Tuesday, April 29, 2025
Blog Page 210

Why we were all Elizabethans

Charlie Mackintosh
-
0
Why we were all Elizabethans

At seven o’clock on the evening of the Eighth of September 2022, the half-muffled peel of Great Tom sounded through the streets of Oxford, tolling for the death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. As the rain thundered down on the realm as if in some great diluvial act of mourning, the end of the reign of Britain’s oldest and longest-serving monarch was pronounced. The Queen is dead. Long live the King.

It was an occasion we all knew was coming. Sadly, no one can live forever. And yet from the perspective of our everyday lives, it was as if she did; as if she would. For more than 70 years, Her Late Majesty has been a constant in the lives of hundreds of millions of people across the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. Every letter sent, every transaction made, every military oath sworn, and every legal case concluded from Canterbury to Calgary and Canberra, all marked with the Crown, the world’s most famous profile, or even the immortal scribble of ‘Elizabeth R’. The world has changed beyond reckoning since 1952 but those facts of our daily lives, institutions, and society have remained constant. Unchanging. Permanent.

Many people I have spoken to since the death of the sovereign, regardless of their thoughts on monarchism, have been surprised by how upset they have felt. I think this has a relatively simple explanation: Her Late Majesty’s death reminds us all of the impermanence of society and the uncertainty of our lives. We all need things to keep us grounded as our lives change and the world around us shifts. For everyone, from nine-year-olds to nonagenarians, The Queen’s life and service has been the one constant that unites our experiences and our memories.

The last few days have made me very aware of the fact that I have been alive for less than a third of Her Late Majesty’s reign; yet across my two decades, the constant presence and service of The Queen has been so clearly apparent. From listening to The Queen’s Christmas Address every year with my grandparents to watching that iconic scene with Daniel Craig at the London 2012 Opening Ceremony, I can chart my life through encounters with the Crown. It is an unconsidered, uncontroversial, dependable, and secure thread throughout all of our lives. A thread that has now been cut. 

This is not meant as a paean to the merits of constitutional monarchy, however, but instead as an observation on the almost universal nature of Britain’s distress. I have been very moved by the depth of feeling I have witnessed over Her Late Majesty’s death. From tears in the streets to flowers laid at Buckingham Palace gates, it really does seem to have affected everyone. Whilst our country has long been a melting pot, the Crown is the one thing which transcends England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and unites us regardless of religion, creed, town, county or culture. We are all subjects and we all unconsciously expect our national identity to provide stability and meaning. Regardless of one’s view of monarchy, for us all she has incarnated that identity and provided that stability for more than 70 years. 

The turbulence of the times through which that stability has endured cannot be overstated. Many have already noted that the kingdom she has left behind is radically different from that which she inherited in 1952. Politicians and activists have come and gone, wars have been waged and countries born, and we have witnessed the total transformation of a Western world with government run by paper and telegram, to a globalised, digital age. Only once before has the nation grieved its monarch after a reign of such dazzling change. The Late Queen’s great-great-grandmother, Her Majesty Queen Victoria, died in a world of steam trains and electricity, after a reign begun with horsepower and wooden warships. It is no surprise, perhaps, that the outpouring of grief now has touched all parts of society, as it did over a century ago.

It is this which gives her death and the international reaction of the last few days a special poignance. As the world is brought together in collective grief at the loss of one of its most universal figures, Queen Elizabeth II continues to fulfil a duty she took on as her father’s heir, as a young girl: uniting people. In death as in life, Her Late Majesty has succeeded in bringing people together from all corners of the earth and all political persuasions. She may not have been your Commander in Chief. She may not have been the Defender of your faith. She may not even have been your sovereign. But she has been one of the few global constants in all of our lives. She is a reminder of all we have been through and all we have in common in the United Kingdom, in the Commonwealth and Anglican Communion, and across the world. Her death and our collective response to it reminds us of our shared humanity.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was everything to many and something to all. She was the Crown incarnate and the nation personified and so it should be no surprise that without her we feel rudderless; we knew who we were before and now we are questioning that. Regardless of your constitutional views, be they fervent idealist, ardent antimonarchist, or entirely agnostic, the one assumed certainty of our country has vanished. She was the golden thread running through the State and the confusion that the loss of that thread has wrought is the essence of the grief we are living through now. But therein lies the magic of monarchy; the thread does not end. At the moment The Late Queen breathed her last—at that very same instant—the Crown passed. A new reign began. And so whilst this is undoubtedly a week of uncertainty, a week where our national identity seems unsure, we can have confidence that stability will return. In our new King we will find that same unity and constancy and dignity, and we will know who we are as a nation again. Underlying monarchy is relationship; we mourn because the old has passed away, we celebrate because of how much it meant, and we hope because the new is already at work.

Mourn, celebrate, and hope. 

God Save the King.

Image Credit: University College Oxford

King Charles becomes Visitor of three Oxford colleges

Freya Jones
-
0
King Charles becomes Visitor of three Oxford colleges

King Charles III has become the official Visitor of Christ Church, Oriel College and University College, following his formal accession to the throne on 10th September 2022. Until her death on 8th September, these roles were held by Queen Elizabeth II.

At Oxford University, the Visitor of a college is a role traditionally appointed by parliament to oversee statues and reforms in the constituent colleges. Today, colleges which still have Visitors receive occasional visits, typically for ceremonial purposes.

Christ Church, Oriel and Univ are the only Oxford colleges to have a royal Visitor, with Christ Church being the only cathedral in England which is visited by the reigning monarch instead of its own Bishop.

After the death of Queen Elizabeth II, Christ Church stated that a book of condolence has been opened in the Cathedral and the public is welcome to attend services with prayers in her memory, adding: “Her death marks the end of a lifetime of faithful service and she will be greatly missed by the people of this country and beyond.”

Oriel and Univ have also issued statements in memory of Queen Elizabeth, recalling her special role as Visitor. 

The Queen visited Oriel on several occasions throughout her 70-year reign, most recently in November 2000 to mark the opening of  new student accommodation at Rectory Road.

Queen Elizabeth in attendance at Oriel’s tortoise race. Image credit: Oriel JCR

Univ has also remembered her visit to the college with Prince Philip in 1999, and another visit during her time as Princess in 1948.

Such visits and duties at Christ Church, Oriel and Univ will now be carried out by King Charles, the new British sovereign, whose accession at 11am today has been marked across Oxford by the raising of flags from half-mast.

Flags will remain raised until just after 1pm on Sunday 11th September, when the City of Oxford’s own proclamation of Charles’ ascendency is read out under the Carfax Tower.

In addition to Christ Church’s book of condolence for Queen Elizabeth, Oxford City Council has also opened a book in the Long Room of Oxford Town Hall, so that members of the public and students alike can remember the service of Britain’s longest-reigning monarch.

£3.50 meal deals, a cost-of-living crisis, and the same old story.

Ben Harrison
-
0
£3.50 meal deals, a cost-of-living crisis, and the same old story.

£3. The sacred Tesco meal deal. The bargain every Oxford student knows about. The day I walked into Tesco to see £3.50 plastered on the label was the day I knew something was up. Yes, I do have a Clubcard and so my pain was soon alleviated, but the thought of the price of a meal deal going up had me sweating.

Whilst I acknowledge my moment of distress was perhaps overblown, I hope I am forgiven for its (tenuous) relevancy in pointing towards the second global economic crisis in as many years. Food price rises are just one element of the on-going ‘Cost-of-Living Crisis’. A rapid rise in inflation has been coupled with a plateau in economic performance that has recently become recessionary, an unfortunate double-act titled ‘stagflation’. A phenomenon most hoped was confined to the past, the very utterance of the word strikes fear into any economist. You may well be thinking, why?

A reasonable place to start would be 1973, the end of the ‘Golden Age of Capitalism’. Reacting to Western support of Israel in the Yom Kippur War of 1973, Arab members of OPEC quadrupled the price of oil and embargoed exports to the US and UK, amongst other nations. This led to rapid inflation, peaking at 24% in 1975, with prices remaining high throughout the decade. To bring this inflation down, interest rates were hiked to slow the economy down. This meant mortgages became expensive, fast. Hopefully, this is starting to sound familiar to recent events: fossil fuel prices up, inflation up, interest rates up, economy down.

Fast-forward to 2022 and geopolitical factors lie at the centre of the energy price crisis once again, most significantly the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Putin’s nationalistic invasion led many western countries to announce plans to become independent of Russian fossil fuels – the US has already banned such imports. This political decision has led to an increase in the price of oil internationally, essentially acting as a restriction to supply. Contained not only to the price of filling the petrol tank, soaring energy prices have driven food price inflation through raising the cost of shipping and fertilisers. Furthermore, the conflict has happened to take place in the ‘breadbasket’ of Europe, which prevented over 20 million tonnes of grain from leaving the country until the recent grain export deal. This squeeze on fuel and food supply has been the main driving force behind UK inflation hitting 10% in July. In 1982, when inflation was last this high, a pint would have set you back just 73p – one can but dream. Unfortunately, the worst is yet to come, as the situation is expected to deteriorate significantly. Recent estimates have placed inflation as high as 20% for early next year.

Back to our original question: why is stagflation (inflation coupled with recession) so feared? In light of the discussion above, it is clear that fears surrounding inflation itself are at the centre. Whilst a little bit of inflation is desirable, indeed the Bank of England targets 2% a year, alarm bells go off as soon as this figure creeps up. Fundamentally, this is because of fears that inflation will spiral upwards as people begin to expect higher prices. In turn, inflation can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. In the extreme scenario, this can turn to hyperinflation. German hyperinflation of 1923 led people to use paper money to cook with, and Zimbabwean inflation of the late 2000s managed to reach 89.7 sextillion – yes sextillion – percent annually by November 2008. To prevent such a collapse of the national economy, central banks can respond through raising interest rates. However, this action will slow the economy down. In turn, it is possible to reach a point where the economy is actually shrinking at a time of high inflation, both undesirable results. This is the basic intuition behind the severity of the current economic situation in a more abstract sense; the tangible stress the crisis is placing on people across the country is all too familiar.

Most will be acutely aware of the energy price cap rise of 80% on 26th August. A typical annual energy bill will rise to £3549 by October, £1600 more than last year. For many, the only way to cope with this frightening figure is to restrict energy use this winter. Indeed, nearly a quarter of respondents to a poll (conducted even before the latest price rise) stated that they planned not to use their heating at all over the coming months. The food crisis is no less daunting, with the price of milk and pasta rising by 34% and 24% respectively. Crucial to the situation is that real wages are failing to keep up, falling 3% over the past year. Placing those figures one after another makes it hard to imagine how households could possibly manage over the coming months. The bleak winter looming over us is a serious national crisis that should not be neglected due to the scale of aid already provided in recent years.

Indeed, students at Oxford are no exception to feeling the consequences of the on-going crisis. Across many colleges there has been uproar at the rise in accommodation costs for the forthcoming year. Corpus Christi College is merely an example of this increase, with accommodation costs increasing by 7.5%. It must be noted that this figure had been negotiated down from the 13% proposed earlier this year using the Van Noorden Index. This index purportedly calculates the increases in costs for colleges year-on-year – increases which led St Catherine’s College to propose a similar figure of 11.8% earlier this year. To juxtapose these figures, I, like many others, have recently received a letter that my student loan has risen just 2.3%. For many students the disparity between the rise in their loan, and the higher fees they will have to pay, will result in a serious financial burden over the coming year.

Whilst a free Clubcard will help students circumvent the 50p hike on their beloved meal deal, it sadly won’t insulate them from the vast increases in the price of food. The staggering price rises in essential items will significantly increase the cost of living over the coming year. Without further financial support, students could really struggle. This financial stress will merely exacerbate the anxiety of a cohort that has already suffered the effects of lockdown upon their education and mental health. Growing up in 2022 gives students many things to be grateful for, but those in positions of power must not overlook the serious effects of recent crises on young people.

What is there to be done?

The general population faces decisions this winter that no UK household should face in 2022, such as going without heating, meals and electricity. Unfortunately, it is at this point unsurprising that those in power are once again proving incompetent. In a time of real national emergency, the puppet role played by Johnson has been nothing short of ridiculous. Sadly, his successor seems so far unlikely to be any more competent. Liz Truss’ unidimensional focus on cutting taxes appears doctrinaire in a time where sensible pragmatism must prevail. Truss’ Neo-Thatcherite emphasis on the need to boost growth through tax-cuts is all too reminiscent of the failure of ‘trickle-down ‘economics of the 1980s. Moreover, a tax-cut would eventually be likely to stoke the already wild inflationary fire. On the other side of the spectrum lies Labour’s plan to completely freeze energy bills over the coming months. This will be in part funded by a windfall tax and supposedly cost-free to households over the coming months.

Both Truss and Starmer seem to be caught in the all-to-familiar political discourse of ‘Cakeism’, a tendency Paul Johnson, director of the IFS, has recently polemicised. Ultimately, the cake has got smaller as a result of the current economic crisis. Someone needs to tell Truss that regressive tax-cuts will not help those most in need this winter. Yes, it will mean a fraction more money in the short run, but it will also mean require a fall in government spending unless the deficit is to skyrocket. This is without even starting on the fiscal resources needed for the resuscitation of the NHS. The economic cake won’t magically grow and end up in the pockets of families, households or students in dire financial situations over the coming months. As of 6th September, a freeze on energy bills seems now to be on the cards for the new Prime Minister, however Truss’ reluctance to raise taxes indicate that the UK’s debt could balloon further. Meanwhile, Labour can be rightly criticised for somewhat idealistic, ambitious fiscal policy suggestions that can seem too good to be true. The chances that their plan will remain at £29 billion and fully funded without tax rises for households is seemingly minute. Whilst it is easy to criticise both parties for the seemingly profligate treatment of government funds, it must be remembered that this is a time of national emergency. The government expenditure brought about by the pandemic cannot cloud the government from taking the steps needed to protect the population. As stated by Ed Miliband: “we [Labour] will do what is necessary to protect people.” At least Labour have a plan; let us hope that Truss too will surprise us with a package to support families over the coming months.

What can we learn from the crisis?

Stepping back, it seems that there is a tendency for policy to take on an idealistic, ‘Cakeism’ flavour that rejects the compromise and considered pragmatism necessary. Brian Cox’s recent interview with James O’Brien is perhaps an unlikely place to reference here, yet his ruminations on politics resonated with me. Cox raises the issue of excessive hubris within politics and eloquently discusses the need for greater humility. One solution he provides is the greater interlocking of science and humanities, ‘PPES’ instead of PPE. The objectivity and humbling capacity of scientific knowledge forces one to accept the limits of their understanding, rather than encouraging the deceit and blabbering of politicians so familiar now to the electorate. Regarding compromise and pragmatism, he goes on to liken the need to work with differing needs and perceptions to that of an electron. An electron is now commonly conceived as acting both as a wave and a particle, neither conception fully suffices all the time. Whilst a somewhat bizarre analogy to make, this malleability of conceptualisation is something that a functioning democracy needs. Rigid, doctrinaire, economic policy seems at odds with the nature of a national emergency. Yes, this may require an acceptance of a middle ground which may not tick the idealistic, ‘Cakeist’ boxes that sound so sweet. Nonetheless, to tackle problems such as the current economic crisis, an acceptance of trade-offs and compromise is necessary. To avoid a potential balance-of-payments crisis, tax cuts should not be made if sufficient aid is to be provided this winter. This is the reality that politicians don’t like to admit, and is the reality that Truss has faced serious scrutiny for, even from like-minded Tories.

Economic decisions of the coming weeks must focus on the mechanisms that will help to save lives this coming winter. However, the energy and food crises also bring longer-term, more perennial dilemmas to the forefront. 1973 and 2022 both reveal the inherent instability and naivety of an overdependence on authoritarian, arbitrary regimes. Indeed, the intimately interconnected nature of economic globalisation renders it difficult to avoid the lure of regimes such as China and resource rich nations of the Arab region. Nonetheless, the Russia-Ukraine war must surely stand as a warning for Western economic over-dependence. Recent developments in the Taiwan strait have instigated fears over semi-conductor shortages, with 90% of the worlds most advanced semi-conductor chips produced in Taiwan alone. This could mean no phone, fridge or TV production. Are we seeing the end of a golden-era for Globalisation?

The on-going crisis has highlighted key discussions around energy consumption and sources. Perhaps most glaringly, it is revealed the indispensability of fossil fuel consumption for the functioning of the current world economy. The use of fossil fuels is fundamental in the energy intensive production of fertilisers, along with the production of key materials such as plastics and steel. In turn, it has reinforced an understanding of the economic disruption that de-carbonisation will present. Is there a positive to be found in the foregrounding of energy consumption within political discourse? Certainly, however, the long-term, maturity of discussion around the necessary trade-offs of climate change stands at odds with the myopia that has engulfed UK politics. An acceptance of the challenge and sacrifices required for the energy transition is not something that politicians seem willing to admit.

The cost-of-living crisis is not an isolated emergency, rather it is deeply interconnected with global economic and political developments. It has revealed the lessons missed regarding the potential for economic meltdowns in a framework of fragile geopolitical dynamics and overdependence. It has further illuminated the delicacy of a hyper-globalised world and reignited nationalistic, protectionist sentiment. On a domestic level, the crisis has acted as a sad reminder to the public of the inadequacy of those in power and their complete detachment from the reality most people face. The absence of realism and humility in UK politics is endemic, at the cost of continual, catastrophic political errors. If there is a positive to be taken from a national emergency, it is that crises provide fertile conditions for change. One can but hope that this occurs on a domestic level as well as a global scale; the clock is ticking on the climate change fuse. I’m reluctant to admit that there might have been a large slice of truth (not cake) when Hegel stated that ‘we learn from history that we do not learn from history’.

Image credit: Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-R1215-506 / CC BY-SA 3.0 de

A Brit abroad: student reactions to Argentine assassination attempt

Georgie Cutmore
-
0
A Brit abroad: student reactions to Argentine assassination attempt

But have we got class tomorrow?

In the hours following the assassination attempt on Argentina’s Vice-president, Cristina Kirchner, the atmosphere in my uni halls was alight with excitement and confusion. 

Studying as an exchange student in Buenos Aires has come with its cultural shocks and unforgettable moments, but last Thursday night has to rank the highest among them. A little before 21:00, as the vice-president greeted the crowds outside her home in Recoleta, Buenos Aires, a gunman stepped out and aimed a loaded pistol at her from mere metres away. Though he pulled the trigger twice, the gun jammed and Cristina escaped with her life.

News of the incident soon began to break through official media channels and the story travelled predictably quickly through halls. A little after midnight, questions, jokes and memes flooded into the residence group chat. 

Messages discussed and celebrated the declaration of a national holiday the next day by the country’s President, Alberto Fernández. Screenshots were quickly sent in, spreading the news that the national Football Association had postponed any matches scheduled for Friday. In a country whose culture revolves around the game, and whose only undisputed national treasure is Lionel Messi, it was no great shock that this news produced debate. ‘A national holiday, but at what cost?’, read one such reaction. 

But the most important item on the agenda seemed to be whether the university would cancel class. Though the faculty was not to confirm anything till working hours resumed on Friday morning, there were great expectations that all lectures and tutorials would be cancelled. The mood in halls was lively. Some took advantage of the chaos to play Among Us in the common room into the early hours. Others patrolled Twitter and debated the night’s events with friends. More than one person met me with a cheery ‘Welcome to Argentina’, and another, rather creatively, described the incident to me as ‘another chapter of Argentina: the reality TV show’. 

What struck me was just how British the whole thing felt. It was remarkably familiar to witness knee-jerk humorous responses and jokes in the face of a serious crisis. Even more so, the mockery also tapped into universal student concerns: when querying the motives for the incident, one individual cited the university’s recent 20% tuition fee increase, as well as the price hike – just last week – of meals in the university canteen. 

But beneath the jokes, there was clearly a shared understanding of the gravity of the situation. On social media there was a small minority of comments showing genuine emotion and upset; some individuals examined the event from analytical perspectives. Here in halls, students recognised the full severity of what had occurred: one individual questioned how they were meant to explain the night’s incident to their roommate, who had gone to bed at 10pm. Write her a post-it note, someone joked.

In the midst of an ever-growing economic crisis – including a 50% annual inflation rate – as well as a starkly binary political scene, the country’s residents have grown accustomed to throwing jokes at the latest news. Humour has become a coping mechanism to process current affairs.

Argentine politics is governed by two catch-all coalitions, in a historical divide that is now colloquially known as “la grieta” [literally: the crack, rift]. On one side rule the current president and vice, Alberto Fernández and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner; on the other, the former president Mauricio Macri and his political son, the Chief of Government of the City of Buenos Aires, Horacio Rodríguez Larreta. The former bloc, the Kirchnerists, describe themselves as centre-left, while the Macrists – or anti-Kirchnerists – are traditionally seen as centre-right. 

The memory of the past century’s events still dominates today’s politics, above all, the rule of Juan Domingo Perón and Eva Perón. The Kirchnerists have long been associated with Peronism and the anti-Kirchnerists, with anti-Peronism. This tight link between history and the present has meant that popular fervour for certain historical movements or individuals can easily be manipulated into support for current politicians. Only two weeks ago, videos showed Cristina encouraging crowds to sing “La Marcha” [the Peronist March, anthem of the Peronist movement] as a demonstration of solidarity with her.  

A true political icon in Argentina, Cristina weaves a major cult of personality and wields an impressive base of fans and fanatics. She has been in the public eye for the last 15 years, initially as the First Lady for former President Néstor Kirchner, then as President herself, and now as Vice-president. It is allegations about her conduct in these early years that seem to have led to the assassination attempt in the first place. 

On Monday 22 August, two prosecutors requested 12 years imprisonment for the vice-president and disqualification from holding future office because of alleged corruption in public works during her own time in office and in the government of Néstor Kirchner. From then up until the night of the attempt, there had been commotion in the streets outside her home, as her supporters gathered in a show of solidarity, waving banners and banging saucepans.

In a country where, in the words of Kamila Hofkamp, a student of International Relations here, “everything is so extreme”, the attitude to national politics is fascinating. Political factionalism looms large in the public consciousness, frequently entering conversation among family and friends and present in all aspects of life, in what is taught in public schools, shown on national cable, and reflected in popular music and art. 

Equally, “la grieta” seems to be a topic about which people tire quickly. The web of national politics is messy and complex, with many actors in play and with scandals and conflicts coming often. It can also be difficult to get a good hold of the facts. Some news outlets align themselves with specific political factions and drive their own stances; misinformation and disinformation are rife. 

Under these circumstances – as, I would argue, is also the case in the UK – it is unsurprising that humour becomes the first line of defence. The overwhelming tone on Thursday night was not one of grave solemnity nor political reflection, but of mockery and exasperation at yet another national crisis. I felt right at home.

Image credit: CC-BY-3.0

UK Democracy is broken. Here’s how we can fix it.

Jack Twyman
-
0
UK Democracy is broken. Here’s how we can fix it.

As a new prime minister enters office after only earning 57% of the Conservative member vote and receiving the lowest vote share of any tory leader there is clearly something wrong with our democracy. Within the space of three years the UK is under the governance of a leader the electorate has not chosen. Even the fact that Boris Johnson was allowed to act as crudely as he did, and it took consecutive scandal and scandal to finally oust him, suggests that the checks and balances on our government system are not fit for purpose.

Currently in the UK we have a Labour party running high in the polls for not much else than not being Tory. It is facing an improbable task of reconciling the wants of its traditional working-class voters with a newly found cosmopolitan elite. If Labour can become a credible voice for both camps simultaneously, then it will hold the key to electoral success. However, it could be said that having both camps represented in a parliament, and both given a proportional voice offers a much better solution. Instead of the industrial action seen now, these voices would be in parliament, and potentially in office. The Lib Dems did well in recent by-elections in previous Tory strongholds because they weren’t Tory, and they weren’t Labour.

Proportional representation has its flaws. Israel’s government is complex and relies on normally weak coalitions that have many issues; it has never had an outright majority in the Knesset (Parliament). Yet research has shown that Proportional Representation countries do not have more elections than their counterparts, and this example is perhaps emblematic of the unique and challenging situation Israel is in.  There are many other examples of success. The Scottish Parliament uses an Additional Member Voting system: the voting system combines the traditional First Past the Post system (FPP) and Proportional Representation (PR) to elect constituency and regional members. Voters have 2 votes in these elections and chose multiple MSPs who are all available for contact and representation.

According to the Make Votes Matter group, general elections in Germany and New Zealand use additional member voting and in Scandinavian countries of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden Open or Flexible List proportional representation ensures MPs are elected to multi-member constituencies – so each voter has a number of MPs to represent them. Parties put forward lists of candidates for each constituency and voters choose which party to support and are then able to vote for specific candidates standing for that party giving more choice to voters. In the Single Transferrable Vote system used in Ireland, Malta and the Australian Senate, rather than voting for party lists, voters rank candidates in order of preference and can include candidates from any party in their ranking, giving voters a great deal of choice. Candidates need a particular number of votes to be elected. Excess votes for winning candidates and votes for losing candidates are reallocated according to the voters’ preferences until all seats are filled. Proportional Representation is no longer an abstract concept. According to World Population Review, 81 countries have some form of proportional voting from Brazil and Indonesia to Australia, Liechtenstein and South Africa. This means over 1.7 billion people enjoy this progressive form of voting.

Not everyone agrees, and it is clear to see why. The 2011 Alternative Voting Referendum was defeated with an overwhelming majority – yet the arguments were blurred and proportional representation supporters were themselves split over which way to vote. Condescending voices from business professionals will pander with quotes like “The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” But voter disinformation and political stagnation is more to blame than any voter for the ills facing the country. For the ruling party to have nothing more to offer than Populist slogans and instigating Culture Wars against vulnerable groups in society, it becomes clear that Thomas Jefferson’s belief that “A properly functioning democracy depends on an informed electorate” holds true. And yes, proportional representation does open up the possibility of uninformed extreme fringe opinions gaining a credible and magnified voice; but who are we to discount those voices and ignore them – surely settlements and solutions can be made if we talk as opposed to fight? The dictatorial atmosphere that surrounded the Johnson government in its final year would be unlikely to happen under proportional representation checks and balances are guaranteed because a single party would not be expected to be able to fully dominate government. In the supposed ‘sweeping’ majority of the 2019 General Election only 43% of a low 67% turnout voted for Jonhson’s Tories yet they received 56% of total seats. The Green Party and Brexit Party received over 2% of the vote respectively yet only secured one seat between them. This represents a disenfranchisement of nearly 5% of the electorate. 

Perhaps the low turnout is emblematic of the disassociation with politics shared in much of society. It is no coincidence that the signatory parties of the Good Systems Agreement (campaign for electoral reform) do not include the two major players of Labour and the Conservatives and instead include Reform UK, Green Party, NI Alliance, Liberal Democrats and the SNP. The principle that every vote should count is surely uncontroversial. People in safe seats shouldn’t be kept in a perpetual cycle where their vote doesn’t count. Democracy should give power to the people, not those who can manipulate voting in such a way as to restrict some votes. For me, my seat has always been Conservative and that is unlikely to change – for me my vote is a matter of principle not actually influencing the result.

Issues arise when funding is able to be directed by governments to target swing seats and shore up majorities in areas controlled by the ruling party. This was made plainly clear when Rishi Sunak, former Chancellor, claimed at a leadership husting in Tumbridge Wells – a Tory constituency held since its creation in 1974 – “We inherited a bunch of formulas from Labour that shoved all the funding into deprived urban areas and that needed to be undone. I managed to start changing the funding formulas to make sure areas like this are getting the funding they deserved.” The risk of this is unlikely to be changed unless coalition governments with various agendas are able to compromise and address multiple needs and concerns consecutively. Perhaps the best place to start would be the reformation of the current parliamentary system. The anti-establishment vote to leave the UK offers some answers as to why this is the case.

Ultimately many of the political challenges facing the UK today are resultant of the Brexit decision. Scottish independence. The Northern Ireland Protocol. Rising prices. The list goes on. For incoming PM Truss this is going to be an ever-increasing challenge. Recent polls find that a majority of Brits support re-joining the EU. But this isn’t the only alternative. The EU in principle is a good project, but it is bloated with bureaucracy and inefficiency. Even Liz Truss conceded whilst campaigning for remain in May 2016 that she was campaigning for membership of ‘a reformed EU’. With German Chancellor Scholtz and French President Macron both vying for EU reforms now is the time to negotiate and achieve a better working relationship than the one now. European Unity in the face of a Ukraine War is paramount. Freedom of movement to the UK and vice versa is mutually beneficial and the crisis of unfilled vacancies can be put down to this. The UK is a nation whose heritage derives from around the world and shutting people who could help and deliver for us out is not a solution.

Resistance to this principle, and the strong-holds of the Leave vote cover areas affected by historic inequities that have yet to be rectified. The supposed levelling up of the North has yet to materialise and is a pressing concern. While the issue is not as simple as the generalisation that the north/south divide name suggests, it can be the framework for policies that are effective from day one. Inaction under Labour and Conservative governments have exacerbated the problem, and disillusionment for many voters. Further dissolution of power may be needed to allow these regions to self-determine their future and put funding where it is needed most. Reparations have been touted as an idea for the North, and this in the form of education schemes, investment in transport infrastructure and business incentives are all ways that reforms could be made. The energy crisis facing the UK today is mostly the result of mismanagement of the energy sector and has led prices to rise far higher than comparable economies in France and Italy.

The issue is that in the current political system the incentive is on short-term high reward schemes that win votes. Little attentionis paid to long-term projects like supply-side policies that will bring higher reward long term. This is not a problem localised to the UK as wherever democracy exists a lack of inspiration for long term policies isn’t hard to find. Reconciling this fact while allowing for a healthy democracy with short parliamentary terms is a challenge. HS2 has proved how contention this issue is, and whilst going ahead, is subject to uncertainty and suspicion from many along its route. Who should make decisions like these?

The answer lies in who governs the ministries of state. Civil servants are good even if torn apart in the recent Tory leadership election. So an expert at the helm would allow policies to be understood and enacted far quicker. Looking at the COVID Pandemic, unelected medical experts were able to offer much more to the country than the elected health secretary. But experts need steering by elected policies and their priorities. While the specifics of this can be debated, what is certain is that Ministers should not be MPs who simultaneously represent constituencies. This conflict of interest will neglect both roles and their responsibility.

Furthermore, the entire UK parliamentary system is confusing. Issues representing England are debated in the chamber with MPs from all nations.  And the House of Lords continuing in the 21st Century represents the continued persistence of a privileged elite holding office without election. There is much desire for change in its form, as well as voting system. Abolishing the house of Lords would allow for a radical change to UK governance. Perhaps a devolved English Parliament would allow for better regional representation and addressing of domestic issues. A parliament situated in the North would represent a shifting of English priorities. Then the actual UK parliament could be a place where significant foreign policy and UK-wide fiscal policy could be discussed separately to each devolved nation. Empowering the existing devolution that exists in the country to make bold decisions on infrastructure and regenerative projects is the most feasible way to actually level up.

The continued use of UK parliament for English issues is symbolically offensive for other UK nations and represents the English dominance of its politics. In a time when nationalist unrest is gripping the three non-English UK nations, surely measures to ease this should be a priority. Ultimately society is merely on a progression of advancement. Is it possible that automation of manual labour will give rise to a post-Capitalist society where everyone has the freedom to do what they want with increased financial autonomy? Yes. And society is already on that path. But the situation facing the country in the immediate future offers both a chance for change, and also allows the status quo to cling on.

While the specifics of political reform will continue to be debated the gist of its premise is clear. UK politics currently focuses on personality cults and media pandering. Currently it cares less about helping the people politicians represent and more about their own biparty quarrelling and entering government. How did working class voters decide that Etonian elites were the best to represent their issues on a national level? Why did England and Wales vote to leave the EU despite the apparent financial consequences? We need to make politics an accessible space where one does not have to sell one’s soul to join two parties to stand a chance of being elected. Politicians should work for us, not for themselves. Entry into politics needs to become more about innovative ideas and courage and less about who you know to get you into the mainstream. We as a country need to ignore those who seek to divide us and remember what can and will make Britain great. Politics has now become less about the historic right and left divide, and more about social values rather than economic thinking. The Tories now seek to embed their red wall breakthrough while Labour wants to expand its gains in the city. There are many ways to achieve this: increased objective press scrutiny, the removal of the two party system to allow for individuals to be promoted and deemed credible will help, plentiful internship opportunities, and much more to be worked on. We shouldn’t be voting for the least bad option, that is no way to incentive initiative. With proportional representation, parliamentary reform, and a voter-forced change in political priorities, change can be won.

Image credit: Adi Ulici

What’s the real deal with Oxford PPE?

Freya Jones
-
0
What’s the real deal with Oxford PPE?

Philosophy, Politics and Economics is one of the most renowned degrees on offer at Oxford University. Not only does it boast a long list of powerful alumni, including both contestants in the recent Tory leadership race, but it also continues to attract one of the highest numbers of undergraduate applications per year. Why? The numerous political blunders of Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak made me curious about this, as did the stereotype of the bluffing, blustering PPE student. To what extent does this stereotype hold true? What does the programme actually teach you? Does the tuition meet expectations? I spoke to three current PPE students from different backgrounds to try and find out.

Sharon Chau – 3rd Year, University College. Treasurer-elect of the Oxford Union

Freya Jones: Sharon, thank you for talking to me. Why did you choose PPE when you were applying to Oxford?

Sharon Chau: Well, I think I probably have quite a clichéd answer to this, which is that I couldn’t really decide on one specific subject that I wanted to study. It was more a failure to eliminate things than actually liking all three disciplines, but I did like that I’d have the ability to drop one of the subjects in second year. I was personally a bit iffy about philosophy, but I looked into a lot of the politics options before coming to Oxford and thought they were really interesting.

FJ: The modules for politics, philosophy and economics are taught separately. What’s it like to keep track of such a wide range of topics?

SC: It feels more like doing A Levels than a university degree, because jumping between subjects means you’re not always exploring in as much depth as you’d like. But the upside of that is that you don’t really get bored of your degree, because there’s always something else for you to do. Like, if you can’t be arsed to do your politics essay then you can always do an economics problem sheet, so it’s very good for people with short attention spans!

FJ: Do you think the breadth of PPE allows some students to make less effort with certain parts of their degree and waffle in tutorials?

SC: I think waffling in tutorials is actually more of a problem with Oxford in general than with PPE in particular, but it’s true that tutors expect a bit less depth from you than someone who does their whole degree on one subject. You’re spending less time on each discipline, so expectations are probably slightly lowered.

FJ: Looking beyond university, how well do you think the Oxford PPE degree prepares you for a job in politics or any other field?

SC: I’m actually doing a summer internship at the moment and what I’ve realised is that PPE teaches you very little about what the world of work is really like. For example, I’m doing a tech-consulting job and most of my colleagues know lots of coding and did Computer Science or Maths, but PPE doesn’t really give you any of that quantitative stuff. It prepares you for a range of fields because it teaches you to explain your ideas and argue against people, but you don’t get very specific skills.

FJ: You’re Treasurer-Elect of the Oxford Union and have held various positions in student politics. Would you say you’ve gained more knowledge from your extracurriculars or your study itself?

SC: That’s a good question. I think the involvement in student politics has been more useful because a lot of the skills you learn, like talking to people and forming alliances, are more similar to what you have to do in the real world. The degree is useful too, because you have to synthesise information quickly and read a lot, but the extracurriculars have been more impactful on me.

FJ: Are your tutors supportive of your involvement in student politics?

SC: Yeah, I think so. I’ve only ever mentioned it to them in passing, but one of my tutors said he’d vote for me! I do know one friend whose tutor hates the Union though, so it was difficult when one of his committee meetings clashed with a tutorial, but most tutors are quite understanding.

Nidhi Madhani – 2nd Year, University College . President-elect of PPE Society

Freya Jones: Thanks for speaking with me, Nidhi. Why did you choose to study PPE at Oxford University?

Nidhi Madhani: I’ve always found it really difficult to pick subjects, so it was really important for me to choose a degree where I could pursue lots of interests at the same time. Initially I was leaning more towards History and Economics but in the end I preferred the structure of PPE and the wide range of career pathways that alumni have gone into, like NGOs, politics and journalism. 

FJ: Has the standard of teaching been consistent across the course and to what extent has it met your expectations?

NM: Well, I think expectations are quite subjective. I wasn’t really aware of PPE’s reputation before I came to Oxford so I wasn’t expecting anything in particular. But yeah, I do personally think my politics tutorials have been the most engaging and I’ve taken a lot from them. On the other hand, some aspects of the course feel very outdated, like studying logic. I could have put a lot more effort into logic if I actually cared, but right now I think it’s natural for us to be pulled towards topics we like and not really focus on the ones we don’t.

FJ: There’s a stereotype about PPE students who purposefully disengage from certain aspects of their course and consequently “wing it” in tutorials. Is this something you’ve noticed within your cohort?

NM: Yes. To be honest, there’s probably been a point when every single PPE student has had to waffle. In fact, PPE tutorials genuinely teach you to be a really good waffler, because you have to pick up distinct concepts very quickly. Tutors often notice when you get onto a waffling path, so you shouldn’t do it, but sometimes you manage to find a loophole and stray from the question. It almost becomes a skill to disguise when you’re doing it, in a way that’s quite subtle.

FJ: You’re President-Elect of Oxford PPE Society and you’ve been a member of Union committee in the past. How much knowledge have you gained from your extracurriculars in comparison to your actual degree?

NM: It’s actually quite difficult to separate the extracurriculars from my degree because PPEists are literally everywhere! I mean, if you look at the PPE personalities around Oxford, they’re always at the heart of student life and the course is what brings us together. In terms of political experience, though, I do think I learnt most about the election process at the Oxford Union. PPE Soc and Bottles & Banter have been really helpful too, and I’ve probably gained more from them than either Philosophy or Economics. However, the Practical Politics module of my course was really interesting and also a highlight for me.

FJ: Many of Britain’s current politicians studied PPE at Oxford and the degree’s been described as a “passport to power”. How do you feel about that, especially with regard to Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak?

NM: I definitely think they give the degree a bad name, because they embody the stereotype of not really caring about the people and pursuing politics for your own personal interest. And I know that’s what the typical PPE degree is associated with now, although I think that’s very wrong, because a lot of current students are genuinely more invested in issues affecting the public than in themselves. So it’s disappointing to see politicians who go out there and give this very wrong idea of a subject which is supposed to teach you about morals.

Justas Petrauskas – 2nd Year, Oriel College. Editor at The Oxford Political Review

Freya Jones: Justas, thank you for talking to me. You applied to UK universities as an international student. What made you choose PPE at Oxford?

Justas Petrauskas: Interestingly my path here was rather unorthodox, because I actually applied for Biochemistry at some other UK universities, but I chose PPE at Oxford because the course covers a lot of things I’m interested in. That answer might be a bit different to the responses of people from the UK, for whom the degree is very entrenched in the country’s social history, but the degree’s reputation within Britain didn’t inform my decision.

FJ: What’s it been like to study the PPE course with a non-UK perspective?

JP: During applications I think it’s easier to stand out, because the background you bring with you is likely very different to that of students from the UK. In terms of studying, sometimes it’s harder and sometimes it’s easier, because you’ve read different things and come from a different cultural environment, but mostly it’s just different.

FJ: How have you found your tuition in terms of quality and consistency?

JP: Well, in terms of consistency it’s not consistent at all. I’ve had some fantastic tutors, with whom tutorials can be quite magical, and others who were really quite underwhelming. To be honest I think that’s a trade-off in the system on which the university runs. You have a lot of freedom in your course, but there’s also a lot of freedom to underdeliver which comes with that.

FJ: How do students in your cohort deal with the breadth of the course? Have you been aware of people in your cohort deliberately choosing make less effort in certain disciplines?

JP: Yes, I’ve been aware of these situations. It’s a very personal thing and I’m not going to judge whether those decisions are right or wrong, but I’ve known people decide that one subject wasn’t for them, or that they were going to do the minimum they needed to get through. In the end though, the options within the programme mean you can make it what you want you want it to be. For example, if you want to engage in other activities, like the Union or student journalism, then you can definitely make time for that, and say, concentrate less on economics, but it really depends on each individual.

FJ: How have you found the Oxford PPE stereotype?

JP: Well, the number of Boris Johnsons I’ve met on my course is probably less than what I expected, because the number of different people who study the course is increasing. Equally, the ugly thing about stereotypes is that they’re partially true. A lot of people who do PPE are a lot like the stereotypical PPE student, and that just comes from the incentives that you have in applying to the programme. Sometimes I feel slightly sad about just how much people’s perceptions of PPE students are influenced by the running stereotype of current politicians in the UK, but I’m also glad that I can approach the course from a background where people don’t have those particular views.

So there you have it. When reflecting on these conversations, it was interesting to see how PPE’s breadth and flexibility can be a curse as well as a blessing. A feature of the course which attracts so many applicants but often leads them to disengage with large components later on should surely be food for contemplation. Irrespective of whether PPE’s emphasis on soft-skills is seen in a positive or negative light, however, one wonders how much this A-Level mentality might endure into graduates’ working lives. I’d be curious to see how Truss and Sunak might respond if they were asked the same questions.

Note: the text of the interviewees’ responses has been lightly edited for clarity.

Image credit: Ray Harrington

Muse ‘Will of The People’ Review : My expectations were low, and yet…

Charlie Hancock
-
0
Muse ‘Will of The People’ Review : My expectations were low, and yet…

Muse are the kebab van falafel wrap of the music world. It seems like a nutritious option, but don’t let the salad trick you into thinking you’re eating less salt than your friend who has kebab grease on their face. But sometimes that’s just what you need: something cheap which soaks up the booze without making you wretch. I’ve long since given up looking forward to new music from Muse, because they can’t even manage to do that anymore. My expectations for Will of The People were low, but clearly should have been lower.

With a title that gives me flashbacks to interminable debates about the meaning of the Brexit vote, Will of the People is – unsurprisingly – a political album. Should we be looking to rock bands for nuanced discussions about the current socio-political climate? Perhaps not. But we shouldn’t overlook the power of art to articulate the mood of a time and give people hope. The only thing Will of the People will give listeners is a headache.

Maybe I’d enjoy this album if I just switched off my brain and took it for what it is – ridiculous. Alas, I can’t do that.

The title track which opens the album is about standing up to The Man™. Who is The Man™? Why are we supposed to stand up to them? I don’t know. If Matt Bellamy knows, he doesn’t tell us. Most of Muse’s prior political output falls into this trap. They want the prestige of being a band with something to say, without taking the risk of upsetting people. But previous songs made up for that. While the similarly vague Uprising reverberated with revolutionary energy, Will of the People is the musical equivalent of blowing raspberries at [insert politician you disagree with].

That points to the biggest problem with Will of the People. We know Muse can be better than this. Yes, they’re frequently silly and aren’t exactly subtle. But the Teignmouth trio are some of the most virtuosic musicians on the charts. The way they blend baroque textures with Rachmaninovian piano flourishes and majestic vocals can be epic at best. I can even forgive some of the deficiencies of previous albums like The 2nd Law and Drones because when these guys are good, they’re incredible.

But most of this album is a forgettable mash of different styles. Liberation feels like a Queen song people don’t talk about because there isn’t much to say about it. Compliance is a return to Simulation Theory’s insipid attempt at synth-pop. Any life these songs may have is drained by colourless production, each track leaving you as cold as the last.

That said, thee clear highlight of Will of The People is Kill or Be Killed. With its dense guitar work and tensely climbing bridge it feels like it would fit on Origin of Symmetry or Absolution. It’s one of the few songs where all three band members get to show they still have serious talent. Accordingly, it underscores how limp the other tracks are.

There are parts of the album which are actually about something, even if the lyrics are frequently clunky. Verona is about how the pandemic forced people to be apart from the people they loved, but feels emotionally anaemic. Ghosts is about people who lost their partners in the pandemic. It’s a perfectly inoffensive ballad. But like similarly inoffensive ballads on Eurovision, it gets mowed-down by the sheer batshittery of You Make Me Feel Like it’s Halloween coming immediately afterwards. Apparently, this song is about the terror of being trapped with an abusive partner during lockdown. Well done to the boys for trying to write about such a serious subject. I just wish the music didn’t sound like it belongs on Scooby Doo.

Again, this is disappointing because we know Muse can do better. They tackled abusive relationships in Hysteria and Stockholm Syndrome to great and claustrophobic effect. I’m all for not taking oneself too seriously. But there is a time and a place, and this ain’t it.

One place where not taking oneself too seriously nearly works is the closing track, We Are Fucking Fucked. I say nearly, because while it’s impossible to take a song which includes the word “fuck” twenty times seriously, the song sounds otherwise sincere. This may be the point on the album where they best capture a particular mood. Will of The People dropped on the day the energy cap leaped to £3,549. Lots of people are feeling pretty fucked at the moment.

Will of the People is a mess, both musically and lyrically. Once my frustration with it cleared, the main emotional response I had to these ten tracks was boredom. ‘Boring’ was never a word you could use to describe Muse. Bellamy may actually have described his own album when he wrote the line “you make me feel like it’s Halloween”: you’re promised thrills, yet end up with nothing but cheap tricks.

At least we still have Black Holes and Revelations.

Scenes With Girls : A Review

Jenna Colaco
-
0
Scenes With Girls : A Review

Scenes with Girls, written by Miriam Battye and produced by Love Song Productions, is a beautiful testament to friendship between women and the twists and turns of navigating the dating scene. Centered around the characters of Lou (Rosa Calcraft), a young woman who is sex-positive to the point of obsession, her best friend and roomate Tosh (Millie Deere)— the antithesis of Lou, mostly unwilling to entertain romantic relationships and habitually annoyed at the way that Lou does, and Fran (Cecily Brem)— the ‘cuffed’ one, whose relationship status isolates her from the core duo. 

As the audience comes into the auditorium of the Old Fire Station, Lou and Tosh are already in place on stage, scrolling on their phones and chatting, which creates the impression that we’ve just taken a seat in the characters’ living room. The set comprises a girly aesthetic reminiscent of a school sleepover, with pink spotlights, pink bean-bags and pink blankets taking centre-stage. The directorial decision to keep the 22-scene structure is aided by the use of  Lorde’s ‘Ribs’ to soundtrack the breaks between scenes, not only creating a feeling of continuity fluidity between the different scenes, but also playing on the song’s thematic focus on female friendship, with the lyric ‘you’re the only friend I need’ playing during every transition. This emphasizes the play’s thematic focus upon all aspects of friendship, growing more bittersweet throughout the course of the play, as discord ebbs and flows within the trio.

Calcraft’s portrayal of Lou as a bubbly friend who enjoys being at the centre of attention is effortless and enjoyable. Often seeming to address the audience for a reaction, she makes  #relatable comments about relationships, throughout the course of the play she turns us into another friend she is telling a story to.  Deere’s portrayal of Tosh is a great foil to the exuberance of Calcraft’s Lou. Full of childlike energy, Deere’s Tosh manifests her frustration over Lou’s sexual politics through physical outbursts. Deere plays the less outgoing friend very well – we see Tosh to be an opinionated, frustrating and emotionally intense character, even though she speaks less than Lou. Brem as Fran brings a meeker character to the stage that reinforces how special Lou and Tosh’s friendship is. Brem successfully infuses Fran with a nervous, awkward energy, which grates amid Lou and Tosh’s cozy back and forth, cleverly emphasising Fran’s place – in the peripheries of the friendship,  wonderfully conveying how it feels like to be the third wheel in a friendship.

It also feels worth mentioning the only male actor  – Tosh’s boyfriend on stage, the ‘Boy’, was a role cast via an Instagram poll as a cameo-style appearance from a pool of male actors from previous Love Song Productions’ shows. The one-line token character was a brilliant marketing tool and a clever way to engage the audience in casting for the play ; however, I feel the actual male presence on stage feels like an unnecessary addition that distracts from the focus on girls and their friendship in the play, especially given that all other partners of the characters are alluded to, not seen on stage. 

The play as a whole was beautiful to watch. It is funny, relatable and well-delivered. A very special mention must go to the beautiful projection of artwork to close the play, produced by Lizzy Nightingale. The image of flowers slowly growing and becoming bright and colourful is a testament to how friendships grow and develop, just as the ones we watched blossom on stage.

Interviews to be held online for third year running

Cecilia Catmur
-
0
Interviews to be held online for third year running

Oxford University has announced that the 2022 interviews will be conducted online, following a similar procedure to interviews carried out online in 2021. 

Interviews moved online for the first time in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. They took place over Microsoft Teams. 

The move to continue interviewing online is not a complete surprise. Oxbridge dons commented in January this year that the interviews may now be permanently conducted online. Neither Oxford nor Cambridge felt any applicant was disadvantaged by the online interviews. 

The university has a system of targeted support ensuring everyone has equal opportunities to interview. It can provide help for all candidates to access the necessary technology, ensuring that online interviews are fair and effective.

The online interview process appears more efficient financially and environmentally; online interviews reduce travel expenses for candidates, and are also more cost effective for the University, who do not have to assist with travel expenses or accommodation over the interview period.

It also minimises the heavy travel emissions caused by candidates travelling to Oxford for the interview period.

The online format minimizes the potential stress of being in a completely new environment, meeting new people, throughout the interview period. Candidates do not have to deal with this added pressure, which makes it a less daunting experience for many.

Education writer Irena Barker said: “a switch to online-only Oxbridge interviews might be more efficient, but candidates would miss a key rite of passage.” She argued that for some, the in-person experience of staying in the colleges and meeting like-minded people was inspiring, and a way of “showing [candidates] they were valued”.

When asked to comment, a University spokesperson told Cherwell: “The University of Oxford has decided forthcoming undergraduate admissions interviews (2022-23) will again take place online.  

“This decision follows the success of this format over the past two years, and will ensure that any potential disruption for our applicants is minimised and that they continue to receive a consistent and high-quality experience to this important part of the collegiate University’s application process.” 

The slow death of liberty

Sam Cherry
-
0
The slow death of liberty

Many people have been concerned by the frankly totalitarian policies floated by Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak in their desperate attempts to win over the most radical fringes of the Tory Membership. Lowlights include ‘reviewing’ the “woke nonsense” of Equalities Act 2010 – the Act which requires employers, service providers and the government to not discriminate against people on the basis of their race, sex, age, sexuality, etc. – and curtailing the abilities of unions to strike.

How much more concerned should we then be about those policies that have already been enacted? The litany is damning: the Police and Crime Sentencing Act 2022 imposed limits on long-established rights to protest and assembly; the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 criminalised people exercising their right to seek asylum; the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 allows government agencies to conduct warrantless surveillance… et cetera ad nauseum. One wonders why Dominic Raab seems so dead set on repealing the Human Rights Act when, at this rate, there will be little left to be taken away. (Though, for the record, the Law Society says his plans will nonetheless “damage the rule of law, prevent access to justice [and] reduce or remove rights, …”.)

This attack on civil liberties, however, is not a new phenomenon. In fact, it stretches back for at least the past few decades. The Blair government passed a series of acts which extended the length of time for which individuals can be detained prior to being charged – provided they are under investigation for terrorism offences – from the 24 hours established under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to up to 28 days under the Terrorism Act 2006. His administration was also complicit in the rendition (i.e. kidnap) and torture of British residents by the United States during the ‘War on Terror’. Before this, the Major government passed the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994 which, among other provisions, extended the ability for adverse inferences to be drawn from an individual remaining silent under questioning, banned the gathering of more than twenty people on public or private land at which music was played if it causes ‘serious distress’ to local residents, and created provisions for allowing people to be searched for simply being in a given area at a given time. This measure, of course, continues to result in a disproportionate number of BAME people being subjected to searches without warrants or even the suspicion of criminal activity.

These are just a few examples I’ve chosen to highlight. On their own, they may seem like reasonable – even necessary – provisions for living in a peaceful society. Who wants potential terrorists to be released by the police? Who wants ravers and protestors to be able to cause disruption to local communities with impunity? Who wants drug dealers, paedophiles and insurgents to be able to use the internet away from the watchful eyes of those agencies which keep us safe?

The problem with all these superficially defendable laws is that they fundamentally change our understanding of what a right is. Rights which can be suspended – whether for terrorists, criminals, protestors or ravers – are rights in name only: they are no longer inviolable, no longer inherently possessed by virtue of an individual’s humanity, no longer respected as a moral end. They become something conditionally granted by the state, to be freely taken away when it is politically or practically expedient: a means to some unstated societal goal that can be redirected when those in power see fit.

If Steve Bray can have his equipment seized and be threatened with prosecution simply for shouting the words ‘Stop Brexit’ at MPs too loudly, why could the same fate not befall anyone raising any grievance with the government – not least when it is the government themselves who gets to decide which protestors are too ‘disruptive’ for their liking? If terror suspects can be held for 28 days without bail, why not those suspected of shoplifting or speeding in the future? If our bodies and telecommunications records can be searched without suspicion or warrant, why not our homes if someone decides it’s in the best interest of national security? If rights are not treated as inherent and inviolable, there is no reason why any of these proposals are genuinely unthinkable; they are merely somewhat unlikely, at least, based on our almost non-existent abilities to predict the political future.

This may seem like an overblown reaction when we consider the Acts individually, and my opposition may at first seem naïve or even downright immoral given its real-world conclusion, e.g., making investigating serious criminals more difficult to investigate. But when we let the state violate the rights of some individuals for expedient purposes which we agree with, we open the door for those same rights to be denied to us and others for purposes we may seriously disagree with. It is for this reason that curtailing the right of any group – regardless of the right or the group, no matter how dangerous, distasteful or irritating they are – necessarily involves undermining every single right which our individual liberties rely upon.

And, of course, this is to say nothing of the rights which have already been effectively dismantled – like the right to silence, or to be free from warrantless surveillance by the state.

For all these reasons, we must strongly oppose the recent proposals of Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak as a free nation. Moreover, we must strive to have reinstated those rights which we have lost. But please be aware that these policies haven’t mysteriously appeared out of a totalitarian void. They are rather the natural progression of the slow death of liberty in this country – the next parts of the democratic body to be necrotised by an infection which has been growing quietly for at least the past fifty years.

One might be left wondering how all this has occurred so easily. Again, I suggest it is because we have failed to see rights as inherent and inviolable, but rather as granted and rescindable by the state. It is because we have failed to fervently accept and defend this principle that we fail to see that an attack on the rights of any one individual is an attack on the notion of rights in and of themselves. Then whatever policy is being proposed can be defended as pragmatic or even necessary in a given political age and its opposers presented as out-of-touch idealists or defenders of the most abhorrent sins in our society – rather than those deeply concerned with the conservation of liberty and healthy democracy. (Take, for example, Priti Patel smearing lawyers defending people facing deportation as ‘activists’, or Boris Johnson’s attack on the ‘lefty human rights lawyers’ who get in the way of his government breaking the law.) For these reasons, there is often little effective opposition, whether in the streets, or the media, or the opposition benches in the Commons. But when strong opposition can be mustered our hope is not lost: earlier in the year campaigners were able to block proposed revisions to the powers of judicial review which would have made it more difficult for victims of unlawful acts committed by the state to seek justice.

If none of this has managed to persuade you of the threat we face, please consider this. On the current trajectory, there might well be a time in the near future when a right you hold dear or essential to your liberty comes under attack – presented as ‘woke nonsense’ or too ‘disruptive’ for the wider community to put up with – and you will suffer the same fate as those who came before you. That is, unless we continually reassert and seek to reclaim the inherency and inviolability of our civil liberties through outcry, protest and legal action. And God help us to do so: the preservation of the health and character of our nation requires it.

Image: CC4.0: Wikimedia Commons

1...209210211...2,487Page 210 of 2,487

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by James Ashley