Sunday, May 18, 2025
Blog Page 166

How Britain lost its greatness

Cem Kozanoglu
-
0
How Britain lost its greatness

The decline of the British economy has entered its terminal stage, and the reason for it is simple: Britain’s elites are addicted to a fundamentally unsustainable economic model of financialisation. Adapted from OULC termly magazine.

The British public is divided on many issues, but the state of the economy is not one of them: 71% of the public thinks the government is handling the economy “badly”, down from a record 89% last October. However I doubt a similar consensus would emerge if we asked the public’s opinions on the causes of this decline. Should we blame the Truss-Kwarteng duo fumbling their proposed tax-cuts and shooting up gild yields, even after the IMF’s warnings? As much as Sunak would love for us to consider the current crisis a temporary Truss blunder, now averted thanks to chancellor Hunt and his “steady hands”, Britain was already struggling before Truss took power. What about Brexit? Should we consider leaving the single-market to be the great error that sunk the ship of state? Whilst Brexit was no help, the deck was already underwater: British productivity per hour worked grew only 0.4% per year after 2008, according to some economists the period of lowest growth since the industrial revolution. To find the correct answer we must take a step back and examine the fundamental structure of the economy and how it evolved over the decades, eventually reaching its breaking-point in 2008. If we do this we reach the incontrovertible conclusion that the British economic elite’s addiction to financialisation is the principal cause for its decline.  

Perhaps it’s best to start our history, as most stories of British decline do, with the prime ministership of Madame Thatcher. Her policies transformed not only the Conservative party orthodoxy, but led to New Labour’s rebrand as the party of “Third Way” politics, signalling the ultimate supremacy of the neoliberal tsunami that crashed upon Britain’s shores. When she took power in 1979, union membership was at its peak at just above 50% of the entire workforce. I don’t think it’s such a coincidence that at the same time the income share of the 1% was at its lowest, at around 5%. These two statistics thus constitute the two chief “problems” that the Conservatives had to solve: crushing worker power and restoring profitability to British capital. Ronald Reagan was elected President of the United States in 1980 with a similar program, thus inaugurating the neoliberal revolution in the Anglosphere, which went global in the form of the “Washington consensus” especially after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. This agenda materialised in the UK through two distinct thrusts, with the first being the dethronement of union power. In service of this goal, the Keynesian goal “full-employment” was ditched and replaced by Monetarist policies of tightly controlling the money supply by raising interest rates to control inflation. This change in policy led to a temporary decline in economic activity, and an increase in unemployment, swiftly curbing inflation due to one simple reason: when the economy crashes, people can’t spend as much and prices go down. As unemployment more than doubled from 5% in 1979 to 11% in 1984, a reserve army of labour was created that crushed the negotiating power of workers. Along with cuts to unemployment benefits, workers were now desperate to find a job and willing to work without unions. Even if they joined unions and protested against their new conditions, any striking workers could be sacked and hastily replaced. Whilst this left workers subordinate to their bosses, it also reignited fears of a dilemma first realised by Henry Ford: how could a consumption based economy function if most people do not have the income to consume? The second thrust of neoliberalism, financialisation, and its global character is necessary to explain how capital was able to fully reap the benefits of a rapidly faltering organised labour movement.

Capitalism is explained by an enormous cycle of previous profits being reinvested to beget more profit, and economic decline can be measured by the rate of profit in the economy. In the 1970s, the economic conditions that led to Thatcher’s election were exactly such a crisis of profits: corporations weren’t able to make profits at enough scale to reliably reinvest and remain competitive. The problem got so dire that the Labour government had to take out a loan from the IMF during the 1976 sterling crisis. The ensuing national embarrassment was one of the deciding moments for Thatcher’s 1979 triumph. This general decline in the British economy was due to many factors, some among them being inter-capitalist competition(particularly the post-war rise of Germany and Japan), and the high cost of labour due to organised labour. With the crushing blows to labour, the cost of production went down, but for corporations to maintain or even increase profitability, prices needed to remain the same. How could this happen if people couldn’t afford as much as they used to? Simple: give people loans to make up for declining incomes. This is how financialisation through a deregulated financial sector became the British model for growth and restored profitability. To raise capital for these new loans, restrictions on trade and capital flows were reduced and “The City” became the centrepiece of the British economy. However, with more access to foreign markets, profits could now be invested into countries where it could net a higher return, with cheaper, more controlled labour and less environmental protections like Taiwan, South Korea and eventually China. This offshoring caused the deindustrialisation of the country, disproportionately affecting the North and those in the working class. On the other hand, the shortfall in consumption was plugged with commercial loans now available thanks to cheap money, especially with OPEC oil profits flowing through the newly “liberated” British banking system. What followed is that total British debt as a percentage of GDP rose from around 200% in 1987, to 540% at the end of 2009. A particularly pernicious part of that massive amount of debt is held in residential debt to keep up with exploding house prices. This initially made home-owners feel wealthier than they actually were and encouraged excessive consumption. However the long term effects have been that today housing prices are closer to fantasy than anything tangible. The exploitative housing market drains not only the spending power of the younger generations but also their hope in the future as they fall further down the ladder of social mobility.

With the backdrop now established, we can see how the model of debt-fueled growth reached a breaking point with the great financial crisis in 2008. In the two decades prior to 2008, people believed that the economic pie was growing, so it was not a big deal for the rich to pay up for some redistribution. This was essentially New Labour’s pact with the financial sector: we’ll deregulate you even more, but you have to pay your fair share to fund public goods, particularly the NHS. When the housing bubble popped, so did the naive optimism that the British economy was prospering, and with it Blair’s third way compromise. Since Cameron’s election in 2010, successive Conservative governments have embarked on a wide-ranging programme of austerity with major cuts to public services like the NHS and social security. The financial elites are now fully aware the pie is stagnating if not shrinking, and naturally, they want to ensure they have the lion’s share. 

With all this history, it’s not difficult to see why Britain’s economy is faltering today. Finance is not productive by itself, and its empowerment has left Britain with an inability to care for its own long-term economic interests. A significant amount of profits are not reinvested by any organisation responsible to society, or even “productive” capitalists that might invest in the real economy, but instead flow to asset speculation and derivatives that are of very little use to anyone except those trading them. You can only borrow so much, and the redistribution of wealth to the top through ballooning housing and stock prices does not inherently lead to more investment as neoliberal economics would have us believe. The phenomenon of financialisation is what broke the British economy, and it must be tackled head on if any government is to enact long lasting change and uplift the material conditions of the British people. 

Image Credit: SebastianDoe5//CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia commons

San Francisco – not just start-ups and juice bars

Oliver Hall
-
0
San Francisco – not just start-ups and juice bars
Oliver Hall

This week I am writing from an altogether different location that feels a long way away from Oxford and university because, well, it is.  This past week I’ve been attending the National Congress of Student Journalism in San Francisco as a keynote speaker and an advisor and its been a truly brilliant experience.  The conference itself was an absolute pleasure to attend and it was quite remarkable to see the level of student journalism at play at the High School level in the US that simply doesn’t exist here.  

The best part though?  As you might expect it has to be the food.  The food scene in California is incredibly diverse, more so than I had ever really understood, and this is true nowhere more so than in San Francisco itself.  Make no mistake, the superfood stores and the juice bars are here a plenty, just as advertised by every stereotype under the sun.  But really, the culinary culture runs far far deeper.  Chefs and business owners alike told me how the Napa valley offers a richness of fresh ingredients genuinely unrivalled around the world and how that enables them to do so much more than you might expect.  This might be best demonstrated by the fact that on Saturday I bumped into no fewer than four farmer’s markets in different parts of the city – suffice to say I’ve never had so many free samples of fresh oranges and ethically produced hot sauces!

Starting at the high end, you find chefs like Mark Dommen.  This is a man who has been on a serious culinary journey.  Growing up on his family’s winery in Napa, he got his first jobs on the line in towns and cities around San Francisco.  Then, after culinary school and a degree he made the big leap that so many aspiring chefs do, finding his way to New York.  Here, working some of the most well renowned chefs in the business, Dommen honed his craft, moving from star restaurant to star restaurant, absorbing knowledge as he went.  And where did he take that knowledge?  Right back to the West Coast of course.  Firstly, at a restaurant set on a farm/winery in the valley itself before moving into a head chef/partnership role at the world-renowned One Market restaurant.  This is where I sat down and spoke to him about his journey, and his ethos.  Seasonality and balance are everything to Mark and this was never more apparent than when I was watching him craft one dish in particular.  This was grilled octopus served atop smoked carrot and a black garlic reduction before being topped with basil and sliced carrot.  This is the epitome of a complete dish, the interplay of the textures from the octopus to the crunch of the carrot shavings and the diversity of flavours between the smokiness of the black garlic and the freshness of the basil came together for a true complete bite.  

“The interplay of the textures from the octopus to the crunch of the carrot shavings and the diversity of flavours between the smokiness of the black garlic and the freshness of the basil came together for a true complete bite.” 

The next obvious stop on a San Francisco food-tour is seafood, and oh what seafood this city has to offer.  A trip down to Fisherman’s Wharf has you instantly taken in by the plethora of seaside restaurants.  Better than that though are the stalls and boats.  Here, you can buy crab cocktails and shellfish straight off the boats themselves and of course indulge in that long-honoured tradition of clam chowder served in giant sourdough bowl.  

The seafood does, of course, have a high-end too.  Foreign Cinema is one of the most fascinating restaurants I have visited in a long time.  In the Mission district and on the so-called ‘Theatre Mile’, it has set-up shop since 1999 in an old cinema, occupying both a stunning courtyard and suitably decorated inside dining room.  The menu changes service to service and in that courtyard every evening a film plays, projected beautifully onto the sidewall.  It might be an all-time classic such as Il Gattopardo (The Leopard), or it might be something a whole lot more modern like Date Night.

Those films are accompanied by one of the most extensive shellfish selections I have ever seen.  The oyster menu stretches well into the double digits as well as different offerings of caviar, clams, lobster, and crab.  The platter is a sight to behold but not just a spectacle.  These oysters are far smaller than those you might get from Jersey or Whistable but carry vastly more unique flavours.  The prawns are juicy and meaty and I found myself very much rejoicing making it into town for the end of crab season – the freshness of flavour in the claws was by far the best I have ever tasted (believe you me this is high praise coming from a Jersey native).  That seafood is paired elsewhere on the menu with the freshness of vegetables and produce from the valley to curate a truly complete menu.

Passing from Mission, up through China and Japan town, there is a whole different world of food to be found.  The streets are lined with dim sum restaurant followed by tea house followed by fortune cookie bakery.  Almost all offer their own distinct regional specialities and is next to a supermarket selling the most incredible array of dried seafood, meats, and spices.

Up from here (quite literally up, those San Francisco hills are no joke), is the legendary North Beach.  This is where the city’s Italian community have put down their roots and boy oh boy does it make for some special streets.  Row after row of cafes freshly piping their own cannoli is punctuated by legendary delis such as Molinari selling fresh meats, pastas, and focaccia lunchtime sandwiches.  In between those is of course authentic gelateria after authentic gelateria.

One such ice cream stop is Gio Gelati, owned and run by Patrizia Pasqualetti.  A true child of the world, her family is originally from Milan and it is from here that she has taken her greatest inspirations.  Patrizia explains to me her pure excitement at the seasonality of produce the valley has to offer, “at home I can get fresh strawberries for a month, two months tops.  Here, everything goes on for nearly six!”  This means that Gio’s is home to a plethora of flavours from kiwi to fig, to orange as well as all-time Italian classics such as hazelnut and ricotta.  It is the epitome of a neighbourhood Italian gelateria.

“at home I can get fresh strawberries for a month, two months tops.  Here, everything goes on for nearly six!”

Patrizia Pasqualetti on the Napa Valley

My final stop on North Beach was the legendary Original Joes.  This is the local Italian stop.  Right on the corner of Washington Square Gardens is this stalwart of an institution, in place since 1937.  There’s a terrace for the Californian sunny weather, an old-time dining room with an open kitchen and beautiful black booths, and a bar with every sport under the sun on the big screen.  The latter was where I retreated with my wine after my dessert and is a whole community in itself with regulars popping their heads around the door, seeing the score, and taking a seat at the bar to snack on a pasta and meet like-minded people.

“The menu is terrifyingly and perhaps problematically long with all the classics from parmigiana to cioppino.”

The food on offer is everything you would expect.  The menu is terrifyingly and perhaps problematically long with all the classics from parmigiana to cioppino.  I went for a Crab Louie salad starter to make the most of the end of the season and again was just blown away by the freshness and flavours.  Admittedly, I slipped up on the main and chose sauteed sweetbreads, a particularly fatty cut of veal that I wanted to try but instantly regretted ordering (let’s just say there’s a lot of fat and not much veal).  The day was saved though by the all-time Italian-American classics of ravioli in a meatball sauce and, of course, Brussel sprouts.  Every time I come to the States, I am left lamenting the British attitude to this vegetable.  We seem incapable of using them in any way other than overboiling them once a year at Christmas.  Here, they are lightly grilled and dusted with parmesan for flavourful vegetable perfection.  Choosing desserts is even more of a challenge so I did the only sensible thing and went for two.  One of them was the pound cake and that would have been enough for two people, ridiculously indulgent and drizzled in a rich chocolate sauce.

So, San Francisco – it isn’t just start-up bros and juice bars.  If you are a food lover there are few better cities I can think of for their variety of authentic cuisines and locality of fresh produce.  It surpassed my expectations in every way and is beyond worth the trip for every foodie.

“It’s 99% politics and 1% law”. In conversation with Stella Assange.

Freddie Evans
-
0
“It’s 99% politics and 1% law”. In conversation with Stella Assange.

The battle to free one of the most wanted men in the world, Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, has a passionate, dedicated champion in Stella Assange. With the looming threat of Julian’s extradition to the United States and the possibility of 175 years in prison, Stella fights tirelessly for her partner’s cause, facing down the U.S. government. David against Goliath. Her eyes show the scars of ceaseless war. I see pain, immense suffering and a desperate plea to be understood.  

While we meet on Zoom, sipping lattés, Julian is incarcerated in Belmarsh Prison, the most hellish maximum-security prison in the UK.

Turn the clock back. On 22 October 2010, WikiLeaks released more than 750,000 classified U.S. military documents, including nearly 400,000 U.S. Army-filed reports, called the Iraqi War Logs, which detailed 66,000 civilian deaths out of 109,000 recorded deaths during the Iraq War.

In 2012, Julian sought refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. There he remained until 2019. However, after WikiLeaks reported on corruption allegations against the then Ecuadorian President Lenìn Moreno, on 11 April 2019 the Ecuadorian government invited the Met Police into their embassy and Julian was immediately arrested. On the same day in the U.S., a pre-prepared sealed indictment was opened and Julian was charged with conspiracy to hack into a government computer with a maximum five-year sentence.

In the UK Julian was quickly found guilty of breaching the UK Bail Act and sentenced to 50 weeks imprisonment. He has been locked up in Belmarsh Prison ever since while the U.S. sought to extradite him. On 23 May 2019, Julian was indicted on 17 charges relating to the U.S. Espionage Act carrying a maximum sentence of 170 years. There have been multiple UK court hearings and appeals since then. Julian, Stella and their legal team have tried every which way to fight the U.S. government’s relentless attempts to extradite Julian.

On 17 June 2022, then UK Home Secretary Priti Patel approved Julian’s extradition. On 22 August 2022, Julian’s lawyers appealed to the UK High Court with new evidence. The result of that appeal is awaited. 

I asked Stella what outcome she saw for her partner’s Sisyphean struggle against extradition. Will he succeed?

“I’m hopeful. If public opinion properly understands the case, the case is completely intolerable, and the courts would never credibly go along with it. It’s 99% politics and 1% law. You couldn’t get a more political case than this – from the content of the publications, which were about U.S. conduct during the Iraq and Afghan wars, including torture, the U.S. leaning on governments in Europe to get certain outcomes and then the way that the U.S. government has conducted itself. I think there is a lot more that is known now than before. It used to be a grassroots movement of people who follow Julian and WikiLeaks very closely but it’s grown, and in the meantime, there have been high-quality books that have come out by the UN Special Rapporteur on torture. I think there’s a lot of people now that are quite educated on the stakes. I don’t expect the general public to know 13 years of detail like I have it in my head because I have lived it, but there are some general issues that people are getting. And then there’s Julian being in Belmarsh Prison for four years without serving a sentence. There are people who were convicted to say eight years in prison. They’re out after 50% of their time for violent crimes and Julian’s in there because he published evidence of government wrongdoing and he’s not even convicted. For the regular bystander, they look at the situation and they can see immediately, instinctively that it’s wrong.”

Stella is completely determined to spread Julian’s message to the world. Julian’s father, John Shipton, a 76-year-old retired builder, has also been a hugely vocal campaigner for his son throughout the many years of legal proceedings. The recently released documentary ‘Ithaka’ follows the hard journeys Stella and John have travelled, shedding light on the brutal challenges Julian has faced and the broader implications for press freedom and democratic rights. I asked Stella what she wants viewers to take away from the documentary. 

Image of John Shipton taken from the documentary

“I think a better understanding of not only what has happened to Julian but also the bigger implications of Julian’s case for freedom of the press, for the public’s right to know and for our basic democratic rights. Also to give them – the viewers – an alternate narrative to the way in which the story has been told for many years. The way we could do that was by letting people into our lives for them to witness what was happening in our lives and what was happening to Julian through our eyes.”

During Julian’s asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy, there were compelling allegations that the CIA conducted surveillance on the embassy. The Guardian and CNN reported that the CIA used advanced techniques such as hacking into cameras, microphones, and communication systems, to monitor Julian’s movements and conversations. I was keen to hear about the extent of surveillance on Stella and John including during filming ‘Ithaka’. 

“There have been years and years of harassment in subtle and sometimes indirect ways by the governments involved.  Sometimes it’s overt like having a car with its engines on all night, with people sitting in the car in civilian clothing and leafing through a report about Julian – something which we captured with the cameras. It was a grab team. It ranges to quite outrageous things like previous Tory governments saying things about Julian, on the one hand trying to pretend that it was business as usual but then when it came down to it going out of their way to say despicable things.”

Adrian Devant, the producer of ‘Ithaka’ and Stella’s brother, was also present at the interview. I wondered how from Adrian’s perspective as filmmaker the documentary might move the dial on issues such as press freedom, government corruption and human rights. 

“We set out to connect with people on an emotional level. An emotional connection with the audience is the best way to tell a story, a story that’s been in the hands of the media for such a long time. People’s eyes are opened and that emotional availability allows for them to have a deeper understanding into Julian’s situation. We hope that that speaks to the importance of Julian’s work. WikiLeaks comes from a deeply humanistic impulse. For example, the Iraqi body count organisation says that it if it weren’t for WikiLeaks the deaths of 15,000 Iraqi civilians would not be acknowledged and those people’s lives would be dust in the wind – forgotten forever. Behind the lens of archive and documentation are people’s lives and justice.”

Before the interview I was fortunate to have exclusive access to ‘Ithaka’. Something said by John resonated. People seem above all else to be interested in a narrative about Julian – in Hollywood fashion rather than understanding who Julian might be as a human being. I raised this with Stella, asking about the media’s portrayal of Julian. 

“When we started making the documentary, the narrative being pushed was extremely misleading and dangerously ignorant. If you read the newspaper, for years you would just not understand what was happening – there were claims that he was completely paranoid, that the U.S. didn’t want him, that the U.S. would never prosecute him for publishing information. That started to change the day Julian was arrested because the U.S. revealed that it had a sealed indictment. It should have triggered a reflection on the part of the media – that Julian was right, but it didn’t happen – perhaps because the media isn’t very good at criticising itself.”

It certainly does beg questions about the impartiality and journalistic integrity of much of the news media. I wondered if support for Julian didn’t originate from the news media, where it came from. Was it really the grassroots movements which were independently taking a stand? I asked Stella whether there had been a shift in public perceptions of her partner resulting from her own grassroots activism and advocacy efforts.  

“Over time, there has been a shift. That shift has come through several important processes. The documentary is one, another is a grassroots movement that has become increasingly organic and in Australia is very strong. The vast majority of Australians want Julian to come home. In the election last year Julian was an electoral issue. The Labour government was elected with the prime minister saying he wants to bring this – the extradition case – to an end. It was a fact that he expressed this opinion as part of his electoral campaign because it was OK to express that and he knew he would win votes.”

Despite the support for Julian around the world and the belief that the case could be discontinued, Stella has nevertheless seen what can happen when journalists cannot or will not report on issues which demand a truly objective analysis of how their governments exercise power. If journalists cannot freely report and communicate information the public cannot make proper judgments about those in authority. Governments often prefer to operate in the dark.  If they let in the light it will be on their own terms. They will shut down dissent. The negative consequences are both domestic and global, for journalists and the public. I was eager to ask what Julian’s case means for transparency and freedom to communicate.

“This case is the single greatest threat to press freedom worldwide. The legal theory that the U.S. is advancing is that its domestic secrecy laws have extraterritorial effect and affects every single person on the planet. The people who owe a duty of secrecy to the United States are not just its civil servants and its military personnel, but every single human being on the planet. It’s an assault on the public’s right to know and it makes journalism impossible because journalists are only allowed to publish what the U.S. deems that the press should publish and that means that the press is an amplifier of what the government wants the public to know. It’s not just about the U.S., it’s about any other country using the same argument and the same goals. Saudi Arabia can say – there’s a British reporter who insulted Mohammed bin Salman, that’s illegal in Saudi and you have to stand trial in Saudi. That’s the same premise.  What it means is that there’s a global reduction of standards of protection for journalists.  We’re seeing this right now. For instance, I see the arrest of Evan Gershkovich in Russia as a direct effect of the U.S. using espionage laws against Julian.  Russia had not done this since the Cold War. What they had done in the past to journalists was to expel them, but they now have taken a policy change and it (the arrest of journalists) has become normalised. The U.S. normalised it with Julian and as a result, being a journalist, especially in situations that are dangerous or politically hairy is becoming more dangerous and their life and liberty are at greater risk.“

Stella’s thoughts on the grim landscape for journalists makes me question the extent to which our freedom of speech is illusory. I asked Stella exactly what she believes the pursuit of Julian reveals about U.S. democracy. 

“It tells us two things about the U.S. The first is that its freedom of speech protections are in crisis. The U.S. has very strong constitutional protections, and the most significant is the First Amendment. The First Amendment puts the constraint on the executive, that they cannot abridge people’s ability to speak. The case is unconstitutional. The problem is that the U.S. is in quite a reactionary phase and with the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court, the outcome is extremely uncertain. They’ve said things like, Julian is not a U.S. citizen, therefore, the First Amendment doesn’t apply to him, which is crazy. It’s a principle that they’ve extended from, for example, the Drug Enforcement Agency raids in Colombia or Mexico. The people who they arrest in Mexico and bring to the U.S. then try to say – ‘this arrest violates my constitutional rights’, they say – ‘well, you’re not American so it doesn’t apply for you’. They’re doing that for speech. That brings me to the second thing – how the U.S. is wielding its power through the judiciary onto other jurisdictions. This is where the UK has a responsibility to stop a foreign power from abridging freedom of speech here or impinging on protections that should be robust. It’s not foreign laws that should apply here, it’s UK laws, and journalists should be able to publish without having to know secrecy laws in Turkey or Benin or the United States.”

My final question was about Stella’s views on the treatment of Julian by the UK government and its courts. What does this reveal? 

“One of the interesting points that this case concerns is whether the UK has a ban on extraditing people for political offences or not. The U.S.-UK extradition treaty says it does, but the courts say that they can extradite because the Extradition Act did not include that ban. There are also credible reports that at the highest levels of the United States, there were discussions about assassinating Julian. There is evidence that his legal meetings were being deliberately recorded, and a whole range of criminal activity on the part of the extraditing state, and the British courts cannot credibly be seen to be acting fairly or impartially if they go along with it. Their credibility is under scrutiny, not just just domestically, but also internationally. The fact that Julian has been in Belmarsh Prison of all places, that he’s been there for four years that the UK courts have had ever every opportunity until now to stop this, makes the UK court and political system look extremely compromised. The UK is advertising itself as a place where other countries can outsource repressive actions against dissidents. This is a country where dissidents, political opponents and intellectuals used to come because it was a place that was open-minded and safe, but now is giving off completely opposite signals.“

Watch Ithaka, https://www.dartmouthfilms.com/ithaka, screening at The Oxford Union at 18.00 on Friday 28 April 2023 and The Ultimate Picture Palace at 14.45 on Saturday 29 April 2023. 

Dartmouth Films are pioneers in Britain of independent documentaries – finding new ways of funding, making and distributing films which have an impact.

Recent titles include the summer box office success ‘Eric Ravilious: Drawn to War’, Grierson-nominated and the UK’s 2022 entry to the Oscars® ‘Dying to Divorce’, BAFTA-winning ‘Men who Sing’ and BIFA-winning ‘Children of the Snow Land’.

Non-theatrical successes include ‘Resilience’, which had a direct impact on the health policy objectives of the Scottish government and “Magic Medicine’, which continues to be used as a crucial resource in cross-party efforts to reform drug policy.

Oxford, a University of Activists? Myths and Realities

Oliver Smith
-
0
Oxford, a University of Activists? Myths and Realities

Activism is rife in Oxford, especially student activism. Everywhere you look, you can see signs of it.

Picture this: it’s the weekend and Cornmarket Street is bustling. You pass by Wasabi and a Christian preacher attempts to convert you. You walk a little further down the street and you are handed a leaflet by a member of Extinction Rebellion. You turn onto High Street and catch a glimpse of the Rhodes Statue before making a beeline for the Rad Cam, no time to waste, you are in full essay crisis, after all.

Whether it’s the perennial protests outside the Radcliffe Camera or the more subtle sight of wilting flowers next to the library’s gated entrance, everyone in Oxford knows it; the square is a mecca for those who want to shine a light on injustice. Tied around the railing, Oxford residents have seen information on the victims of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Tehran’s crackdown on civil unrest. Just last month, around 500 people gathered for a candlelight vigil in memory of Brianna Ghey and to show their support for the Transgender community. Events organised are peaceful, supportive, and community orientated. Activism, specifically student activism, is rarely controversial in Oxford.

Despite this, you could say, student activists have got a bit of a “reputation”. When they open their mouths or challenge the status quo, it is not long before an article is published in a major national paper with the epithet “woke” featured somewhere. Indeed, it made national headlines in 2021 when Magdalen College’s MCR voted to remove a portrait of Queen Elizabeth II. It’s safe to say, conversations that arise among Oxford students aren’t necessarily confined to the City of Dreaming Spires.

 But does this reputation hold up? How tied really are Oxford students to the activist culture?

STUDENT ACTIVISM SURVEY RESULTS

According to a recent poll conducted by Cherwell, half of the respondents declared that they had attended a protest before. This compares to research conducted by You Gov, which found only two in five of the general UK population agreed with the prompt. The potential is certainly there with a resounding nine in ten respondents stating they were open to attending a demonstration in the future. Many respondents explained that they had not attended a protest before due to time constraints. Others were less conciliatory, labelling the activity “self-righteous and a waste of time”. The sentiment that there was “very little faith in the aims of those protesting” was backed by the data with only seven in ten respondents thinking that political demonstrations are effective.

Although the rise of the Instagram infographic model has made activism something that no longer involves making a cardboard sign and trekking it to the town centre, Oxford students seem to have ignored this medium with only six in ten students stating that they have ever shared any activism-related posts on social media. In fact, only half of students polled thought that social media activism was effective. Oxford students appear to have greater faith in more traditional, tangible demonstrations than their digital counterparts. 

When the issue turned to the use of the Radcliffe Square as a demonstration location, the vast majority of respondents (three in four) were supportive; “It is a prominent location in Oxford and symbolic of the student body”. Other students expressed concern: “It can be disruptive to students working in the libraries there and might cause annoyance even though many of them would support the causes themselves”. The minority of those who disapproved of the location tended to leave more inflammatory responses, labelling it “annoying as f***” and a “stupid place to do demonstrations”; another stated that the square “should not be devalued by such things”.

The overall view, however, was in favour of student activism in Oxford, with seven in ten respondents disagreeing with the prompt that there is “too much” activism. Students were generally sympathetic, stating that “It’s a student city and people have opinions”. Others rejected the suggestion that there could ever be “too much” activism in the first place – labelling detractors as “generally grim people”.

In any case, some respondents did criticise the activism culture, stating it was “surface level and performative”. And while some lamented the congested streets, others went in the other direction, calling Oxford’s activism scene “tiny” and using the response section as a call to arms: “Given the current government there should be protests every day, alongside rent strikes and occupations.”

Half of those polled stated that they are not a member of any student activist organisation, one quarter said they are involved in political activism and the remainder of respondents focus on a range of social rights issues. The Oxford University Labour Club was the most named activist organisation. Nonetheless, activist culture should not be conflated with left-wing ideology, with anti-Abortion activism also featuring among the responses.

Despite the fairly high levels of activity amongst the student body, the vast majority of respondents (75%) do not consider themselves to be an “activist”. Does this dispel the myth of Oxford as a University of student activists or do actions speak louder than labels?

DEEP DIVE INTO THE PSYCHE OF A STUDENT ACTIVIST WITH BEAU BOKA-BATESA

Beyond the inflated rhetoric that surrounds student activism in Oxford, I wanted to speak to the individuals who juggle these two competing vocations. What is it like, on a human level, to try and find balance in such a high-pressure environment and what is it like to manage other people’s expectations, let alone their own?

I spoke to Beau Boka-Batesa (they/them), a second-year climate justice campaigner at Lincoln who, along with their two friends, co-founded Choked Up at the age of 17. This campaign raises awareness of the impact of air pollution and how it disproportionately affects people of colour and those of working-class backgrounds in London. 

The interview began by asking Beau what activism means to them; we all have a different conception of what it means, especially in the digital age. “For me, activism is holistic,” they said, “there’s no set way to be a right activist […] For me, it’s about what you do with your anger”. This anger was something that came up in the survey; while respondents tended to be understanding of the other perspective, epithets such as “fascist” were used to describe those who threaten the rights of others. While some saw activism as essential to their very existence, others felt it was just “shouting into the wind”.

Dispelling the perceived notion of Oxford as an activist hub, Beau admitted that they felt “slightly underwhelmed” by the lack of political activity taking place: “I thought that people would be more angry about things […] but there hasn’t been as much as momentum”. The potential is there, they added: “I feel a lot of students here, they definitely have the intention [to demonstrate]. But I guess the means of being able to express that is a bit of a barrier”. While this rhetoric is certainly reflected in the data Cherwell collected, I was surprised that even those who operate within the activism sphere still encountered a lack of enthusiasm and engagement.

Discussing the pressures that come with the label of student activist, Beau conceded: “I think we’re expected to do all these great things […] all the time, and that can be really time-consuming and pressuring. I’ve always struggled to find the balance between doing my degree and doing activism”. While they recognized that academics were the priority at university, Beau added, “It’s really difficult when you love both things equally because you don’t want one thing to be at the cost of another”.

While tutors don’t actively discourage their activist commitments, Beau said, “It’s not necessarily something that they encouraged”. Beau was candid in admitting that sometimes they were not able to hand in their best work due to time constraints that came from their activist commitments and that tutors would comment that they were not reaching their potential. What came across in our interview was that all this activism comes at a cost, both in terms of academics and general stress levels. But Beau also pointed out that any assertion that academics should be a zero-sum game is wholly unrealistic and at odds with the reality of being a student: “I can’t just tap out and work on a degree for eight weeks straight” and if it’s not campaigning, people are always going to have personal issues. At the end of the day, students are not machines.

Beau reflected on how their circumstances have changed since starting their degree. Choked Up was born out of a charity that helps young people found campaigns: “We got around six months of mentoring and schooling […] how to run a campaign”. But since then, “we’ve basically been managing it all.” There seems to have been a real shift from running the campaign as a teenager to now as a university student, not only logistically, but also in terms of relationships with other organisers. It’s clear that the organisation has had to grow and adapt, and so has Beau.

Next, I asked Beau what impact the label “Oxford student” has had on their activism. “In terms of opportunities, I guess being a student at Oxford […] really does sell the money.” Likewise, more generally “journalists are […] very fixated on young people”; and put them on this pedestal. The promise of the next generation comes with the pressure to say yes to every opportunity. Here, Beau hinted at a catch-22 situation: while the Oxford label opens up many opportunities, these very opportunities then have to compete with the reality of a high-pressure academic environment that verges on demonising extracurriculars that take up too much time for comfort.

In a critique of the way the University operates, Beau said: “We all signed up for it […] But it’s just this constant, pressure cooker environment […] I feel like I’m constantly just having to fulfil expectations.” Beau admitted that they have sometimes felt disillusioned with their degree due to the constant need to churn out essays. It’s a common sentiment among Oxford students: the short terms, the vac work, burn-out. Adding on top of all this academic work the responsibilities of being an activist, it’s enough to wear anyone down. When the idea of a reading week came up, Beau straight away threw their support behind it; “Oh, absolutely […] A lot of people say rest is radical. If anything, it’s the bare minimum.”

Despite the pressures that come with being a student activist, Beau remained optimistic: “There’s always a place for people in the movement”; in a very hyper-digital age, we have so many means of campaigning. “I really do believe in young people”. Beau did acknowledge, however, that “it’s understandable that a lot of young people feel disillusioned […] because they are constantly looked down on.”

From our conversation, it became clear that one of the major facets of student activism is the youth element – that these activists are simultaneously venerated as the future generation, but also treated with contempt by some older people for their “inexperience”. Nonetheless, Beau concluded that “the moment the door is shut down on you, you have just got to find a way to open it again.” I would say that those are words which are enough to inspire and console another generation of student activists, but is that just me falling into the trap of pedestal-placing?

STUDENT ACTIVISM, A LACK OF BALANCE?

During my conversation with Beau, one word came up time and again: balance. “Be prepared to compromise and say no to more things”, Beau summarised, “Your degree is finite, but your activism will live on”.

This sentiment was echoed by Bella Done (she/they), Co-Chair of LGBTQ+ Oxford SU, a student-led campaign working to improve the lines of LGBTQ+ people at the University of Oxford. Bella began by explaining that it was the strong activist presence in Oxford that encouraged them to get involved with student activism; their journey began “by running for LGBTQ+ Rep within the JCR at Hertford, and gradually starting to attend lots of protests that were advertised around”.

Yet again, Bella identified the attempt to balance her activism with her studies as the most difficult part of being a student activist. Nonetheless, this challenge does not deter her: “It can be difficult to balance [running a campaign] with studies, especially as a lot of it involves chasing people and more admin than I’d like, but I’m so grateful for the experience. The community of student activists is wonderful, and really inspiring to work with”. Although Bella admitted that the fatigue that comes with student activism is “very challenging, especially when you’re fighting for a minority group on top of being a part of it”, she qsummarised that “seeing real, tangible change is the best feeling”. 

Jack Hurrell (he/him), a first-year at St Peter’s gave Cherwell a valuable insight into the gruelling reality of a Labour Club campaigner.“A day out truly is a day out, meeting in some cases at 7 a.m. and not returning until 6 p.m.” he explained. This has a “massive impact” on his work schedule and “many essays due in on Monday mornings have suffered as a result”. Jack drew attention to the fact that this sort of routine is simply not possible for students with finals ahead of them, and thus the “most active year group campaigning are the freshers”.

Jack recounts a particularly hostile encounter with a heckler in Hilary that informed the group that they were “terrorists converting the country to a new world order”. While he emphasised that he routinely talks to “lovely people”, encounters like this “did remind us of some of the dangers associated with campaigning”. In all, despite the difficulties associated with student activism, Jack remains resolute – like so many other student activists I have spoken to. Jack said campaigning was a great experience and “couldn’t recommend it strongly enough”.

FINAL REMARKS

Student activists are keen to consider the real-world ramifications of injustice; in spite of the “Oxford bubble”, they, more than most, look beyond the weekly essay crisis. While the university does not explicitly support or dissuade their activities, the pressure is pervasive. And perhaps they are put on a pedestal by some for seeming to do it all, but they, like everyone else, simply can’t. The message we are left with is one firmly geared towards the future – vocally optimistic with a tinge of pragmatism.

London Marathon Round-up

Jessica Cullen
-
0
London Marathon Round-up

Last weekend marked the 43rd annual London Marathon, a 26.2-mile race through London that is part of the World Marathon Majors series. Returning to its original spring date after three years, the race saw incredible performances across the board and people of all different abilities and backgrounds attempt the feat. 

The winner of the men’s race, Kelvin Kiptum, crossed the line just 16 seconds outside of the world record at only 23 years old to mark the second-fastest London time ever.

 Sifan Hassan took home the women’s gold in her debut marathon despite battling an injury, stopping twice and dodging bikes. Within what has been dubbed the greatest women’s field ever assembled, the Dutch Olympic track champion struggled with a hip injury but fought hard to keep her time low and wowed with a sprint finish across the line.

 British legend Mo Farah raced his last marathon before retiring and was close to tears on his way round. Despite his disappointment with the time, this being the slowest marathon in his career, enormous crowds gathered to spur him to the finish line, and he finished in ninth overall. Although he is set to finish his career at the Great Northern Run in September, the London race was a glorious farewell. 

Many familiar faces were captured on the track such as Chancellor Jeremy Hunt, running in support of his brother, against cancer and raising money for the Royal Surrey Charity’s Cancer & Surgical Innovation Centre. Former BBC radio presenter Chris Evans was also spotted running his ninth London race. 

Leading up to the race,  fears of large protests and disruptions from eco mobs occurring during the race were discussed, especially considering the action at the snooker World Championships this past week. In anticipation, the MET police drafted extra officers. Ultimately, the race ran smoothly with the abnormal sights being the ice creams, dinosaurs, dominoes garlic herb dip and rhino gracing the track, among many more. The race raised an estimated £60million for charities across the UK, and despite classic turbulent UK weather the day was a roaring success.

Image Credit:JULIAN MASON//CC BY 2.0 via Flickr

Oxford professor’s principles recommended for Canadian police reform

Alexandra Hedström-Blake
-
0
Oxford professor’s principles recommended for Canadian police reform

An Oxford professor’s policing principles have recently been recommended as a model for reform by Canada’s Mass Casualty Commission’s final report following a public inquiry into the Nova Scotia mass shooting and the response of police on the ground.  

The report, which calls for an end to the organisation of law enforcement around a core set of Victorian principles established in 1829 by Sir Robert Peel, as well as the introduction of a new and revised understanding of its roles and responsibilities, centres itself around the work of Ian Loader, a Fellow at All Souls and Professor of Criminology at the University of Oxford. 

When asked why he believed Peelian principles have previously been so closely held on to, despite having evolved into what Loader himself described as “ineffective cliches”, he told Cherwell: “The police like the Peelian principles because they make them feel good about the job they do and their place in society, without exercising any effective regulatory control over police strategy or behaviour.

“As such, the original principles operate mainly as a self-legitimation or branding device, not as a critical yardstick for public legitimacy. For this reason, they are not a good platform on which to locate discussion of the police mission or regain public trust.” 

Having served as a contributing voice on expert panels during the inquiry, the recommendation of six of Loader’s alternative principles is one of 130 published in the final report on the shooting. Emphasising the importance of resource integration, Loader highlighted the importance of pursuing public safety initiatives “with the approval of and in collaboration with the public and other agencies”. 

The initiatives should, according to Loader’s principles, be carried out in a way expressly designed to build “social cohesion and solidarity” while the police themselves remain at all times “democratically responsive to the people they serve” as well as the law. 

Taking place between the 18th and 19th April 2020, the Nova Scotia attack ultimately claimed the lives of 22 people, including a pregnant woman, when a 51-year-old driving a replica RCMP patrol car opened fire.  

Considered the worst mass shooting in Canadian history, commissioners found that an inadequate response by the RCMP had caused families and communities affected by events to have “questioned their former trust in the police” as issues of evidence handling and a failure to quickly issue public alerts became clear. 

Despite the extent of the tragedy, Loader remains optimistic that public trust in the police force is something that can be rebuilt, but that the key ultimately lies in “admitting mistakes and being open to an honest, difficult and inclusive conversation with affected individuals’ communities”.  

These dialogues would, according to Loader, need to concentrate particularly on “what went wrong, and how things could be done better in the future” while balanced by a commitment “not to act as if the police own all the answers to what makes communities safe”. 

Raising the issue of training, Loader has remained in favour of replacing the Canadian RCMP’s 26-week training program with a three-year program structured similarly to that of a university degree and described short-term police education as “becoming kind of untenable”. 

When asked about the extent to which he considered the changes recommended in Canada to be equally appropriate to policing efforts in the United Kingdom, Loader stated that “while it is important to be sensitive to differences in context […] there is sufficient family resemblance between the UK and Canada to think so”, citing “the troubled history of RCMP relations with first nations communities” as an example.

Loader told Cherwell: “The principles were in fact first developed in the context of a Commission I was on in the UK a decade ago [and are] intended as a way of thinking about what good policing looks like in any modern democratic society.”

“Buy less, choose well” – the return of the Oxford Fashion Gala

Anya Biletsky
-
0
“Buy less, choose well” – the return of the Oxford Fashion Gala

When, last year, I discovered that Oxford was to hold a fashion gala, I, with many fellow lovers of all things sartorial, was thrilled at the chance to see a real catwalk take place in Oxford. This Trinity, the Fashion Gala is back, for a reprise on an evening of patchwork, glamour and campiness, all within walking distance of the RadCam. 

The second week event is set to feature a dazzling parade of carefully-stitched fabrics and colours, designed by Oxford student creatives and worn by student models. Fashionistas and those with only a moderate interest in the garb alike will be able to come together in Oxford’s glitziest venue – Freud – for an evening of appreciation of fashion in all its forms. The choice of the chapel-turned-nightclub as a venue is certainly apt for its central walkway, which is set to become a sparkly runway for the night.

I spoke with this year’s co-Creative Directors, Shaan Sidhu and Harvey Morris, on their vision for 2023’s Gala and the process behind bringing it to Oxford students in Trinity term. 

The theme for the gala is a quote: “buy less, choose well”. The memorable advice comes from the late designer and fashion legend Vivienne Westwood, who passed away in December last year. Shaan and Harvey are striving to connect the ethos of the gala to the intent of Westwood’s iconic quote; as Shaan states, she and Harvey are keen to “encourage people to use what they already have” when compiling their outfit for the gala. 

This is partly to prompt the sustainable use of items of clothing, especially given the amount of waste that has been produced by the fast fashion industry in recent years. As Shaan explains, it is about “being mindful about what you choose and how much you buy”. Equally, the theme is intended to allow guests to flaunt their personal styles of dress, and make the gala “a creative experience for everyone involved”, Harvey says. 

The Fashion Gala team has been working with a group of student designers, who number almost twenty. Some of the designers are working closely with their models, while others are modelling for themselves. Guests of the gala can safely expect a tantalising assortment of designs. 

As for the evening itself, Shaan and Harvey emphasise the importance of the event being open and welcoming to all. Indeed, Harvey explains that the event does not have a specific dress code, being neither “necessarily formal” nor “necessarily casual”. He expresses that “fashion can feel very serious and constrained sometimes, and we want it to feel fun and inviting to everyone”. 

Shaan indicates the evening’s intention to be a “spectacle”, and a “showcase of designers and the creativity of people in Oxford” – of which there is certainly plenty. It will be “celebratory and joyous”, Harvey adds.

As well as the main catwalk event, there will also be a live music act and DJs. Shaan is aware that the gala is the day after May Day – but she assures that it will be a very different sort of event. “Please do both”, she jokingly encourages. I know I will be.

The Oxford Fashion Gala will be held on Tuesday 2nd May at Freud. Tickets will be available here.

Image credit: Coco Cottam. Courtesy of Coco Cottam and the Oxford Fashion Gala.

The sky’s the limit: Oxford’s dreaming spires and spiralling costs

Vansh Sharma
-
0
The sky’s the limit: Oxford’s dreaming spires and spiralling costs

Vansh Sharma confronts Oxford’s spiralling cost of living crisis, investigating whether housing supply is a factor

In the shadows of Oxford’s tallest spire, a burgeoning crisis has made an appearance, eating away at the financial foundations of all who call Oxford home. Amidst the already clustered labyrinth of factors contributing to the cost of living crisis in the United Kingdom, Oxford emerges as a city which has found itself putting salt on an already festering wound. 

A city steeped in golden history and academic excellence has for long enlivened the people who have had the honour of stepping foot on its hallowed streets. As students find their way through a financial pothole associated with pursuing tertiary education, the current cost of living crisis begs the question: Does the City of Oxford serve as a haven or a hindrance in this financial whirlpool? By detailing the depths of Oxford’s architectural constraints and the “University City” effect, this article aims to detail the multifaceted manner in which Oxford ultimately exacerbates the cost of living crisis. 

The significance of Oxford’s skyline goes without saying, filled with its “Dreaming Spires” it is without a doubt an enduring symbol of the city’s rich historical and architectural past. A height limit underpins this architectural uniformity and ensures Oxford’s precious skyline heritage is kept. As part of the array of measures implemented to safeguard the iconic spires, the city council incorporated a policy measure known as ‘the Carfax Rule’ into its local plan. This rule derives its name from the extant tower of St Martin’s Church, which occupies a central position at the city’s historic crossroads and is crucial to the composition of the distinctive skyline featuring historic towers and spires. The local plan policy (2001-2016) was strict, stating that no planning permission would be granted for developments within a 1,200-metre radius of Carfax that exceed either 18.2m (60ft) in height or an ordnance datum (height above sea-level) of 79.3m (260ft), whichever is lower. 

To understand the consequences of the building constraints on the Cost of Living Crisis, it is important to understand its impact on Oxford’s property market and the basic economic laws of Supply and Demand. While the Carfax Rule’s building constraints safeguarded the city’s skyline, it is crucial to recognise its repercussions on the property, housing and rental market and the subsequent financial pressures it thrust upon Oxford’s residents. The preservation of the city’s skyline and unique character limited available land for development, reducing the housing supply and therefore driving up property and rental prices. This elevated cost of housing and commercial properties also has a trickle-down effect on the prices of goods and services where it ultimately impacts the normal consumer, like me and you, in the form of higher prices. The high demand for accommodation in Oxford, engendered by the city’s student population and its spires of dreamy allure, grapples with the scarcity of supply of available rental spaces due to this skyward constraint. Allowing landlords to jack up prices due to the insanely high demand for their rental properties. Consequently, despite its small populace, property and rental prices in Oxford are the fourth most expensive in the United Kingdom with an average rental price of £1,135.02 for a one-bed rental in the city centre. With a population density of 3,509 people per km2 which is eight times more than the national average of 434 per km2 coupled with the building restrictions and the low supply of rental properties, the cause for this is clear as daylight. 

Moreover, these limitations on building heights did not leave without having an impact on Oxford’s colleges. These colleges confront mounting pressures to furnish affordable housing solutions, but the height limitations impeded the colleges from building cost-effective accommodations within the city’s confines. As a result, students now find themselves having to grapple with the consequences in the form of higher accommodation fees. Colleges are forced to build on the expensive property whilst also having to disperse their students over multiple accommodations throughout the city in order to cut costs. This leads to students having to travel far distances in order to get to their lectures and tutoring sessions. The high property and rental costs in Oxford not only highlight the strong demand for real estate but also demonstrate college inefficiency. Funds spent on acquiring pricey properties and constructing and maintaining suboptimal student housing could have been allocated to salaries or enhancing research and development within the colleges. 

Oxford’s Cost of living crisis is clear to see. In February, Oxford’s inflation was 10.3%, one of the highest in the whole country. Between Q1 2021 and Q4 2022 Petrol prices rose £12.09, Grocery prices rose £11.39 and Energy prices rose £54.01. Oxford was ranked the second most expensive city to live in the UK, only behind Winchester. Coupled with this is that the city also has the 5th lowest average disposable income. 

An ancillary factor, which is exacerbating the cost of living in Oxford is the fact that it is a “University City”. Being a university city underpins the constantly fluctuating profitability of a local business during term-time and non-term time periods. As the academic calendar oscillates between term-time and vacation, commercial enterprises witness a stark contrast in revenue generation. Vacation periods yield diminished revenue for businesses as the student populace disperses. Consequently, businesses and landlords are compelled to raise prices in order to generate as much revenue as possible during term-time to counterbalance the lower revenue generation they will undoubtedly see during non-term time periods. Oxford’s current total population stands at 162 222 and its student population is 43 355 with 26 455 being University of Oxford students and 16 900 being Oxford Brookes students. No city can be economically healthy if 30% of its population, which are also its main consumers, are on vacation for 1/3 of the year. This intermittent economic landscape engenders an unstable environment that adversely impacts all inhabitants and is a relevant factor in the cost of living within a city. This is clearly evident as both Oxford, Cambridge and several other cities in the UK and US consistently rank in the top most expensive cities to live in nationally. 

By allowing buildings to go over the building height limit, the city could restore the housing supply back to a healthy equilibrium and reduce the current property market tension drastically. In turn, this would catalyse a decline in property and rental prices, conferring relief upon businesses and consequently upon students and residents alike. Nonetheless, the urgent need for additional housing and property must be properly balanced with the preservation of Oxford’s architectural and historical past. Any adjustments to the height limitations or construction areas, should be done with good judgement and sense, ensuring that new developments do not mar the city’s unique character and do not take away from Oxford’s iconic allure. This interplay between Oxford’s building limitations and its architectural and historical heritage, coupled and exaggerated with the current cost of living and housing crisis, requires a multifaceted and carefully managed approach. 

In the end, tackling the cost of living in Oxford calls for an understanding of the multiple factors contributing to the issue. The city’s housing crisis, building height restrictions, resurgence post-global pandemic, an energy crisis, the highest inflationary period in the UK in 40 years, three Prime Ministers, citywide teachers and nurses strikes, and Oxford’s distinct “University City” nature all collectively contributed to making Oxford one of the hardest hit cities in the ongoing cost of living quandary. By acknowledging and confronting these complexities, policymakers, businesses, and educational institutions can collaboratively work towards creating a more equitable and sustainable economic environment for all who call Oxford home.

Image Credit: Chris Rycroft//CC BY 2.0 via Flickr

Why the Tories will win the next election (and why they shouldn’t)

Charles Chadwick
-
0
Why the Tories will win the next election (and why they shouldn’t)

Gambling, as we all know, is a mug’s game. However, you would especially question the sanity of the person who walked into a betting shop and placed any healthy money on a Conservative victory at the next general election. Indeed, with 88% of bookies now predicting Keir Starmer as the next occupant of Number Ten, it would seem the equivalent of taking a punt on Bournemouth winning the League, pigs flying, or Joe Biden making a speech in coherent English. 

The facts would seem to back this up. The Conservative party, never up there with sliced bread on the popularity list, has managed to alienate pretty much everyone in the country outside the Cabinet, and probably a fair few of those within it. For the left, the Tories are, even more than ever, migrant-hating, child-starving, nurse-bashing evil fascists. However, more worryingly for ‘Dishy’ Rishi, his traditional supporters seem to be abandoning ship too. 

Against this backdrop, what I’m about to argue may seem nonsensical: not only will the Tories avoid annihilation in 2024, but they will even hold on to power for another five years. In short, anyone who did make the bet would be very rich indeed. 

Before you pitchfork me off to join Liz Truss in the political loony bin, consider some facts. Such was the scale of Boris Johnson’s earthquake in 2019 that Labour would need to pick up over 100 extra seats merely in order to secure a majority of one. This would require a swing greater than that of 1997, the largest landslide in modern political history, and for Labour candidates to overturn majorities upwards of 11,000, demolishing both the ‘red wall’, and the ‘blue wall’. 

For this to happen, two things must take place. Firstly, the Tories must lose. Secondly, Labour has to win. 

On the first count, remember the iron will of the Conservative party to survive. As its long history shows, it will go to any step, adopt any idea, in order to cling on to power. In Sunak’s case, his plan for survival is based around stability and competence. After the sheer chaos surrounding his two predecessors, the Prime Minister is seeking to ‘make politics boring again’. Despite Labour attempts to continue their attack on ‘Tory sleaze’, this largely seems to be working, and, as a recent poll for Conservative Home shows, his rising popularity among the membership makes any leadership contest before the next election unlikely. 

Furthermore, in his outlining of five clear goals, Sunak appears to be proving that his party is capable of achieving things. It is true that these five achievements are not as impressive as they might seem: halving inflation, for instance, has much more to do with global energy prices than with any concrete policy of this government. Nevertheless, there are early signs of success. The Windsor Framework has led to a rapprochement with Europe which has been widely praised. Similarly, the deal with Albania seems to have led to a small but real reduction in the number of ‘small boats’ crossing the channel so far this year. This seems to be translating into success in the polls, with the Spectator’s average moving from a Labour lead of 30% six months ago to 17% now. This leaves a long way to go, but it is progress. 

Even if the Conservatives were to throw away the next election, Labour are showing few signs that they will actively win it either. Two things are repeated ad nauseum in praise of Keir Starmer: that he has vanquished the left; and that he has made his party look competent again. Yet, in my submission, these are testament to the paucity of any true achievements. It says much about the arrogance, self-importance, and sheer incompetence of a political party that the fact it is no longer indulging in civil war is touted as a major step forward. Equally, there is a danger of mistaking the appearance of competence for true ability. 

On their fundamental policy platform, Labour have forced themselves into an ideological straight jacket, which, though understandable, even necessary, for their political rehabilitation, severely limits their manoeuvrability. On the economy, Rachel Reeves’ commitment to match Conservative spending plans may help her party to ditch its reputation for fiscal incompetence, but also means they cannot outspend the Tories. All very well to sympathize with strikers, but not much use if a Labour government could not up their pay. Likewise, in taking a tougher stance on the so-called ‘culture war’, Sir Keir risks alienating his own activists in order to fight a battle he cannot win. 

In this difficult position, Labour has tried the high-minded, intellectualist approach, with a myriad of Delphic slogans, and, to be fair, some genuinely creative policies, like Wes Streeting’s ideas for NHS reform. However, given that most members of the shadow cabinet are unknown outside of their immediate families (John Healey, anyone? Steve Reed?), it is unsurprising this has had little cut-through. And so, this week we have been treated to a new approach, as Starmer has sought to go for the jugular, somewhat implausibly branding dishy Rishi as a latter-day Jimmy Saville, in hoc to the paedophiles of Britain. The problem with this, as was shown in the dismal media rounds, is that Labour MPs do not have the unity or the will to follow this up. They are as implausible as if the class nerd tried to turn into the bully. 

This is not necessarily to criticise Starmer. The wider problem is that Labour simply hasn’t faced up to the realignment that has taken place in British politics since it was last in power. Put simply, it will take more than appeals to competence and decency to unite Islington and Workington. Labour can be a middle-class, globalist, technocratic party, or it can return to its roots as a socially conservative, economically interventionalist idea. It cannot do both. 

If, in two years’ time, Labour has a majority of 500, I will have no hesitation in eating humble pie. However, until they fully come to terms with the populist realignment, it is my submission that they are doomed to remain in opposition. This is bad for the right, too. With no opportunity to be destroyed and rebuilt, the Tories will continue to fail. The electoral juggernaut will roll on, directionless, intellectually exhausted, and yet unstoppable, to a fifth victory: the most popular unpopular party in political history. 

Image Credit poppet with a camera//CC BY-NC 2.0 via Flickr

Interview: ‘Macbeth’ at the Pilch, an ensemble of tragedies

Anuj Mishra
-
0
Interview: ‘Macbeth’ at the Pilch, an ensemble of tragedies

Anuj Mishra in conversation with the Alice Chakraborty (Producer), Andrew Raynes (Director), and Juliette Imbert (Lady Macbeth), from Happier Year Productions’ staging of Macbeth in 2nd Week on tragedy, why we love Lady Macbeth, and reimagining Shakespeare…

This is, of course, one of Shakespeare’s most well-known tragedies, and has, according to the Cherwell archives, been performed in Oxford theatres five times in the last ten years. What drew you to putting on this production and facing the mammoth challenge of playing Shakespeare?

Andrew: What really draws me to Macbeth, and has done for years, is the strength of the other characters, and their relationships. For me, for example, that Macduffs’ marriage is falling apart is just as important as the marriage between Lady Macbeth and Macbeth.

Alice: When we were deciding what play we wanted to put on in Trinity, we knew we wanted to go for something more ‘classical’. In choosing Macbeth, we wanted to focus on those peripheral characters and relationships rather than just making it a very plain tragedy about one guy. It’s because of that that we have a larger cast than is strictly necessary: we wanted to make people and their characters distinctive.

Your description of the play says that this production “reimagines Macbeth for audiences of today”: what’s new here that audiences can expect from Macbeth?

Alice: Shakespeare gives us so much space to sort of deal with psychological problems, which aren’t always necessarily textual, but really come through in rehearsals and give the performance a higher level of connection with the audience.

Andrew: Along those lines of psychological exploration, we’re reimagining the witches in terms of how we can best represent the supernatural as it would have been for 17th Century audiences. This society was obsessed with and had precise notions of the supernatural, whereas today our collective anxieties are far more distant. We’re trying to carry out a sort of ‘temporal translation’ in representing the witches as a manifestation of these.

I’d usually ask for a brief outline of the play at this point, but I imagine most of our readers are familiar with the plot. Instead, what are the cast-favourite moments in the play?

Juliette: I’m looking forward to the porter coming and doing his speech: it’s such a nice bit of comedic relief in the middle of the play. A lot of productions of Macbeth just take it out, and there’s a view that it’s inappropriate to have comedy at this point, but I feel like it’s very important in tragedies to break it up, otherwise it’s just intense the whole way through.

Also, the scene where Macbeth starts chickening out and says he’s not going to kill Duncan and I (as Lady Macbeth) have to sway him. In rehearsal we talked about the psychology of what’s going on there, and we’re doing our best to not have Lady Macbeth being manipulative the whole way through just for the sake of it.

We’ve talked quite a bit about Lady Macbeth, and there has certainly been a turn recently in popular debate and in productions towards humanising her and examining in more detail her motivations. Let’s have a go at describing her in three words:

Juliette: Insecure, desperate, clever.

Alice: Powerful but scared.

Andrew: Loyal, well-intentioned, caring.

(Andrew’s words are met with vigorous nods around the room)

What visuals, in terms of set design and staging, can audiences expect as we settle down to Macbeth in the Pilch?

Alice: Realism is not necessarily a priority. The Pilch is, at the end of the day, a black-box theatre, and we’re never going to be able to recreate a medieval castle, even if we wanted to. Luckily, we don’t want to.

Andrew: As it is, we are planning on having a very bare stage. It’s going to be atmosphere to the roof (literally). We’re trying to create space with lighting and sound. When you’re working with such a small theatre and a play with such a range of settings, I think going with non-traditional staging is the most efficient and interesting way of doing things.

Any final thoughts?

Andrew: Macbeth won’t be a lengthy, three-hour tragedy (Happier Year’s version is closer to an hour-and-a-half), what better way to spend the Coronation bank holiday weekend?

Macbeth will run at the Michael Pilch Theatre from the 3rd until the 6th of May. Tickets are on sale now at https://www.ticketsource.co.uk/happieryearproductions?fbclid=PAAaapdDJXTYsbMZQ2SwP_DHZM7movyVk7mXJVMr0Xk_CwI7iQtCmZJHbbSTk

1...165166167...2,496Page 166 of 2,496

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by James Ashley