A recent study, by Lloyds Bank, found that Oxford is now Britain’s most expensive city to buy a home in, when house prices are compared to local wages. The average home in Oxford now costs over 11 times the average local wage, compared to 5.8 times in the country as a whole. To add to this, house prices in Oxford have grown by over 5% in the last year alone.

It may then come as a surprise to students living in rented accommodation in Oxford that they inhabit the highest valued property in the country, when local incomes are taken into account. Indeed, the establishment of the Oxford Tenants’ Union in February, organised by students, demonstrates that many continue to be dissatisfied with their landlords. High property values, in the city, do not seem to have translated into well-maintained houses, despite students paying more.

Thankfully, the cost of renting a house in Oxford is not rising as quickly as the cost of buying a home. However, Oxford is still becoming an increasingly expensive city for students to live in. It goes without saying that spending more money on rent means students have less money to spend elsewhere. Furthermore, for many Oxford students their year outside of college-owned accommodation proves to be the most expensive one of their course.  

Rising rents in Oxford could also lead to potential access problems, if rent costs increase beyond what some students can reasonably afford. But, in truth, this is problem potential students are unlikely to know of, when they apply.

There are number of reasons why housing costs in Oxford are increasing so rapidly. It has be acknowledged a large number of disproportionately wealthy students looking for expensive properties to is a factor in this. But as causes go this is a fairly constant one, with Oxford students on average less wealthy, now, than in the past.

What seems to be driving the current increase in housing costs is a burgeoning commuter class. This group lives in Oxford, but works in London where salaries are far higher. Those who have been on the Oxford Tube in the early morning or the late evening will have realised quite how big this group is. Consequently, growing house prices in Oxford can be seen as a manifestation of a shortage of affordable homes in the capital.

The effect of rising housing costs has been an ongoing process of ‘gentrification’, particularly in traditionally poorer areas of Oxford, such as Cowley. This has already happened in certain parts of Oxford, like Jericho, and is now set to occur in the city as a whole. Even before recent rises in housing prices Oxford was not a cheap place to live, with a lot of the lower paid already forced to live outside of the city and commuting in to work. Now, growing housing costs are increasingly pricing out even local middle class families.

The obvious answer to this problem may seem to be to build more affordable homes within the city, but in Oxford this is not easily done. The city already has well-defined limits.  Oxford is surrounded by green belt land, with an extensive part of that land being part of a flood plain which could not be built on – even if the desire to do so existed. Furthermore, the ring road surrounding Oxford acts as an additional barrier to expansion.

The choice that exists in Oxford then is whether to build more homes in the city’s existing area, potentially turning ‘the city of dreaming spires’ into the ‘city of dreaming apartment blocks’.  

It is easy to perceive Oxford as a ‘student’ city, given the importance of the University to its identity. However, as a group, students are comparatively well-protected from rising housing costs. It is typical for many students to spend only a year of their course living outside of college-owned accommodation, which offers some measure of protection against rising housing costs. Local people have none of these protections, and as a result are increasingly being priced out of the city. The solution to this problem, however, does not lie in Oxford but in alleviating housing pressures from London. Until good quality and affordable homes are built in London, people will continue to search outward for them in Oxford and elsewhere.

A great piece of political irony is that Lenin, perhaps the most aggressive of Left Wing figures, wrote a pamphlet in 1920 condemning socialist parties on the Ultra Left who refused to compromise with any parties further to the right, even if they had shared goals. Indeed, in his writing on 1920s Britain, he argues against the suggestions of radical trade unions and communist movements to break up the Labour party, but rather emphasised the need for cooperation against Conservative reaction. And although Tony Benn has enjoyed a great deal of public popularity (a 2003 BBC poll ranked him as the most trusted politician), to me he has always been the extreme left wing leader Lenin had in mind; he has never been one to compromise. Benn will rightly long be remembered as a bastion of the working classes and a fiercely dedicated proponent of British socialism, but for the Left, it is unfortunate that this doggedness has prevented any major political success and that no figure has emerged to take over on the mantel.

I had the good fortune to meet Tony Benn as an old man. Despite his 86 years, he still had a fading aura of grandeur about him. Aided by the beauty of the surroundings of Christ Church meadow, the quirks and anecdotes that made his public image so charming were resplendent, not least his iconic pipe, which he refilled twice. He spoke eloquently, wrote voraciously and was a constant champion of the poor and dispossessed. His diaries are some of the most important personal records of left wing struggles in the 20^th century; perhaps only Orwell, Serge and Trotsky are above him.

Yet to me, despite his apparent enthusiasm for the causes he propounded, when I spoke to him there was always something slightly strange, even robotic about his answers. The closer we came to talking about contemporary events, the more his answers turned into mere generalizations and platitudes such as “global opposition to the status quo” and “now is the time for a change in society”. When pressed for specific examples, he retreated into a narrative of the Labour party’s record of socialism, such as the building of the welfare state and the NHS. To me, he seemed to be more concerned with grand changes and he was less interested in the details and tactics, telling me, “some change will be created by ordinary people, while some will of course be created by institutional and legislative changes… the ordinary people have always played a key role in achieving social justice.” Perhaps it was this obsession with the concept of change rather than the details of change itself that denied him any political success.

After all, although Benn fought so hard to lead a life of true public service, the question remains – what did he actually do? The unfortunate answer is that Tony Benn’s parliamentary career lacks any significant legislative achievement, and what he did outside Westminster to help left wing causes in his speeches, writings and activism, he negated with his divisiveness and apparent determination to drag the Labour party away from ever being electable. It’s not for nothing that he claimed he left Parliament to leave “more time for politics.” He was a theorist rather than a tactician.

Perhaps one of the reasons he was so loved and respected is that, maybe because of the political firebrand and iconoclast figure he presented and because of this preoccupation with theory rather than practice, he never got his hands on the levers of real power. On all political causes he fought for (with the curious exception or his fight to renounce his hereditary peerage) he eventually lost. He bitterly opposed European integration; which he lost. He stood for Deputy Leader of the dysfunctional labour party in 1981; and lost. He played a major role in Michael Foots 1983 campaign; which lost, and lost him his seat. He turned his attentions to supporting the miner’s strikes against Thatcher; which lost. He was most famous recently as the Leader of the Stop The War campaign, and admirable movement that was a leading force against Western folly and imperialism in Iraq; which also lost.

He has oft been contrasted with Tony Blair, and in many ways they are polar opposites. Whilst Blair was responsible for Labour abandoning its commitment to industry nationalisation, Benn condemned it. Whilst Blair courted the right wing press and flattered Rupert Murdoch, Benn denounced it, earning him the title of “the most dangerous man in Britain” from the Daily Mail. In essence, Benn was about the radical transformation of the British society, Blair was about getting elected.

Yet Blair was in many ways a reaction to Benn. Traumatised and heavily disillusioned by 17 years of successive defeats and Conservative power, he appeared as a fresh, modernizing alternative to what many considered the “looney left,” with Benn as its chief representative. Had Labour been elected in the 1980’s, as it may have been without Benn, Blair’s initiatives would have been unthinkable for the party. The implicit riposte from Blair to Benn was that Labour could never change society without being in power.

And this is what brings about a sad coda to Tony Benn’s death. With him gone, and no heir apparent, there is no longer a great socialist figure to argue for a lasting, fundamental change in British society. Socialism had in Tony Benn its most eloquent advocate with a large national and public esteem; now it has the odd Politics Professor or Trade Union leader. In the 20^th century, Parliament was a place where great theories of history – liberalism, conservatism and socialism – battled for hearts and minds. Politics since then has become the politics of how best to continue the legacy of Thatcherism. Sure, there will be quibbles over the small details; Chancellor and Shadow will argue over whether the rich should have a 50p or 45p tax rate, but no one will ever again argue for the nationalisation of the commanding heights of the economy. The great confrontation of 20^th century British politics dies with Tony Benn.

Tyler Alabanza-Behard, former Chair of OUSU’s Campaign for Racial Awareness and Equality, writing in favour of “I, Too, am Oxford”

Outside of the University community, it is a show of solidarity to our brothers and sisters at Harvard College; on our own shores, it offers encouragement to students of colour at both Cambridge and SOAS, who have since published their own versions.  Within Oxford, the campaign provides a rare safe space for BME students to share incidents of racism and insensitivity. Looking at the images, one glimpses at the lived experience; the narrative untold when we smile politely for prospectus photos. With its twin focus also on the affirmation of racial identity, the campaign asserts the message that though we, as students of colour, are insufficiently represented at Oxford, this is our home too, and we deserve to be seen and heard. At a university like our own, this is not a moment that comes along often, and therefore the organisers of “I, Too, Am Oxford” (ITAO) deserve tremendous credit. 

Yet it is when we consider the unique beauty of ITAO that we unveil the haphazard ugliness of ‘We Are All Oxford’ (WAAO).  Though WAAO ‘aims’ not to ‘work against’ ITAO – because of their shared form and similar titles, the two exist in direct dialogue. However the dialogue instigated by WAAO is neither appropriate nor meaningful. Instead of truly engaging with the crucial issues raised by ITAO, the counter-campaign hijacks a conversation about race and seeks to assuage its message by trumpeting supposedly-impressive access statistics. Beyond this, WAAO embarrasses itself with its lack of diversity. Even if it may have good ‘intentions’, it has the effect and impact impact of white folks commandeering or even rewriting the expressive power of ITAO. A legitimate counter-campaign, on the other hand, would have ensured that the diversity of its participants matched that of ITAO. 

With its saccharine, Helen Lovejoy logic (“think of the children!’’), WAAO also patronises the prospective applicants for whom it is intended. It fears that ITAO will ‘discourage’ BME students from applying, but that’s not an argument I can at all purchase. Many race and privilege conscious applicants will in fact be inspired by the work of ITAO; check Black Twitter if you want proof. In its existence, ITAO makes visible that there are a large number of students who are not only committed to addressing racism, but are also unafraid to hold the University to account in the process. For the many young adults already engaged in social justice work pre-university, ITAO advertises Oxford as a place where students of colour – underrepresented though we may be – actively push back against institutional inequality.  And that’s a good thing. 

Alexandra Wilson, Organizer of “We Are All Oxford”

We decided to respond to the ‘I, Too, Am Oxford’ campaign because we feel that the University of Oxford has been misrepresented in the media. Our main concern is that the campaign’s negative portrayal of an ethnic minority student’s experience at the university will discourage prospective ethnic minority students from applying. One of the ways in which we can combat individuals’ misguided perceptions is by improving access for ethnic minorities, something we feel the University of Oxford tries to do.

However, a campaign only highlighting the negative experiences of BME students has the potential to deter people from applying. We all agree that the ‘I, Too, Am Oxford’ campaign brought up some very serious issues that do need to be voiced and challenged. None of us believe that racism should ever be tolerated. We would like to emphasise that we do not aim to undermine the original campaign and we are not working against them. We acknowledge that racism exists at the University of Oxford and it needs to be challenged, but we believe that the university is working hard to tackle these prejudices and misguided perceptions.

Our aim is to present the full picture. In response to criticism of our campaign as ‘diluting’ the original message we would like to clarify that we all fully support the original intentions of ‘I Too Am Oxford’. It is important that people feel able to voice their negative experiences and there are many ways this can be achieved within the university, as well as externally through the media – as the campaign chose to do. Many of the people who have taken part in the ‘We Are All Oxford’ response have been subject to racial abuse (including myself). We just want people to recognize that Oxford does not encourage or tolerate it, and this type of ignorance is not representative of the institution. Unfortunately, we will find racism across England and we all agree that we need to challenge the offenders.

However, we believe that it is important for us to emphasise that it is ignorant individuals at the university rather than the university culture. Racism is not more prevalent at the University of Oxford than elsewhere and the university is working hard to actively tackle it. We do not want to dilute the message that racism is a problem that needs to be voiced and challenged. However, we do want to emphasise that the majority of ethnic minority students studying here will not be consistently made to feel ‘different and othered’.