I didn’t really think that I’d ever be writing this article – I certainly don’t expect many people to read it – but I feel its important to make clear what I believe the Union should be about this term.

“continual reference to past glories cannot justify the inadequacies of the present”

The Oxford Union is a pretty unique place. We’ve been around for 187 years and have a lot to be proud of, yet continual reference to past glories cannot justify the inadequacies of the present. As an institution, we fail far too often to live up to the history we have been fortunate enough to inherit. Frivolous and wasteful expenditure, scandal and intrigue, obnoxious introversion and ceaseless hackery all serve to undermine attempts to build a society we can all – as members – be truly proud of. I’m not trying to exonerate myself here – I’m as guilty as anyone when it comes to these things. Rather, what I want to say is simply that in this Hilary term I’m going to do my very best to focus on why people actually joined in the first place – for amazing speakers, some great social events and above all for some debating.

Over the Christmas Vacation everyone here at the Union has put their all into producing a term card of events for every single member. From champagne on Valentine’s day to whisky-tasting and haggis on Burns Night we have eight weeks of incredible social events lined up for you, culminating in the ‘From Russia With Love’ Union Ball. Our bar has frankly ridiculous drinks deals throughout the week, and I encourage you to use the other facilities on offer here: the full-sized snooker tables, television room and fabulous library to name just three.

“I ask you not to look past these flaws, but engage the people that run your society to make it better for everyone”

In 1823 a group of students sat together in an attic room above the High Street and set up a society “having for its object the promotion of debates.” Public speaking has been at the heart of the Union ever since, and this term is no different. From all-women shortlists to the expenses scandal and from Barack Obama to censorship, the Oxford Union will provide an arena in which you can see some of today’s most contentious issues fought over by some of the brightest and most eminent individuals alive. What’s more, in addition to the plethora of individual speakers that will pay us a visit in Hilary. Bertie Ahern, President Saakashvili of Georgia, Duffy, Imran Khan, John Bercow, Katie Melua and MC Hammer are all coming – it doesn’t get much more diverse than that.

Determined to change the Union’s inward-looking and elitist image, I’m proud to announce a new access scheme that will give enthusiastic students from schools that typically do not get many students into Oxford the chance to experience what we do here. A selection of our world-class debaters will run workshops for around 50 children at a time, prior to the centre-piece debates on Thursday nights. This enterprise will I hope dispel some of the myths that still surround the Oxford Union and encourage talented youngsters to see debating as a legitimate and worthwhile exercise.

No student-run organisation is perfect. Perhaps the Oxford Union has more faults than most. I ask you not to look past these flaws, but engage the people that run your society to make it better for everyone. Speak at the debates, buy a ticket for one of the social events, hold me and the Committee to account. Whatever you want from the Oxford Union this term, I hope you find it.

‘The leadership question has been settled’

Henry Venmore-Rowland, History, St John’s

There are two ways of looking at this: either it was good for the country to have a last effort to eject Gordon Brown, or it was good for the Labour party to attempt to settle the leadership question once and for all.

I suspect that there will be little common ground between Labour and the Conservatives on the first point, but the point still has to be made. Almost any other Labour minister would be seen as an improvement on dear old Gordon, with the exception perhaps of Ed Balls. Peter Watt’s recent revelations prove that the man is petulant, isolated and insecure. A phenomenally bright man, I’ll admit, but the way that Mr Brown took credit for Britain’s boom in a global upturn, only to blame the economic mess on a global bust infuriates me. If he hadn’t been the Chancellor since 1997, he might still have some credibility, but the truth is that the number of people who trust this Government is dwindling. The country is crying out for a Conservative government. Cuts will be painful at first, but necessary. The frontiers of the state need to be rolled back, not only to reverse one of Labour’s legacies to us, the creation of an under-class dependent on benefits, but to encourage investment, control the wastefulness of the public sector, and to balance the books.

But from the Labour party’s point of view, Brown has been suffering attacks from the Blairite brigade for so long that a respite can only be a good thing. As minister after minister insisted in the wake of the Snowstorm, “I am getting on with my job”. It was unlikely that the plot was ever going to succeed anyway. I remember thinking that Gordon Brown would topple after James Purnell’s resignation last year, however it is well documented that Labour are particularly useless when it comes to infighting and plotting, as serial bottler David Miliband has proved.

While a new leader would probably give the party a brief bounce in the polls, the poor organisation of the plot means that the issue has now been laid to rest. Even Charles Clarke’s constituents are fed up with his endless attacks on the leadership. Barring some unexpected events, the Labour party must unite behind their beleaguered leader, and present plans to convince the markets that Britain plc can come through this recession and keep the all important AAA credit rating intact.

Gordon Brown has promised to serve a full term if re-elected. Let him fight his first general election, leaving the petty class war attacks out of the campaign, and let him see if the people want another Labour government.

‘A coup would have been impossible’

Christina Charemi, Law, Magdalen

Their expectations were unreasonable and their actions, irresponsible. Hewitt and Hoon may have secretly hoped that the party would want to abandon what looks like a sinking ship, but they were sorely disappointed. Worse than that, Labour may have plunged into greater difficulties, and they only have themselves to blame.

A coup would have been impossible; without a clear successor among several ambitious contenders, the quest to appoint someone new would have been slow and awkward, diverting Labour’s attention away from the upcoming elections. The new leader, whoever they may have been, would have had to undergo tremendous efforts to cover the distance between Labour and the Conservatives with nothing inherently new to set them apart from Brown’s (and Labour’s) heritage. Brown, by contrast, still appeals to some voters; for instance, his leading role in addressing the global financial crisis has been applauded by many. Despite general fatalism in the media, he has something to offer which partly explains why the difference between the two parties had dropped by almost half in the two months before the attempted “coup”.
But Hewitt and Hoon’s pretence of seeking to create a more determined and vocal wave of support in Brown’s favour was equally unlikely, and a childish excuse. The line-up behind Brown was the only possible response, although some statements of support were more “discreet” than others.

The whole stir has undoubtedly caused damage. The party has come across as disunited, disorganised and a bit dysfunctional. Despite the recent stall in Tory momentum, it seems that the attempted coup may help restore this autumn’s poll equilibrium, although time has shown that this is not irreversible. What is certain, however, is that the incident diverted media attention away from Brown’s respectable PMQs performance that same morning, and will linger in voters’ minds. This will at least strip Labour of any immediate opportunities to make a good impression on voters during the final sprint, and to build on the progress made during the last couple of months.

Elephants in living rooms are ignored for a reason. It would have been better for everyone – including Hewitt and Hoon – if some things were left unsaid. The party’s response mirrors this desire; but sadly what is done cannot be undone. At least, not for the time being.

See Jacob Turner, ex-Labour Club Co-Chair on Why the ‘coup’ was actually good for Labour. http://www.cherwell.org/content/9488

What is the Cup of African Nations?

Also called the African Nations Cup (or either ANC or CAN – it’s still finding its feet, acronym-wise) the championship is the most prominent international association football competition in Africa. To people unfamiliar with the format of the Cup competitions, substituting ‘African Nations’ for ‘World’ should give some idea of what’s going on.

When is the Cup held?

This year’s Cup is being held in Angola, and began on Sunday with the hosts playing the large West African country, Mali. The competition started in 1957 and has been held every two years since 1968.

It was last held in 2008 across a number of locations in Ghana. 2008’s Cup was again won by Egypt, the most successful team in the Cup’s history. There were 99 goals scored across the last tournament, a figure which made it the most goal-filled African Nations Cup in history.

As the tournament occurs during the football season (August – May) many of the players choose to or are obliged to leave the European leagues for participation in the Cup of Nations. This includes premiership greats such as Didier Drogba, Michael Essien, Alexandre Song, Emmanuel Eboue and Emmaneuel Adebayor.

Why is making quite so many headlines?

On Friday, the Togolese team – including Manchester City’s Emmanuel Adebayor – were attacked en route from their training ground in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The attack took place in the northern enclave of Cabinda, Angola and the machine gun fire led to the deaths of three people; the Togolese assistant coach, Togolese team’s press officer and their Angolan coach driver. Consequently, the Togolese team have – under instruction from their President – abandoned the tournament, leaving the remaining fifteen qualified teams to continue in Angola.

The attack has been attributed to Front for the Liberation of the State of Cabinda (Flec), a faction of the Cabinda separatist rebel group. It has claimed responsibility for the 30-minute machine-gun attack. Two men have been arrested. Another Flec faction had previously claimed responsibility.

How has the attack affected the tournament?

Such controversy has overshadowed the Nations Cup, and the questions which surround it in the European press are linked more closely with African politics than the emerging footballing talent. After 30 years of civil war, the Championships represented a chance for Angola – and the politically turbulent area of Africa in which it is located – to change global opinion and establish the area positively in the world press. Perhaps even more crucially, it has in some ways taken away from the decision to locate this year’s World Cup in Africa; something which is a momentous move for both football in Africa and worldwide.

After beginning with only three participating nations in 1957, the African Cup has seen its fair share of political conflict and intrigue. South Africa hosted the Cup in 1996, which also formed their first ever appearance after a ban (which lasted a decade) was lifted along with the end of apartheid in the country, followed by a failed attempt at qualifying in 1994.

Can CAN recover?

Most people are saying that this depends on how good the sport is. The tournament began on Sunday with an astounding match between the host nation and Mali. Angola were leading 4-0 with 11 minutes left of the match, but Mali managed to pull back and make it a draw at 4-4. Many argue that such exciting football has, and will, quell the fire surrounding the Togolese shooting. With African footballers coming to prominence in all the European leagues, there is a sense that the talent should come to the forefront of the political controversy.

For a man whose name is immediately associated in the public conscience with philosophy and who has given the world books with titles such as ‘The Consolations of Philosophy’, Alain de Botton is surprisingly wary of being labelled as a modern day philosopher. When I asked whether he saw himself as a latter-day Plato or simply as a writer who drew upon philosophers and their writings, his response was immediate and emphatic stating that he was ‘certainly not just a philosopher’ and that his writings rely upon ‘film, art and architecture’ as much as they rely on philosophical tracts. Moreover, despite the fact that de Botton did a Master’s Degree in philosophy at King’s College London and began a PHD in French Philosophy at Harvard, he is at pains to distance himself from the academic definition of a ‘philosopher’, asserting that ‘according to the academic profession, I am not a philosopher’.

This denial of a particular academic background serves de Botton as it both allows him to write books which are self-professed in their attempts to be ‘relevant’ to modern readers and also serves his critics who are eager to dismiss him as a light-weight; peddling books which one Guardian reviewer described as offering ‘obvious, hopeless or contradictory advice culled from great minds’. This is a debate which de Botton seems more than ready to get involved with and to confront his critics in the press and in academic circles. He claims that his style of thinking and writing was partially inspired by his ‘deeply disappointing’ time at Cambridge University where he was ‘extremely badly taught’ by lecturers who had ‘lost their spark’. He was particularly anxious about the seeming inability of many academics to justify their own work and their derisory attitude towards those who sought to make fields of academic endeavour of interest to the wider public.

‘According to the academic profession, I am not a philosopher’

In particular de Botton see his ‘work as a response to the academic panic at the mention of being “relevant”‘. Indeed de Botton welcomes the challenge of making philosophy popular and relevant and thus seems to transcend traditional academic snobbery. One of the unifying stylistic themes of all his writings has been a willingness to put ‘great’ writers and thinkers (e.g. Kant, Stendhal, Montaigne) to work on the mundane concerns of modern living such as popularity, relationships and traveling.

Depending on your perspective, this tendency to intellectualize all of the modern world’s pitfalls with the help of long dead classical philosophers is either refreshing or purely gimmicky.

However, your reaction to much of de Botton’s work will ultimately depend on how tolerant you are of his energetic enquiries into the most banal aspects of modern life. This was evident in the reaction to his latest work ‘A Week at the Airport’ written following a week spent as a writer-in-residence in Heathrow Terminal Five. Upbeat as ever, de Botton described his time there as ‘great fun’ and characteristically described his observation of the workings of the airport as ‘an exercise in ethnography and anthropology’.

Inevitably, the more skeptical critics took a rather more jaundiced view of de Botton’s book dismissing it as little more than a PR stunt performed on behalf of BAA. This is essentially the question that lies at the core of de Botton’s writings: whether the places, routines and activities of the modern world are worthy of inspection and philosophical analysis. If the reader thinks they are then de Botton’s work is exciting, and at times even revelatory. If not, then the whole business becomes meaningless and a tad self-indulgent, leaving you to sympathize with Charlie Brooker’s dismissal of de Botton as a ‘slap-headed, ruby-lipped pop philosopher who’s forged a lucrative career stating the bleeding obvious’.

In the meantime de Botton’s ongoing success and popularity have meant that there is little need for him to defend his works and the thinking behind them. Instead he has been able to focus on what is perhaps the central idea of his work: the extent to which it is possible to live a ‘happy’ and fulfilled life. I use apostrophes because de Botton openly said that he was ‘uneasy about the notion of happiness’ and was ‘more attracted to the word consolation’. This preference of ‘consolation’ to ‘happiness’ is perhaps the nuance which sets de Botton apart from all the other cultural thinkers and trend spotters who endlessly dissect every aspect of the modern world.

‘Humans are inherently ungrateful creatures’

De Botton does not essentially believe that the modern world provides any more or any fewer opportunities for ‘happiness’ but it was simply the case that contemporary society had more time to worry about whether it was happy or not in way which our predecessors did not. Thus recognizing that ‘humans are inherently ungrateful creatures’, de Botton doesn’t seek to inform his readers how to become happy but rather to reconcile them to the disappointments and anxieties of modern living; to console them with the wisdom and thinking of those who have come before us.

De Botton’s constant enquiry into all aspects of the modern world and his endeavour to understand our reactions to it makes his books interesting. In a country such as England which is preoccupied to a great extent with the past and considers the present to be an altogether unfortunate situation, de Botton insists on revealing the profundity, and at times the beauty, of the modern experience. All the trappings of modernity have the potential to be explored and their greater significance considered; accordingly de Botton’s books include, amongst other things, meditations on the beauty of electricity pylons, the mystery of transport terminals and reflections on what it means to say ‘I love you’.

For de Botton, modernity is to be embraced rather than feared. Modern architecture is ‘a hobby and a love’ and he is involved in the project Living Architecture, which builds modern houses that are then rented out to members of the public. This is the niche that de Botton seems to be carving out for himself in the public mind: that of the casually intellectual optimist exploring everyday emotions and experiences and finding within them a kernel of philosophical consequence that reignites our interest for the modern world.

I have a disturbing finding for Cherwell readers: naked ambition, so embarrassing to the Oxford student psyche, actually pays off. All those pushy people who are so annoyingly keen to run what are essentially pretend institutions at Oxford – the Union, this newspaper, clubs, whatever – are not all going to get the comeuppance you might think they deserve later in life. They’re going to end up running things for real.

I base this on the fact that the exact people who ran pretend things when I was at Oxford – I was at St John’s, a little over two decades ago – have ended up being the people who actually run very real, very big institutions now.
Like running London – as in Boris Johnson, President of the Union back then. Or being BBC Political editor – as in Nick Robinson, back then editor of a student magazine. Or potentially running the whole country – as in another of my contemporaries, David Cameron.

Why make this point ?

Because Cherwell reminded me today that with Boris, his sister Rachel (now editor of posh magazine The Lady), Toby Young (author of How to Lose Friends and Alienate People) and others, I contributed to a precociously self-satisfied 1987 book called the ‘Oxford Myth’, which Rachel edited.

My chapter was about ambition – a breathlessly superficial overview of the self-promotional activities of late 1980s students in drama, journalism, film and politics. My thesis – no doubt because I had read a couple of existential novels – was that it was fear of anonymity that drove a certain group to thrust themselves into limelight of any kind. Their motives were profile first, and philosophical substance a distant second, my chapter suggested.

Two decades later, with much of that youthful ignorance beaten out of me by the constant enlightenments and knockbacks of a media career, I would dearly like to be able to provide readers with the schadenfreude of everyone I highlighted having failed dismally, after that brief career phosphorence on Oxford’s extra-mural stage. But not a bit of it.

If anything, a revisit to that book just confirms the myth that Oxford actually was, and probably still is, a ticket to a career fast-lane, and your leaders of today’s Oxford’s student activities will go on to take major roles in the country at large as well.

Whether that’s a good thing, I’m not so sure. Out in the real world, there are plenty of equally talented people working at ordinary

British universities (I’m on the board of two, and I know this at first hand) with a lot fewer resources at their disposal, and a lot less access to the real levers of career success.

But as a student you can only work with the Oxford brand as you find it. You could have a deliberate career strategy of ditching cynicism about university activities which relate to the career you might ultimately want to follow. Be completely un-British about student media, arts and politics in your enthusiasm, your engagement and frankly self-publicising zeal. It might very well pay off, The Oxford myth is a misnomer, because Oxford’s access to the fast lane is still real and it starts with what you did here out of hours.

And what to make of that privilege ?

Well do some good with it. Remember that line the dying Tom Hanks character has at the end of ‘Saving Private Ryan’ to Matt Damon’s Ryan, for whom so many have died to make safe: ‘Deserve it.’

Whether you like Johnson and Cameron or not, the fact is that the endless reprinting of the Bullingdon Club photos in the press are unfair. Both really have eschewed their Eton/Oxford privilege to focus real policies on helping the underprivileged, not the elite.

Many of the most self-promotional of my generation went on to become socially aware and effective; ground-breaking investigative journalists, AIDS experts, climate experts. If you make the Oxford Myth something you can deserve as well as benefit from, then maybe ambition is OK after all.

Alex Connock is Chief Executive of media group Ten Alps Plc.

This week’s apparent coup, catalysed by the incendiary email sent to Labour MPs from former Ministers Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon, has been derided from all sides – both Left and Right – as another example of Gordon Brown’s weak leadership and his inability to control a divided party in the crucial months before an election. The case against the agitators is obvious: they have exposed the deep dissatisfaction with Gordon Brown even within his own party, yet done so in such a cack-handed manner that no credible alternative has stood to replace him. However, in retrospect, its impact may not have been nearly as bad for the Labour Party as some have argued.

The first reason why the coup might well prove an unexpected boon for the Labour party is that it has provided a crucial opportunity for the centrists in the cabinet to assert themselves. In the febrile few hours between the release of the letter to the general public, and the eventual announcements of ministerial loyalty to Mr Brown, several key concessions were eked out. Brown is seen by his supporters as a man of principle, and by his detractors as a relentless Stalinist. Either way, most would agree that once his mind is set on an idea, he is largely intractable on the issue. Over the past few months, Brown has had his ear bent increasingly by the overbearing Ed Balls, an old ally from Brown’s Treasury days. With Ed Miliband, another of Brown’s key collaborators, effectively sidelined by his role in writing Labour’s next manifesto, the insidious influence of Balls has been able to grow.

It is Balls who is seen as behind the publicised drive from Labour to “sure up the core vote”: by directing policy announcements and soundbites towards the less-well-off. This move is ostensibly reactionary. It represents an inward-looking Labour party, shying away from the Middle Classes who Tony Blair so successfully wooed with his brand of aspirational socialism. A party that seeks to represent the country should do so by appealing to as wide a selection of the public as possible. Contrary to the contentions of those who favour the Balls strategy, this is possible to do without compromising Labour’s values of social justice and equality of opportunity. Blair showed that it is possible for the Middle Classes to care about those who are less well off than them, and today’s Labour party should not be afraid of doing the same.

The coup allowed Jack Straw, a man who has seen more elections than most in the cabinet, and the irrepressible Peter Mandelson, amongst others, to steer Brown away from this regressive and highly damaging electoral policy. It barely mattered that the coup itself never looked like getting off the ground. The point was that Brown and his inner-circle were sufficiently panicked in the period immediately after Hoon and Hewitt’s announcement that they granted the wishes of the Cabinet’s centrists. Some might suggest that it is a mark of Brown’s diminution in power within his cabinet that he was unable, this time, to exact the endorsement of his colleagues on pain of dismissal, in the manner that he did after James Purnell’s resignation last year.

‘Hoon and Hewitt’s actions have ended up not so much as creative destruction, but rather causing a controlled forest fire.’

But this is precisely where the genius of the Hoon/Hewitt coup lay. By creating a storm in a teacup, they were able to give dissatisfied senior Ministers an opportunity to exact their demands from Brown, without fear of any recrimination. Because the coup itself was so low-key, Brown had no ability to strong-arm key Ministers into rushed statements of loyalty. The upshot of this is that Labour’s election strategy has been wrested from the clutches of Ed Balls and back towards the centre – where Labour stands most chance of success.

The second benefit of the coup is that it effectively puts paid to the prospect of any further leadership challenges prior to the election. The waters have been tested, and found to be distinctly lukewarm. Given the lack of support for the prospect of even an internal leadership ballot, it is inconceivable that any of Brown’s rivals would now launch a further attack. Gordon Brown can now concentrate on running the country, and fighting an election campaign.

The coup itself might have ostensibly appeared a damp squib, but the positive reverberations may continue to be felt well into the new year for the Labour Party. Hoon and Hewitt’s actions have ended up not so much as creative destruction, but rather causing a controlled forest fire. The momentary mayhem instigated by their letter has avoided any future challenges in the run up to the election, and in fact enabled Labour’s centrists to steer the party back towards a far more intelligent electoral strategy – whether they meant it to or not.