The entire cabinet surface area of the kitchen now lies beneath your unwashed dishes. The walls of your room and surrounding corridor are covered in a choking, amber tobacco-smoke residue. The floor of the living room is impenetrable under the mass of loose paper, empty cans and Gwen Stefani CDs strewn across it. It is your fourth day of living out in Oxford. Sadly your ignorant, philistine housemates fail to grasp that you are merely subverting oppressive and archaic social norms and you fear the rising tide of anger against you may lead to your imminent decapitation. What you need is a master-class in conflict resolution.

Perhaps you could take a lesson from the Prime Minister, who this week penned an article in the Sunday Times calling on Lib Dems and Tories to work together to mend the ailing coalition. “I have always called myself a liberal Conservative” effuses Mr Cameron, presumably in the hope that Nick Clegg will respond by stating that he considers himself a Tory democrat. He lists a number of coalition achievements: that they have reduced the long-term public sector pensions bill by half (i.e. public sector workers will receive much lower pensions); they have created a “tax system that rewards effort” (that is, they have given tax breaks to millionaires) and they have overseen an expensive railway investment plan (except they haven’t, not yet at least, but Mr Cameron feels the need to mention it anyway). There was no reference to the government’s deeply controversial health reforms and the tuition fee rise received an honourable, if very brief and indirect, mention.

The document is, in essence, a list of reforms the Lib Dems would certainly not have passed were they the sole force within the executive, tied together with a vague message about how both Tory and Lib Dem are both into “progressive goals” and against “uniform state control”, whatever that means. The article unintentionally highlights the increasing uselessness of the coalition to the Liberal Democrats. It is very clear given the failure of the AV referendum and increasing likelihood of Lord’s reform derailment, that the Lib Dems will come out of this coalition with nothing to show for it. If their two flagship policies are sunk, then they too cannot possibly hope to remain afloat as anything like a serious political force in the future.

Clegg’s recent threat of “consequences” (surely all actions have consequences?) following a failure to reform the upper house are hence perfectly understandable. Matthew Paris and other may have decried the Liberal leader’s comments as blackmail, but they must be using a very atypical definition of blackmail. Threatening to withdraw support for your partner’s policies if they do not support yours is simply how a coalition works. If Clegg had threatened to release photographs of Cameron masturbating a sheep whilst dressed as a Nazi (Cherwell disclosure: to our knowledge no such photograph exists) then that would have been blackmail.

Cameron’s plea, and of course the very need to publish it, show how rickety the coalition is getting. With Labour consistently polling a good ten points above the Tories and a Labour majority at the next election (whenever that may be) looking very likely, the only remaining utility of the coalition to either Lib Dem or Tory is that it is a means of staving off an inevitable political wipe-out for a little bit longer. Perhaps this is the shared value Cameron should really have mentioned.

Oh and for christsakes go wash those dishes. I mean seriously.

The Moritz–Heyman donation, contrary to earlier comment in this paper, should be welcomed. This is not because the current settlement for students was unfair – the post-Browne system was based on the idea that it was the university students themselves who ought to pay a greater proportion of the cost of their education. Given the burden on the taxpayer, this seems fair. Indeed raising fees was not a symbolic gesture but a concession to the imminent financial environment: if Oxford could lower fees, then it would. The Moritz–Heyman Scholarship makes this possible for the poorest of Oxford’s students.

We have long suffered from a perception that we are a “university for the rich” – or at least the well heeled middle classes. When evaluating where Mr Moritz and Ms Heyman ought to direct their money, this consideration is clearly something which sets Oxford (and Cambridge) apart from other universities. A tuition fee of £9,000 a year will inevitably act as a negative signal to that effect to those on low incomes, even if the package of bursaries and the fees system mean that in reality it remains a good investment.

Regardless of image, reducing living costs has always been central to Oxford’s attempts to broaden its intake of students from lower-income families. Whilst the recently introduced repayment system makes it less obvious why that ought to still work, two things must still be remembered. 

First, any student loan is still a loan; it is still money that has been spent in the hope of increasing your future earnings. Depressingly the public remains poor at accurately forecasting the future value of something to them, preferring a bird in the hand to two in the bush. Moreover, the effect of coming from a family on a lower income warps that person’s attitude to money and saving in particular. It is important to remember that the Moritz–Heyman Scholarship will apply to those on household incomes of just £16,000; in other words, a little more than one family member on the minimum wage.

For those who struggle to make ends meet on a daily basis, justifying what might be £20,000 of debt even with bursary arrangement must be difficult. Alleviating the financial burden that attending Oxford is seen to pose will help attract those from lower-income families. It is reassuring that last year’s applicants shared the same socio-economic mix as previous years, but this was hardly a satisfactory state of affairs. The long term effect is uncertain: although Peter Wilby in the Guardian might be sceptical about its effects, his views clearly aren’t shared by many at his paper.

Second, income is not the sole factor in your ability to repay your student loan. Wealth plays a large role, and one which it would be easy to underestimate. If your student loan acts essentially like an additional income tax, then how much poorer it makes you will ultimately depend on how the rest of your income is spent – whether you have the security of a forthcoming inheritance, or conversely have to pay for the case of your parents or family dependents because others in the family do not have the means.

Donors always have other options for their money, but Oxford’s problems are unlikely to be solved from the outside. Free of large capital projects on which to spend the money, and ever wary of holding too much power over the colleges, the University, Mr Moritz and Ms Heyman have made the correct decision.

We should always commend generosity, especially when the cheque comes with so many zeros. Oxford will now extend its lead amongst UK universities in financial undergraduate support – clearly that is a good thing.

It is also a spectacular philanthropic waste. Remember, students are not expected to pay any of their tuition up front and the loan is repayable only from taxable income which they might subsequently earn. The purpose for which Michael Moritz has earmarked his donation, to massively increase bursaries to low-income undergrads, is therefore wrong-headed. It is akin to stumbling into Goldman Sachs and randomly distributing cash. Once the student from Bog Standard Comprehensive is at Oxford, he or she has roughly the same chance as an Old Etonian of becoming successful. Oxford’s core problem is that they are less likely to get there in the first place; tragically few are able to break the shackles of a deprived socio-economic background. This donation does absolutely nothing to solve that, doing precisely nothing for social mobility. Rather than turbo-charging efforts to get low-income students into Oxford, £300 million will be spent mollycoddling those who are already here.

There is an argument that by driving student costs down, Oxford can vanquish fears that poorer kids have about the huge student debts they will amass. In this way more will apply. Unfortunately the evidence that they were being put off lies somewhere between sketchy and non-existent. The socio-economic mix of applicants for 2012 entry, under the higher fees regime, was almost identical to the previous year.

What was Moritz’ aim? Presumably to encourage and enable the underprivileged to aspire to Oxford. Why then didn’t he donate his millions to the Sutton Trust, which takes young people from failing schools and prepares them for the rigours of university life? Or why didn’t he elect to benefact Oxford’s outreach programme which, through its excellent work dispelling the many myths about our ancient institution, encourages applicants from diverse backgrounds?

To reiterate, it’s lovely that students with limited means will get more. We all have friends in college whose lives will be made easier by Moritz’ extraordinary gift. Think though what else could have been done with £300 million. Big donations like that only come along once in a generation and through misdirecting the money, Michael Moritz and the University have scuppered the chance to redress the inter-generational problem of social immobility. I’m alluding to the concept of ‘opportunity cost’; could something bigger and better have been achieved with the money? The answer is an emphatic yes.

It’s July, and Pride season is in full swing: the London LGBT Pride march took place on Saturday; Oxford Pride was a couple of weeks ago; Manchester Pride is yet to come. This year’s Prides coincide with an accelerating movement towards the legalisation of equal marriage in the United Kingdom; the Home Office’s consultation has recently ended, and it looks as if this government may be the one which finally ends civil marriage inequality. Equal marriage has been central to many mainstream LGBTQ campaigns in recent years; I personally believe that it has been emphasised to such an extent, perhaps, that its achievement will lead to a misleading sense of completion for the movement. With that in mind, it’s vital to consider the directions LGBTQ campaigning in the UK should take both during and after the fight for full equal marriage.

First, we should not forget the “T” in LGBTQ. This is forgotten far too readily, both within and without the movement. Trans* people (covering transgender, transsexual, genderqueer and other gender-variant people) face problems which variably both overlap with and differ from those which confront lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Transphobia is endemic in our society. Just a few months ago a Paddy Power advert was released which derived its entire “humour” from the idea of distinguishing “real” women (i.e., those who identify with the gender they were assigned at birth) from trans women. Trans* people have the highest suicide rate in the LGBT community, and the highest murder rate – yet organisations such as Stonewall actively exclude them. Stonewall describes itself as a “lesbian, bisexual and gay” charity. This is viciously ironic, considering that the Stonewall riots of 1969 had trans* people at their heart. Then you get newspapers, relying on Stonewall reports, assuming they’re in some way covering trans* people; a recent Guardian article wrote “…more than 1,600 lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGBT) young people….”. Well, no. That “T” means something. And it’s time the movement remembered that, and focused on it.

Second, our movement needs to recognise that homophobia, biphobia and transphobia start young, and once rooted are not always easy to dislodge. A recent Stonewall study claims that 55% of lesbian, gay and bisexual young people have received homophobic or biphobic bullying in school, and a shocking 96% have heard derogatory expressions for LGBTQ people bandied around in the classroom and social settings. I was saddened, though unsurprised by these findings. Children of only eight or nine at a fencing club I used to attend joked about being gay – I say “joked”; it was made abundantly clear by them that being gay was not a thing which it was desirable to be. Trans* children also suffer; the school years tend to be the years in which the gender binary is rigidly enforced, and any perceived deviation from gender assigned at birth can have sometimes awful consequences. The solution? Education. It is less than 10 years since Section 28 was repealed in England and Wales, and some teachers are still under the impression that teaching about homosexuality, bisexuality or being transgender is illegal. This needs to change.

Less specifically, but with equal ambition, the LGBTQ community in the UK also needs to look outward to places where, for instance, homosexual activity still carries the death penalty, and countries where there are other legal oppressions. I would also like to see more acknowledgement of sexualities other than “gay” and “lesbian”; many, if not most, bisexuals and pansexuals are unhappy to be placed under the “gay” banner incessantly. Issues faced by bisexuals are sometimes different from those faced by gay people and lesbians, and the LGBTQ movement needs to acknowledge that. It is important as well to look at how issues of race and class, for instance, affect the LGBTQ struggle.

Equal marriage is important, and has a great deal of symbolic value. This Parliament will do great service to the LGBTQ community in passing the Bill. However, its achievement will by no means be the achievement of equality. Never stop fighting. 

Simone Webb is President-Elect of Oxford LGBTQ Soc.