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.