Friday, May 2, 2025
Blog Page 189

Surrealist Film Review: Fellini’s 8½

To describe Fellini’s as a confusing piece of surrealism would perhaps undermine its reputation as a masterpiece of Italian cinema. However, the array of violently incohesive images in the opening sequence of the film had me puzzled as to what the plot would entail. The premise of is not inherently strange, yet there is something to be said of how Fellini reflects the psyche of a stagnant, middle aged film director through an obscure and multi-faceted plot.

The film opens without sound. The protagonist, Guido (Marcello Mastroianni), is stuck in a claustrophobic traffic jam. The black and white cinematography seems to heighten the sensory appeal of the scene, and yet it appears as if nothing moves and nothing will happen. As the camera pans across rows and rows of identical cars, it pauses on individual faces. A man sits grumpily in the backseat of his car, a woman in the front. A row of hands dangle absently from the windows of a bus. Guido bangs hysterically on the windows of his car, desperately trying to escape. The car fills with smoke. Blank faces stare at him helplessly. Guido clambers out of the car roof; white light overwhelms the screen. Guido hovers and flies into the distance, drifting through the clouds before being, quite literally, tethered back to earth. Fellini was forty-three when he made , and intended for it to be an honest reflection on his stagnated creativity as an ageing film director. His baroque, earthy style is confusing for the unknowing audience. Yet this is the sensation Fellini sought to project, one of uncertainty and inaction. The mind of an aimless film director experiencing a creative hiatus is portrayed through Guido as well as the muted cinematography and surrealism of the story. An air of foggy perplexity prevails, extending Guido’s own psychological condition to the mind of the viewer themselves. 

Fellini’s writing exudes a sense of Freudian psyche, filling with an unrestrained subconscious which leaves the audience to piece together the significance of the dream-like images themselves. Played with a deep sensitivity by Mastroianni, Guido’s recurring vision of his ideal woman causes him to spiral into a series of bad relationships. He is estranged from his wife, he is distant from his mistress, and he fools himself into thinking that he has found salvation in an actress, Claudia. All these women seem to fall under the shadow of a potent yet somewhat displaced figure, Saraghina. In flashbacks to his youth, Guido remembers a group of children running to the beach to visit Saraghina. Uncertain as to who exactly Saraghina is, I watched as a large buxom woman with wild black hair and a tight black dress emerged out of a hut. The children all chant in unison “Saraghina! Saraghina! La rumba!” as Saraghina prowls towards them, bares her shoulders, and begins to prance across the sand. An unsettling unfamiliarity comes over both the audience and perhaps the character of young Guido himself, as if this strange figure skews the narrative off its predicted trajectory. Saraghina is a fabrication of Guido’s sexuality and imagination, as her dwelling place is on the cusp between fluid imagination and concrete reality. 

Guido’s flashbacks to childhood provide moments of clarity; they are digressions which help to elucidate the central plot. When magicians read Guido’s mind and reveal the words “asa nisi masa”, this nonsensical phrase is explained by the shadowy, baroque image of Guido as a child, being put to bed by a crowd of women. The scene grows dark, and another child repeats “asa nisi masa” to make the eyes of a portrait move. This memory, which connects Guido’s past and present, demonstrates his profound desire to be cared for by a woman. Later in the film, when Guido envisions himself surrounded by women in a harem, he again regresses to a child-like state, doted on and cared for by women. Yet it is his wife, Luisa, who is the only constant, realistic female figure in Guido’s life. Despite being cold and distant, she is the figure of reality that grounds Guido as he deceives himself with idealisations. 

It is the aesthetic appeal of the shadowy, muted cinematography that best portrays the dulled creativity of Guido’s mind, and scenes such as the rows of empty, square cinema chairs when Guido’s film is previewed that evoke the loneliness and lack of support he feels as an artist. Add to this the concrete brutalist set, revealing the unforgiving and unglamourous side of filmmaking. The ending, in which all the characters of the film dance around in a circle to the tune of Nino Rota’s carnival-like La Passarella di Otto e Mezzo, plays on the farcical element of Guido’s artistic choice; to write an honest film about his experience as a troubled director. While 8½ might at first appear irregular, imperfect, and slightly exaggerated, it is where Fellini blurs the lines between fantasy and reality that he has produced an authentic filter of a man’s consciousness. 

Image: Marcello Mastroianni as Guido Anselmi in 8½ by Federico Fellini. This image is in the public domain.

St Stephen’s gives up PPH status to exclusively train priests

0

After a review by the University, St Stephen’s House will lose its status as a Permanent Private Hall (PPH) in September 2023. This move follows the closure of St Benet’s Hall in September 2022, which failed to renew its PPH license for the current academic year due to financial hardship.

Unlike St Benet’s, St Stephen’s is losing its PPH status because Oxford will no longer allow a PPH to deliver another university’s qualifications. Since 2014, St Stephen’s has offered the Church of England’s Common Awards programmes, which are validated by Durham University.

According to the Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England, the decision to forsake PPH status “represents a loyalty and commitment to the Common Awards system to which the majority of [Theological Education Institutions] subscribe,” and “this shift is by no means understood as a negative move by the House Council, nor by the Principal and Staff, nor by the University of Oxford.”

Despite the loss of its PPH status, St Stephen’s will continue to operate as an Anglican theological college and will continue to offer Oxford’s graduate qualifications in Theology and Religion. However, the House will no longer offer other graduate qualifications and will only consider candidates who are “ministers of religion, genuine candidates for the ministry, or exercising lay ministry.”

Robin Ward, Principal of St Stephen’s, reflected in this year’s edition of the House’s newsletter that “one of the more challenging aspects of the decision” was that “the focus moving forward [will] be solely on ordinands and those already ordained.” However, this change has “secured a future for the College” and allows St Stephen’s to “maintain relationships with both Durham and Oxford Universities and in turn offer the widest range of courses to ordinands.”

Founded in 1876, St Stephen’s is the oldest unamalgamated training institution in the Church of England. It has delivered Oxford qualifications since 1970 and became a PPH in 2003. Currently, the House comprises around 80 mature students: about a quarter are training for priesthood while the rest are pursuing a variety of graduate qualifications.

Robin Ward says that St Stephen’s new relationship with the University marks the beginning of an “exciting new chapter”: “I believe it is the trajectory which stays truest to the College’s founding – and still core – mission: to train priests in the Anglo-Catholic tradition.”

2022 – A Year in Review

0

It feels like every year in December we are told about just how momentous a period we have gone through.  Whether it be in arts, sports, or politics every 12 months seems to be ‘more influential’ and ‘more shocking’ than the last.  This year though, that might just be true.  It has been an extraordinary time to be the Comment Editor and after a year of events in the UK and around the world that have undoubtedly changed the path of history, I thought there was no better time to take a look back.  So, here is our selection of 2022’s drama, disaster, and craziness and what I, the Cherwell team, and the University community had to say about them. (Suffice to say that some takes were substantially hotter and more accurate than others!)

Each page brings you a different month of predictions and coverage.

Knee Deep

0

the night to

hear the sky to

let the world run

through the veins

to let it all of it

run through

the veins

Image Credit: Debby Hudson via Unsplash.

His Dark Materials exhibition in Oxford museums brings Lyra’s world to life

0

Props from the BBC’s adaptation of Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy have gone on display this week in Oxford museums. 

Together, exhibits at Pitt Rivers Museum, the History of Science Museum, and The Story Museum create a fan’s paradise, with props from the show including the alethiometer, Lyra’s scuffed-on-an-Oxford-rooftop pinafore and the ethereal subtle knife. Free entry to the Pitt Rivers Museum and History of Science Museum encourages fans to immerse themselves into “Lyra’s World”, the title of the display. 

The exhibition opens as the BBC’s third series comes to viewers’ screens. For fans, there seems no better way to celebrate than to see the amber spyglass, seed pods from the Mulefa World, and Mary Malone’s Ching Sticks at the Pitt Rivers. Indeed, the museum itself appears in The Subtle Knife and was used as a filming location in the programme. 

Props shown at The Story Museum include the subtle knife, the dress worn by the witch Serafina Pekkala, and airmail letters written by John Parry to his wife, which are displayed beside Pullman’s specially commissioned and permanently exhibited alethiometer. 

Meanwhile, The History of Science Museum offers a “What’s your dæmon?” experience to bring the much-loved stories alive. The experience ends by matching your given dæmon to particular “Women in Science”. Dr Silke Ackermann, director of the History of Science Museum has said how much of a delight it has been to finally celebrate the stories alongside “the stunning instruments in our collection that inspired Philip Pullman for many years”. Iconic costumes and Lyra’s alethiometer stand in line with astrolabes, astronomical compendia, and sundials. 

As well as the exhibition, the Oxford Botanic Garden marks the tree of Lyra’s and Will’s midday rendezvous with a sculpture. His Dark Materials naturally encourages tourism for a global fanbase, through these collaborative displays across Oxford. 

The displays will run until April 2023. 

Image Credit: Ian Wallman

Ghosts of Christmas Past: strikes and parliamentary self-fictionalisation. 

0

I can’t say I was thrilled to wake up on 1st December to discover that my only advent calendar this year would be the media’s very practical strike action timetable. This used to be the best month of the year when you were ten years old and it was acceptable to eat a load of chocolate for breakfast every day. It feels like we could not be further from this kind of December now, but perhaps there’s an unlikely point of comparison to be found. 

There’s nothing magical about the way politics has been handled recently, but it is starting to recall that blending of fiction and truth which accompanied Christmas when you were younger.

With rounds of prolonged strike action drawing comment that we’re reliving the 1979 so-called Winter of Discontent, it’s hard to disentangle the truth of the present from emotionally loaded versions of the past. Then we have the fact that this is being dealt with by politicians who seem hell bent on creating a public personality ever since Boris Johnson made it, erm, cool. Combined, this is making for a political climate where narrative seems to be receiving at least as much focus as policy. Are these popular perceptions grounded in truth, or are they all mere fiction? 

Strikes in the age of Amazon Prime seem anachronistic. It feels a bit like we’ve got used to teleportation only to wake up one morning and be told we’ve got to start walking to the shops again. The ultra-convenient has become such a norm that it’s weird to encounter weeks-long delays or to be told we just can’t get somewhere. But when a pair of lululemon leggings doesn’t make it before Thursday morning’s yoga class, maybe it’s a bit premature to declare that the nation has been gripped by strike-induced anarchy, identical to that of 1979. The way strikes left the country in chaos during the Winter of Discontent has given it an almost folkloric significance. It’s popularly remembered in images of rubbish piling up on the streets and the drama of its name alone means it’s always at the ready to be deployed to create a sense of dread. But perhaps that makes it all a bit too easy to grimly diagnose that history is repeating itself,  trapping us in a cycle of doom. The facts tell a different story: 29.4 million work days were lost in the Winter of Discontent, while only 1.74 million days are predicted to have been lost by the end of this year.

Worse than the speculation that we’ve just lost 43 years of progress in one go is the apathy induced by the term ‘wage push inflation’. Now stay with me here. Perhaps I’m being unfair, but doesn’t it sometimes feel like this phrase is banded about to be intentionally obscure? It’s an effective way of putting a stop to arguments that we should just give people a wage they can actually live off. Nothing shuts people up like the danger of being caught out for not understanding a bit of economic jargon. 

I don’t buy into wage push inflation as the reason why we should all stand against those taking strike action. The argument goes that if a company increases the wages of its employees, it will then pass this higher cost of labour on to the consumer in the form of more expensive goods. If things are more expensive to buy, the worker finds that although their wages are now higher than they were before, they still can’t buy as much for their money. So real wages decline once more. However, that’s only inevitable if the cost is passed on to the consumer: if the company weathered a dip in profits for a while inflation would be unaffected. And that’s only in the private sector. Public sector wage increases are less likely to cause inflation anyway, because they aren’t related to the production of goods or services for a consumer. Nursing is an example of this.

Whether or not we should increase strikers’ wages is a matter of political opinion, rather than economic fact. So there’s no real need to sigh and say we’re in a quagmire, unable to increase wages because of the rules of inflation, unable to escape our twentieth-century national precedents. It is a matter of choice. 

Moving away from the twentieth century seems unappealing to some members of the Tory party, though, which is becoming swarmed with its many ghosts of Christmas past. No one has better Dickensian credentials than Jacob Rees-Mogg , lurking in the backbenches. Then there’s the run of Prime Ministers who try and build a public personality for themselves based on famous former leaders. Boris Johnson’s admiration for Winston Churchill was well documented, and his performative gravitas when making speeches was surely to try and make his rhetoric reach for his idol’s. 

Next came Liz Truss, the sheep dressed in Thatcher’s clothing. It is no coincidence that when her critics levelled the critical label ‘human hand grenade’ at Truss, she decided to embrace it. It recalls a certain Conservative party leader being condemned as an  ‘Iron Lady’ by a Soviet propaganda outlet in 1976. Thatcher adopted the title as her own, replying: “The Iron Lady of the Western World? Me? A cold war warrior? Well, yes – if that is how they wish to interpret my defence of values and freedoms fundamental to our way of life”.   

Then there’s ‘the lady’s not for turning’ epithet, which Margaret Thatcher declared (and meant) after her own attempt to liberalise the economy in 1980 left many calling for U turns. In fairness to Truss I imagine resolve is a little easier to come by when your ideas are only causing a bit of public unpopularity  rather than a visceral reaction in the market as well. It nonetheless made Truss’s humiliation even more profound. Somehow ‘the lady who was not for turning but then in a matter of days did, in fact, turn’ is just not as catchy. 

Which brings me to the point that Truss’s emulation of her chosen twentieth-century forerunner was not just about postulation like Johnson’s had been, but about policy too. Now I imagine that Johnson’s advisors were hard pressed to convince him that Laissez-Faire, or doing as one likes, was an economic policy rather than a relationship and lifestyle choice. Trussonomics, on the other hand, was an experiment in the same market libertarianism which Thatcher had believed in. 

The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) was formed in 1955 to promote free market economics among politicians. In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher clearly viewed it favourably, giving it credit for “creating the climate of opinion which made our victory possible”. According to the IEA’s own website, their proponents ‘believe that society’s problems and challenges are best dealt with by individuals, companies and voluntary associations interacting with each other freely without interference from politicians and the state. This means that government action, whether through taxes, regulation or the legal system, should be kept to a minimum’. This formed the bedrock of Truss’s economic policy. It is perhaps even more sinister that this thinking actually underpinned her whole presence of government, if slightly less directly. Jon Moynihan, director of the IEA, raised half a million pounds to fund Truss’s leadership campaign.  

According to Nick Robinson’s Radio 4 summary of the Truss premiership, it all sounds a lot like a Tudor political coup. Much of the scheming for the mini budget took place at Chevening, in a big old building in the Kent countryside in the summer before she became PM. There Truss and her closest advisors discussed how to remove ‘treasury orthodoxy’ in order to cut taxes and promote growth as per the free market thinking she subscribed to. Ideally, this would entail a boycott of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) which George Osbourne established to make sure ministers’ economic plans were approved by an independent regulator before being put into place. 

Truss and her friends at the IEA thought this was all a bit of a waste of time. They saw it as a restraint on freedom, rather than a necessary barrier between the public and untested ideas of, say, a tobacco and fuel industry funded think tank. Right. Why use forecasts when you can just put in a policy and hope for the best? Tanking the value of the pound and forcing the Bank of England to stage a £65 billion pound intervention just wouldn’t have been as exciting if we’d seen it coming. God forbid that it might have been avoided altogether. 

Jon Moynihan is not a fan of Rishi Sunak, just falling short of blaming him for the Tory party ‘socialism’ which he feels undermined Trussonomics, in a Nick Robinson interview. So perhaps the government can be free of the regulations iconoclasm of the IEA for a while. Yet Sunak has links to right-wing think tanks of his own, having spent time at Policy Exchange before becoming an MP. And in response to the strikes,  he has avoided discussion with the trade unions about pay thus far. His decision to call in the military and promote ‘new tough laws’ instead makes it clear that he is engaged in a Thatcherite war against the Trade Unions. 

Rishi Sunak’s hard-line approach will be seen as the right thing to do for many, and perhaps it is. My worry is whether his attitude on strike action is made out of good political sense or out of a determination to emulate earlier policies for the image which is attached to it. Sunak is a Prime Minister with a lot to prove, emerging as disaster relief on a scene which many members of the public would rather have swept away in favour of a general election. I only hope he does so by striving forward, rather than continuing to chase his own tail in a bid to self-fashion in the image of a PM of the past. 

Image: CC2:0 Via RMT

Art is a form of “resistance”: In conversation with Liu Wei at the Oxford Union

0

Pioneering artist Liu Wei gave an exclusive interview at the Oxford Union as part of the Union’s Michaelmas Art Festival on the weekend of Sixth Week. Born and based in Beijing, Liu Wei employs a remarkable number and variety of visual media in order to produce his artworks, which are often skeptical commentaries on the socio-political situation in post-Cultural Revolution China and beyond. As discussed in the Union interview, however, much of his work branches far beyond this, and has more recently taken to exploring ideas about social media, urbanisation, and what the future may hold in store for humanity.

With Union Treasurer Sharon Chau translating from Mandarin, Liu Wei told the Union about his creative practice, his artistic and philosophical inspiration, and the impact of current affairs on his work. The interview, led by Union Librarian Daniel Dipper, began with a discussion of the “pandemic themes” Liu touches on in his work in his 2021 show at White Cube. Artists have been variously impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic; for Liu, the pandemic, although a “massive catastrophe” worldwide, helped to facilitate a “massive space for art to be created”.

Liu feels that the pandemic exposed the abuse of power by governments, exemplified through the notable increase in surveillance of people, as he experienced himself in China. For him, art is a form of “resistance” in response to such repression – “we all should have the freedom to commit crimes”, he tells the Union. This attitude of subversion is seen in many of his artworks and the media he uses to create them; his sculpture Indigestion II (2004) is a mound of excrement teeming with half-eaten toy soldiers, whilst Love It! Bite It! (2005) is a model city made out of dog chews, both commentaries on grotesque consumption.

Indeed, Liu is particularly conscious of the influence of urbanisation and technology on our lives in the modern day, and seeks to examine this through his art. He points out the duality of the need for art to both “incorporate and transcend” this increasing dependence of humanity on technology and social media, and believes that the purpose of art is not merely creation, but it also functions as a “salvation” in our modern world, to change the way we understand and live our lives. Liu’s inspiration comes not only from observing the world around us, but also from a deep engagement with philosophical writings, especially those of 80-year-old Italian humanist philosopher Giorgio Agamben. Liu refers to Agamben’s influence multiple times during the interview; he explains that he sees the philosopher’s work as “poetry”, and that it has encouraged him to think about the beauty and aesthetics of art.

As well as exploring the effect of distinctly modern phenomena on humanity and the world, Liu’s work is striking and recognisable for its depiction of the human body, seen in works such as his painting It Looks Like a Landscape (2004) and his video installation Hard to Restrain (1999). He tells the Union that he is concerned with the “disappearance of the body”, which, he explains, is caused by the rise in social media and concerns over data privacy. Liu is pessimistic about losing the body to a wholly technological future civilisation, and this comes through in the fusion of sculpture and the human body in pieces like his Nudity series (2021). Referencing the story of Adam and Eve, Liu emphasises that “everything in art is about the body” and that the naked body is not something which ought to be hidden or considered shameful. Liu’s depiction of naked bodies coincides with the rise of the portrayal of the uncomfortable nude across the art world in the last century, as seen in works by his Western counterparts such as Lucian Freud and Jenny Saville.

Although based in Beijing – he flew to the UK specifically to deliver this interview – Liu’s artistic reach is worldwide, with his work exhibited in places including at the Venice Biennale, at MoMA New York, and even here at Modern Art Oxford. When asked how he feels about the fact that his art is now exhibited all across the world, Liu’s response is modest and brief – “really dumb”. Whilst he is grateful for the exposure his art receives, Liu believes that the context an artwork is seen in is crucial to its reception and for a piece to have maximum impact. Indeed, Liu is a distinctly self-aware artist, revealing that he constantly asks himself questions when creating his artworks; what is art? What is beauty? How can he improve his art?

Speaking on the significance of art in the modern day, Liu’s sentiments are similar to those of other artists. He insists on the ability of art to make our lives unique and to distinguish us from each other in a capitalist world bound up in the rapidity and homogeneity of the 9-5.

An artist who is manifestly conscious of his own practice, Liu Wei creates compelling and perceptive works of art responding to the contemporary nationwide and global state of affairs. He wants his art to “surprise” people – and it can be safely said that he has succeeded in doing so.

Image credit: Jim Linwood (CC by 2.0)

The House of Lords – Necessary reform?

0

A recent YouGov poll[1] confirmed that the most important issues for Britons are; the economy, an overstretched NHS, and a beleaguered immigration and asylum system. Unsurprisingly, major constitutional reform is not high on the list of priorities for the average voter.

Yet the Labour Party has placed major constitutional reform on their agenda for the UK. The leader of the Labour Party, Sir Keir Starmer, and former Labour prime minister, Gordon Brown, have joined forces to make the abolition of the House of Lords, the upper chamber of the UK’s parliament, a “radical” centrepiece of the Labour Party’s 2024 election manifesto[2]. Sir Keir has described the House of Lords in its current incarnation as “indefensible”[3] and pledged his commitment to abolition “as quickly as possible”[4]. In its place would stand a democratically elected assembly of nations and regions. 

The issues with the House of Lords

Admittedly, there is credence to the criticism that the Lords has become unjustifiably bloated in size and its composition unrepresentative of the UK. For instance, the size of membership is north of 800[5], which makes it globally second only in size to the Chinese National People’s Congress (which caters for a country of over a billion people), and the size dwarfs the 100-member strong US Senate. Not to mention that the average age of a sitting peer is 71 years[6].

There are also undeniable problems related to the manner of appointment. Despite the enactment of the House of Lords Act 1999 by New Labour, which removed the entitlement of most of the hereditary peers to the Lords, there remain 92 peers who trace their role in the legislative process of the UK to their birth[7]. The current system also places no real limits on the number or quality of members who may be appointed to the chamber by the prime minister. Despite the existence of the independent House of Lords Appointments Commission, which vets party political nominees for propriety, the vetting criteria is relatively narrow and the recommendations are not binding on the prime minister [8]. For example, in 2020, Boris Johnson could simply overrule the concerns raised by the Commission over the appointment of Peter Cruddas [9]. These shortcomings have ultimately led to concerns that appointments to the Lords have been “rather profligate”[10] and led to “unchecked political patronage”[11].

Advocates for abolition also focus significantly on the need to allow the nations and regions of the UK to be better represented. But, it is not clear that a democratic upper chamber, like the one in Labour’s proposal, would be able to deliver on this ideal. Voter engagement in the UK is consistently at a level lower than at most points historically[12], casting doubt on whether there is an appetite for yet more elections. One would need to carefully define how the chamber would interact with the devolved assemblies so that there is not a conflict of responsibilities, and there would be a danger that the party-political candidates nominated would simply duplicate the current diversity of sitting MPs, which one may argue is not adequately representative.

The case for retaining the House of Lords

Yet, there are more fundamental critiques of the case for abolition, especially in light of the idiosyncratic role that the House of Lords serves in our constitution. It is precisely the Lords’ uniquely unelected character and sui generis composition that enables it to enrich our dynamic political constitution. 

Firstly, the House of Lords is conventionally known as the ‘revising chamber’, given that its primary remit is to scrutinise and amend legislative bills drafted by the government. In this manner, it serves as a pivotal check on the power of government and functions as an effective counterbalance against elective dictatorship by preventing bills from being passed with minimal scrutiny by the party-political House of Commons. An elected upper chamber would upset the Lords’ remit in balancing the House of Commons. Currently, and indicative of its mature average age, the Lords is composed of a panoply of personally distinguished experts in their respective fields, from politics, the arts, finance and manufacturing, which can lead to debates of high quality and a broad level of intellectual firepower. It is this that makes peers uniquely positioned to temper problems with proposed legislation, maximise legislative effectiveness, and hold the government to account in a way that elected representatives may not be able to do. This is epitomised by how the Lords’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was able to prevent a statutory instrument from being instituted by the government that would have slashed billions of pounds of welfare payments without a debate on the issue in the Commons[13].

Secondly, the unelected nature of the Lords facilitates independent thinking as members are free from the constraints of party whips or the ever-present threat of re-election, both of which affect the decision-making of MPs. Indeed, currently about a quarter of the Lords’ members sit without party political affiliation – ‘crossbenchers’[14] – and even the ones affiliated with a party need not worry about defying the government for threat of expulsion given their security of tenure. These facets of independence combine to enable the non-partisan scrutiny of government bills, less rancour and more collaborative debates, and concerted cross-party work, allowing peers to obtain a more nuanced understanding of the minutiae of bills and how the law will impact the UK. For example, in 2020, the Lords defeated the government and the House of Commons in its bid to enact the Internal Market Bill on the grounds that the provisions would break international law and erode the UK’s international standing[15]. An elected chamber poses a distinct risk of sacrificing this expertise. In all likelihood, the electoral system, with its campaigning, canvassing and electioneering, would encourage seasoned political operators (former MPs and Ministers) of the major parties to run for election, leading to the most politically astute candidates or best campaigners, not necessarily the most competent, winning on party-lines at the expense of the most expert and nonpartisan professionals. This political bias could limit the industry-based capital of a second chamber.

Thirdly, Labour’s report has not made clear the precise power distribution and relationship that their second chamber would have with the House of Commons; this is problematic because a new chamber could challenge the primacy of the House of Commons. The members of the new chamber would have just as much legitimacy as the members in the Commons, which could lead to the expansion of the chamber from a revising one and the upsetting of numerous political conventions constraining the Lords. Hence, the proposal could risk legislative inertia from longer delays and the frustration of the elected government’s legislative agenda due to blockages.

A more pragmatic approach to reform 

Instead of expending vast amounts of political endeavour on abolition, a more pragmatic approach would be to enact targeted reform to the existing model which would neatly preserve the Lords’ constitutional effectiveness.  

Firstly, as opined by the Lord Speaker’s Committee in 2017, its size could be capped to around 600 members, which would make total membership slightly less than the House of Commons but large enough to allow it to maintain its current level of activities and expertise[16]. This is a sensible idea and akin to what happens in most legislative chambers globally. If appointments could only be made when there are vacancies or prime ministers could only appoint members from an annual party allocation, the numbers would remain stable and appointers incentivised to only ennoble those genuinely intending to make a contribution to the House. This limit could be complemented by a mandatory retirement age, modelled on the compulsory retirement age of 75 years imposed on the judiciary[17]. The corollary would be the continued space for new members, refreshing the Lords’ expertise with up-to-date business insight, and the maintenance of public confidence in the health and capacity of members to work. 

Secondly, the House of Lords would greatly benefit from a more demanding appointment process and a more robust appointment commission. The independent House of Lords Appointments Commission could be endowed with a statutory mandate to veto ‘unsuitable’ nominations by the prime minister and political leaders. Buttressing this power should be more demanding propriety criteria, which could include requiring nominees to demonstrate a sufficient willingness and capacity to contribute to the work of the House of Lords. The robustness of the appointments process could be further reinforced by imposing on the Commission the duty to take account of the total number of appointments, overall size, and composition of the House (including peers’ political affiliations, geographic region of representation, and industry) when nominating members. These measures would take a leap forward in fostering a more fair and meritorious system and ultimately benefit the quality of law-making. It would lead to a broader pool of talent at the public’s service and enhance the legitimacy of the chamber without undermining the positive contribution that it makes to the UK.  

It is, thus, accepted that the House of Lords is imperfect and would undoubtedly benefit from constitutional reform. However, Labour’s answer is regrettably to use ‘a sledgehammer to crack a nut’. 

Image: CC2:0//Roger Harris via Flickr.

“Refreshingly ambiguous” – Review of Wishbone

0

It would be most people’s worst nightmare to break up with a partner only to immediately find out that they are bound to seven days of each other’s company in the same apartment. It is in these very circumstances that Ti and Ro, the protagonists of Peach Productions’ Wishbone, written by Coco Cottam and performed at the Burton Taylor Studio in sixth week, suddenly find themselves, when they test positive for COVID-19 hours after Ro breaks up with Ti. Giving the audience a glimpse into seven days with Ti and Ro, Wishbone offers an insightful and tender portrayal of the complicated emotions tied up in a relationship which is far from perfect, but too good to lose, and what happens when a couple is forced to confront these feelings together.

The play opens with Ti (Rosa Calcraft) and Ro (Kaitlin Horton-Samuel), who are dressed in flowing skirts and glittering shirts, moving to music on a stage shimmering in dark blue light. An interpretative dance sequence sees them coming together and splitting apart again, by turns intimate and hostile, delicate and violent, so that it is unclear as to the nature of the relationship of the two flitting figures; an image which prescores the play’s exploration of the changing tides of the characters’ emotions. The music accompanying the dancing is Sound Designer Julia Males’ remix of a classic Schellenberger piece with the introduction to WTC by contemporary alternative trio Unloved; its jolting beat complements the dancers’ alternately abrupt and fluid movements. There is something electric in this opening, appropriate to the electricity we come to discover still fizzles between the two, no matter how much they may try to deny it.

Cottam’s original script is as engaging as it is honest. Arguments and simmering anger are balanced with intimate dialogues, and conversations about apparently mundane topics like a chicken sandwich are compellingly humorous. Lydia Free’s direction subtly brings out the complexities of the characters’ feelings of resentment, nostalgia, love, and anger, and draws out the script’s most poignant moments, fusing Cottam’s lyrical writing with the magic of the visual and auditory components of the play. However, as dynamic as the play is, it remains grounded in truth – as an audience, we felt that we were being given a privileged look into the lives and conversations of a real (ex-) couple.

This was certainly aided by the onstage chemistry between Horton-Samuel and Calcraft, which was some of the best I have seen in student theatre. The actors bounced off each other, meeting energy with energy, making their interactions wholly entertaining to watch.  Horton-Samuel’s Ro is down-to-earth, straight-forward and resolute, but Ti is clearly her weak spot. Calcraft makes for a bubbly Ti, and believably delivers her lines with notes of humour and exasperation.

In days 1 to 3, indicated at the beginning of each scene by text projected onto the back wall, we witness why the two might be crushingly incompatible, a request to spread some jam on bread quickly escalating into a row. Many of their exchanges are in raised tones, Calcraft and Samuel-Horton convincingly portraying the catharsis of finally being able to express months of pent-up frustration. Equally, in days 4 to 6, we witness why the two work so well together. In a lengthy phone conversation, Ro explains her feelings about Ti, saying how she is experiencing ‘the ache’ about their break-up – but she emphatically reiterates that ‘it’s not love’. We doubt this, as we see an increase in their physical proximity as the play progresses, and they transform from being aloof with one another to being more tender and intimate.

By Day 6, it seems like they might almost choose to stay together after all, snuggling in bed, laughing, and remembering happy times, like their first giggly meeting at a life-drawing class. It is heart-warming to see. The delicate pink and white tapestry suspended on the back wall of Izzy Kori’s set softly underscores the tenderness and beauty which, despite everything, is at the core of Ti and Ro’s relationship. At the end of Day 6, Ro asks, ‘what happens tomorrow? What happens to us?’, a nod to their life after their period of compulsory confinement ends. The audience is wondering the same thing, but all Ti replies is ‘I don’t know’.

Wishbone’s ending is refreshingly ambiguous. Whether Ti and Ro end up staying together or not is unclear – it could genuinely go either way, as the play has so successfully shown. The symbol of the wishbone serves to underline this sense of the uncertainty about their future; Ti and the audience both are keen to know what it is that Ro wished for with the wishbone earlier in the play, and what it could mean for her and Ti’s relationship. As Peach Productions’ first show, Wishbone was a sold-out success – and with good reason. The introspective script, paired with strong and nuanced performances from the two actors and suitably graceful visual and auditory elements rendered the play a beautifully crafted piece of theatre.

Image Credit: Coco Cottam

Oxford Vice Chancellor receives Damehood for services to education

0

Vice-Chancellor Professor Louise Richardson has been awarded a Damehood for her services to Higher Education.

Dame Richardson received the honour of a Damehood from King Charles at Windsor Castle on Wednesday, December 14. The award ceremony follows her being named Dame Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (DBE) in June 2022 in recognition of her distinguished career as both an academic and a leader of various universities. In a statement released after the announcement of the 2022 Queen’s Birthday Honours, the Vice-Chancellor expressed her delight at receiving the award and was honoured that her and her colleagues’ work, as well as the field of High Education in general, was recognised in this way.

Dame Richardson began her career as a professor of political science with a focus in international security and terrorism at Harvard University. There she received numerous awards for her excellence in undergraduate teaching. She made history in 2009 and 2016 when she became the first female Principal and Vice-Chancellor of the University of St. Andrews and the first female Vice-Chancellor of Oxford respectively. During her tenure as head of Oxford, she has worked to secure important donations to the university, such as the £150 million donation from Stephen Schwarzman to fund humanities research. Under her leadership access schemes have also increased, including a pledge to admit 25% of British students from underrepresented backgrounds by 2023 and the creation of the Astrophoria Foundation Year programme. Her management of the university during the COVID-19 pandemic was also crucial for the development of the Oxford-AstraZeneca and other therapies for the disease. 

Her work at Oxford included vital institutional changes, but did not erase Oxford’s often controversial past. Dame Richardson has spoken out against renaming buildings and demolishing statues of controversial figures like Cecil Rhodes, arguing that we should not hold historical figures to our constantly changing and oftentimes hypocritical modern standards. In an interview with Cherwell earlier this year, she reiterated her stance on free speech, stating that no student at Oxford should have a “right to not be offended” and that discomfort with one’s ideas was a fundamental part of personal and academic growth.

In January 2023, Dame Richardson will begin a new position as president of the philanthropic fund, the Carnegie Corporation of New York. She will be succeeded as Vice-Chancellor of Oxford by Professor Irene Tracey.

Image credit: OUImages/John Cairns