Jacob Turner and Jamie Susskind

Co Chairs of Oxford University Labour Club

    The Oxford University Labour Club (OULC) has a long and colourful history. With nearly a century of activism under its belt, OULC remains a proud political force in Oxford politics. Former members include luminaries ranging from Rupert Murdoch to Iris Murdoch, Barbara Castle to the brothers Miliband. 
In 2009, OULC remains a great organisation to be involved in. With more campaigns, seminars, speeches, discussions, and socials than you could wave a red flag at, we are truly a club for everyone with a social conscience.  But like all organisations, OULC is not immune to atrophy. We have, in the past, been accused of insularity and close-mindedness, and although they are often unfounded and exaggerated, we know that these criticisms are not entirely without basis. But at the same time, we know that in order to improve any institution, it is first necessary to recognise its faults. 
Though OULC is traditionally characterised as being to the left of the national party, it is in fact a pluralist organisation, encompassing a range of views from Blairite to Bennite. No self-respecting OULC member can enjoy being written off as a ‘Trotskyite’ by a student journalist who meets their word quota by peddling Oxford clichés. But though we always welcome internal debate within OULC – as shown by our policy forums – there are ideals which we all hold in common:  social justice, equality of opportunity, civil liberty, and a belief that we are stronger together than alone. 
Despite what is sometimes said, we are not the mouthpiece of the national party. While our views broadly accord with those of the Labour Party, many OULC members will have real and significant qualms with the party line on one issue or another. Nor are we blind to the challenges that face the national Labour Party – but just because our electoral future is uncertain does not mean our ideas are wrong.
Political apathy is not a problem in Oxford University. Just a glance at groups such as Oxford Students for Liberty, Oxford Amnesty International, and Oxford Students for Darfur attest to this fact, and we pleased to say that many OULC members are active in these movements. OULC actually has the most members of any student Labour Club in the country – but we believe it could be larger still. For us, it is time that the Labour Club took its place at the epicentre of progressive politics in Oxford.
For many years OULC has had a ‘no platform’ policy with many of the other political groups. In practice, what this meant was that OULC did not engage in any forms of debate or discussion with the other political parties within Oxford. In our view, this policy must come to an end. If we are confident in the strength of our ideas, then we should be willing to voice them – the fact that we vociferously oppose certain political groups within the university is the very reason why we must engage with, not ignore them.
We know that our challenge this term is to show the students of Oxford the same side of OULC that we show the residents of Oxford every Sunday morning when we go out campaigning. For this reason, we propose to hold a debate with the Oxford University Conservative Association at some point this term. The outcome of the debate itself is not, for us, the key issue. The object of this is to demonstrate that we are willing to engage with other political parties, and show that we are a serious political force within Oxford.  
It is our view that no one’s political views should be defined simply by what school they went to, or what area they grew up in. OUCA’s popularity is more social than it is doctrinal, whereas one of OULC’s great strengths is that it encompasses people from a wide variety of backgrounds. As well as standing up to those who would make themselves our opponents, we also have to embrace the other societies that share our outlook. We now actively encourage a guest audience at our meetings, and we have a number of outreach initiatives on our termcard, including joint events with the International Relations and LGBT Societies. 
The dark side of unrestrained capitalism is here for all to see. Many Oxford students’ cast-iron careers in banking or the financial sector suddenly seem much less realistic – and much less attractive. The swing toward the voluntary sector, the Civil Service and organisations such as TeachFirst bears testament to this. OULC continues to provide an opportunity for anyone who is dissatisfied with the state of the world, and is interested in the idea of social justice, to have their voice heard in a friendly atmosphere. Perhaps now more than ever our message is a pertinent one. 

Nicholas Gallagher

Publications officer, Oxford University Conservative Association

I love OUCA, and I think it is more serious and more diverse than any other student political society.     No, really. Five years ago, even a diehard member wouldn’t have been able to say the latter half of that sentence seriously, and today, to those who know the Oxford University Conservative Association only by stereotype, it still sounds preposterous. But it’s true.
      While OUCA has a long and illustrious history, boasting such past presidents as Nick Robinson, Dominic Grieve, and of course, Margret Thatcher, no one can deny that a decade ago it went through a low period. Speaker meetings nearly ceased, and Port and Policy devolved into four guys in a smoke filled room, with the two that weren’t passed out drunk shouting at each other and hiring in strippers. The shame of it all is that not only has this tarred the Association’s reputation within the University, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Conservatism.
      Like the broader conservative and Conservative movements, OUCA boasts a healthy internal debate, and a wide spectrum of ideological diversity. We argue over the proper size and role of government, the role of the Church and the monarchy, the environment, the economy, foreign policy, and so on ad infinitum. We have Thatcherite –Cameronite divides, British Conservatives and foreign conservatives, neo-cons, paleo-cons, and the new and ever-growing group, former leftist sympathizers who have begun to question their position, now that even Stevie Wonder could see how badly the past twelve years of Labour government have screwed up the country.
      The upshot of all this is that, thanks to the hard work of a few good Political Officers, Port & Policy has transformed into a gathering of upwards of a hundred people per week in which real debate occurs. There is rarely any consensus, and there is always excellent representation of both sides.
      This is helped by the fact that OUCA has no platform: there is no official party line to which members are expected to adhere, or which is promoted over any other. Speaker invitations likewise reflect this, representing a wide range of opinions within the right side of the political spectrum.
      The speaker events of this term speak to the increased seriousness of OUCA more than anything else. During Trinity Term, OUCA has or will offer talks by Viscount Monckton, John Redwood, Daniel Hannan, and Michael Howard, and continues to host a series of charitable fundraisers for the Army Benevolent Fund. While the Union seems content to slide into an increased offering of B list celebrities and politicians alike, OUCA, especially under the current president, Anthony Boutall, has gone from strength to strength as a forum for real political discussion.
      A few terms ago, there was a great deal of debate, manifested by a few decisive elections, about the question of reform in OUCA. It has since become apparent that the real reforms came about when the organization as a whole re-embraced its political seriousness and its guiding, Conservative philosophy (a lesson the national party might benefit from). There is a reason why the involvement of the membership has gone from dozens to hundreds, why more women hold committee posts now than in recent memory, and national Conservative figures have begun to patronize the organization again. Successful transformation, in the shape of committed officers and renewed purpose, has taken place in the past few years, and growth has followed.
      One of the fundamental challenges faced by Conservatives is that holding a political philosophy which largely asks the government to leave people to get on with their own livees, we often find it difficult to get our adherents involved politically. The problem with accepting this is that if those on the right sit things out, we wind up with the situations like the one the government is in today.
      The country is finally beginning to wake up to the necessity of Conservatism, both electorally and philosophically, and OUCA has now reemerged on the University political scene resurgent in force and seriousness. Those in the University who have questions or even problems with us would benefit most by engaging with us, rather than relying on stereotypes.

Alexander Hall

It only takes a glance down a list of UK Prime Ministers to sniff the political heritage in Oxford. I suspect every college population is at least generally aware of the political talent is has produced in years past, if not forcibly reminded by a suitably large portrait of it in the hall. It is probably a reasonable assumption that as we sit in our lectures we are surrounded by the ambitious few (or many) who fully intend to continue this tradition, and have set their foot upon the ladder by signing up at freshers’ fair to a throng of university groups.
    And they well might. Students here have good reason to expect success if politically ambitious. Where better to secure a bit of experience alongside the prospective illustrious few? But isn’t this the point? A few. Despite the occasional pigeon-hole attack, can the average oxford undergraduate say that student politics has a great effect on their being? Certainly there is opportunity for those who wish to participate, but does the situation in the university in part reflect one problem in politics itself? The disconnection between the politician and the public.
    Of course this can be instantly denied in that a student here is probably more inclined than the average voter not to change the channel when the news comes on, to know the odd cabinet minister’s name, to even have vague ideas on what an ideology might be. But it seems that actively participating in student politics remains the pursuit of but a few.
    Perhaps a deserving successful breed of super-humans who manage to blitz reading lists, absorb newspapers daily, listen earnestly to numerous prestigious speakers and remain composed in a week punctuated by president of this’ drinks and Trinity ball of that. I don’t doubt this; you can count on a few super-humans around here. But neither do I doubt that amongst those with a keen-interest are some whose CV will list more societies and political groups that can possibly make for a heartfelt commitment to one. And does it matter to the rest of us? Is the reason for this constant calendar of events and drinks and parties a plea for more people to take an interest when they just don’t. Of course in the big real world it matters, but in student life, whether because of our own apathy or not, we feel that politics is still only relevant to the dedicated few.
 

Lenin scowls down at me. I stare defiantly back, but it’s always hard to win a blinking match with a poster. And I’m outnumbered. The small office I’m in is plastered with dozens of banners, commemorative plates and countless other paraphernalia depicting the hairless revolutionary. I’m at British Communist Party HQ, the heart of the coming revolution. Before me sits the jovial General Secretary Robert Griffiths, the first real-life Communist I’ve ever encountered.
To most young people in Britain today, Communism is an alien concept. It is seen as an ideology that died with the USSR, existing now only as a tourist attraction in Cuba or as a lie in an increasingly capitalist China. Many wonder how anyone could seriously hold such a view these days – didn’t capitalism win the Cold War? Given our shrinking industrial working class and generally high standards of living, I ask Mr Griffiths how Communism can have any relevance to modern British society.
‘As long as we have capitalism’ his gravelly Welsh voice replies ‘there will be the need for organisations to expose its intrinsic injustice and to put forward an alternative strategy as to how a society could be built to replace it. Of course capitalism changes and develops and has done throughout its history, but the essentials remain the same. It’s still a system based on inequality, oppression and crisis. Although that can take different forms at different times in different countries, nevertheless capitalism has not changed fundamentally.’
Marx prophesized the downfall of capitalism, but warned that it would not depart quietly. In this last prediction at least, he was correct. Communist revolutions have been bloody affairs wherever they have occurred. I wonder if Mr Griffiths condones such violence as an acceptable way of achieving political change.
‘There are times in history when violence is unavoidable,’ Mr Griffiths says as the bookshelves behind him struggle under the weight of forty volumes of Marx’s collected works, ‘and it’s not just communists that say that. Most people believe we were right to fight a war to defeat fascist Germany. So there are times when national liberation struggles and struggles for social justice have little or no option but to use force.’
While a nagging doubt forms in my mind that comparing Germany’s Nazi leaders with Britain’s contemporary wealthy elite is entirely fair, Mr Griffiths goes on to tell me that it’s not the Communist violence I should be worried about.
‘The British ruling classes have always been prepared to use force in order to maintain its privileges and uphold oppression and exploitation. The question will be whether the working class movement can produce a situation where we can minimise or eliminate the danger of violence coming from the ruling class trying to hang onto its privileges. That’s where the violence would come from. So no we’re not pacifists, there are times when force is unavoidable.’
Naturally no version of history can be entirely objective. On this side of the Iron Curtain the USSR has always been presented as a monolithic evil, a repressive giant without a redeeming feature in sight. ‘For many decades people in the West were presented with a negative propagandist view of the Soviet Union and everything in it,’ Mr Griffith says before going on (in a noticeably apologetic tone), ‘I would still argue that the positive features of the Soviet Union outweigh the negative ones. Over the period of its existence it transformed a society that had been a monarchist, semi-feudal dictatorship with large numbers of people held in awful conditions into a reasonably modern, multi-national state, with quite advanced services which benefitted the mass of ordinary people, despite the short comings.’
At this point I can’t help but feel that perhaps brushing over the deaths of millions in purges and forced labour camps as ‘short comings’ is a distinctly selective view of history, but then that could just be my Western propagandist education. When I ask about Communist China, where Mao’s regime was accountable for a body count of up to forty million, Mr Griffiths engages in a quite remarkable feat of cultural relativism.
‘Well all of these countries that have embarked upon some road to socialism have done so in their own particular way. The circumstances under which Mao led the Chinese communists to power were completely and utterly different to those in Russia, Eastern Europe or Cuba. We need to be very careful in Britain of passing judgement on other people’s progress and the paths that they choose. At the end of it, I think we should stand back now and say that what has been achieved in China, bearing in mind China’s history and China’s conditions, has undoubtedly represented a massive step forward for the ordinary people of China.’
Turning closer to home, I’m curious to get a Communist assessment of the economic crisis. Experts choke our airwaves with their diagnosis of where it all went wrong and what action governments need to take. Is this just another inevitable dip in the economic cycle or is a particular institution to blame?
‘Well what always causes periodic crises of capitalism is the drive to maximise profit, which eventually turns into overproduction, and then what’s produced can’t be sold at a profit. Therefore production is cut back and workers are put on the dole. This is another periodic crisis but it’s made worse by the fact that what should have been a periodic crisis in Britain five or six years ago was postponed by the government artificially maintaining demand in the economy. A lot of the resultant debt has been repackaged and sold on amongst the financial institutions in an utterly reckless and irresponsible way, which has only added to the instability of the system. So we’ve got a financial catastrophe on top of what would normally have been a fairly periodic crisis.’
Commentators and leading politicians alike have talked of the need for a ‘New World Order’, where financial institutions are tethered more securely in place by extensive government regulation and oversight. I ask if Mr Griffith believes there will be any fundamental change in the way our leaders approach the economy. His tone becomes soaked with righteous indignation.
‘No, the governments will not change. They’re still not willing to challenge the wealth, the power and the prerogatives of big business, including the banks. In Britain as we speak the amount of public money that has reached the financial markets is £1.2 trillion. This is an enormous amount of money – it’s ten times what we spend on the NHS every year, it’s fifteen times what we spend on education. It’s almost twice the level of total government expenditure. While this New Labour government, like governments across the Western World, will do anything to bail-out capitalism, what they won’t do is challenge the wealth and power of the major capitalist monopolies.’
With a membership of fewer than one thousand, the struggle of the British Communist Party against the oppression of capitalism is a brave and admirable one. Despite a somewhat skewed version of history, Mr Griffiths can at least boast unshakable faith in his convictions – a compliment which cannot be extended to many of our more mainstream politicians. Before I leave the office I take once last look up at that poster of Lenin, still glowering down in proletarian fury. He thought the noble flames of Communism would engulf the world, bringing in a new era of peace and plenty. History conspired against him, but in Britain at least Mr Griffiths still shields the candle. The flame is not out yet.

When and why was Eurovision created?

The Eurovision Song Contest (ESC) was created by the newly-formed European Broadcasting Union (EBU) in the mid-1950s, in the spirit of post-war reconciliation and cultural rebuilding. The notion of a shared European culture had been shattered in the first half of the 20th century and a number of artistic and cultural ventures were launched at that time in response – the Edinburgh and Avignon festivals are others. The person credited with the idea for a European contest of light music is the then-director of the EBU, Marcel Bezancon, who modeled the contest on the San Remo music festival in Italy (which is still running today). It must be pointed out, of course, that quite like the Olympics, Eurovision is somewhat paradoxically an event intended to foster unity via competition.

How important is it for European Solidarity?

I would argue, very important ­ though this is not always apparent. Competitions bring rivalries and affinities to the surface and Eurovision has always been a relatively benign conduit for the working out of international tensions, though this is something the EBU works – somewhat vainly – to play down. There is a clause in contest rules which forbids songs with overtly political content, which was invoked this year, for example, when Georgia proposed a song which clearly seemed to mock Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin. (Though the Georgians denied this, and subsequently refused to compete this year). All that being said, the ESC is one of the few times every year -perhaps – in which Europeans come together for a (relatively) friendly celebration of a shared cultural tradition. As such the competition is hugely important to European solidarity.

How does Eurovision voting reflect European politics?

Eurovision voting has always reflected existing ties and affinities, with countries from the same region and/or with a shared culture and history tending to share votes. We see this in the strong history of the UK and Ireland voting for each other. Since the entry of nations from the former Eastern bloc into the contest and the advent of tele-voting in the mid-to-late 1990s, the tendency towards neighbour and diasporic voting has become more apparent and many feel this has negatively affected the contest. I would argue that this is nothing new, and that all the uproar about Eastern bloc voting in part channels Western European anxieties that the contest is slipping away from them (all the winners since 2001 have hailed from countries in the Eastern, Southern, and far Northern corners of Europe). That being said, the EBU have changed voting rules in this year¹s final back to 50% jury voting in order to counteract the effects of neighbour and disaporic voting; we’ll see if this results in a country from the West winning.

Describe Eurovision’s musical stlye.

It’s impossible to generalise. If you chart the history of Eurovision winners, it¹s a fascinating survey of what was first called light music and what is now called pop music in Europe over half a century. As popular music has fragmented into sub-genres and smaller markets, so has the music presented in Eurovision become ever more diverse. Eurovision has always been a forum for countries to perform their cultural uniqueness.

How is the contest viewed outside Britain?

There is a widespread perception, which I think is generally sound, that non-Western European countries have, in the past 10-15 years, taken Eurovision more seriously than in the West. Eurovision is a way to perform ‘Europeanness’ (whatever that is) on an entertainment platform viewed by over 100 million people. For countries eager to raise the standards of living and economic stakes for their citizens, performing successfully in Eurovision is part of a process of transformation and Westernisation that can result in EU membership. But I’d caution against assuming that everyone in the East takes it seriously ­ at the end of the day, it’s a song contest.