Friday 15th August 2025
Blog Page 227

Hedgerows or hedge funds? Hitchens and Hannan at the Sheldonian

Luke Dale
-
0
Hedgerows or hedge funds? Hitchens and Hannan at the Sheldonian

Well, good—I was getting a bit worried there for a moment. That Liz, and her league of ideologues, setting everything alight with their strange economic ideas, which I didn’t understand as a humanities student, seemed pretty radical and scary. The media were reporting too many crises to bother reading about. Cometh the hour, cometh the man. With a new leader proclaimed, a new era is promised. ‘Sensible’ Sunak will provide a balm for us decent folk for whom the “Kamikwasi” budget was a step too far. So it seems to some.

But what, beyond ‘common sense’, does Sunak stand for? Despite what his PR productions may lead us to believe, he’s not actually very ‘common’ at all. His personal wealth exceeds that of the King, making him, above all, a representative of the crushing defeat of aristocracy as the lucre-stained hands of the upwardly-mobile bourgeois. His avowed adherence to “Yorkshire values” is presumably an attempt to imply he’s just an average John; in fact, he is a Wykehamist and an Oxonian, and “Yorkshire values” are not real. Of course, his elite schooling should not be held against him—we in Britain have an odd prejudice against the best educated of us. But at least Boris had charisma along with his elitism. Rishi tries to hide the silver spoon.

With the evident absence of ideology at the helm of the Conservative party, then, it is perhaps unsurprising that hundreds flocked to the Sheldonian last Monday, the very day when Sunak’s victory was announced, for the public lecture titled After Conservatism. They were there first and foremost for Peter Hitchens, considered to be the nation’s premier soothsayer by Britain’s traditional right, who indeed has, in his later years, assumed the aspect of a prophet by virtue of his impressive grey beard. Hitchens was joined by Dan Hannan, Brexiteer extraordinaire, whose footing in the discussion that would ensue was admittedly weakened by the fact that his values broadly align with the collapsed Truss administration. Indeed, that both men identify as conservatives reveals the complete meaninglessness of the term: Hitchens is a King and Country patriot, a lover of fields and hedgerows, and deeply negative about the UK’s future. Hannan’s lifelong political goal has been Brexit and he prioritises hedge funds over their rustic cousins, so has more reason to be hopeful.

Hitchens is an Oxford towny. He talks about the urban fabric of the city with profound seriousness, verging on spirituality, as the endowment of our ancestors. But he argues that, for the tourists who flock through the sun-gilt streets, the city is little more than a Disneyland experience where modern fabrications are ignorantly treated as originals. This characterisation speaks to much of Hitchens’ view of Britain: a hollow façade of a nation, whose great monuments are of generations past and whose current inhabitants can, at their most benign, only preserve desperately, and at their most destructive, vandalise. One such vandal was Hitchens’ brother Christopher, whom he recalls graffitiing a builder’s hoarding near Trinity College in 1968. Peter too, as a student, was a radical: a Trotskyist, as he likes to remind us on every occasion he can—it was prominent on the Hitchens-bingo card a friend had put together for the talk. But, according to Hitchens, it is only having been among the thinkers of that leftist sect that one can understand the worldview of our politicians today.

One example is immigration. This issue was, as often the case among right-wing commentators left implicit in much of Hitchens’ address but came to the fore as he mused about his erstwhile socialism. “We [Trotskyists] supported immigration because we hated Britain,” he says. This attitude he links to Labour advisor Andrew Neather’s now-notorious comment that New Labour had pursued mass immigration to “rub the right’s nose in diversity.” Of course, speaking on the day Rishi Sunak had been confirmed as the next PM, it is evident that such polemic does not appeal to all conservatives. Hitchens’ idea of Britain is a deeply traditional one: he ended his speech with an emotional reading of the Second Collect for Peace from the Book of Common Prayer, which he cites alongside Shakespeare as the great national text. “Since 1968,” he contests, “the Left has been a moral, cultural and social project,” referring to Gramsci and arguing that immigration should be understood as one factor contributing to the kind of radical social change he had once pursued. 

Hannan tempered Hitchens’ despair with a call to hope. For him, Brexit really could represent a new dawn for Britain, a new international golden age. But the audience’s allegiance to the doomsayer was broadly unambiguous. It is indeed hard to be positive about British politics under current circumstances. But it is irresponsible, I believe, to slip from recognising the reality of our decline to preaching a disinterested millenarianism. For Hitchens, for the modern conservative in Britain, “the only honourable life for those of us who can stay and bear it is internal exile.” Like the predicament of Okonkwo, the tragic protagonist of Achebe’s Things Fall Apart, social changes have destabilised his framework to such an extent that he lives in a world which he does not understand, a world that seems to operate according to values that are alien to him. But conservatism cannot simply die like Achebe’s character does; the weakness of Hitchens’ worldview is that it offers no way forward for those who agree with his premises but not with his pessimism.

Images: CC2:0//Billy Wilson via Flickr.

Birra for breakfast

Monty Jones
-
0
Birra for breakfast

The romance of my trip to Italy had been enticing – an expedition paid for by a studio committed to funding a film I’d written with the very intention of securing a free holiday. But a holiday this was not. My producer overlords had been very clear that this was to be a work trip, and, with just two days to complete their demands, what had originally promised to be an escape from Oxford’s crushing workload was looking increasingly work-heavy. Already a logistical challenge I was entirely unsuited for, I would also be responsible for two companions: Ellis, a photographer friend of mine, and his girlfriend, Liska. Both half a decade older than me, my attempts to assert my maturity and responsibility as the one in charge were almost immediately undone when it became clear that I had entirely confused Milan’s two airports. We were not in fact landing at Linate, a convenient walking distance to the required train station, as I’d anticipated, but Malpensa, an airport which was not just further away from the station but in fact lay a substantial distance outside the city itself. We subsequently missed the last train and spent the night roaming Milan, drifting from club to club until five in the morning, when we caught the train to the little town where we were staying. We finally arrived at the Airbnb, a rather grand villa, to be greeted by the owner Alberto, a well-dressed, white-haired man poking his head out of an upstairs window with a look that suggested he had not been expecting his tenant to be the hoodied teenager wobbling at his door. After confirming my identity he did end up letting us in and I promptly collapsed onto the sofa and into oblivion.

Day 1

I woke, sore and dazed to Ellis shaking me firmly and to the realisation that my first obligation, meeting representatives of the local film commission in the nearby town of Crema, was due to begin in a quarter of an hour. I rushed frantically down to the villa’s courtyard and, noticing an available-looking old bike, grabbed it hastily and began peddling away on what I could only imagine from its rattling frame and screeching brakes must have been an ancient relic. Steering with one hand and holding Google Maps out in the other, eventually, dripping with sweat, I arrived at the café to find a group of men sitting outside chatting boisterously in Italian over red wine and cigarettes. They welcomed my arrival with raised hands and a chorus of “ciaos”, pulling out a seat at the table. I would spend the next four hours there, occasionally discussing my film, constantly being plied with wine. By the time the meeting had concluded the sun had begun to set and I was very much feeling the effects of the wine. I remounted the bike with some difficulty and started wobbling along the road as the amber glow that bathed the Italian countryside faded into darkness. Over an hour later, and having toppled over twice, I finally managed to make it back to the villa. Finding Ellis and Liska asleep, I sat for a moment on the couch to catch my breath and then promptly slept.

Day 2

Our second and final day started with another alarming revelation, that the checklist of shots required by my eccentric director of cinematography remained entirely unchecked. We rushed to the train station and into Crema with the list in hand. The apparently essential images took us all over town, and required multiple changes of clothes, the purchase of cigarettes, the accidental gatecrashing of a wedding, and, finally, a GPS location for a list of shots under the title “water”. The train took us as close as public transport could and still left us with a long walk to the remote red marker on Google Maps. After half an hour of trudging across fields and hopping fences, we finally arrived at an unremarkable clump of trees in the middle of a field. It was only as we walked through them that we discovered the oasis within, a pool of the most picturesque, crystal-clear water. We all stripped off excitedly and dove in before quickly reemerging to shiver on the banks –apparently the water gets pretty cold in October.  With a watery checklist still to complete, Ellis and I, fortified by several glugs of wine, plunged into the water once more and after some time (and a great deal more wine) it became almost tolerable. We had just about finished the required photos and most of the wine when Liska, reclining in the sun, alerted us to the time and the ten minutes left before the last train passed through the station. Still soaking wet we hurriedly pulled on our clothes, downed the last drops of wine and set off back across the fields at a slightly erratic sprint and, despite some extra difficult fence-hopping, made it to the station just as the train arrived to return us to town.

At four in the morning, after handing over the keys to a relieved Alberto, we took a cab from the villa back to the airport. It turned out to be a rather short journey that in retrospect could have easily saved us our night-long Milanese bar crawl – information I chose not to share with my comrades sleeping in the seats next to me. After we’d passed through security and settled down in a café, I opened my laptop to send off the completed reports and images. I took a moment to appreciate the impossibility that we had completed the entirety of the studio’s requirements in two days, which I could best recollect as a surreal, alcohol-tinted dream, as a waiter approached to take our order, turning to me last. I looked down at my inbox full of “high importance” responsibility and shut my laptop. “Birra, per favore”. Reality could wait a little longer.

Indeed, reality waited exactly until our plane took off whereupon I experienced one of the worst hangovers of my life and subsequently missed my train to Oxford. Please drink responsibly.

Image Credit: Gracie Oddie James.

Pierre Poilievre: Canada’s next Prime Minister?

Samuel Moore
-
0
Pierre Poilievre: Canada’s next Prime Minister?

American trends tend to reach Canada immediately after they’ve gone out of date – and right-wing populism seems to be no exception. In the February of 2022, a convoy of truck drivers from across Canada descended on the nation’s capital, Ottawa, blockading the streets and keeping the city’s residents awake with incessant honking. The convoy’s original purpose was to protest vaccine mandates, but it quickly evolved into a broader protest against the long-time and long-hated Liberal government of Justin Trudeau.

Everybody knows about Trudeau, and everybody has an opinion on him – even non-Canadians. To liberals, he is the standard bearer of progressivism, feminism, and multiculturalism. To lefties, he is a corrupt phoney enforcer of the neoliberal world order. And to conservatives, he is the demonic ultra-woke lovechild of Fidel Castro and a pawn of George Soros. But even the most ferocious, conspiratorial, foaming-at-the-mouth, non-Canadian critics of Trudeau seem to know virtually nothing about the leading man to replace him. Nor do many other politically engaged non-Canadians. This myopia is a shame. Canada’s internal power struggles may be insignificant compared to larger and more politically divided democracies, like India, Brazil and of course the United States – but by understanding this Canadian case study of right-wing populism, perhaps we can better understand why so many young people across the world are so enhanced by it.

Pierre Poilievre, the poster boy of the anti-vax trucker convoy and brand-new leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, was first elected MP in 2004 at the age of 25. He quickly gained a reputation as the Tories’ “attack dog”, frequently engaging in profanity and unruly behaviour in the House of Commons. When the Liberals gained power in 2015, Poilievre postured himself as Trudeau’s most outspoken and uncompromising critic, lampooning big government, corruption, “Justinflation”, and political correctness. Cleverly exploiting YouTube, Poilievre developed a robust online presence, firmly wedging himself into the hearts of discontented culture warriors, disheartened by the moderate Conservative establishment. Canadian politics tends to be quite mild and it is very rare to find quirky and flamboyant characters in Parliament, so Poilievre’s witty bluntness and tendency to engage in attention-seeking stunts came across to many as refreshing. Fusing his unrelenting criticism of Trudeau with an irreverent yet jolly disposition, he jokingly assured the media, “Oh c’mon, I’m a very nice guy!” when accused of being too partisan and radical. When Trudeau was embroiled in a conflict-of-interest scandal, Poilievre held a press conference during which he tossed supposedly damning government documents into a crowd of journalists. After announcing his bid to lead the Tories, Poilievre released an unscripted, blooper-filled video of himself eating breakfast while talking to a camera. In between taking jabs at Trudeau’s vanity and choking on his own food, Poilievre incredulously listed the inflated prices of each food item, exclaiming that a single mom would be better at managing the economy than Trudeau. These stunts endeared him to the right-wing base, sick of the pretentious ultra-scripted language of Trudeau and the meekness of the insufficiently conservative opposition. In this sense, Poilievre very much emulates his American equivalent, Donald Trump.

After two botched attempts by mild-mannered moderate Tory leaders to unseat Trudeau in 2019 and 2021, Poilievre rode to an overwhelming victory in the 2022 Conservative leadership election, thanks in part to young voters – a traditionally left-wing demographic. On the one hand, this appears idiosyncratic as Poilievre embodies many archetypical conservative beliefs. He advocates supply-side economics, opposes a carbon tax to curtail climate change, and constantly bashes woke culture. But like other successful right-wing populists, Poilievre has fused these conservative views with broader cross-ideological complaints. As part of his platform, he denounced big banks and corporate lobbyists as “gatekeepers” in cahoots with the business-friendly Liberal Party to raise the prices of food, housing, and other services for ordinary Canadians. Offering right-wing libertarian solutions to these typically left-wing anxieties, Poilievre has promised to slash government regulations, which he claims are propping up corporate monopolies. Canadian companies have long relied on economic protectionism to avoid competition with American markets, and Poilievre’s platform of deregulation appeals to many consumers. Moreover, in a way that distinguishes him from Trump and other right-wing populists, Poilievre’s social policies are progressive. He is pro-choice and pro-LGBT rights and has actually criticised the Trudeau ministry for not being pro-immigration enough, belittling the inefficiencies of the current immigration system as yet another example of big government “gatekeeping”. Reiterated repeatedly in his campaign for the Tory leadership, he declared his intentions to make Canada the “freest nation on earth”. And unlike US conservatives, Poilievre appears to be consistent, applying this “freedom” mantra to both economic and social issues. These syncretic policies explain why, despite being such a viciously partisan politician, Poilievre is currently poised to take Trudeau’s job.

But despite Poilievre’s populist posturing, he in many ways embodies the very “gatekeeping” he himself criticises. Elected to parliament at the age of 25, Poilievre is the quintessential career politician. Mudslinging for Conservative leaders, he gradually ascended through the party ranks. And despite the apparent grassroots support for his campaign, he, for the most part, has the goodwill of the Conservative establishment, who ousted their previous leader fully knowing that Poilievre would be the replacement. Unsurprisingly, his attacks on “gatekeeping” corporations don’t extend to the oil industry which has long obstructed efforts to shift Canada towards renewable energy. In fact, he accuses Trudeau of “promoting foreign oil interests”, a stark contrast from his anti-gatekeeper attitude towards other protectionist measures. And while Poilievre has postured in video ads about his commitment to ending Canada’s housing crisis, he has yet to release a full plan on how he intends to do this. Consistent with his platform of “freedom”, Poilievre has vaguely promised to reduce building permit fees and processing times. But this laissez-faire policy of “just build more houses” ignores that the chief cause of the housing crisis is not a lack of housing – there are over a million vacant homes in Canada – but rather low affordability. In fact, despite casting the Liberal government as inactive, Poilievre’s proposals are significantly less comprehensive than the current actions of the Trudeau government, which has at least banned foreign investors and provided financial aid to homebuyers. Poilievre’s agenda of tax cuts, deficit reduction and privatisation, despite being bundled in populist garb, regurgitates the same tried and tested neoliberal policies of Reagan and Thatcher, which, as Truss’s fall demonstrates, is hardly anything to be desired in this economic climate.

Along with these conventional neoliberal attitudes towards economics, Poilievre has incorporated his own erratic crackpot plots into his platform, such as his enthusiasm for bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. In his leadership campaign, Poilievre vowed to make Canada the “blockchain capital of the world” – a position which he has since remained silent on now that he has clinched the leadership. And despite his progressive stances on social issues, Poilievre has catered to the conspiratorial Canadian hard-right. Not only was his very rise to power predicated on the anti-vax “Freedom convoy”, but he also has made frequent attacks against the World Economic Forum and their COVID-19 recover plan, dubbed the “Great Reset”, a favourite target of antisemitic conspiracy theorists in Canada. Equally alarmingly, Global News recently revealed that at least 50 videos on Poilievre’s YouTube channel featured the hidden tag #mgtow, invoking the alt-right anti-feminist online community. Though Poilievre claimed he was not aware of the tag, apologised, and had his staff remove it, the fact that his campaign team sought to court these voters in the first place is deeply concerning, and reflects poorly on the movement.

The past seven years of Trudeau have exhausted many Canadians, and with the continuing post-pandemic recession, coupled with the energy crisis caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, many Canadians are looking for a change in leadership. Poilievre, who has injected much-needed energy into the political landscape and has rallied not only conservatives but disaffected liberals and leftists, to his cause, poses a serious threat to Trudeau in the next general election. This past year, both Sweden and Italy have thrown out their long-time governments in favour of coalitions led by or including right-wing populist parties. Canada could very much be the next country to follow this trend. Poilievre has the charisma, the platform, and the grassroots support to win – but does he have the competence and temperament to govern?

Image: CC1:0// Andrew Scheer via Flickr.

Ranking Oxford Clubs

Jack Twyman
-
0
Ranking Oxford Clubs

Oxford nightlife is a unique experience. While all the clubs in Oxford struggle to compete with the rest of the country, we have what we have, and my relative ratings of each are below. If chosen properly and approached in the right way, Oxford can definitely ensure you have a very fun night out.

1. Hanks Cocktail Bar, 10/10

Free entry most weekdays means this club takes the top spot. The banging reggaeton music makes up for the lack of lights and guarantees a good night of dancing. This is an attractive venue, with plenty of comfy seating, elegant ceiling lights, and friendly bouncers – make sure you bring your ID and you are good to go. Drink prices are eyewatering, but other than that you are guaranteed a good night. Slight disclaimer that this club does attract an older cohort of graduate students and the like, so some may think it odd, but this is no different from the weekends at Atik or Bridge when the locals descend in droves.

2. Atik, 9/10.

Perhaps the biggest club in central Oxford, Atik is one of my personal favourites. There is something for everyone here – the Cheese floor with its light-up dancefloor, the Curve room with rap, and the main floor with a variety of music genres. There are lots of sofas, a few bathrooms, and lots of bars. If you make the most of Broke Mondays, it’s a very affordable night – just be cautious on Park End Wednesdays and over the weekend. Atik loses a point for the long queue that forms outside it, and for the dismal smoking area, which is just a fenced-in area of pavement. A good attribute is their impressive security, with metal detectors and wallet searches which mean it should in theory be safer than clubs like Bridge or Plush, which lack these extra measures.

3. Bridge, 8.5/10

Bridge, whose clubbing experience I call “clubbing in a corridor”, has a certain charm even in and amongst the crowded dancefloors. Downstairs is a nightmare for any sober clubber, as the lack of personal space is enough to be unsettling. Upstairs has a more generous dancefloor area, and lots of seating. Added to this is the huge smoking area outside which is a standout feature of Bridge –  its trellised walls and canvas roof mean this is an all-weather outdoor area and can be perfect for taking a break from the heat and intensity inside the club. A new bar has just opened outside too – what more could you want?

4. Bullingdon, 8/10

Renowned for its themed nights, the Bullingdon makes up for its average appearance with a healthy calendar of events that has something for everyone. From ‘Fluoresent Adolosecent’ to ‘Haute Mess’, this club really goes the extra mile to entice you into Cowley. Unlike Glamorous, the walk is well worth it. While drinks are pricey, the two rooms of the club offer variety: the packed dancefloor, though “pushy and shovey” as some have described it, has great vibes, while the other room offers a more relaxed social area with sofas. Just be prepared to have no personal space on those themed nights, and also to encounter many Brookes students – if for some weird reason that’s an issue for you.

5. OXO Bar, 7.5/10 (for pre-drinks)

Cheap cocktails and decent music. OXO isn’t a club, but it is a good warm-up stop for pre-drinks, and really has lots to offer. The seating and theming are rather boujee, and I approve of its proximity to the Four Candles, Atik and Bridge. A great location, and great prices, at least from Sunday to Thursday. The student deal includes cocktails for £2.50, a real bargain for Oxford prices. It might be difficult to find a table on some evenings, but not impossible.

6. O2 Academy, 7//10

Apart from the regular silent disco or a music gig, there really isn’t much reason you would end up at the O2 Academy on a night out because, quite simply, you can’t. However, this venue a notable mention as it offers to Oxford what no-other place does. A proper large-scale live music venue. It is located in Cowley but is definitely still walkable, and the generous selection of kebab vans along the way will help you on your walk back.

7. Plush, 5/10

While I should love Plush, I find it hard to enjoy. The club is located in the basement of the Oxford Union, and as a result is cramped and crowded. The dancefloor is tiny – genuinely really small – and on some nights it gets so hot that sweat gathers in droplets and drips from the ceiling. The vibe in this club changes drastically with the days of the week – from ‘Tuesgays’ and music to match, as well as events like ‘Drag and Disorderly’, to the weekends with a mix of people – think rugby lads.

8. Spirit, 5/10

I still haven’t worked out what this club is meant to be, other than that you can get to Bridge through it, and, in doing so, skip the Bridge queue. I am unsure if it counts as its own club, but with an entrance next to Atik, it is nearer to there than to Bridge.

9. Glamorous 2/10

Aside from the venue’s recent controversy, I don’t know how to describe this place. It is half-club, half-bar, with a basement floor open only on select days. The drinks aren’t too expensive, and the music isn’t too bad, but there’s nothing to justify walking into Cowley just to go to this club. It is free. But so it should be.

10. Thirst,1/10

Thirst is my go-to club if the queue for Atik is too long and the winter night is feeling particularly cold. It has handy glass walls which allow you to assess the queue for Atik before you decide to brave it. Other than its warmth, Thirst is a no-go. Tiny, awkward and hardly warranting the title “club”.  

Notable mentions:

1. Freud

Events at Freud are amazing if you manage to get tickets to one. Normally costing around £10 for entry, this venue offers you a black-tie fantasy for a fraction of the cost of a ball. String lights dangle from the spacious chapel room, while the old stained-glass windows are a subtle nod to its history. With live jazz bands and plenty of space, tables and facilities, there isn’t a reason not to love it. Don’t be put off by Freud’s appearance in the daytime – at night it is transformed to become my favourite venue in Oxford. If your ticket includes a free drink, be very grateful; the drinks here are some of the strongest on offer in Oxford and make surprisingly good value.

2. Wetherspoons

Spoons is the only place other than college bars that is affordable on a student’s budget. Whether to visit the Four Candles or the Swan and Castle is always the question. Indeed, you may find yourself moving between the two in your search for a table. Personally, The Four Candles has an aura of grandiosity, which can be charming, but it normally remains packed and trying to get to the bar can be a challenge. The Swan and Castle is more modern and has music – apparently a normal thing, just not where I’m from – and this one has a more chilled atmosphere. However, with both being about the same distance from Atik and Bridge, there isn’t much between them as a pres spot.  

3. The White Rabbit

They have reasonably priced pizza on demand and heated outdoor seats lit with pretty lights.

4. The Mad Hatter

Any Alice in Wonderland fan will adore this bar and its theme. Usually hosting live music events, they have a nice variety of custom cocktails and normal drinks. While it can be quite cramped, the atmosphere is worth it.

Image Credit: Arvind Shakya via Pexels.

Correction: Changed the wrongful attribution of ‘Drag and Disorderly’ from the Bullingdon to Plush where the event is actually held (4th November 2022).

Return to in-person lectures causes accessibility problems for students

Alicia Martínez Patiño
-
0
Return to in-person lectures causes accessibility problems for students

The end of COVID-19 restrictions at Oxford University has brought about the return to in-person learning. Students now have to get used to attending lectures in actual theatres and auditoriums instead of their own rooms, which has caused accessibility issues for some.

As we revert back to our pre-pandemic lifestyle, most departments have resumed in-person lectures, but only some of them have resorted to the harsher measure of removing previous  recordings from Canvas, Oxford’s online learning environment. The University’s actions have had various effects on different students and courses.

Instead of a unified strategy, different subjects approach in-person and remote learning in different ways. Cherwell found that some humanities, like History, grant full access to lecture recordings on Canvas. On the other hand, sciences like Chemistry and Biology have most of their lectures in person, but these are recorded, so students are still able to re-watch the material on their own time. Mathematicians have described a “hit-or-miss organisation” of their teaching hours. In principle, classes are generally recorded, but calendars have become unreliable, with some lectures being left out of official schedules, and therefore not  uploaded to Canvas. PPE is one of the most disparate courses, as only Economics recordings are available online, while the Faculty of Philosophy and the Department of Politics organise their lectures exclusively in person.

Quick and effective technological progress might be considered the silver lining of the switch to remote learning after the pandemic, so some are asking why are its positives being overlooked in favour of in-person teaching.

The reasoning behind this is explained by the English Faculty’s statement on the topic. Even though they were available on Canvas at the beginning of the term, English lectures are no longer being uploaded. An exception has been made for those with Student Support Plans, who will be provided with these materials. An official email has been sent to all other students reminding them that they are “not permitted to make recordings of Faculty lectures” even on their own accord. These measures, according to the Faculty, aim to preserve “the interaction between the lecturer and the audience” and to help students develop skills such as “listening” and “notetaking”.

Are students convinced of the benefits of strictly in-person lectures? An English student told Cherwell that the lack of recordings does not help in terms of reaching the work-life balance on which the University places so much importance: “It makes it difficult when there are extracurricular clashes, like sports commitments”. Some students are left to rely on their peers’ willingness to collaborate, which could vary across colleges. “My cohort is nice enough to give lecture notes to anyone who’s missed things, but that’s a privilege that probably doesn’t exist in colleges where it’s more competitive between students,” one student says.

Conversely, a Modern Languages student told Cherwell that having lectures available to watch online helped her organise her day in a way that fits her commitments and schedule. However, she also feels that “going to lectures in person is good for specific topics that [she] is interested in or could benefit from brushing up on”. In any case, she appreciates flexibility.

Another way to look at the matter of lectures is through the eyes of disabled students at Oxford. Returning to full, in-person learning can become an even bigger change for those with a disability. Mobility issues are just one of the many possible obstacles, and different circumstances can pose serious difficulties in travelling to or attending lectures. Being asked about this, one student considers the removal of lectures from Canvas very challenging: “While I have permission to record lectures, I’m expected to physically go and do this myself, which, in my mind, entirely defeats the point. I can’t record it myself if I’m suffering symptoms or at the doctor, but no option exists for anyone else to record it for me.”

The benefits of keeping lectures online were clear from examining students’ experiences and personal circumstances – from disabilities to time-management. Even an Oxford study has recently highlighted the benefits of remote learning as a tool to familiarise ourselves with the digital realm. The University seems, however, to be set on discarding most of the advances that COVID-19 was able to push us into adopting.

A University of Oxford spokesperson told Cherwell: “Oxford recognises that some students will have particular requirements in regard to how they best access on-course learning materials.  A wide range of individual adjustments and study support is therefore available for disabled students, through personalised Student Support Plans via the Disability Advisory Service. Additionally, we have published our first Educational Recordings Policy, which recognises that publishing recordings to supplement in-person teaching can support learning by enabling students to review and revisit material. It also explains that lecture recordings in particular are a significant step forward in making teaching more inclusive for disabled students. Departments take this into consideration when deciding what recordings to make available, alongside the suitability of recordings for specific subjects, topics and approaches to teaching.  Despite the return to in-person teaching, Panopto usage at Oxford remains more than double that of 2019. Given the prevalence of recordings, students are encouraged to find out how to make the most of recorded lectures to enhance their study strategies.”

Too old?: Claims of age discrimination relaunched against University of Oxford 

Olivia Boyle
-
0
Too old?: Claims of age discrimination relaunched against University of Oxford 

A group of professors have launched an age discrimination claim against the university. There will be a tribunal in November. This comes just three years after it was found that Physics professor, Paul Ewart had been unfairly dismissed on the grounds of his age. 

The current campaign aims to get rid of the university’s ‘Employer Justified Retirement Age’ policy that states that all academic staff have to retire the September before their sixty-ninth birthday. In his campaign against the ageist treatment of his retirement, Paul Ewart stated that this was not a matter of money or status but simply of the “dignity of continuing employment”. 

Though the revitalisation of the university’s workforce is vital for research and for the health of the academic institution, completely axing staff older than 68 does raise questions. Should there be a modified role put in place for academics of retirement age to allow for replenished staffing as well as the continuation of important work? 

In 2017, English Professor John Pitcher lost his claim of unfair dismissal under the university’s retirement policy. These cases of ageism do beg the question why Oxford hasn’t got a more appropriate solution to retirement when over a decade ago the retirement age was abolished under the Equalities Act. Since then the university has continued to quietly dismiss staff only due to their age, it seems to be easier than ever to be banished to the sidelines of the academic world. Nevertheless, the need to renew the university body of academics and researchers is fundamental to the pursuit of groundbreaking work. This was evident in the 2017 Congregation vote on the retirement policy which was maintained by 1,142 votes to 538.

Image Credit: [Prosthetic Head]/[CC BY-SA 4.0] via [Wikimedia commons]

Feta, tzatziki, and olive oil: the delights of Greek cuisine

Katerina Lygaki
-
0
Feta, tzatziki, and olive oil: the delights of Greek cuisine

Hello, I’m Katerina and I’m Greek. Now that we’ve established 90% of my personality, I’d like to take you on an imaginative journey through my favourite dishes from the motherland. Before going any further, I do have to give a little shoutout to my mum for being the best cook out there, and to Akis Petretzikis for creating really accessible recipes for Greek traditional dishes that have also been translated into English. If you are curious to make anything that I mention, do go on his site because his recipes are delicious and are quite authentic. Without further ado, here’s my definitive ranking of Greek cuisine.

  1. Χωριάτικη σαλάτα (Choriatiki salad)

This dish is better known as a ‘Greek Salad’, with tomatoes, green peppers, cucumber, raw red onion, olives, capers, feta, oregano and, of course, olive oil. A Greek family whips up this salad pretty much every single day. My favourite part has always been the ‘papara’ where you dip fresh bread in the olive oil at the bottom of the bowl, but beware, do not attempt to make this at home. The vegetables in the UK just do not hold their own compared to the produce in Greece, and any time I’ve attempted to make this in Oxford, I’ve been rudely surprised.

2. Γεμιστά (Gemista)

The literal translation for this dish is ‘stuffed’. Stuffed what, you may ask. This dish is a labour of love, hollowing out aubergines, zucchinis, green peppers, onions and tomatoes; stuffing them with a rice mixture; and slow-cooking them in the oven until the tomatoes and olive oil caramelise to perfection. The best part of this dish is definitely the left-over rice in the pan. It is best enjoyed with a big slice of bread and, of course, feta.

3. Γαριδομακαρονάδα (Garidomakaronada)

This is a shrimp pasta dish that involves a lot of garlic, tomatoes and shrimp. It is best enjoyed on a Greek island, overlooking the marina on a hot summer evening.

4. Παστίτσιο (Pastitsio)

When I described this dish to my mum as Greek lasagna, she hit me with her shoe. Now, I’ll let you be the judge. This dish starts with a layer of fat bucatini, then a layer of Bolognese sauce (the Greek way which includes a lot of cinnamon, bay leaves and clove), and topped with a layer of bechamel sauce. This dish is even better than ‘mousaka’, and its components of pasta Bolognese inspired one of the greatest Greek pop songs of all time: ‘Ela mou’ by Sakis Rouvas, in which Sakis entices his potential lover by singing ‘I will cook you pasta Bolognese to eat’.

5. Κολοκυθοκεφτέδες (Kolokithokeftedes)

These zucchini balls are made from a zucchini, feta and herb mixture that is fried in olive oil and is perfectly fluffy on the inside and crispy on the outside. They are the perfect addition to any Greek spread— the most common way to eat Greek food is meze style— and it couples perfectly with some fresh fish or a Greek salad.

6. Γαλακτομπούρεκο (Galaktomoureko)

I admit that this is a desert, so please don’t come for me, but it is so delicious I could not omit it. This is a milk custard that is wrapped in filo and baked. It is then doused in a lemony, cinnamon syrup and it is truly to die for.

7. Σουβλάκι (Souvlaki)

This is the ultimate street food. Ignore all the food trucks in Oxford because souvlaki is the perfect drunk food. Usually priced around 2 euros per wrap, the combination of pork (or chicken), fries, tomatoes, raw red onion and tzatziki has a very, very special place in my heart.

8. Μπριάμ (Mpriam)

This is another dish that highlights the importance of good ingredients (and olive oil) in Greek cuisine. It involves potatoes, aubergine, zucchini, onions, carrots, tomatoes and garlic tossed in oil and baked in the oven. The outcome is beautifully steamed vegetables that melt into each other.

9. Κοκορέστι (Kokoretsi)

Only eaten on Easter Sunday, this dish is basically a big skewer of organ meats that are wrapped in intestine lining and slow-roasted over an open fire. The meats become so tender and juicy that a simple side of Greek salad suffices in creating an excellent dish.

10. Λουκουμάδες (Loukoumades)

Saving the best for last, this is the best on-the-go dessert out there. It is the ‘crème de la crème’ of Greek cuisine: fried dough balls that have been dipped in honey and cinnamon. They are the perfect end to a summer day.

Image Credit: Katerina Lygaki.

Turtle Bay review – The Caribbean arrives in Oxford

Oliver Hall
-
0
Turtle Bay review – The Caribbean arrives in Oxford

Character is something hard to foster and maintain in a restaurant that is part of a chain, especially one that now numbers 48 in the UK — the fact that Turtle Bay manages to achieve that alongside great quality food is perhaps its biggest achievement. It brings a Caribbean ‘vibe’ to central Oxford and is genuinely unique in the city in its food, style, and atmosphere.

That Caribbean character doesn’t come through by accident either. Managers David and Csenge tell me that it is the result of careful design and planning that comes right from the top of the organisation. Founder Ajith insists that the open bar is the first thing customers see when they enter every restaurant, likewise with the open kitchen and its grills. These are placed in the service window, front and centre for everyone to see them used for all of the Roti dishes.

The menu itself is truly eclectic, drawing on all areas of the Caribbean with an eye to authenticity tailored to the UK market. During our visit we were able to sample a wide range of dishes from all parts of the menu; stretching from the famous bottomless brunch, to currys, jerk pits, buddha bowls, soul food, and burgers. The one thing that was the same across all areas was the power of the flavours. Almost without fail, everything we ate was punching full of a brilliant mix of spice, heat, and freshness.

Bottomless brunch is definitely what has made the restaurant most well-known and after trying the Honey Bunny Yardbird I can see why. The dish is a Caribbean take on American-style chicken and pancakes and consists of three soft and fluffy roti pancakes, topped with brilliantly succulent fried chicken, cream cheese, and maple syrup. Served with watermelon for another tropical spin, the combination of flavours works eerily well and I was left going back time and time again for more.

Yardbird

Among the starters, the crispy squid and the ‘Trini doubles’ stood out. The squid are thin and only very lightly battered — a welcome change from the pub-style ‘calamari’ that you often get in the UK. They are drizzled with coconut milk and chilli sauce — two sauces that combine brilliantly. The Trini doubles are intriguing — two roti with curried chickpeas, cucumber relish, and coconut. They have a deep backstory but are definitely plainer tasting than some other things on offer.

Squid and ‘Trini doubles’

When most people think of Caribbean cuisine, jerk chicken is what jumps out. Turtle Bay’s is seasoned with thyme, which is a nice touch, but the chicken breast itself was less juicy than in some of the other dishes. The slaw that came alongside was a good balance of creamy and fresh but not overdoing it whilst the side salad stared with beetroot, tomatoes, and a truly unique but delicious coconut-infused dressing.

Jerk Chicken

Fish fry features as a nod to Barbados and consists of more of that brilliant squid and a chunky piece of skin on salmon alongside fries. The squid were just as good as before and the skin of the salmon was irresistible but the meat itself was slightly overdone and lacking in flavour as a result. The spicy mac and cheese is a good accompaniment, bringing a welcome chilli kick to a dish that most don’t bother innovating on.

Fish fry and that chilli mac and cheese

Another signature here is the curried goat and boy does this one live up to the hype. Cooked for five hours in a delicious sauce, the meat falls apart as a result and is packed full of hearty flavour and warmth.

Curried goat

Elsewhere, the buddha bowls present a fresher and lighter alternative to soul food. Having said that, you certainly won’t be left feeling hungry with each one including brown rice. These dishes are real eye-catchers, made up of lettuce, watermelon, pineapple, cucumber, tomatoes, mushrooms, squash, beetroot, avocado, and more before getting finished off with your protein of choice. It’s almost impossible to get a complete bite but, if you make the effort, the combination of flavours is well worth it! Burgers are also on offer but if you are to make the trip I’d definitely advise sticking to the classics.

The eye-catching Tofu Buddha bowl

Drinks are of course where Turtle Bay has really made its name. Open all the way through from breakfast to midnight, the restaurant morphs into a late-night location after nine with a second happy hour and great ‘late-night-eats’ deals. The music amps up and the result is an atmosphere tailor-made for cocktails and rum sharers!

Speaking to staff, it is clear that they are more keen now than ever before to draw students in before going out to clubs and house parties. They are currently offering all students a free £10 to use after 9 PM and, together with the attraction of 4 cocktails and 2 small plates or sides for just £24.50, Turtle Bay makes a great spot to settle in for the evening or stop off at before a night out.

Scan for the student offer!

Overall, the remarkable thing about Turtle Bay is how it manages to cater to so many different customers and markets successfully. From breakfast, to brunch, to lunch, to dinner and beyond, the food is unique and flavourful throughout. If you are looking for a totally different experience from anything else on offer in the city right now, this is the place to go.

Images: Oliver Hall.

The 2024 Conundrum: Should Biden Run?

Lucas Haskins
-
0
The 2024 Conundrum: Should Biden Run?

The presidency is the ultimate job. Theoretically available to any American, it shimmers mirage-like on millions of intimate and individual horizons. In What It Takes, his 1,100 page paean to president-picking, Richard Ben Cramer writes that this singularity “was someone altogether larger, and more extraordinary than we.” 

This chief executive, we are told, holds the keys to that “shining city on the hill”, and cradles, Vestal-like, freedom’s very flame. 

Also, they get the nuclear codes. 

Joe Biden, like his predecessors, has a face and a voice known to billions. His every utterance is newsworthy, and if he falls off a bike? Well, that goes straight in the history books. 

In the last few decades, the presidency has lost a lot of its imperial sheen. Some of that is due to the end of the Cold War, and some of that simply reflects the unglamorous reality of 21st century life and media. Frankly, Rick and Morty’s President Curtis hit the nail on the head with “try having an historical administration after Facebook goes online, you old-timey bitch!” 

There are simply too many opportunities to look undignified. 

Yet, even given the recent phenomenon of presidential memeability, who holds the post does, to understate somewhat, matter. And with Donald Trump lingering like a fart in a poorly ventilated room, the question that every panicky liberal wants answered is “should Biden run again?”

Currently: yes.

Among other things, it would be weird if he did not. 

The last time a president failed to seek reelection / election in his own right was in 1968; the year in which the dream died. The country was buckling, “going up in flames each summer” as MLK put it, cracking and straining under the pressures of war, of cultural change, of progress and backlash. 

Lyndon B. Johnson had an albatross, Vietnam, hanging round his neck, dragging his approvals ever downwards, and he was facing a gruelling primary season. 

Eugene McCarthy, the progressive senator from Wisconsin, challenged him for the Democratic nomination and massively overperformed expectations in New Hampshire, losing, but losing by only 7 points; 49% to 42%. Scenting blood in the water, Robert F. Kennedy also entered the race. Staring down declining health and declining poll numbers, Johnson withdrew to live out his few remaining years in his native Texas. 

Before Johnson bowed out, the last president to eschew reelection was Harry Truman, who failed to seek his party’s nomination in 1952, believing, as Johnson did, that his electoral prospects were fast becoming untenable. It should be noted, however, that both men had already served for longer than four years. Johnson completed Jack Kennedy’s term after his assassination in Dallas, and Truman had served just shy of eight years, taking over from FDR following his death in the early months of his fourth term. 

It would therefore be highly anomalous, in modern presidential politics at least, were Biden to stand down before 2024.

Of course, the important normative question is not “would it be weird if Biden didn’t run?”, but rather “should he run?”, and this is intimately linked to whether he can win. 

Those who have already written off Biden for 2024 are wrong. He can run. He can win. 

Biden likes to say “don’t compare me to the Almighty, compare me to the alternative” and that is what this article will do. Despite his drawbacks and the obvious risks inherent in seeking a second term, for five principal reasons, Joe Biden remains the best option for Democrats to hold the White House against Trump and Republican extremism, whilst also translating liberal aspirations into substantive policy. 

Firstly, let’s dispel a nasty rumour. 

Biden is not senile – he simply is not. He has fully shouldered the burden of the presidency; the meetings, the travel, the speeches, the gruelling hours, and he is fine. You need not even take my word for it – Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R – West Virginia) called him “sharp as a tack” in meetings. Senator Todd Young, also a Republican, this one from Indiana, stated that Biden was “well-prepared and well-briefed” when the two spoke. 

Believe me, it is obvious when a politician has held onto office longer than is advisable. Articles about 89 year-old Senator Dianne Feinstein’s cognitive decline have become Washington and California cottage industries, and she is not nearly the chamber’s worst. According to one Senate aide, Strom Thurmond, who reached his 100th birthday whilst still a Senator, spent his last decade unaware “if he was on foot or on horseback”.

Joe Biden is not Pericles. He was gaffe-prone in 2008, he was gaffe-prone when he first ran for President in 1988, and he will be gaffe-prone until the day he dies. His tendency to put his foot in it produces frequent wince-inducing moments. This does not mean he is unwell. 

Contemporary Presidents constantly find themselves answering questions before the cameras whilst exhausted and disoriented. All of them make errors. The Washington Post recently noted that these errors tend to be spun by opposition partisans to bolster wider, politically salient narratives: Bill Clinton = devious, Reagan and Bush Jr. = stupid, Biden = demented, etc. 

Amusingly, it appears widely forgotten that, like Roman augurs with chicken innards, liberals spent four years examining footage of Donald Trump and divining health woes everywhere. How quaint now seems the collective hysteria over Trump drinking a glass of water with two hands and awkwardly descending a ramp. 

The lesson is that partisans seek to convince themselves of the things they want to be true and that ceaseless documentation of modern presidents makes this especially easy.

Donald Trump remains frustratingly alive, and to paraphrase a misquoted Mark Twain: reports of Joe Biden’s dementia are greatly exaggerated. 

It is true that Joe is old, and I do not wish to dismiss the problems that may accompany this reality. When he was inaugurated in January 2021 at a robust 78, he immediately became the oldest man ever to hold the presidency. Ronald Reagan was 77 when he left office, and that was after 8 years in the job. Biden will soon be 80.

Of course the question of whether Biden can function in the role of President – not “is he as sharp across all dimensions as he was in, say, the 1990s”, but “can he do the job?” – is absolutely critical. But the answer is “yes”. Circumstances can always change, but there is currently no health related impetus for replacing the President atop the Democratic ticket. 

Secondly, Joe Biden’s prospects look brighter than they did in the summer. 

When I first drafted this article, I described his approval ratings as “horrible”, resembling in trajectory and magnitude “a man bleeding out.” 

Since that rather gloomy time, Biden has been on a hot streak. His approval ratings are ticking upwards with a dogged consistency previously reserved for the downward trend begun a year ago with the Afghanistan withdrawal and the BBB slugfest. From lows of c. -20 in June, as of late October, Biden is at -12; not good by any means, but no longer catastrophic. 

Moreover, and more importantly, approval ratings at this point (give or take a couple of months) really aren’t very instructive. At the end of 1982 / beginning of 1983, Reagan’s approval ratings were in the high 30s / low 40s. Even in April 1982, when his approval ratings were only c. -4 (43% approval to 47% disapproval), hypothetical match-ups showed him tied with Walter Mondale (Jimmy Carter’s Veep) and trailing Teddy Kennedy by 6 points. 

Of course, Democrats ultimately nominated Mondale and Reagan annihilated him, winning  every state in the union save for Mondale’s home of Minnesota – which he clung onto by fewer than 4,000 votes. 

By contrast, at this point in his presidency, George H.W. Bush was polling in the 70s and was yet to drop below 50%. In November 1992, Bill Clinton, a previously little-known Governor of Arkansas with a history of extramarital affairs, turfed Bush out of The White House – and it was not particularly close.

Of course, Reagan was at his nadir midway through his first term, and Bush was just shy of his high point. The former trended upwards as his reelection approached, and the latter trended downwards (although in both cases by less than one might perhaps imagine). Had Reagan faced the voters with approval ratings under 40% he likely would have lost, and had Bush stayed in the 70s, he certainly would have won. 

The point is not to say right now that Biden is guaranteed to win or guaranteed to lose were he to seek reelection. The point is that approval ratings are a dynamic indicator, and the status quo one day might seem unimaginable the next. Or, as Harold Macmillan put it, leaders are variously aided and challenged by “events, dear boy, events.”

As it happens, there are reasons to be hopeful when looking at Biden’s approval ratings. Among other things, there is a decent chance he gets more popular in the next year or two. 

The last two Democratic Presidents, Clinton and Obama, both saw their approval ratings melt during their first two years in office. In the subsequent midterms (1994 and 2010), both men took a beating, a “shellacking” as Obama famously called it. Both lost dozens of seats in the House, and eye-watering numbers of seats in the Senate. Under Clinton, Democrats lost both chambers, whereas in 2010, a narrow Democratic Senate majority was preserved.

The downside was that Republicans gained control of much of government, but the upside was that Republicans gained control of much of government. Having a trifecta is awesome, and it lets you pass legislation, but it inevitably invites thermostatic backlash. It also means that the party in power, regardless of a situation’s actual context, gets blamed for anything and everything that goes wrong. 

By contrast, divided government can give the president a foil, a reminder of why said president’s voters chose him (thus far) over “those guys”. This effect is particularly pronounced when the foil is composed of congressional Republicans, currently an extreme and extremely off-putting bunch. (Google Marjorie Taylor Greene if doubtful). 

Both Obama and Clinton saw their approval ratings start ticking up after Democrats lost power in Congress. In November 2010, Obama’s approval was at -4%, but come election day 2012, it was back up to +12%. Clinton’s polls fluctuated a little more, but immediately prior to the 1994 midterms he was often dropping below -10%. Yet, just as with Obama, by 1996 and Clinton’s own day of reckoning he was at +20%. 

Democrats, despite probably doing better than in 1994 or 2010, still look extremely likely to lose the House and possibly the Senate too. This will present massive dangers for the country, as I have explored here, but to be totally blunt, it might improve Biden’s reelection chances: it did for the last two Democrats. 

Thirdly, Biden has a surprisingly strong record upon which to run in 2024. 

On the 20th of July, The New Statesman ran this article titled “Why Joe Biden failed”. This seems harsh and rather overstated. For one thing, labelling a presidency a failure 1/3rd of the way through the first term is surely jumping the gun. And for another, on the merits of Biden’s presidency it is not a failure at all. Actually, thus far at least, a remarkable amount has been achieved. 

The tortured and tortuous history of the Biden legislative agenda deserves an article of its own, and so I will not go into it here, but suffice to say that the President’s domestic accomplishments include (among so much else) the extension until 2025 of enhanced Obamacare subsidies, around $200 billion dollars for scientific research, $52 billion to develop domestic semiconductor manufacturing capacities, $1,400 stimulus cheques to individuals as part of the COVID recovery, $550 billion in new spending of (re)building infrastructure, and the year-long Child Tax Credit. 

This is in addition to the closure of loopholes in the tax code which disproportionately benefited the wealthy, as well the largest ever American investment in decarbonization (c. $370 billion). 

Joe Biden has run the most pro-worker, pro-union administration in decades, and shifted the economic orthodoxy decisively in favour of industrial policy and other forms of government intervention. Moreover, Biden deserves significant credit for the resolve of the NATO alliance in the face of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Under his leadership, the US has put its money where its mouth is, appropriating over $50 billion for Ukraine, including billions worth of armaments.

Should Joe Biden seek reelection in 2024, he will be able to do so as the rare president better with actions than with words, and as the rare president with a veritable smorgasbord of impressive and enacted policies. 

Meanwhile, Donald Trump does not have a positive economic case to make for his reelection. Even looking solely at 2017, his administration failed in its attempt to repeal Obamacare (which would have been disastrous), and his tax cut cost $1.9 trillion whilst doing remarkably little for regular people. The economic theory was that slashing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% would spur investment leading to more employment, higher wages, and greater output. 

One of the many problems, however, was that corporations did not need the money. As we now understand looking back on the 2010s, liquidity was extremely easy to come by and borrowing was shockingly cheap. In other words, there were minimal constraints on corporate investment even without the rate reduction. One IMF analysis concluded unsurprisingly that leading S&P 500 companies funnelled 80% of their windfall into dividends, buybacks and the like, with 20% going to “capital expenditures” or R&D. 

Consequently, the contrasting political competence, and economic approaches, of the two men is easily perceptible. 

As Tony Blair often remarks, the best antidote to authoritarian populism is democracy delivering (in this case, Democrats delivering). And, contrary to many expectations, Democrats are doing a hell of a job. 

Fourthly, should Biden stand aside, the successor candidate may be weaker.

In keeping with comparing him to the alternative rather than the Almighty, any analysis of whether Biden should run must take seriously his likely replacement as Democratic standard bearer. There is a danger, should Joe Biden decline to seek reelection, that Democrats will find themselves trying to construct a ticket out of rather a thin bench. 

The party has talent(s). Figures like Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer (assuming they win reelection in November) may well be viable national candidates in a few years. However, the elephant in the room when discussing immediate successors to Biden is Vice President Harris.

The fact of the matter is that, in recent years at least, a VP (former or incumbent) who seeks their party’s nomination invariably gets it. Democrats nominated Biden in 2020, Al Gore in 2000, Walter Mondale in 1984, and Hubert Humphrey in 1968. Republicans nominated George Bush Sr. in 1988, and Richard Nixon in both 1960 and 1968. Typically, the only way the Veep does not get the nomination is if they do not seek it. 

If one counts Veeps who ascend due to Presidential death or resignation, the trend gets even stronger: Democrats nominated Harry Truman in 1948 and LBJ in 1964, whilst Republicans tapped Gerald Ford in 1976. 

Admittedly, this apparent historical gospel rests heavily on selection bias. Essentially, Veeps win the nomination because those who might lose never bother running. Dick Cheney, for example, did not bother attempting to become the designated Republican loser to Barack Obama in 2008 (I cannot imagine his 13% approval ratings helped). Likewise, hapless Dan Quayle, Vice President to the elder Bush, never entered the 1996 race.

Therefore, were Biden to retire, there is no guarantee that Democrats would nominate Harris; she might not run. 

But this seems unlikely. 

And if she did run, Kamala Harris would most probably be the nominee. History is squarely in her corner, hypothetical primary polling is decent for her (there is no obvious challenger implying a likely coalescence around the VP), and one would have to assume that Biden would endorse her, as would most establishment Democrats. 

Furthermore, almost anyone who challenged Harris would have to contend with some poor optics. Imagine if you will, Pete Buttigeg, who polled in the low single digits with black voters in 2020, attempting to wrest the Democratic nomination away from the first African-American, female, Vice President. 

Nope. If Harris wanted it, the 2024 nomination would be hers. 

That is a slightly worrying prospect for Dems. 

The Vice President’s approval ratings are clearly tied to Biden’s, and so Harris does not bear absolute responsibility for them. Still, -12 is pretty shabby. To state the obvious, it is dangerous to run a candidate who most Americans do not particularly like (*cough* Hillary *cough*), especially if they are not even the incumbent President. Admittedly, Trump is more unpopular than Harris, but he was more unpopular than Clinton too. 

This unnerves me, but it does not unnerve me quite as much as the qualitative indicators. Harris was much touted as a “top-tier” 2020 contender but dropped out months before the first primaries, having run an unfocussed campaign bedevilled by staff turnover and internecine struggles. Since becoming vice president, her office has been much the same, marred by bickering, a revolving door, and a general impression of disarray. The Veep’s unfortunate habit of presiding over administrative messes does not inspire confidence either in a general election campaign or a potential presidential administration. 

Robert Singh, part of the politics faculty at Birkbeck, has called Harris “surely the weakest vice president since, and perhaps even including, Dan Quayle”. I know circa three things about Dan Quayle, and one of them is that whilst visiting an elementary school, Quayle ‘corrected’ a 12 year old’s spelling of the word “potato” to “potatoe”. This is not, then, a flattering comparison for the VP. 

From an electoral performance perspective, my preference is for Joe Biden over Kamala Harris. On the one hand, Biden has won a presidential election (defeating Trump), he has the powers associated with incumbency, and the administration’s achievements are first and foremost in his name. On the other hand, Kamala Harris has underperformed expectations (though to be entirely candid, this is as much a snowballed media consensus as it is a reality), and did rather a dismal job of running for president last time.

Fifthly and finally, *Donald Trump is not a good candidate*.

If he wants it, and I think he does, the 2024 Republican nomination is almost certainly Trump’s. I simply do not see him losing in the primaries – his lead over the entire field of potential rivals has been stable at around 25%, typically with a narrow majority of the vote, and this does not even account for the fact that some Republicans polled against Trump would refrain from taking the plunge if it actually meant facing the former President. 

Ted Cruz said in September that “the whole world will change depending on what Donald Trump decides. That’s true for every candidate. That’s true of every potential candidate.” 

This is a president who never achieved an approval rating of 50%, not once since his inauguration five-and-a-half years ago. This is a president who lost the popular vote twice, the first president since Herbert Hoover to lose the presidency, House, and Senate in one four year term. 

When Donald Trump ran for reelection, he lost! That is still comparatively rare in American politics! More to the point, when he ran for reelection, 81 million people voted for Joe Biden; before 2020, the most votes ever cast for a candidate had been 69.5 million (Obama 2008).

And all of this was before he attempted a coup. It was a farcical, humiliating authoritarian attempt, but an authoritarian attempt nonetheless. Not only that, Trump cannot for the life of him shut up about the “stolen” election. A presidential candidacy predominantly focussed on an entirely fictional grievance does not seem like a mysterious alchemical formula for electoral success. Trump may win in 2024, but let us not pretend he would not have grievous weaknesses – a potential indictment being high on the list.

As foalishly skittish as a Biden / Trump rematch would make me, I do believe that Biden would probably win. 

For the Democrats, it would be better to stick with the devil they know. Earlier, I mentioned two occasions when Democratic presidents had declined to seek reelection (Truman in 1952 and Johnson in 1968). Republicans went on to win both of those contests – (though of course it would be utterly disingenuous to pretend that the electoral headwinds which drove two presidents into retirement did not have something to do with this.)

The party should ride with Biden. If he does run in 2024, there must not be a primary challenge. The last two presidents to face anything more than token opposition (George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter) both went on to lose. Admittedly, both of these presidents were vulnerable to begin with, but a failure of the party to coalesce around its incumbent does not just suggest blood in the water, it puts it there – hence why Obama’s team worked so diligently to tamp down on speculation about a challenger from the left. 

Joe Biden has his weaknesses. He lacks the kind of celestial radiance which emanated from Clinton and Obama. And yet despite that, Democrats will most probably do better in 2022 than they did in 1994 or 2010, and the party has achieved much to be proud of in its two years of power. Additionally, Biden’s much touted ‘decency’ contrasts well with the malice which characterises today’s Republican officeholders  – certainly it contrasted well with Donald Trump’s. 

Joe Biden, despite his age, remains a strong politician with a strong record. Unless circumstances become significantly more desperate, he is the best choice for 2024. 

Image credit: Gayatri Malhotra

How high can Victor Wembanyama reach: Seeing the LeBron successor live in Paris

Eoin Hanlon
-
0
How high can Victor Wembanyama reach: Seeing the LeBron successor live in Paris

I. Who is Wemby the Alien?

Birds fly, rabbits run; at 7-foot and 3 inches, Victor Wembanyama doesn’t need to do either. The eighteen-year-old French phenom has been labelled the best basketball prospect in two decades.Three weeks ago, Victor’s Metropolitans 92 faced off against the NBA G-League’s Ignite in two hotly-contested games in Las Vegas. The games pitted Wembanyama and Scoot Henderson, the forecasted first and second picks of the 2023 NBA draft, against each other in an earth-shattering showcase. On the court, Victor dazzled scouts and NBA media members with his shot repertoire and obvious defensive ability. Comparisons to fellow ‘Big’ and French national Rudy Gobert abound (watch out Team USA for France at home in 2024). Frankly, there are no good comparisons. Wembanyama’s game is visually remarkable; just given his sheer size and skill, he is unlike anything ever seen before in the NBA—he makes threes look like twos. When asked if there’s another player he wants to be like, Victor has it right: “I wanna be like no one else”.

II. The part where I go to see him because I’m on a year abroad.

Last Friday night’s game: Metropolitans 92 versus Ada Blois. This is their first game at home since the Las Vegas trip. Metropolitans play at the Marcel Cedan Palais des Sports, a small arena that doubles as a sports centre (complete with climbing wall) in the Parisian suburb of Levallois. The regular tickets sold out online in under two hours. I arrive an hour early and there are already a hundred people outside. The only tickets left available are courtside on the South “VIP” stand. I sit behind the hoop to the right. Beside me on the bench are the teams’ photographers. The arena is mostly empty as the teams warm up.

The South stand, it turns out, is where the away fans are seated. They enter behind me, all in green, carrying giant flags and licence plates that spell BLOIS. Across the court, I spy Lionel Jospin, basketball fan…and former French Prime Minister. Large swathes of the North stand are taken up by local primary school children shouting “Met-Ro” in defiance. They wave yellow and blue pom poms and unfurl a yellow banner across eleven people: METROPOLITANS. A dance version of Kate Bush’s ‘Running Up That Hill’ plays and the Metropolitans’ primary school fans are now doing the Icelandic slow hand-clap. Show time.

The players all run out, but only Wembanyama gets a cheer that rocks the Palais. As the two teams stand in a line, he does a two-footed jump on the spot and the arena collectively gasps. A minute out from the start of the game, Wemby’s warm-up intensifies. He almost head-buts the rim; he practises dunking. The game begins. Of course, he wins the tip and, in his first real touch of the ball, Wemby drives to the basket and scores.

Later, Victor lurches forward catching his defender off-guard; he gets a pass within the paint to go up for an easy dunk. The game is now 10-10.

With 2:22 left in the first quarter, what follows is a tripartite saga, a Godfather trilogy of blocked shots. And, like The Godfather, it is a story of revenge:

Part 1: One minute to go in the quarter, and Wemby blocks Brice Dessert easily amidst traffic. Dessert quickly regains the ball and is fouled by one of Victor’s teammates. Dessert is fouled once more, score: Metro – 24; Blois – 20.

Part 2: Down the other end, Dessert blocks Wemby. It’s the death of superman. Wemby hits the hardwood.

Part 3: Wemby yanks himself off the floor and chases after Dessert who is about to receive a pass within the restricted area. Brice gets the pass, goes up, but Wemby pins it to the backboard. Dessert’s shoe is on the ground, it appears as though Wemby blocked him so hard that it came off; in reality, Dessert had lost the shoe before going up to the rim, but it doesn’t stop Dessert from appealing to the referee on account of some shoe-related defensive foul. The quarter ends. Metro – 26; Blois – 22.

Sometime into the second quarter, Wemby is caught in a two-on-one fast break. He is able to force his opposition player to pass, looping it over him, and then demolishes Blois’ power forward, Amadou Sow. Perhaps shocked by the power of his own block, Wemby appears lost. He thinks that a foul has been called on him, he appeals to the referee, but no foul was in fact called. Meanwhile, his teammate, Hugo Besson, has scored at the other end. After a few minutes off, Wemby comes back on with 1:47 left in quarter. Goliath/Wemby finds himself defending David/Thomas Cornely, a 6-foot 3-inch Blois point guard. This matchup isn’t exactly even. They come to the left corner in front of the South stand (i.e. me). Wemby swats the shot away inches after its release. Hugo Besson scores a three to end the half.

The shot clock sounds. Wemby comes on in the fourth quarter with 6:52 to go. The rest of the game speaks entirely to his skillset. Within moments of stepping on the court, he gets a high pass from Jones on a counter-offence and puts it down for an alley-oop. He is fouled in the process but misses the free throw.

He is then one-on-one versus Đorđe Gagić on the left wing. He shoots, is fouled, and gets the three points. Gagić makes pantomime faces at the refs, a portrait of comic disbelief. Wemby again misses the free throw; still, 96 points to Metro. Victor launches a pass to Traoré in the paint, who springboards to score two points. To call Wembanyama’s passes cannon-like is to overestimate the speed and accuracy of a cannon. On display at least three times in the game, his 8-foot wingspan and excellent court vision make him a lock for great passing plays. Again, in the fourth quarter, a “blink and you’ll miss it” behind the back pass from Wemby to Idrissa Ba secures the team two more points. The score is now: 107-87.

There’s a small preamble before what is quite potentially Metropolitans’ last play of the game— Wemby signals to Traoré that he wants the next ball. He gets the ball, drives, spins towards the basket off his right foot, and finger rolls it in. The entire Blois roster couldn’t have stopped it. It’s a scary moment. You get the sense that he could have been doing this for the entire game. He simply asked for the ball and created two points. It’s like a close-up magic trick: two points from nothing. Final score: Metro – 113; Blois – 88.

Before they exit the court, Victor and the team do a lap of the stands: high-fiving fans, signing jerseys, taking photos – this is French professional basketball.

17 PTS, 7 REB, 6 AST, 5 BLK

*(though a second quarter block was called a foul).

III. Tanking or To The Victor Goes The Spurs.

As you may already be aware, the number one overall draft pick in the NBA is determined by a lottery. The three teams with the worst win records from the previous season each have a 14% chance of getting the first pick (from the fourth worst team onwards, the chances progressively decrease). A rookie like Wemby is of immense value to any NBA owner, more valuable than the 2022-23 season. There are therefore at least a few teams eyeing up a tank, notably the Utah Jazz, Houston Rockets, Oklahoma City Thunder and Gregg Popovich’s San Antonio Spurs.

Given the success of his US tour, there were calls for Wembanyama to cease playing in France before the draft so as not to risk injury. Dispelling the rumours Victor’s agent, Bouna Ndiaye, told ESPN, “NBA people are telling me to shut him down and we are not going to shut him down.”

Someone that tall needs to be experienced in person. When LeBron was drafted, I was almost two. The intervening years have been severely unremarkable. But the year-abroad Gods have brought me to Boulogne-Levallois in order to see him play out the remainder of the season for Metropolitans 92 in the LNB Pro A. Victor made Metropolitans look like a progressive modern basketball team on Friday. They have won four out of five games in the league (the last four games consecutively) and are undefeated at home. Metropolitans play their next home game on November 4th versus CSP Limoges.

Image Credit: Eoin Hanlon

1...226227228...2,518Page 227 of 2,518

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