Oxford students have reacted angrily to recent comments by a UKIP councillor in Henley, Oxfordshire. David Silvester asserted in a letter to his local newspaper that the floods recently hitting parts of Britain came as a result of the legalisation of gay marriage.

Silvester was defended by UKIP after writing the letter and reiterated his views on national radio, where he referred to being gay as a “spiritual disease”. He was subsequently suspended for not complying with party bosses’ requests to limit media appearances.

Dan Templeton, OUSU’s LGTBQ representative, said, “To hear such comments being made by what is now considered a ‘mainstream’ party is disheartening at best. This is made worse by the fact that David Silvester was only suspended from the party when breaching a request not to give interviews and in light of the resignation of Nikki Sinclaire”, a former UKIP MEP.

He added, “Though most have ridiculed Silvester’s outdated comments, they remain damaging to anyone struggling with their sexual/gender identity or seeking acceptance from society. LGBTQ-phobic views do nothing but harm the young and impressionable”.

A student at Exeter College told Cherwell, “I suppose this would be funny if UKIP weren’t posing as a serious alternative to mainstream parties. I hope people consider what the implications of a party that puts people like this into positions of power gaining any sort of influence would be.”

One Geography student used his meteorological know-how to dispute the logic of the claims, insisting that there were few documented connections between equality legislation and the weather. “Unless it featured in one of the lectures I slept through, I’ve never come across any evidence suggesting that allowing a large group in society to be happy would cause floods and chaos.”

Though Silvester referenced the Bible in his claims, one member of Oxford’s Inter-Collegiate Christian Union pointed to comments made by Colin Coward from the group Changing Attitude, a Christian network advocating the inclusion of LGBTQ people. “I don’t know where David worships, but clearly it’s in a sect, a church which is not mainstream in its Christian practice and teaching,” Coward said.

The councillor’s reasoning has hit social media and the national headlines this week. Twitter accounts mocking Mr. Silvester’s claims have proven popular, with the @UKIPWeather account gaining 80,000 followers in less than two days. A spoof shipping forecast recorded by actor Nicholas Pegg, in which he jokes that homosexual activities could have an influence on the climate, has also gone viral.

A member of Oxford University Labour Club wondered whether, “UKIP’s attacks on the left, women, homosexuals, immigrants and more were an attempt to leave no stone unturned in their quest to insult, belittle, and bully anyone who didn’t share their narrow, prehistoric, and alarming world view.”
In line with most of those spoken to by Cherwell, Jane Cahill said, “When the first same sex marriages happen in March, I will enjoy watching him flee to high ground.”

Magdalen LGBTQ reps James Stoke and Elsa Field told Cherwell, “We are heartened to see that UKIP has suspended Councillor David Silvester, as this shows clearly that, even on the fringes of mainstream politics, bigoted and scientifically ridiculous opinions are not supported.”

Cherwell’s requested a comment from Mr Silvester, but he declined.

In a statement, UKIP Oxford said, “The views expressed by the ex-Conservative town councillor are certainly not shared by UKIP. Cllr Silvester has, rightly been suspended from the party.

“We are a diverse and inclusive party with a thriving LGBTQ section. UKIP deal swiftly and decisively with inappropriate candidates or members – which, as the Lord Rennard scandal shows, cannot be said of all parties.”

On the other hand, Ed Nickell. a third year at Exeter, had an alternative explanation for Silvester’s behaviour. He commented, “Apparently there was a double rainbow over Oxford last week, maybe there is something to this.”

Members of the University and College Union (UCU) took part in a two hour strike yesterday in protest against what they see as a cut in real wages. The protests, which took place in Wellington Square and outside the St Cross Building, Manor Rd, follow on from a one-day strike last term.

Garrick Taylor, a post-doctorate researcher in biochemistry, explained his reasons for striking. “We’ve been given a pay-off of one per cent, a real term pay cut, which means in the last four years we’ve received a fourteen per cent real terms pay cut.

“For many, it means that we are simply paid less than other professionals. However, for some it means being on the breadline. This is especially true of newly-qualified staff who are often put on fixed-term contracts. They are being paid little and don’t even have job security.”

“I was a student not that long ago and I assumed that once I had a ‘proper job’ after qualifying, my money troubles would be over, but I now have a second job just to make ends meet.”

Terry Hoad, former President of the UCU’s National Executive Committee, pointed out that not everyone is experiencing such money troubles at Oxford. “The University have got money piling up in their reserves. This is clear in the pay rises they give to high-level staff such as the Vice-Chancellor who is currently on £380,000. Such moves are insensitive and insulting when you are telling others lower down the pecking order to stick with what they’ve got,” he said.

Others warned that pay discrepancies will have long-term impacts. One protester pointed out, “Universities are part of the job market and academics are intelligent people who can go and get other professional work. Bad salaries in academic positions only speed up the brain-drain away from our universities. The nature of the job market is that it is usually the best academics who leave to get better paid jobs elsewhere.”

Owen Maroney, an academic in philosophy, echoed these warnings. He said, “I moved here from Australia two years ago and I had to take a pay cut to do so. The fact is post-doctorate jobs in the UK are not well paid compared to international standards.”

The UCU are planning two more two hour boycotts during Hilary term. “The last thing we want to do is affect students,” Hoad stressed.

“However, an exam boycott, in which academics refuse to mark exams, is on the cards if the university refuse to negotiate.”

A spokesperson for the University of Oxford told Cherwell, “The University respects the right of individuals to take part in lawful industrial action.

“Contingency plans are in place aimed at minimising any disruption or inconvenience such action may cause to students, staff, and visitors to the University.” 

The lunchtime strike was not without consequences, however. The University spokesperson added, “Oxford University will be deducting two hours’ pay for a two-hour stoppage.”

Universities around the country participated in yesterday’s strike. However, eleven institutions have been criticised for “bullying” staff into not participating. Emails from universities including Oxford Brookes, the University of Leicester, Glasgow Caledonian University and University of Surrey were condemned by UCU for threatening to dock pay for an entire day and discouraging academics from striking at all. UCU criticised these universities’ “baffling willingness to increase disruption for students as a way of intimidating staff”.

Academics have never been “locked out” for an entire day for participating in unionised strike action before. UCU has threatened subsequent legal action against institutions such as Oxford Brookes University, as well as further industrial action if universities do not respond to concerns about pay cuts.

NUS President Toni Pearce urged a speedy resolution. She said, “We need to see the employers and unions getting round the table and negotiating a fair and sustainable pay settlement.”

Exeter faces criticism from its own student body after instating a new EU-only hiring policy for junior deans, which some students have described as “discriminatory”.

The policy, which took effect in Trinity 2013, states that applicants “must be eligible to work in the UK, within the confines of the EU Working Time Directive”. According to UK Border Agency regulations, non-EU international students can only work a maximum of 20 hours a week in the UK.

However, some students have challenged the necessity of this restriction, given that it excludes the roughly 40% of graduate students who live outside the EU.

“To have a citizenship criteria imposed on applications eliminates a lot of opportunities for internationals, given that many might not be fully funded for their degree,” said Esther Kwan, a Canadian Development Studies graduate student at Exeter. “I think that the college should give more assistance to international students who have more restrictions placed on them.”

Nikita Kaushal, president of Exeter House, a graduate accommodation building, cited Oxford and Exeter’s reputations for cultural diversity. “Having positions such as the Junior Dean available to all students irrespective of citizenship emphasises that every student has an equal opportunity to be a part of larger college life,” she said.

Exeter’s Rector Frances Caincross defended the college’s position, as well as the non-renewal of an Indian junior dean’s contract last Trinity term. “There is no case to answer about non-renewal because the junior dean at Exeter College was not due to have her contract renewed or continued,” Caincross stated.

“However, the UK Border Agency restrictions stipulating that international students work no more than 20 hours a week would apply to any future appointments.”

A 2013 Exeter HR study of junior deans’ work hours reveals that colleges do not share a standardised hiring policy, making Exeter’s citizenship requirements unique. Only one college in the study, Green Templeton, explicitly stated that their junior deans worked over 20 hours a week.

Exeter MCR President Challenger Mishra has questioned the validity of the hiring policy due to its basis in a 20-hour week work restriction. He acknowledged Exeter’s obligation to adhere to border regulations, but told Cherwell that the college currently only employs a Junior Dean and Assistant Junior Dean, which would raise the likelihood of junior deans working over 20 hours a week.

“Exeter should reopen these positions to international students and also look into the welfare of its Junior Deans by employing more people in such roles,” Mishra said.

Exeter’s restrictions appear to contradict the University of Oxford’s Policies and Guidance recommendation that full-time graduates on taught courses “do not undertake more than 8 hours’ paid work each week whilst studying”, and that working research candidates still be able to maintain 40 hours of academic work a week.

A 2012 study circulated with the consent of the Magdalen Dean of Arts surveying 89 junior deans further concluded that “it is estimated that the average role of a student dean demands 7.3 hours a week”.

The University declined to comment on Exeter’s specific case. “The role of junior dean and the hours they are expected to work varies across the different colleges,” a University of Oxford spokesperson told Cherwell. “The regulations introduced by the UK Border Agency will restrict employment opportunities offered to all non-EU students.”

Nevertheless, international graduate students in particular continue to oppose the new policy. Mishra told Cherwell that his MCR had voted against the “discriminatory” policy, but would continue communicating with Exeter to negotiate the restrictions.

“Lobbying in the University has not yielded tangible outcome because the University is not keen on meddling in a single college’s policy,” Mishra said in a statement to the MCR Presidents’ Committee last term.

“But this issue has the potential to escalate and could result in other colleges making similar policy changes, which would be far from ideal for international students.”

Welfare reform is nothing new. British politicians have been debating how to administer social security benefits for centuries. What is surprising is that the discourse surrounding welfare has changed so little since the Victorian period.

Just over 180 years ago, Nassau Senior, a former fellow of my college and the inaugural Drummond Professor of Political Economy, was working as a leading commissioner on a report that would form the basis of the New Poor Law of 1834 — arguably the most important social policy of the nineteenth century. Were Senior able to read a newspaper today, or listen to a politician like Iain Duncan Smith, I imagine he would feel immensely proud that his ideas still have a profound influence on the way we debate the welfare system.

Historical parallels are often pushed too far, and it is important to emphasise that current reforms are nowhere near as regressive as the New Poor Law: nobody is calling for workhouses. Nevertheless, the underlying principles are remarkably similar. As in 1834, the current reforms use a test of an individual’s capacity to work as a means of distinguishing between the truly deserving and the undeserving, those incapable of work and those who are simply poor and/or “lazy”. In the words of Duncan Smith “at last, no longer will a life on benefits be an option if you are capable of work”. The goal is not to alleviate material deprivation but to get people into a job — no matter how poorly paid.

This is an approach that Senior would wholeheartedly endorse. At the core of Conservative reforms is an ingrained concern that indiscriminate state relief morally degrades the recipient. According to Michael Portillo, getting “something for nothing” saps the will to make anything of one’s life. At the 2013 Conservative Party conference, Iain Duncan Smith argued that making work pay will “restore hope, raise aspiration and build self reliance once again”. That sounds awfully similar to the words of Henry Fleming, secretary of the Local Government Board, who argued in 1871 that “relief extinguishes in the mind of the labourer… every incentive to self-reliance and prudent forethought”.

It is of great concern that we tend to answer old questions in ways that our forebears would recognize. The New Poor Law still casts a long shadow over current debates and we remain trapped by its categories, making genuine reform unlikely.

The parallels are all the more worrying given that we now know that the designers of the New Poor Law got things profoundly wrong. The new consensus amongst economic historians is that the Old Poor Law, more localised and much more generous, was an effective system that blocked pathways into poverty. Gregory Clark has demonstrated that the 1834 reforms did not increase the supply of labour by “making work pay”, and my own research argues that reductions in cash benefits actually reduced household savings levels.

Nassau Senior was a pioneering economist but he was a terrible historian. In 1926 R. H. Tawney described the New Poor Law Report as “brilliant, influential and wildly unhistorical”. I see these words as a clarion call for a more historically informed approach to welfare than the one currently offered up by those in government.