Blog Page 2107
Old dog, new tricks?
Finally, it seems, the Conservative Party have taken a brave decision and a definite stance on something. The commandment has come down from on high; “The-society-formerly-known-as-OUCA” must go, and out of the smouldering ashes of “Oxford’s biggest student society” must rise a bright, new “Conservative Future”.
“The society must prove that it has indeed traded in the rusty, pollutant, OUCA old-banger, rather than simply giving it a new coat of paint”
But is it really that simple? Can Oxford’s Conservatives really shake off decades of bad press and iniquity, and morph into the progressive and tolerant organisation that the Conservative Headquarters desperately desire? As the proliferation of “scare quotes” above indicates, there is scepticism. There are two key hurdles to overcome before Oxford’s Conservative community can consign OUCA’s shame to history and emerge as the dynamic, student political group that a university like Oxford deserves. Personnel and public opinion. Anyone who thinks that the rotten elements of OUCA will simply melt away into the night alongside its acronym needs to think again. ‘Port and Policy’ can become ‘Diet Coke and Debate’, it means nothing if the malicious elements of the society are allowed to continue to dominate at the expense of reasonable and committed Conservative supporters. This change cannot be effected through top-down edicts. It may be that hustings are under the most scrutiny in Conservative Future elections, but more important to the society will be the choices made by its membership; whether to reject the under-hand, bigoted crony-ism that dogged OUCA and focus on its campaigning and promotion of the Conservative Party in Oxford, or prove the ancient adage that old habits die hard. The society must prove that it has indeed traded in the rusty, pollutant, OUCA old-banger, rather than simply giving it a new coat of paint.
“OUCA’s shame was the University of Oxford’s shame, but forever cutting the Conservative party from our political scene would also be to our discredit”
And public opinion? It is difficult to say how long it will take for the ghost of OUCA to leave off haunting the collective Oxford memory. If Conservative Future takes the right steps forward, rooting out the old, destructive elements and grounding itself in values of inclusivity, progressiveness and a commitment to politics rather than port, then I sincerely hope that the Oxford student body will forgive and forget. Though it may be difficult to wipe the grins from OULC faces for some time (let’s be honest, there’s not much to smile about on their side at the moment…), it is only right that Oxford has a strong Conservative society that can engage students in national politics. OUCA’s shame was the University of Oxford’s shame, but forever cutting the Conservative party from our political scene would also be to our discredit.
It is amusing coincidence that talk of the rebirth of Oxford’s Conservative Society should emerge now. In the same week, Mandelson set Labour Conference alight by promising that if he could come back, so could the Labour Party. ‘And if Labour can come back, maybe there’s a chance for Conservative Future’, quipped an OULC friend. This is unfair. Quite frankly, a snowball in hell would quite fancy those odds. But if Oxford’s Conservative community are committed to following up their change of name with a change of character, perhaps we can look forward to a much brighter political future. Conservatively.
Binge-Drinking, Bubbly and the Bullingdon
It’s somehow fitting that the end of fresher’s week coincides with the end of conference season; both involve drinking a little more than is healthy, sleeping a little less than you’d like, and the odd regrettable romantic encounter.
In an allusion to regrettable romantic encounters, Labour announced that teen mums would be looked after in hostels rather than given the keys to a council house. Even more regrettable was the almost immediate christening of this scheme (depending on which hack you talked to) as either ‘huts for sluts’ or ‘slag goulag.’
Unfortunate monikers to one side, all of the party conferences focussed on the seemingly imploding public finances. Austerity here, cuts there, and ooh, can I have another vol-au-vent please? Because as well as the debates, conference is an opportunity to hoover up industrial quantities of free drink and canapes from 7 in the morning till very late; that anyone actually gets around to doing anything productive at all is a minor miracle.
Apart from the economy, tackling anti-social behaviour formed the core of the Labour and Tory conferences (the Lib Dems instead went for publicly contradicting themselves as much as possible). Gordon Brown was first off the mark with plans to crack down on the 50,000 worst families. What this means if you’re the 50,001th worst family, let alone what metric will be used to determine worst-ness, is anyone’s guess.
The Tories, alongside frantically trying to avoid being snapped drinking bubbly whilst telling everyone they’d cut their pay and make them work longer (of which more in a minute), want to introduce Judge-Dredd style instant punishments and restrict super strength lager to stop the problem of binge-drinking. Cue Cameron almost instantly being caught quaffing Pol Roger and earning the nickname Fizzy Rascal.
In a continuation of personality politics initiated by Blair, the media used every possible opportunity to probe this champagne drinking, with particular reference to the pedigree of Messrs Cameron, Osborne and Johnson as former members of the Bullingdon Club. There are of course several reasons why this line of questioning is depressing.
Firstly, in focussing on the personal the media (and Labour) are missing the political; the Tories announced plans to send the Army into schools to sort out discipline without so much as a batted eye-lid from the press corps.
Secondly, it opens up every traffic-cone stealing indiscretion of undergraduate life to later scrutiny; is that really a direction we want public life to go in? Everyone is guilty of over-exuberance as a student; whether this manifests itself as rampaging around in tails, having fights with fire-extinguishers, bribing a porter in order to sneak strippers into the library, or throwing a bin through the window of McDonald’s ‘in protest at the re-election or George Bush’ (you know who you are), we are all undoubtedly guilty of some indiscretion which we now (or will later) regret. Should this over-exuberance count against you twenty years later? Union hacks are noxiously dull as it is- let’s not turn them into puritans as well.
Returning to the conferences, Cameron’s speech was solid if a little boring- probably intentionally boring in fact in order to set a sober tone. To be fair, he could’ve come out in a tutu and the press would have reported it favourably. Moving forward though, all eyes will be pinned on the opinion polls over the weekend to see how conference season has panned out. Despite leading in the opinion polls, the Conservatives need to gain 131 seats to form the next government. The electoral calculus behind this, if nothing else, will keep the champagne at Tory HQ on ice for a while yet.
Baskerville has "nothing to hide"
Stefan Baskerville, the new President of the Oxford University Student Union, revealed that he will fully disclose the finances of the organisation and its commercial arm as “there is nothing to hide”.
This contrasts with the policy of ex-President Lewis Iwu, who kept the affairs of Oxford Student Services Limited, OUSU’s trading subsidiary, under wraps.
He said, “The position last year was that a fair amount of information was confidential and shouldn’t be released. I reviewed that at the start of the summer and I came to the conclusion that we are a membership organisation, we are a democratic organisation and it’s quite right that our members should be able to see quite a lot of detail about the commercial subsidiary.”
He added that OUSU would be developing a new reporting structure, which will include regular updates on the activities of OSSL, delivered to both OUSU Council and the University.
Baskerville also criticised OUSU’s current financial model. He pointed out that OUSU is “structurally underfunded” and agreed that finances were currently “unstable”.
He said, “We rely on affiliation fees to pay for activities, when in fact I think that colleges and the University between them should be paying for those activities, because they serve the interest of both colleges and the University and I think actually the burden on common rooms is too high.”
The President also explained his decision to take part in the Clarendon sit-in last January in the protest against Israel’s attack on Gaza. “The action that we took in January and that I took part in was a personal action on my part. I was asked numerous times by the student press to comment but I deliberately didn’t, because I was aware that OUSU didn’t have a position on it by that time and I didn’t want to give the impression that I was acting on behalf of OUSU or on behalf of other students. I did because I felt I saw an injustice and I thought we should draw attention to that injustice,” he revealed.
He added, “At that time I wasn’t OUSU president, I now am, I now do represent the students, I am very aware that many students will disagree with my opinion of the war in Gaza and I am aware that many students will disagree with the action that I took as a student of the university in January. I wouldn’t do it today probably, because my role is very different now.”
However, Baskerville did re-affirm his passion for representing the student body. He admitted that his decision to run in the elections last year was founded on “a self-confident, passionate desire to represent the student body”. While he emphasised the importance of building strong relationships with common room officers, he insisted that he was “not a hack” and that he did not make “false friends”. He did however admit that he possesses impressive “handshaking skills”.
Baskerville also talked about pertinent issues within the student body such as the gender gap, disaffiliation within colleges and basic teacher training.
When questioned about gender equality, Baskerville admitted that he “scanned” through OUSU’s report on women, yet denied that he is a feminist. He said, “No, I don’t think I know enough about feminism yet.”
On the subject of disaffiliated colleges, Baskerville emphasised the impact that breaking away from OUSU had on both individuals and common rooms, pointing out that this damaged “student interests” in a “significant way” by leaving the organisation with less money to spend on resources such as the student advice service. He urged disaffiliated colleges to “lobby their colleges to come in to affiliation [because] what we offer is valuable”.
Baskerville agreed that the unique structure of the college system contributed to the lack of enthusiasm for OUSU, but argued, “OUSU is relevant to students when it takes action on the issues that matter to students.” He granted that there had been flaws in OUSU’s communication strategy in previous years, but argued that this was by no means the only area where changes would be made, because “there’s always room for improvement.”
Baskerville was keen to discuss his manifesto promises, which included a push for basic teacher training for tutors. This move is seen as controversial by some, since many academics have enjoyed careers spanning several decades without possessing any formal teaching qualifications. He explained that while at the moment almost all new tutors undergo training at the Oxford learning institute, he would be working to “try and increase the number of current tutors” involved with the centre.
Baskerville hopes in his year as President to oversee the successful incorporation of OUSU as a new charity, which would establish “a formal relationship with the University” and lead to a “more stable funding model that allows it to develop the prospects for student representation, campaigning and services in Oxford.”
He added, “If I achieve those, I’ll be a happy man.”
In the Spotlight: Stefan Baskerville Interview
New president of controversial student union OUSU, Stefan Baskerville, talks to Cherwell’s Izzy Boggild-Jones and Nicky Henderson about his policies, ambitions and handshaking skills.
Should we get our say?
I don’t understand the Lisbon Treaty. I’ve read it. It’s 272 pages long, and details lots of roles, rules, and competences for various institutions throughout its length. It’s not that the language is beyond comprehension, but the implications of some of the terms used, and the subtle significances of what are important inclusions and exclusions pass me by.
However, last week, over 1.7million Irish voters passed their judgment on the document. The repercussions for Europe are real; subject to the Czech Republic and Poland, the Lisbon Treaty will finally come into force, bringing about a European President, and numerous other changes – but you’d have to pore through the document to find details on those. So how were the Irish voters to reach a reasoned and informed conclusion?
Referenda entail large media campaigns. Politicians can be allowed to abandon their party whip to encourage the people to vote their way. Adverts and petitioning similar to General Election fare are common. Supporters of referenda highlight the massive attention this draws to the issue. It’s true. Both sides are forced to substantiate their arguments and convince the public of the benefits of their stance, meaning the public are engaged in a debate which would otherwise be held separately from them.
In terms of the actual issue, thorough, strenuous and prolonged debate in a referendum can be said to draw out all the flaws in the arguments of either party. This constructive debate is surely beneficial to all, and when voting day arrives, the public will can prevail.
Or so goes the theory. In reality, this ‘engagement’ is questionable. Though holding a referendum raises the likelihood that the people will discuss and consider an issue, there is always the strong chance that the slickest campaign with the biggest political endorsements will win, rather than the most brilliantly argued.
There are other faults too. Turn-out tends to be lower than in General Elections, for understandable reasons. This, in turn, reduces the legitimacy of the result. Additionally, there is the thorny issue of when a referendum is required. The more they are used, the weaker the mandate they provide – they are a political currency open to debasement. In addition to this, they can open huge chasms in party politics. When politicians wear their colours on their sleeve and are defeated by the public, the day-to-day repercussions as they continue to legislate, faced with other politicians who ‘won’, have a profound reputational effect.
And then there is the wider issue. Referenda undermine representative democracy. By asking the people to choose directly, politicians’ representative roles are suspended. The logical conclusion of this argument is that, if our leaders poll us on difficult issues, their role as representatives is diminished to the point of irrelevance.
There is a difficult line to tread here. Issues of sovereignty – the usual ‘rule of thumb’ for when a referendum is required (and cause of much argument for Labour with regard to the Lisbon Treaty) – are undoubtedly crucial. They ought not to be decided by the parliamentarians who happen to be in office at the time of the issue. It would seem logical that fundamental changes to our constitution should have the public vote.
But, on the other hand, the problems that beset shiny media campaigns and the vested interests that politicians can have in calling referendums, including trying to discredit political opponents or relying on the public’s vote to heal internal party divisions, all weaken the case for this most direct of democracy.These are very real shortcomings.
And finally, crucially, the central problem resurfaces. Hardly any of those 1.7million Irish voters will have read the text of the Lisbon Treaty. All will be relying on media, much of it privately owned and with vested interests of their own, issuing second-hand understanding of the issue. And some voters will have been trying to deliver a political message to their representatives on issues ancillary to the referendum’s content.
The most qualified people to assess the merits of treaties of this kind are probably the people who work with legislative documents every day. They are the politicians we elected to make these calls. Though in these days of duck ponds, second home allowances and moats, it’s not a popular argument; the fact remains that at some point we’ll have to trust our legislators to do their jobs in our best interests. If we don’t like it, we do have the power to petition parliament and the media. And if this still fails, we can make our feelings known at the next General Election.
This may not be enough when it comes to issues of sovereignty. Whether referenda ought to be used at all is a complex issue.
Maybe we should hold a referendum on it.
There’s one striker Capello can’t keep ignoring…
Darren Bent must be wondering what he has to do to get himself into the squad. Seven goals in the first eight Premier League games, the most recent against Man United especially showing just how confident and effective he is at the moment.
Thus far it has been a foolish man who has criticised Fabio Capello, with his continued selection of Emile Heskey amid much media scepticism vindicated by each brilliant England performance by Wayne Rooney and Steven Gerrard.
Yet most previous calls to replace Heskey have suggested any of Jermaine Defoe, Peter Crouch and even Owen to replace Villa’s big forward. The main reason why Capello has been right to persist with Heskey ahead of these three, is that while all excellent forwards in their own right, and far more potent goalscorers than Heskey, none of them can offer what Heskey offers to the team.
Capello evidently values Heskey’s strength, work rate, and most importantly discipline. Heskey can be trusted to be where his manager asks him to be; offering himself as a central pillar around which the team’s most talented players can operate. His limitations though are obvious to anyone who has ever winced as a poor first touch and average finishing have seen a good chance go begging.
None of this is to suggest that Heskey’s lack of goalscoring prowess is actually a problem for the current England team. Yet with England’s qualification already assured it seems like madness to not give a chance to a man who offers much of what Heskey offers, while also adding the potential for a cutting edge. Bent could offer an especially important role as a replacement for Heskey is Plan A isn’t quite doing the business.
Time spent up front on his own while at Charlton showed just how effective Bent is at holding the ball up, chasing lost causes into the corner and showing remarkable positional discipline to always occupy the oppositions defence. The fact that Bent is also an extremely useful goalscorer does not diminish the quality of his link-up play which has been extremely obvious this season in his working relationship with Kenwyne Jones and Andy Reid.
As mentioned above his combination of skills could be especially useful off the bench, providing enough for him to be more help than hindrance for Rooney while also offering the pace, finishing, and shoulder of the last defender threat to help turn games around.
While Plan A is working so magnificently there seems no reason to ditch Heskey, despite his recent poor form. Yet there seems equally little reason for Darren Bent to not be in the squad. He offers a different prospect to Defoe, and with Carlton Cole (himself excellent this season) a more direct replacement for Heskey, Bent deserves the chance to replace Peter Crouch as the ‘something a little different’ option to throw stubborn opposition.
Racism Doesn’t Merit Reward
At the close of Trinity, Oxford was shocked, if not surprised, to discover that Oxford University Conservative Association (OUCA) hustings had been blighted by racist behaviour. The story made the national news, prompting swift condemnation by the national Conservative Party and the University. The proctors, quite rightly, banned OUCA (now OCA) from Freshers’ Fair, and denied them the right to use the University’s name.
The question then, is what exactly has prompted the national Conservative Party to open their doors to a group that, in an official context, made jokes about ‘niggers’ and ‘lynching’? A group in which candidates for high ranking positions were asked to tell ‘the most racist’ joke that they know?
Let us remind ourselves that the Conservative Party quite explicitly stated at the time that ‘people who behave in this disgusting and reprehensible way have no place in the Conservative Party.’
What possible changes have occurred in the last three months, during which the Association was, to all intents and purposes, entirely dormant, that have somehow made it advisable to reward them with the official endorsement of what will presumably be the next government?
The obvious response is that those particular members responsible have resigned from the Association. However, as Cherwell argued at the time, this is a totally inadequate response to the problem. Anyone with a remote understanding of the Conservative Association is aware that the scandal last term was not the result of the wayward actions of a few rogue members, but the product of an endemic culture of elitism and inappropriate behaviour. As members themselves remarked, the sort of horrifically inexcusable questions asked were the continuation of a ‘tradition.’
It is not that every member of the Conservative Association is so ‘traditional’, but even the briefest of scan of their recent history reveals that OCA have been embroiled, to varying extents, in scandals of this sort every year since 1999 bar one. Add to this the fact that the Tories have done this despite the existence of a reasonable alternative. A breakaway reform group intent on modernising the Association was in negotiations over the vacation, but has presumably been shunned by the national party.
It might be argued that oversight by the national party will prevent further instances of inappropriate behaviour. Certainly, in the short term, that seems like it might be the case. The Conservative Association is on very shaky ground as it is, despite the boost from re-affiliation. However, it remains to be seen if Conservative Future will have any meaningful control over day to day OCA activities. Will they be sitting in on port and policy? The event, incidentally, continues as usual at the Union after a meeting in which 35% of those attending declared themselves to be OUCA members.
Cherwell believes that it would have been prudent for the Tories to observe OCA in its new form before integrating it with Conservative Future. That is exactly what the University, which has experience of dealing with the Conservative Association, has decided to do.
As it is, a disgraced organisation that has brought Oxford into disrepute and cast us all in a negative light appears to have, as it has done year upon year, emerged unscathed, and indeed, rewarded by those in a position to make significant difference.
It is possible that OCA will be different from OUCA. However, constitutionally appending the Association to the national party is no guarantee, and should have been a consequence of, not a precursor to, meaningful change. As it is, OCA is composed of the same members, with the same secrecy (the executive committee still has to seek official approval to even talk to the press) and the same outdated port and policy style traditions. One can only hope it has higher standards of humour.
Tories back disgraced Oxford Conservatives
The Conservative Party has sparked anger in the Oxford student community after backing the disgraced former Oxford University Conservative Association, now renamed OCA. This surprise move follows the hustings controversy of last Trinity, in which it emerged that candidates were encouraged to make racist jokes.
The Association will now be an official branch of the party, losing the independent status it has clung to for over 80 years. The executive committee of the Association said they “recognised the need for change.”
Marius Ostrowski, a Magdalen third year, who describes himself as an ‘ex-Tory’, expressed anger at the decision. “The Conservative Party’s decision to back an institutionally backward and bigoted organisation, such as OUCA has consistently proved itself to be, is a serious blow to the current Tory leadership’s pretences to compassionate Conservatism and open representation of those who share Conservative ideals.”
Ben Lyons, co-chair of Oxford University Labour Club commented, “OUCA 2.0 are the same people who got elected at racist hustings. They are the same people who spoke in debates on reconquering the empire. And they are the same people who are still not allowed at Freshers Fair. This exposes the sham of David Cameron’s ‘progressive Conservative Party’ as it goes out of its way to support a bigoted Bullingdon-lite.”
One disillusioned conservative expressed scepticism the move would force the Association to change, commenting, “It isn’t their name that’s the problem, rather it’s the people involved in OUCA who make the society such a disgrace.” He added, “I’m not sure the bureaucrats at CCHQ realise how tough a challenge they have ahead of themselves.”
Conservative Campaign Headquarters was unavailable for comment.
The decision was passed unanimously by an emergency meeting of approximately thirty members of the Association. Those present were “representative of all shades of political opinion in OCA,” according to Oli Harvey, President-Elect. From now on OCA will be answerable to Conservative Future, the national organisation for young conservatives. All new recruits will have to become members of the Conservative party. President Alexander Elias will be encouraging the present membership to sign up to the party as well.
In response to “complaints of inappropriate and unacceptable behaviour”, the University decided to remove the Association’s right to use ‘Oxford University’ in their name. The Conservative Association was also banned from attending this year’s Freshers’ Fair.
Harvey argued that the decision to link to the party was “not a response to the scandal directly”, however admitted that “the sorts of bad publicity we were generating can’t continue.”
When pressed upon the concrete changes the Association would be making, he stated that the executive is “deeply committed to making a serious and intelligent forum for debate”, which will include a focus on campaigning and supporting local candidates. Harvey also revealed that there would be moves towards signing the Association up to the University’s policy on equality. Elias insisted, “It’s all about changing the tone.”
There was initially speculation over whether the club would change its name, but Elias was able to confirm that the party was happy for them to continue using their old name. In addition to this, OCA will maintain a level of autonomy over its constitution, voting procedures and disciplinary procedures. The age-old tradition of weekly Port and Policy will continue to be held at the Oxford Union.
Questions have been raised over whether the change of status for the Association will be anything more than a token gesture.
Michael Rock, national chairman of Conservative Future, when asked whether he was convinced that OCA had changed, pointed out that the members of the Association involved in the hustings controversy were expelled from the party. However he added, “They [OCA] have to raise their standards to what we expect at CF.”
Others are yet to be convinced of the substance behind the changes OCA has outlined this week. David Barclay, JCR President of Worcester, pointed out that the association would require “close scrutiny to ensure that a return to the shame of the port-swilling pompousness of OUCA is never again allowed a place in Oxford’s public life.” He added, “As Obama infamously warned us just a year ago, you can put lipstick on a pig; it’s still a pig.”
Alex Bulfin, ex-JCR President of University College commented, “Anyone who thinks that the rotten elements of OUCA will simply melt away into the night alongside its acronym needs to think again.”
Cherwell has been informed that a reform group of Oxford conservatives, already dubbed OUCF by the right-wing blogosphere, were in discussions with the party with the intention of establishing an Oxford University branch of Conservative Future.
The group had approached the University with the intention of formally establishing an alternative option for conservative students. A spokesperson from the University said, “We can confirm that an alternative Conservative group has contacted the Proctors seeking registration.”
Michael Rock confirmed that he had been in discussions with several alternative parties, but denied that relationships with other groups had progressed further than conversations. He said, “I don’t think there’s any reason to have two separate conservative groups in Oxford.”
Harvey echoed this sentiment, stressing that OCA would be “the only officially recognised conservative association in Oxford.” Ostrowski disagreed, “The Party’s refusal to seek a more suitable mouthpiece for Oxford Conservatism risks alienating its supporters in the current student body, and only fuels dissatisfaction with the state of UK politics in the younger population as a whole.”Members of the reform group are refusing to disclose details of their intentions or their current relationship with the party.
Another student conservative commented, “I am surprised that the party has decided to endorse the Association, especially after so many recent controversies and in the run-up to the election. I have been campaigning for change and reform for years and I truly hope this will bring the change the Association so needs.”
Stefan Baskerville, OUSU President added, “I think it will be a positive development for Oxford when there is a Conservative Association which will facilitate debate among conservative students, but is an association
which does not and won’t tolerate bullying and racist behaviour.”
Asbestos find displaces St Peter’s finalists
Students at St Peter’s College are facing upheaval at the start of term following problems with building work.
Renovation work on a staircase housing twelve students, many of whom are finalists, has been pushed back four weeks after builders discovered asbestos inside the structure.
Completion of the work is also being delayed by planning permission problems with the council, due to the listed status of the building.The Rowcroft Building, which overlooks the college’s LintonQuad, is a Grade II listed building that was built in 1928. The improvements, when completed, will add an ensuite shower and toilet to each room, and a kitchen to each floor.
The affected students have to find alternative accommodation as their rooms won’t be ready until at least 3rd week of Michaelmas term. The college has offered £200 and bus fares to students who are able to find their own accommodation, whilst some are being housed in the college’s accommodation.
OUSU Rents and Accommodation officer Jamie Susskind said “OUSU is here to speak up for any student who feels they have been treated insensitively or unfairly, and we are prepared to take action on a case-by-case basis. I have not yet received any calls from St. Peter’s regarding this specific issue, which is the unhappy result of deeply unfortunate circumstances.
“Authorities at St. Peter’s must take action to sort this out immediately, and if there is any evidence that they are not doing so, OUSU will put pressure on the college to make sure it meets its responsibilities. With regard to individual cases, I will do all I can to help and support those who request assistance. I do hope that this problem goes away as rapidly as it should, so that students at St. Peter’s can resume their normal accommodation.”
Students expressed sympathy for the displaced finalists. Clare Bucknell, Magdalen third year said, “I would be really angry if this happened to me.”
The college authorities were not available for comment.