behind eating less in the way of animal products are rarely discussed in the public eye because they’re never seen to be topical. Though hopefully, with things like #VeggiePledge and this meat-free day at Regent’s, we’ll be seeing more in the way of this in our own local discourse.”

Students at other colleges seemed slightly more resistant to give up their steaks just yet. One first year PPEist at New College commented that while he wouldn’t mind giving up the meat, “the more choice the better”.  

 

 

 

Upward social mobility has gone into reverse

0

A new study carried out by the University of Oxford and LSE shows that upward social mobility has gone into reverse. Following a ‘golden age’ of progress and prospect from the 1950s to the 1980s, it seems social mobility is now firmly set in a downward direction, and there is now much less ‘room at the top’ for younger generations to aspire to.

The research undertaken by the universities studied more than 20,000 people, splitting them into 4 groups; those born in 1946, 1958, 1970 and the early 1980s. They gathered data from the National Survey of Health and Development (1946), the National Child Development Study (1958), the British Cohort Study (1970) and the UK Household Longitudinal Study (1980‐84).

These 4 groups were then divided into 7 social categories depending on their father’s career position. Comparing this with their own occupation in their late 20s and 30s, the study reveals that around 75% moved to a different social class within this time frame.

However, expert in social policy at Oxford and lead author, Associate Professor Erzsébet Bukodi, explained, “There is a clear change in the direction of mobility. Over the past four decades, the experience of upward mobility has become less common, and going down the social ladder has become more common.”

Published in the early online issue of the British Journal of Sociology, this research also shows that there were increasing numbers of the current younger generation who were effectively becoming working class by their mid‐20s. People are therefore more likely to slide down the social scale than go up the social scale.

This sheds new light on the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission’s second annual State of the Nation 2014 Report published in October 2014.

A spokesperson from the Commission told Cherwell, “This study demonstrates the challenge facing the UK in improving social mobility – the problem is far greater than previously thought. It shows that a child from a middle‐class background is up to 20 times more likely to get a professional job than one from a working‐class background with little change in this over time.”

Certainly, it remains too hard for those born into lower classes to reach the higher classes and exploit their skills and talents. This stretches back to a person’s birth and education, impacting on their prospects of university and beyond.

However, a spokesperson for the University of Oxford stresses that “Oxford is committed to ensuring all those with the talent and ability to succeed apply here, regardless of background, and selection for places is based on academic merit only. The University devotes a huge amount of resource to widening access and student support.” This is despite the fact that the Department of Education’s statistics show that one in twenty students from private school went on to study at Oxbridge in 2011 opposed to one in 100 from state school.

However, Oxford University has stressed that, “Social mobility is an issue stretching back to birth and beyond, and early inequality of attainment is one of the major barriers to progression. This is why support for students early on in their educational careers is vital.”

The University also suggests that early damage of poorer education appears to be the culprit. Pre-university inequality influences children in their struggle to climb up the social ladder, before university is even a prospect.

But what about hope for the future?

The Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission suggests that, “without a new focus the gap in attainment between the poorest children and their better‐off peers will take 20 years to even halve.”

A spokesperson told Cherwell, “These figures should act as a wake‐up call for politicians from all parties and emphasise the key conclusion of our recent State of the Nation report: radical new approaches will need to be adopted to avoid Britain becoming a permanently divided society”

The University, meanwhile, suggest that “diversifying intake is something that can only be done on the understanding that everyone – government, schools, parents, teachers, and universities – has to work together.”

 

OUSU still backing Free Education Demo

0

OUSU council has voted down a motion to withdraw support for a demonstration in favour of Free Education that is due to take place next week. Proposed by OUSU President Louis Trup, in his capacity as Chair of the Trustee Board, and Christina Toenshoff, Deputy Chair of the Trustee Board, the motion was overwhelmingly rejected, with five votes in favour and 57 against, with 12 abstentions.

OUSU Council first voted to provide transportation funding to the Free Education demonstration in 1st Week, and then voted to adopt Free Education as a national policy in 3rd Week. Last week it was forced to reconsider its support for the demonstration, following an announcement by NUS UK it would be withdrawing its support for the protest due to concerns about accessibility and safety.

OUSU Chief Executive Officer Amelia Foster, who is trained in risk assessment, raised a number of concerns in the motion regarding the demonstration, commenting, “I would require evidence that the number of stewards will be as described in the risk assessment (and I note that this is proving problematic); details of contractors and their risk assessments; a list of which roads will be closed and confirmation that St Johns are indeed providing first aid.

“The risk assessment as issued by the demonstration organisers reads like a provisional risk assessment, not one that is ready for an imminent event with thousands of attendees. I am very concerned by this and would also like the organisers to have public liability insurance.”

Due to the 1994 Education Act, the members of the Trustee Board and the Chief Executive Officer are personally liable in the event of an incident. OUSU’s public liability insurance will only cover students before and after the demonstration, not at the protest itself.

Despite the failure of the motion and since it is a safety issue whether OUSU supports the demonstration, the Trustee Board has maintained the ability to withdraw support for the protest, if further safety and access issues arise.

OUSU Disabled Students’ Officer and campaigner for Free Education James Elliott commented, “I was pleased that Council re-affirmed its support, and I hope the Trustee Board takes this as a firm statement that Council doesn’t take kindly to interferences from the board. The job is now to ensure the coaches are filled, and that accessibility information is widely circulated so students can make the best decision for themselves on whether or not to attend. See you on the streets!”

OUSU President Louis Trup told Cherwell, “I brought an emergency motion to withdraw OUSU’s support for the Free Education demo because the OUSU Trustee Board (which I chair) wanted Council to make sure it was aware of the risks highlighted by the NUS.

“The trustees have a legal obligation to make sure OUSU activities are safe so given CVouncil’s failing of this motion, we will work to ensure that all students who attend are safe. The more substantial issue for students is around accessibility. Council has declared it is happy with the accessibility of the demo for all attending, but we will continue to make sure this is the case at the demo.” 

A life remembered: Lou Reed

0

Despite proclaiming “Heroin, be the death of me” in the late sixties, the seemingly invincible Lou Reed sadly succumbed to liver disease just over a year ago. The ever- cranky co-founder of The Velvet Underground was a figure journalists loved to hate. However, I’m sure even the Australian interviewer in the early 1970s couldn’t help but chuckle when Lou Reed bluntly replied “sometimes” when asked if he was a transvestite or a homosexual.

But it was Lou Reed’s brashness and no-fucks- given attitude that made him the icon he is remembered as. In 1967, whilst The Beatles were releasing the rather bland Sgt. Pepper and The Rolling Stones were attempting to be edgier in Their Satanic Majesties Request, The Velvet Underground had already released their now infamous yellow banana album. Lou filled it with a cocktail of drugs and dark, twisted sex that didn’t skimp on the whips. And let’s not forget those throbbing violas. Even when Reed penned one of the most poignant love songs ever, ‘I’ll Be Your Mirror’, he turned it into a humorous display of narcissism, getting his then girlfriend Nico to sing it to him.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%10542%%[/mm-hide-text]

Reed was a figure who had his finger on the dark, hidden musical pulse of New York. While the British public were still reeling at the fact that a boy band could place Satan as a central figure in their album title, Reed’s lyrics were moving onto the darker humour of the the nun-pimp ‘Sister Ray’, eventually breaking into the limelight as a soloist with ‘Walk On The Wild Side’.

Reed always had a taste for the subversive and modern, but his heart remained tied to his childhood home of New York. In a fascinating 1989 interview left unpublished until recently, Reed’s ability to render his home city in all of its filthy glory shines through. But he was too sophisticated just to shout profundities over guitar riffs. To validate his purring “I’ll take Manhattan in a garbage bag with Latin written on it that says ‘It’s hard to give a shit these days’” he appealed to the works of the Spanish poet Lorca.

On reading the interview, it becomes clear that Reed was not only a man of shock tactics, but of beautiful sexual bleakness. In ‘Romeo Had Juliette’, the opener to New York, the play is re-situated in modern Harlem, subverting the original narrative. To him it was hardly a play of Shakespearean convention — he imagines Romeo and Juliet engaging in a quick romp behind an apartment block that “flickered for a minute and was gone”. But like Reed said, “ That flicker is better than nothing.” Even in his latter years, Reed refused to mellow.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%10541%%[/mm-hide-text]

He reputedly worked on his final album using a gold microphone, as cranky and taking-no-shit-from-nobody as ever. Reed’s critically-slammed final album with Metallica may seem an odd elegy for the glam-rock-makeuped figure on the front of 1972’s Transformer. Yet Reed was never a conformist — you never hear songs discussing amphetamine usage as openly as Reed’s did at the start of his career and you don’t find many 70 year old men who will write a page of praise for Kayne West’s “beautiful” Dark Twisted Fantasy.

I’m adamant that thirty years from now, critics will appreciate the merits of Reed’s final album. Though no masterpiece concept album like Berlin, closing track ‘Junior Dad’ evokes as much emotional response and resonance as anything from his prime.

Reed left listeners with this beautiful epitaph at the close of his final track: “I will teach you meanness, fear and blindness / No social redeeming kindness / Or no state of grace”. This lyric draws attention to Reed’s poeticism: Lou Reed may have been a grumpy old git, even in his youth, but his poetic brilliance and ability to create lyrics of stunning pathos will always be missed.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%8490%%[/mm-hide-text]

Interview: Ian McKellen

0

Whilst his talk for the chamber later on is quite clearly a performance, while I am sat with Sir Ian McKellen in the Morris Room of the Oxford Union he is quieter, and his answers have long drawn out pauses as he carefully considers how to reply. He seems more relaxed, maybe even a little tired. In his capacity as an advocate of LGBT concerns and the equal rights movement, he spent the morning talking at The Cherwell School about “what it was like growing up gay as a kid, and teaching them to be kind to each other”, as well as the implications of the new law which indicates state schools cannot discriminate on the basis of sexuality. McKellen starts by talking about Stonewall, the LGBT rights charity he helped to found, “Stonewall helps schools to train the teachers and so on, and I’m part of that process. They’re well on their way to eradicating homophobic bullying and helping staff and students who are coming out to do that if they want. I’m just generally waving the rainbow flag.”

It’s a role which has defined his life almost as much as his illustrious acting career, which has lasted over 50 years. Since coming out in 1988 on a BBC Radio 3 programme hosted by “homophobe” — as McKellen terms him — Peregrine Worsthorne, McKellen has worked tirelessly as an activist for LGBT rights. This started with the establishment of Stonewall to tackle the then under consideration Section 28, which would have stopped local authorities “promoting homosexuality” as “a kind of pretended family relationship”. In the chamber, McKellen expresses amazement at what has been achieved since then, describing the legalisation of gay marriage as an unexpected bonus.

I ask McKellen if he sees himself as an advocate or an educator, but he responds in a remarkably unassuming manner. “I think I just bear witness. Because I’m in the public eye, ever since I came out, some time ago now, I’ve been asked questions. It seems at times that I’m running an agenda and running a movement, but I’ve never done that. But I supported the idea of Stonewall, which was to get rid of all those laws which were in the land which discriminated against people who identified themselves as gay. That’s taken some time, but it’s been achieved. So I was always proselytising on that side of things.” He lets out a dry laugh.

“Now I just want to deal with the bigger problem which is that after years of treating gay people badly, it’s sort of embedded in the culture and you have to root it out. Schools are a good place to start. No one’s born prejudiced. They learn the behaviour. Schools seem to want to provide a safe environment so that kids can develop themselves and, indeed, study. I just help that along. But I am in no sense the leader.”

Since coming to university, I’ve known several people who have decide to come out to their friends and families, almost always with a positive response. There’s no doubt that Oxford has become a more liberal and open minded place than it was even ten ago. But when McKellen was at Cambridge, homosexuality was illegal, so, as he points out, “You didn’t start advertising the fact that you were gay. You probably didn’t even define yourself as gay.” I ask McKellen why he thinks more and more young people are choosing to come out at university, and how universities need to adapt as a result. “I think it would be very unhealthy for a person who identified themselves in any shape or form as gay, bisexual, asexual, transgender, etc., to have gone through university unable to say that. That would suggest that there was something really wrong with the environment here, and there shouldn’t be.

“I think that everyone from the university authorities and Vice Chancellor down, through all the individual colleges, should make it clear that you are an individual and you are yourself, and you can express yourself without any possible repercussions from anybody. I think that if there are any gay dons in Oxford they should be out. It’s part of their responsibility to set the tone of what this place is. So that means that all the people who the college employs, and people who are their students, should be able to follow that lead and be open and honest themselves.

“And I think that should be true of schools, too, and it increasingly is, so a lot of people, like the Oxford LGBTQ society that I’ve just met, were all out before they came to Oxford. They arrived in Oxford determined to help other people who maybe weren’t as lucky. If you couldn’t come out during your time at Oxford, it should be a pretty sad state of affairs I should think.”
With the photos of awkward politicians wearing ‘This is What a Feminist Looks Like’ t-shirts to viral videos by FCKH8 selling shirts with big, bold slogans, I’m interested in McKellen’s view of this merger of fashion and commercialism with equal rights movements. “I’ve worn the t-shirt ‘Some People Are Gay. Get Over It.’ with great pleasure. It was designed by a group of young people who Stonewall stuck in a room and said, ‘You’re not coming out until you’ve come up with a good slogan.’ It’s punchy and to the point and been translated into every language in the world.”

It should be pointed out of course that the t-shirt McKellen is referring to is, unlike FCKH8’s ‘Some Chicks Marry Chicks, Get Over It’ tee, not-for-profit. “On the whole I don’t wear slogans on my body. I’m not tattooed. Oh, actually I am!” He interrupts himself, pointing to his shoulder where he has the number ‘9’ inked to signify his involvement in the The Lord Of The Rings. Every member of ‘the Fellowship’ has the same tattoo. He continues, “But I think life’s a bit too complicated to be reduced to a few words on a t-shirt. But I might wear a t-shirt on occasion, like on a gay pride march.”

Of course, it is McKellen’s acting career which has earned him his fame, awards and knighthood. Although his career defining role is undoubtedly Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings and Hobbit series, he is just as well known for being a Shakespearean hero and master of the art of stage acting. He demonstrates this for us in his talk with a rendition of a speech from the Elizabethan play Sir Thomas More. But the profession of acting is changing. Dame Judi Dench and Dame Helen Mirren have both expressed concern in recent years that acting has become an elitist institution hampered by the expensive cost of drama schools. “I think it’s a bit more complicated than that, but I think they absolutely have a point,” he says when I ask if he agrees.

“That’s why the National Youth Theatre puts together students who’ve been through the programme, and they’re now doing a three month season in the West End. They’re being paid for doing it. That seems to me as good a way into the business of acting as any drama school. Drama schools are self supporting, they have to make their money, and they probably make it by having too many students. They probably know that those students don’t have a chance of getting a job at the end of it. I don’t know how you deal with it. I didn’t go to drama school so I don’t know much about drama schools. You don’t have to have go to drama school to become an actor.

“But they do have a point that when it comes to higher education for Drama students, you’re going to have to have some money. There are scholarships of course. There probably should be more. But I would doubt that the answer and solution is that everyone who wants to be an actor should be able to go to drama school for free, because that would be very misleading. They’re not going to get work. Too many people want to be actors.”

He pulls a slightly pained expression, saying, “It’s dreadful.” And institutional elitism? “Are there too many posh actors around the place? Well that’s because there are too many posh stories being told. You can blame Downton Abbey for that.”

With the growth of TV and the reduction in the number of theatres, some actors have expressed concern that the profession is being undermined by young performers going straight to the screen before learning the trade on the stage. McKellen laughs at this notion. “Well where are they meant to act on stage? There aren’t that many jobs!

“When I started out we had a closed shop in our union. You could not act unless you were a member of the union. The union said, ‘You can have a provisional membership, and when you have that provisional membership you may not act in film, act on television or act in the West End of London.’ In other words, you had to work in a regional theatre, or theatre in education. Every town of a decent size in this country had its own theatre with its own actors who stayed together for a year. And that’s because the young actors weren’t allowed to work anywhere else.

“Mrs Thatcher broke the union, you no longer have to be a member of the union, so the young actors say, ‘Why the hell should I go and work in Oxford when I might get a job in television?’ And then the funds to the Arts Council are being reduced and all those theatres that existed when I was a kid have gone, so where are the young actors meant to go? They queue up to be in film. It’s complicated.

“But if you want to encourage actors to learn how to act, as many of us did, in regional companies, then you’ve got to provide the regional companies, and you’ve got to re-establish the union. Otherwise, nothing is going to happen. It’s discouraging, isn’t it,” he says, leaning in with a lowered brow.

My time with McKellen is brought to a close as he heads to dinner before his talk. Having seen the line-up of speakers for the term, he adds, “Ask Stephen Fry. He’ll answer these questions much better than I can.” It seems somewhat apt as the final note of our conversation. It summarises McKellen’s modesty as an actor, activist and highly intelligent human being.

Interview: Harry Leslie Smith

0

I meet Harry Leslie Smith in an empty Sheldonian Theatre, where later on he is to give a talk on austerity in conversation with journalist Owen Jones. While Jones is well known as an impressively fiery speaker, Leslie Smith is softly-spoken, unassuming, a little out of place in the grandeur of the Sheldonian. But when he does speak, his words – carefully chosen, passionate – are every bit as forceful and compelling as Jones’. Over the last couple of years, the 91-year-old war veteran and ex-carpet salesman from Barnsley has risen to prominence as the Left’s most unlikely saviour.

He has written impassioned articles about the shrinking of the welfare state, the rise of UKIP and on the appropriation of remembrance. He recently stated in a piece for the Guardian that in 2014 he would “wear the poppy for the last time” because “my despair is for those who live in this present world”.

He reduced MPs to tears with his speech to the Labour conference on the fight to save the NHS. There is something of the Biblical prophet about Leslie Smith, who is able to draw on experiences of deprivation that subsequent generations can only imagine, to stop us from hurtling towards our social demise. His activism and writing is always informed by the memory of his childhood, which he describes to me as “a time of unspeakable misery for the working classes, a time that I remember all too well”.

Now, with his new book Harry’s Last Stand, Leslie Smith calls on the general public to speak up about the issues they believe in. The war veteran embraces the power of social media, asking Twitter followers to imitate him with the snappy hashtag ‘#istandupfor’.

I ask Leslie Smith how he came to take up political writing at this time in his life. He gently corrects me, telling me that though he’s only recently drawn the notice of the public, he has spent his whole life writing. This certainly comes across in his articles, which often have a poetic and lyrical force. Perhaps his best known piece is entitled as an “eulogy” to the NHS. “With writing” he says, “it seems as though I started early on in life, actually. In the early 1940s, when I was in the Royal Air Force, I kept a diary meticulously, of daily events and people I met, that sort of thing. I also wrote poems and short stories, items which were picked up by little local newspapers. But until now, that’s as close as I got to publication.”

As a boy, Leslie Smith didn’t have much in the way of formal education, but after the war he was able to go back to school. “I didn’t get the chance to go to college or university. But in the fifties my wife and I both went to night school. I took writing and several other literary pursuits. And that was the beginning of my education.”

He tells me that a few years ago he nearly packed it all in for the well-earned ease of retirement. “I was in my eighties. I was in Portugal, looking at houses and thinking I might go and spend the rest of my life in the sun there.” What changed? What made Leslie Smith swap the Algarve for touring the country on damp winter’s nights like tonight? “It was the 2008 banking crisis. I was angry. I was furious. Because no one in power, no banker, no politician, ever paid the price for causing so much suffering. The British taxpayer had to foot the bill and bail out the banks. And I felt that I must do something. So I started researching everything I could find about our governments and our politicians. Everything leading up to various financial collapses.”

Leslie Smith is scathing about the Coalition’s program of privatization and cuts. The subject to which Leslie Smith returns again and again in his writing is the bleakness of a world without a welfare state, a world where his sister, aged ten, died of tuberculosis in a local workhouse infirmary. I ask what, if any, parallels he can see between that time and David Cameron’s vision for Britain in the 21st century.

“Cameron’s vision for Britain […] is cloaked in the language of progress, but I fear that Britain is regressing back to a time which I remember with pain and suffering. It’s just about time that Cameron and his ilk were kicked off their thrones. It’s distressing to see his disdain for two groups of people in our society: the young and the poor. The young people today are suffering more than anyone, I think. They have accumulated mountains of debt, they aren’t supported by the state, they’re forced to go into unsteady, low-paid jobs. And there’s a chance that they are going to be the lost generation, just as my generation were.”

Leslie Smith clearly passionately feels that the Conservatives must not win the general election in May. But are Labour the force to take them on? Do they offer a sufficient alternative? Harry is a life-long Labour voter. For him, Labour will always be the party that built the National Health Service and the welfare state, the party of Attlee and Bevan.

And yet, he is not uncritical of the party; in fact, he has been very explicit in his criticism of Blair and New Labour. We discuss the current surge in support for the Greens, but Harry is doubtful about how this will translate into electoral success.

A little resignedly, he tells me, “For me, unfortunately, Labour is the only viable alternative at this present time. I wish I could say I had three choices on the ballot paper — but I don’t. I’d like to see someone in the mainstream parties who shared my thoughts about what life should be like, about the duty of the state to provide a comfortable existence to everyone in Britain. But it seems, at the moment, that’s too much to ask for.”

Many people share Leslie Smith’s disappointment in the lack of political diversity among the mainstream parties. Our conversation turns to how this translates into apathy and disengagement; a vicious cycle, which allows the political elite to continue without challenge. I expect Leslie Smith to tell me that a vote for Labour is better than no vote at all, but his answer takes me by surprise.

“What many people don’t realize is that spoiled ballots are still counted — I’ve thoroughly investigated this. I’d like to see that all those people who don’t vote through apathy, because they don’t feel that they want to support any of the options on the ballot paper, they should go and spoil a ballot. Because spoiled ballots will be counted. And if enough spoiled ballots turn up then maybe the government would realize that they don’t have a monopoly on power, that the people are angry.”

Whether it takes the form of voting, or more subversive action which would call attention to widespread dissatisfaction with mainstream politics, Leslie Smith has clearly devoted his retirement years to agitating and inspiring people to be active, to participate however they see fit.
A rather serious interview ends on a more hopeful note. Leslie Smith’s real optimism is reserved not for party-politics, not for Labour’s chances in the next year’s elections, but for the potential of the generation which is just coming of age.

He talks highly of the people he’s met on his travels, “When I look around England, at all these young people at the universities, I feel that there must be hundreds and hundreds of brilliant, compassionate people who could run the country so bloody well!

“There’s a lot of energy, but they have yet to achieve the momentum they need. At times, it seems that real change is never up about the issues to come. But it will.”

Debate: Should we wear red poppies to remember the war dead?

0

YES

William Tilston

Before launching into the ideals behind poppy-wearing, let’s first consider the material good that the Poppy Appeal achieves: this year it has already raised £40 million. This money is spent on the rehabilitation of injured servicemen and women, the care of aged veterans, the comfort of the bereaved and the re-settlement of younger veterans in daily life. The poppy is therefore the cornerstone of a charitable campaign, and so perhaps this role automatically justifies its presence on our chest each November.

However, some are wary of the latent patriotism behind the idea that members of our armed forces are owed a debt of gratitude for their services. Moreover, some believe that charitable donations could be better used elsewhere. Those who oppose the wearing of poppies would point out that the issue here is that through wearing poppies, we perhaps unfairly prioritise the recollection of war deaths over other kinds of death.

Each year, a huge number of us don poppies to remember the war dead. However, there is no equivalent movement to remember the millions who have died in pandemics or natural disasters. In supporting the wearing of the poppy for remembrance, we must justify this particular recollection of the war dead. After some thought, it is not difficult to distinguish how death through disease and through war should be remembered differently.

Both are tragic, but in the case of death through disease, it is a case of tragic ill-fortune: those that die have been unfortunate enough to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Admittedly, there is ill-fortune involved in dying in war, but there is also a difference: I believe that soldiers all enter war and thus knowingly expose themselves to danger and display courage in the face of great adversity. This difference makes servicemen and women deserving of our respect in a way that disease victims are not, and justifies the special memorial they receive in our wearing of the poppy.

However, there are also wider social factors that necessitate our use of the poppy, and indeed all the memorial imagery we have in our country that in particular recalls the war dead, and them alone. War memorials are designed to produce two sequential responses. The first, obviously, is to remember the dead. The second response follows from the first: we remember the dead for reasons of respect as outlined above, but also so as not to forget the horrors of war. The style of our memorials produces this latter reaction poignantly — the stone monuments of our towns, carved with countless names, and war cemeteries, with their seemingly endless tombstones, shock us. The number of individuals listed reminds us of the impersonalised and statistical nature of death in war. Of course, death takes on this nature during pandemics too, and yet such memorials do not exist in these cases.

However, the essential difference is that war is a human creation in a way that disease is not. Disease is a terrible thing, but aside from medical research, there is little that we can do to prevent it. War, on the other hand, is a solely human phenomenon. In the poppy then, and in all war memorials, there is a reminder of the suffering that war causes and an encouragement to learn from past mistakes.

The poppy’s widespread nature is demonstrative of the significance of this idea, since within all of us is the potential bitterness and hate to create dehumanised ‘enemies’, a potential that allows us to forget the value of human life and to wage war.

The poppy therefore is more than just a means of remembering the war dead, but is part of a framework to remind us what we are capable of, and to be wary of that fact.

 

NO

James Elliott

There seem to be few British institutions that are as sacred as “Remembrance”. At least, with other “national spectacles” such as royal weddings, babies or funerals, you are permitted the luxury of abstention. Not so with “Remembrance”, where failing to wear a poppy in the weeks building up to November 11th leaves you open to accusations of “disloyalty” or “lack of respect”, although to whom I’m never quite sure.

A friend of mine was even challenged by college Porters over the weekend as to why he was not wearing a poppy, while the requirement for Muslims to “prove” their allegiance to the British state through headscarves decorated with poppies is positively sickening.

“Remembrance”, according to 92 year old World War Two veteran Harry Leslie Smith, has lost all original meaning, not that its original intent was particularly progressive. His Guardian article argued, “The most fortunate in our society have turned the solemnity of remembrance for fallen soldiers in ancient wars into a justification for our most recent armed conflicts.”

Remembrance has undoubtedly become a near-compulsory celebration of British militarism, imperialism and the whitewashing of two world wars, in which the reality of the British Empire’s crimes are eclipsed behind a curtain of unadulterated nationalism.

Worse, the remembrance symbolism is now being used to talk about arguably illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where hundreds of thousands of lives were lost to no good end.

Last year, when student officers at the University of London Union decided they would not take part in Remembrance Day services for reasons very similar to my own, they found themselves blasted by Labour MPs and had their names dragged through the gutter press. This culture of compulsory remembrance (without criticising imperialism or militarism) has become pervasive.

I should make clear, taking a blast at the official “Remembrance” ceremonies and the ideology of its official propaganda is not to take a pop a those who fought in the wars. On the contrary, it is to save and preserve their memory, place it in historical context, and to understand what made such tragic loss of life occur.

I was fortunate enough to attend a school where a number of teachers refused to wear poppies for political reasons. Rather than celebrate “the glory of war”, they would spend the lessons around November 11th teaching us about the inter-imperial conflicts that led to the First World War, or reading us Wilfred Owen’s poetry.

One line from Owen is worth revisiting at this time, where he lectures the reader on what he might think, had he been there in the time of the Somme, fighting an ugly fight for a useless end, “My friend, you would not tell with such high zest / To children ardent for some desperate glory, / The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est / Pro patria mori.”

The Latin verse translates roughly to “it is good and sweet to die for one’s country”, which for me seems to be the fundamental assumption upon which Remembrance is based, and it is a thoroughly lousy one.

I will choose to commemorate the dead of both World Wars, and those from conflicts since, by challenging militaristic government policies, and opposing such illegal wars. The sight of politicians who took Britain into war in Iraq laying wreaths at the Cenotaph is stomach-turning to say the least.

Some will be wearing a poppy this month to justify and celebrate these ideologies, while the vast majority who wear one will be reproducing these values unconsciously. I, on the other hand, shall not. 

 

We must follow California’s lead on sexual violence

0

A year ago, I was raped by someone I knew at Oxford University. According to statistics, this is unfortunately not uncommon. University is one of the most common places to be raped, with one in four women being raped or sexually assaulted during their time there. I’m writing this because I feel like there are issues which are often overlooked and ignored. I’m not writing this piece for attention, but because I am sick of the typical Oxford attitude of allowing conversations surrounding sexual violence to become theoretical and abstract, or the subject of malicious gossip. I am also sick of watching people debate and argue about “what it actually means” on Facebook, twitter, and in the dining hall.

I would have liked to have been able to put my name on this article so that I could have autonomy over what people knew about me; there wouldn’t be anyone who was able to hold anything over me. There are two major reasons why I have not. The first is that I was raped over a year ago and have dealt with it privately since then. I would absolutely never like to relive it and I wouldn’t want to be branded as “The Girl Who Got Raped”.

The other reason is that you can’t know how people will react. I told someone I trusted and thought of as a close friend, who had no connection at all to my attacker, that I was raped. This person then called me a “whore” and said I deserved it because I “led men on”. They then proceeded to tell our entire friend group about my previous sexual history and how I was a “slut”, which effectively left me ostracised and friendless. Needless to say, I don’t want that to happen again.

This is what happened: One evening I went to my male friend’s room at another college. We had some drinks together and I got wasted. One thing led to another and we ended up making out and having sex. So far, so consensual. But then I got bored. I got up. He put his hand on my shoulder and pushed me down. I was too drunk to say no and I tried to push up against his hand. But I couldn’t. I was on the floor and he penetrated me until the condom came off and he then fished it out of my vagina. I thought I was going to black out from alcohol. I made some weird grunting/squealing/shrieking noises. It was bleak. I tried to get myself home safely by running down the street at 3am.

Under the new Californian law, which was just recently passed unanimously in the Californian Senate, consent is affirmed, not negated. This means that some form of clear consent, either verbal or gestural, is needed before you can have ‘consensual’ sex. And whilst this isn’t a perfect solution, it at least means that the emphasis is put on the initiator, and that sexual situations (particularly those involving alcohol) can be much more clearly described as consensual or non-consensual. This doesn’t,  of course, mean that there will no longer be rape. Rape is unfortunately as old as time and I think that people tend to forget this when they say that things like internet porn or lad culture cause rape.

It is true that lad culture often objectifies women and that porn creates a very male-dominated view of sexual pleasure and of sex generally, but at the end of the day it was my rapist who decided actually to rape me because he felt that my body, and my wellbeing, were worth less than his orgasm. It is this particular solipsism, which we should be discouraging in men, not porn. Porn can be a great way for people to explore their sexuality without it being detrimental to them and, although there are many issues with the industry, it can’t be blamed. I’ve personally seen people who don’t watch porn come very close to forcing someone to have sex with them so it obviously isn’t porn that makes people rape. It’s people.

By creating and enforcing any kind of rule which requires affirmative consent, I think that the British Government would encourage people to consider whether sex is consensual to a much greater extent in a more meaningful way. People would have healthier, happier lives and (hopefully) that there would be fewer incidents of sexual violence. I honestly do not see why this new “Yes is Yes” law has not already been put into place here in the UK.