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.”

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.”

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.

Controversy has erupted at the Oxford Union over the decision by members of staff to implement a costly security project without the knowledge of the society’s President or the authorisation of Standing Committee.

The committee gave their approval to the principle of a new security system being installed in response to a series of incidents.

However, at the end of Trinity Term, a special adjournment motion was levelled to prevent the implementation of a standing committee decision until it had been debated by the chamber this term.

During the Summer Vacation, staff at the Oxford Union hired contractors and began work on the security system, which would require new membership cards to gain access to the buildings during open hours.

The Senior Treasurer, Mr. Stephen Dixon, admitted that it was he who had originally set plans in motion by consulting with the Oxford Literary and Debating Union Trust (OLDUT), the charitable association of old members which owns the Union Buildings and funds modifications.

He had advised the Bursar, Ms. Lindsey Warne, who is also employed by the society, that such a system should be implemented, and the work began without the knowledge of members when the President, James Dray, was away from Oxford. On his return to Oxford the President requested that it be immediately halted.

“I was informed that the Bursar had been advised by the Senior Treasurer, after consultation with fellow trustees, that the gates should be installed. In light of the Special Adjournment Motion (SAM) submitted on 25 June 2009 I have instructed the Bursar to immediately cease installation,” he said in a statement to the members.

Some members were angered by the unauthorised installation, which they felt to be against the democratic principles of the society, including Daniel Johnson, who had brought forward the special adjournment motion.
“The ultimate power [of the society] lies with the members via termly elections and the chamber. [The Bursar] has shown that she does not have the least respect for that.

“She was present in the meeting of Standing Committee where you announced the SAM and explained its impact, and yet never raised it with you,” he said in a letter to the President, in which he called for an investigation.
“Quite simply, we can have no faith in her ability to partake in the administration of the Society.”

The Senior Treasurer emphasised his commitment to the members of the society, but conceded that he had advised the work to go ahead before being put to the membership.

“I agreed that the system would not be activated until after the SAM had been resolved, such that members would continue to have free access to the premises exactly as in the past until after the members had voted. If anyone is to be held responsible then I accept such responsibility, but will strongly defend my decision,” he said in a statement.

However, many members of the Standing Committee were angered by the actions of the Bursar and the Senior Treasurer, especially as the President had not been consulted.

“It surprises me that charitable money was sunk into a project that might not have been used,” said Aled Richards-Jones, Chairman of Consultative Committee, in Monday’s meeting. Standing Committee voted that the work had been in breach of the SAM, and therefore had contravened the rules of the society.

The Bursar conceded that informing the President of the implementation of the system had “slipped her mind”, and made no further comment.
The Union rule book makes no clear reference to the position of staff in such a situation.

One member commented, “Union insiders were openly questioning whether the Bursar’s actions could lead to further consequences and whether this, coming at the end of a string of similar acts, might be the final straw.
“It is unclear at this time whether Standing Committee has the right to dismiss the bursar.”

However, The Senior Treasurer rejected any such notion. “Any attempt to remove the Bursar over this matter will result in an external tribunal at which I will strongly support the Bursar who has acted in the interests of the Union throughout.”

James Dray agreed that there had been controversy over the staff’s actions. “Over the past five days a number of allegations have been levelled against various members of staff with regards to the installation of a security system at the St Michaels Street entrance of the Oxford Union.

At a meeting yesterday, standing committee agreed that a special adjournment motion had been breached.

Oxford City Council is launching a new voluntary landlord accreditation scheme, intended to raise the quality of rented accommodation. It is hoped this will help potential tenants to identify landlords and agents who are dedicated to providing a good standard of housing and service.

The Council’s City Executive Board approved the principal of the scheme and is currently in consultation with landlords, letting agents and tenant groups to outline the details of its implementation. The accreditation will act as a “stamp of approval” and allow the Council, as well as organisations such as OUSU, to share information on landlords who have agreed to meet the obligations of the voluntary certification. 

Labour Councillor Ed Turner, Board Member for Strategic Housing, said of the scheme: “I think students will welcome being given information on which landlords have signed up to our code of best practice.  We are determined to raise standards in privately rented housing.”

The plan sets out minimum standards of safety, contractual and service delivery that tenants can expect landlords to meet when initially renting the property, as well as throughout their lease. In addition, landlords would attend a compulsory training day. Safety certificates would need to be provided for all properties in their care.

The council enter into further discussions with landlords and letting agents in October, primarily through questionnaires. A Landlords’ Forum will also be held later in the month and the scheme may be modified to reflect any further issues raised.

Over 25 per cent of the general housing stock in the city is composed of rented accommodation. A large portion of the accommodation is taken up by students living out.

Stefan Baskerville, OUSU President, said: “Students often pay huge rents for properties which have problems with mould, security or disrepair. We’ve had several meetings over the summer with the city council about the accreditation scheme, and we’ll be helping them launch it in the new year. The scheme will help to clamp down on dodgy landlords and improve the quality of housing which students rent in the private sector.”

Not everyone believes it will clamp down on inefficient or dishonest landlords. Many Liberal Democrats have called it a “toothless” version of a proposal put forward by their party in February 2008.

Steve Goddard, a Lib Dem parliamentary campaigner for Oxford East, called it “a limp-wristed response from an administration that hasn’t grasped the severity of the problem. This incident sends a clear message: the Lib Dems are good for tenants, Labour are good for dodgy landlords.”

The Lib Dems’ proposal would have lowered the number of occupants required to be living within a house before Houses of Multiple Occupancy (HMO) licensing was required. This would have meant many smaller rented accommodations would have had to be brought up to the same standards as larger ones before being licensed.

The proposal was intended to provide a safeguard against landlords who would purposefully lower occupant numbers in order to avoid the licensing process. One example of such an occurrence was cited in the original proposal application, where a fifth occupant had been requested to vacate a property in Harefields by the landlord, allegedly to avoid the need to licence the property as an HMO.

The proposal met with heavy resistance from landlords and agents, however, who claimed that the costly HMO licensing would hit those who genuinely strived to meet the criteria far harder than the dishonest ones.

Elizabeth Brogan, Senior Policy Officer for the National Landlords Association, was quoted at the time as saying: “The irresponsible [landlords] will continue to get away with overcrowding their houses, maximising their income and failing to comply with safety standards.”

Labour deny any connection between the two schemes, citing the record number of successful prosecutions against landlords who failed to meet national standards as proof of its dedication to tackling with dishonesty in letting property.

Turner said of the accusation: “We fully intend to progress both landlord accreditation and licensing of houses in multiple occupation to raise standards; the Lib Dems only proposed one tool. I think students will welcome being given information on which landlords have signed up to our code of best practice. ”
Turner challenged the Liberal Democrats to provide some consistency in their message, adding, “In Parliament, Sarah Teather MP, as Lib Dem housing spokesperson, said there was a “danger of over-regulation” of privately rented housing, so perhaps Oxford’s Lib Dems could try getting their own side on board first.”