An Oxford University Careers Service advisor has claimed that students undertaking summer internships feel drained and unfit to continue their final year of study.
Alison Bird told the Financial Times, “You look at the salaries and think it seems a ridiculously high amount but they work very long hours. If they are on the trading floor they will be in at 6 in the morning and some of our students in mergers and acquisitions are working until 10 or 11 at night, which is pretty grim,” she said.
Referring to a group of Oxford interns at a bank in Canary Wharf she visited last August, Bird said, “They were working very long hours and living on takeaways, and I was worried about the health of some of them. When I asked them if the hours had put them off they said they hadn’t because the money was so good.”
John Kirwan, acting Careers Service director, said, “Some of my colleague’s comments seem to have been misinterpreted, so that the views of the Careers Service were misrepresented.”
He said that the Careers Service was fully committed to internships because they were useful in preparing students for full-time work.
“We are very positive about the value of appropriate work experience, including internships, for students,” he said. “As part of broadening their experience and employment prospects, the Careers Service encourages all Oxford University students to gain relevant and realistic work experience suited to their career aspirations.”
Kirwan acknowledged that the placements might have a detrimental effect on academic work, but maintained that they were highly beneficial when students came to apply for jobs.
“The Careers Service actively promotes the publicising of internships and other work experience opportunities, from a wide range of sectors, while recognising that students also need to take into account college regulations and the potential impact of such activities on their academic studies.”
Internships continue to be a popular choice for many students, with the most popular placements being at investment banking firms Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.

BOTH Catz and Keble were relegated from last season’s premier division and each side was eager to demonstrate their wish to return to the top flight in this hotly contested affair on the Woodstock Road.
It became apparent early on in the game that this would be a very close encounter, with both sides enjoying a fair share of the ball and creating numerous opportunities. For St. Catz, midfielder Gerrard Cole was inflicting most of the damage, his mazy runs down the left flank causing all manner of trouble for the Keble defence.
It was one such run and rolled ball across the box that found striker MacNaughton bearing down on goal. Unfortunately he did not have a finish to match Cole’s run and the shot was scuffed wide. 
Keble relied heavily on midfielders Askham and Singh to pose their threat and despite his diminutive stature, the sheer determination of Askham gave him that extra couple of inches to dominate the aerial battle. Several balls were floated in from Keble’s left flank, but each agonisingly eluded right winger Eckersley.
It was a frantic and frenzied five minute period midway through the first half however, where all the goals were scored. Another driving run from Cole freed up striker Taylor, whose cross come shot was parried over superbly by keeper Unwin.
Taylor then returned the favour by delivering a low flighted cross which Cole pounced upon at the near post to give Catz the lead.
Keble barely had time to assess their defensive error when an overlapping run from assured left back Ekhase forced another corner for Catz. Again Keble failed to deal with the danger and it was a towering leap from defender O’Keefe-O’Donovan that gave Catz their second.
Keble rallied well and amidst some Catz back-slapping, hit back immediately. Captain Singh led the charge and found himself with just the keeper to beat. He made no mistake as he coolly slotted into the bottom right corner.
The second half again saw numerous chances for both sides. Catz’ best efforts however, were comfortably dealt with by rock-solid centre back Orpin-Massey who hardly put a foot wrong all game. Keble pressed tirelessly for the equaliser with lofty forward Gajdus turning even the most hopeful long ball into something dangerous.
On 75 minutes Keble believed they had got their reward when a delightful ball in from Collins was flicked past the keeper by substitute Parry. Wild scenes of jubilation were cut short however, when the Catz linesman ruled an apparent offside. No amount of protest from the Keble ranks could change the ref’s decision and the goal was disallowed. This decision seemed to extinguish the Keble challenge as the game petered to a finish.
Keble captain Singh was frustrated by the result, “We certainly felt it was a goal and are gutted to come away with nothing.”

On first impressions, I could never have guessed what a disappointment Qumin’s would be. The waiters were friendly, the surroundings were modern yet cosy and intimate, and the chairs were comfortable enough to relax into. My hopes were further raised by the menu, which offered less choice than many Indian restaurants, but which featured a number of unusual dishes. Several were available with a choice of either salmon, tuna, king prawns or squid, a refreshing variant on the typical Indian restaurant’s prawn curry. The first suggestion that service might be inefficient came when a waiter approached our table, asked if we wanted to order poppadoms, and then vanished before we could ask to order drinks. This lapse was adequately compensated for by the quality of the poppadoms, which were perfectly light and crunchy, accompanied by fine dips. The mango chutney was chunky and sweet without being cloying, a far cry from the jam-like slop served at many comparable establishments, while the raita was just right: minty enough to be refreshing, and not too thick.

Drinks, when they arrived, sharply contrasted. My companion enjoyed his mango lassi, which he assured me was suitably cold and had just the right consistency. My glass of house white, on the other hand, deserves no recommendation. Insipid, bland, and nauseatingly saccharine, its taste made me feel like a doctor in days of old, diagnosing diabetes by tasting the urine to gauge its sugar content. If my glass of wine had been a urine sample, my patient would have been severely hyperglycaemic.

When our food arrived – reasonably promptly – it was attractively presented on the plate. We had ordered one side dish, and started with that. The mutter paneer, a curry of peas and cottage cheese, was delicious; the cheese had a beautiful consistency and richness, complemented by a sauce that was neither too spicy nor too bland, accentuated by the naan bread I dipped into it. We had ordered two portions of rice, and first shared the special vegetable rice, which was not particularly flavoursome, but which, like the naan, did its job as an accompaniment well. The second portion of rice – lemon – had a more assertive taste, but I enjoyed it. It was the curries themselves which we found disappointing. The motali curry, which I asked for with king prawns, was bitter, hot and sour without tasting of very much. It contained large chunks of chilli, which if eaten whole delivered an unpleasantly intense kick. My companion’s Goan curry, on the other hand, was mild and creamy, but again didn’t taste of very much.

Qumin’s delivers some excellent dishes. Indeed, we enjoyed everything but the curries we ordered as our main course – and therein lies the problem. Both curries were over £10, with rice not included. Our bill, with one drink each and no dessert, came to a scandalous £44, which might have felt fair if our mains matched the quality of the starter and side dish, but in the circumstances I acutely resented. When my gallant date offered to pay, I didn’t even attempt to suggest going halves, because quite frankly I couldn’t afford to. That’s Qumin’s 1, feminism 0, then. While I would unreservedly recommend individual dishes on this menu, the poor quality of  its curries is so lacking that I simply cannot recommend Qumin’s as a dining destination. But if you do end up eating here, do order the mutter paneer. And do prepare to grovel to your bank manager.

By Phil Aherne 
Why do a different version of the show at the Burton-Taylor?
Ben: It was mainly to give a better idea of what the Playhouse show would be. But there are other important reasons.
Emily: Because the show was set for Hilary we knew we had Michaelmas to develop the script and thought it would be a useful exercise to try out a couple of extracts with real actors and a real audience. As this is the first time that a piece devised entirely by students will be staged at the Playhouse we wanted to generate as much interest as possible in the project by showing how the adaptation process works. It was conceived as a two fold project. Firstly, it’s a marketing tool to generate interest for the larger production. We wanted to show people the style of the piece, and give them a taste of the tone, to try and get them excited about what we are trying to do. Secondly, there’s a far more practical purpose in allowing myself the room to see how my interpretation of the text would work with actors; to test out the viability.
Why do this production? Where did the inspiration come from?
E: It comes from my personal interest in taking texts that are completely elastic and free from theatrical convention, and then bringing them to life. I think the text is fantastic, and I didn’t need a script. By using a chorus, I could utilise their traditional function as both commentators on the action and illustrators of the internal thoughts.
How did you handle the absurd nature of the narrative?
E: The absurdity is centred on the mental thoughts, and is thus inherent and inescapable. It illustrates contradictions, things that jar. Alice is like any other girl, but she is also a walking sponge – her thoughts are twisted, mixed and tangled and then they pop out of her head in a physical dream world where everything is turned back on itself. It leaves the audience disconcerted and disorientated.  The world comes from Alice, but she is the only one exclude from it.
So you’re saying that the narrative is fundamentally paradoxical?
E: The play is the experience childhood in an unobstructed manner. It makes the audience into blank slates for new perspectives to be projected on to. Most of the characters are adult, but they talk in a sensible nonsense. Alice feels ignorant, but the reader recognises her as the only sensible person.
How are you going to realise her world on stage?
E: Strip the stage back to it’s bare skeleton and fill it with colour and tone, so that the world is
moulded into the stage – it definitely is not Brechtian. The feel is mechanical, synthetic, man-made. The will be a wealth of electronic sounds to convey texture. The chorus will build up a connection with the audience. There will be spectacle through lyrical poems performed by the chorus.
How is the show at the BT different from the impending Playhouse production?
E: It will take the audience through the different elements of the show, and then combine them all in ss and progression of our piece. Ultimately, it will trace the path from reading the book to seeing it on the stage. It will illustrate the centrality of the music. It incorporates  the audience, not least because it is in the round. The BT show was created to give an insight into the rehearsal and script development process behind the Playhouse show. Technicalities aside, the concept and design can loosely be separated into three parts – music, movement and words. We want to take the audience through each of these elements, separately at first, then all at once.

THE TURKISH Prime Minister told members of the Oxford Union on Monday night that he believed military action against Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq was “inevitable”.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s visit prompted a massive but successful security operation.
In his speech, Edrogan said that Turkey was planning to launch a military offensive in Iraqi territory in the next few days if the US and Iraq fail to rein in the militant Kurdish Workers Party (PKK).
“PKK is using Northern Iraq as a base to organise attacks against Turkey. That she will be using her right of self-defence is inevitable…but Turkey is not attacking Iraq or its government,” he said.
Erdogan also criticised the American and Iraqi governments, claiming they had been slow to help Turkey put down the PKK which is fighting for greater Kurdish independence in Turkey.
“We have come to the end of our patience. Even if Turkey does not get the cooperation she wants she will continue to fight against terrorism. We have told the US and Iraq that we will do what is necessary to protect our interests if within a few days those developments that we expect do not take place,” he said.
Erdogan has come under renewed pressure to begin a military assault on Kurdish militants after 12 soldiers were killed and eight went missing following border clashes that began two day ago.
In his talk at the Union, Erdogan also spoke of his continued frustration at Turkey’s slow progress in acquiring membership of the European Union. He accused European states of preventing his country from modernising, and argued that its membership was vital.
“Some EU states are trying to prevent [Turkey’s development]. They believe that we are too culturally different to become a member. This makes us very sad.
“The EU must think bigger. It must not lose sight of it global vision. Turkish membership will allow the EU to realize its full potential,” he continued.
He added that Turkey would not bow to international pressure to deter it from seeking an alliance that benefited its economy.
“We are aware that Iran is developing a nuclear capability. We too are considering nuclear energy to help us overcome our energy needs.
“Iran supplies us with half the natural gas that comes from Russia. Are we not to get natural gas because someone else is hurt by this? When we came to government our goal was to make friends not enemies. We do not have hostility; our aim is to continue in a friendly environment,” he stated.
The talk was given as part of the Turkish Prime Minister’s two-day visit to Britain, during which he discussed Turkey’s role in the Middle East with Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Foreign Secretary David Miliband.

WITH three weeks of term already behind us and sides beginning to settle after the influx of freshers, the league tables in college rugby and football are finally worth taking a good look at. After all the early-season uncertainty, Oxford’s legions of college sportsmen will now be some way closer to knowing whether they’ll be enjoying a year of glorious triumphs or a grim winter of discontent, enduring a string of morale-sapping defeats.
Chief among those facing a painful year ahead are Somerville’s footballers, who languish at the bottom of the First Division without a point to their name, after three games. The Woodstock Road outfit have conceded thirteen league goals already, over half of which came in last week’s 7-0 drubbing at the hands of LMH. Unfortunately for Somerville, their next fixture sees them facing Magdalen, who are tied with LMH at the top of the table.
In the Premiership, it’s been business as usual for champions Worcester, winning their opening two fixtures and finding the net nine times in the process. New, who many predicted would mount an even more serious challenge to Worcester this year, have found things tougher, bringing home a solitary point from their first two games.
The season is almost over for Oxford’s egg-chasers, however, as there are just two fixtures left to secure promotion or avoid relegation. Christ Church look as though they’ll be ending the term in the First Division after securing victories in all three of their opening contests. They are yet to play Wadham, however, who also have a 100% record going into fourth week, although they’ve played one game fewer. Exeter, on the other hand, will be making sure that their Thursday afternoons are free as the win-less side contemplates life in Division Three.
How Exeter must envy Keble. The champions are in a league of their own at the moment, and proved it by smashing likely runners-up St. Catherine’s 51-3 this week. A third successive First Division crown is inevitable, and a fourth next term highly likely.
The story of college rugby this Michaelmas has been the demise of the once-great St. Peter’s. Having bounced back from relegation last year, their form has been even more dismal this term, suffering defeat at the hands of Magdalen, St. Hugh’s and Teddy Hall.
With Peter’s likely to go down, probably with Hugh’s joining them, the division should have an unfamiliar look to it in a couple of weeks. Both Wadham and Christ Church haven’t experienced top-flight rugby for a long time, and they look set to make a big impact when they arrive in sixth week for the first round of fixtures.

Jack Marley-Payne 
Promoting political apathy is likely to kick up a pretty impressive storm of indignation, so I better begin with a few concessions: politics is certainly very important and greatly affects everyone. Without politically active people, the country would be in chaos. They are, of course, providing an essential service. But, as with waste disposal, it is one to which I do not wish to contribute.

The whole thing seems horribly pragmatic – politicians basically have to pick the best from a bad bunch of options, relying on inconclusive evidence and rushed reasoning and then arguing their case using rhetoric and carefully selected statistics. Now I do not resent or wish to change this procedure; I accept that this is the way things have to be done as actions have to be made and endless research and contemplation is not an option. However, it is a discipline I have neither the stomach nor the aptitude for, and many share my disposition.
As if that wasn’t enough, one also has to take into account the company. As a rule, politicians seem to me to be boring and annoying. Consider for a minute the cool kids who run the political parties here at Oxford. If the sickening necessity for networking and everything else that goes along with the union elections isn’t the perfect advertisement for political apathy, I don’t know what is.

Politicians also seem to be standing for the same things so it’s very difficult to decide whom to vote for. While David Cameron is emphasising his  more liberal side, Gordon Brown is having tea with Margaret Thatcher! If everyone’s policies are similar, what’s the point in voting for one candidate over another?

Obviously I will have the occasional rant when a particular policy strikes me as truly wrong and I probably will turn out for the odd election to vote for whoever seems the least bad option. I don’t think, though, I would be capable of improving the state of the world greatly if I did apply my energies to making a political impact. And, to be honest, life would be quite stressful if too many people were forcing their opinions upon you. Being politically opinionated for the sake of it is the duty of dinner party guests and friends’ parents when they used to give you lifts. It seems only reasonable to allow those of us who so desire to opt out of caring.

Leah Hyslop
If the twentieth century can be described as an age which saw the flourishing of political extremism, the twenty-first is one which suffers under a far more subtle and insidious vice. Political apathy, far worse than foot or mouth disease or bird flu, is the virus infecting Europe today, and its hold – particularly on the younger generations – seems increasingly strong. In 2005, it was rumoured that more people had voted in the finale of Big Brother than in the general election, and the type of political activism which characterised student life a few generations ago seems today a thing of the past.

The reasons that lie behind the waves of indifference currently assaulting our generation are hard to discern.  Existing as we do in a wealthy and long-established democracy where the divide between Labour and Conservative is increasingly small, the temptation to adopt a ‘sit back and watch’ attitude can certainly seem enticing. 

In a country that has only had universal suffrage since 1921, however, the idea of rejecting a political involvement which countries such as Burma are still fighting to achieve is a sign of a worrying lack of social responsibility. Democracy, simply defined, means ‘rule by the people’; to ignore one’s right to vote is to waste our only real chance to contribute to the way in which our country is run. Not so much sitting on the fence as openly avoiding the fields it divides, political apathy is a far more dangerous vice than it may at first seem. It acts essentially as the prop which opens the door for political extremists to sidle their way into power.

The development of an interest in political affairs is a necessary part of the transition from childhood to adulthood. Deciding where one’s political sympathies lie is a formative process which shapes the person one grows up to be, and encourages an interest in the  bigger issues which affect not only you, but the people around you. To remain politically apathetic is to remain in a state of perpetual childhood, enjoying the lack of responsibility such an attitude provides, yet never able to fully contribute to the wider world.  Easy it might be and fashionable it might be – but the next time an opportunity to vote comes up, bear it in mind that it could be more rewarding to contribute your ballot to the Commons, and not to the Big Brother house.

An Oxford Professor of demography announced this week that the UK’s total population is likely to spiral to over 75 million by 2050, threatening to reopen a row with student groups about his views on immigration.
In a report to the House of Lords, Professor David Coleman heavily criticised the government’s policy on immigration, arguing that accelerating population levels will strain public services to breaking point.
Coleman has previously been attacked by Oxford University student group Student Action for Refugees (STAR) for his involvement with the Galton Institute, which holds conferences on human eugenics, and Migrationwatch.
In February 2007, Wadham third-year Kieran Hutchinson Dean attempted to organise a petition calling for the University to “consider the suitability of Coleman’s continued tenure as a Professor of the University, in light of his well-known opinions and affiliations relating to immigration and eugenics”.
Professor Coleman responded to the petition, saying, “It is a shameful attempt, of the most intolerant and totalitarian kind, to suppress the freedom of analysis and informed comment which it is the function of universities to cherish.”
Teresa Hayter, author of ‘Open Borders: The Case Against Immigration Controls’, refused to take part in a King’s College London discussion group last January when she learned Coleman would appear alongside her.
“The statistics produced by Migrationwatch are used by the tabloid press and the British National Party, with the clear intention of stirring up racism and hostility towards immigrants,” she said.
Attempting to dispel claims that liberal border controls are good for the economy, his report states that Labour’s ‘open door’ policy on immigration currently costs every British household £350 per year.
“The absent-minded commitment into which we have drifted to house a further 15m people must be the biggest unintended consequence of government policy of almost any century. There are no merits in the promotion of population growth in itself and many reasons to regret it, especially in a country as crowded as the UK,” he said.
“It is by no mean unavoidable, being almost entirely dependant upon continued immigration. It might be thought worthy of discussion. In official circles there has been none.”
Immigration Minister Liam Byrne recently set out a twelve month programme of “sweeping changes” to the UK’s immigration system, which includes a points-based system whereby immigrants are judged on their employment value, as well as a system of fingerprint visas for foreign nationals.
Coleman accused the government of “irresponsible” immigration policies, which he said only prioritised economic benefits.
“The government’s immigration policies seem to have been based on calculations of economic consequences alone, which is not at all responsible. It is a recognised principle that population growth has a negative impact on the environment. Not only do immigrants need to be housed, they also adopt the higher levels of living standards in the UK which has significant environmental consequences,” he said.

It is a sweltering July day: the Russian weather, like the Russian soul, is a creature of passionate extremes. Natasha and I are sitting in the garden of her dacha in the abundant countryside, just a half hour drive from her flat in the centre of St. Petersburg where I have been lodging for the past month. We get on well: we share interests in travel, literature and music, we make each other laugh (Natasha has a sharp sense of irony). She makes allowances for my faltering Russian; I know how to make the right noises when she produces a jar of home-made, home-grown, utterly disgusting fruit kampot (translation: sludge). Natasha is intelligent, well-educated, and well-travelled. Under the USSR, she trained as an engineer; now she is a journalist for a local newspaper.

We are discussing the recent diplomatic furore over the murder of Alexander Litvinenko; tentatively, I suggest that the Russians and the British have two very different ways of looking at the issues – it all depends on your point of view. Natasha explodes:
“It is double standards – British imperialism. You want us to give Lugovoi to Britain, but you refuse to give the criminal Berezovsky to Russia. It is an insult to the Russian nation. So please tell me how there can be another point of view!”
I hesitate. Suddenly I am not so sure… what is the other point of view?

On November 23rd last year, Alexander Litvinenko died after three weeks of media frenzy at his bedside. Litvinenko (author of articles such as Is Vladimir Putin A Paedophile?) had been an outspoken critic of the Russian government and Putin in particular. After his death it was discovered that he had been poisoned by a rare radioactive isotope, polonium-210. On the day he fell ill, he had lunch with a pair of former KGB agents.
Litvinenko’s murder was the stuff of spy novels. The six-month investigation followed a radioactive trail through London’s restaurants and hotels, on to British Airways planes, and finally to a reactor in a Russian nuclear power plant. On the 28th May, the Foreign Office issued an official request to Moscow for the extradition of Andrei Lugovoi, in order to try him in Britain for Litvinenko’s murder. Moscow refused. Britain responded by expelling four Russian diplomats from London; a week later, Moscow expelled four British diplomats. Russo-British relations were the chilliest they had been since the cold war.

The British and Russian sides have since found themselves in mutually uncomprehending deadlock. The British were appalled that a British citizen could be murdered in Britain, and his assassin walk free. One outraged contributor to the BBC website wrote: “For foreign assassins to murder someone on the streets of London using a radioactive device which has infected goodness-knows how many other people is completely shocking.”
Russians see things rather differently. First of all, it would have been contrary to the Russian constitution for Russia to extradite Lugovoi, since Russia has no extradition treaty with the UK. But anyone familiar with Russian politics knows that that is no real obstacle: Russian law is so full of ambiguities and loopholes that, with a bit of political will, most things are possible. The real sticking-point for Russians is the double standards which Britain seems to have applied when dealing with the matter.

Natasha explains it to me: Russia has submitted numerous requests for the extradition of Boris Berezovsky, a billionaire oligarch and political dissident who is wanted in Russia on charges of fraud and corruption. Why should Russia hand over Lugovoi to Britain when Britain refuses to extradite Berezovsky?
What’s more, she says, Britain’s actions in the whole affair show a fundamental disrespect for Russia, what she’s so fond of calling ‘British imperialism’. Russia offered to try Lugovoi in a Russian court, but Britain declined the offer. This, she says, is indicative of Britain’s patronizing and offensive attitude towards Russia.

Unsurprisingly, the Russian media agreed with Natasha’s version of events. Lugovoi was presented as the victim of slanderous allegations; people came forward to tell how they had been approached by the British secret service to spy on Russia. Nearly everyone I talked to felt that Russia’s pride had been insulted by Britain’s actions, and that standing up to Britain was the right thing for Putin to have done.

To us, Russian allegiance to Putin often seems incomprehensible. In the western media, Putin is characteristically portrayed as a rather shady character, a power-hungry former KGB agent. His record on human rights is appalling. Russia is second only to Iraq in terms of the number of journalists killed there. The press is notoriously biased, with all three of the major television networks linked to the Kremlin. The Russian military policy in Chechnya is equally dubious, with reports of torture and murder of civilians by the Russian army. Corruption persists in Russia’s institutions.

With all these problems, it may seem hard to understand how Russians can still have affection and respect towards Putin, but they really do. He commands around seventy percent of the vote. His recent announcement that he will consider standing for Prime Minister when his term as President comes to an end was greeted with widespread celebrations.

At his annual live phone-in event, in which Russian people are invited to send in questions which he then answers on a live TV show, Putin was seen laughing and smiling, at ease with his adoring public. Here is one exchange:
Caller: I don’t want to speak to you, presenter, I just want to speak to the President.
Presenter: If you ask your question, the President will answer…
Putin: I’m listening.
Caller: Is that you?
Putin: Yes, it’s me.
Caller: Is that really you?
Putin: Really.
Caller: Oh my goodness, thank you so much, thank you so much for everything!
And with that she hung up. Such adulation is not uncommon in Russia. So why do Russians feel this way about Putin, a man who to many western eyes is corrupt and dangerous?

When Putin came into power in 1999, Russia was going through one of the harshest economic crises in its recent history. Now the Russian economy is among the strongest in the world, and still growing. This has had a huge effect on the lives of ordinary Russians. The average monthly wage has risen from a paltry $65 in 1999 to $540 in 2007. Foreign luxury goods are now commonly available in Russian cities, and not the preserve of the super-rich. Poverty levels have almost halved; unemployment has fallen by 3.5 million, or around 40%. All in all, life in Russia is (economically speaking) overwhelmingly better now than it was eight years ago.

But that isn’t all. What matters to Russians as much as – if not more than – Putin’s economic reforms is that he has restored their pride in Russia. When they see Putin refusing to extradite Lugovoi to Britain, standing up to American proposals to build a missile shield in Eastern Europe, or defying threats against his life to travel to Iran, they feel that he has forced other countries to give Russia the respect it deserves once again. Russians have a fierce love for their country, and in putting Russia back on the world map, Putin has won their hearts.
It is often surprising for a foreigner to hear Russians say that life was better under the communists than it was in the years following perestroika (Gorbachev’s program economic reforms in the late 80’s). In some countries of the former USSR where life is still hard – and in the poorer parts of Russia – people are still saying it. The reason they give is that in those days, it was easier to get by, and that is what is important. It is surprising for us because, according to the moral bran we have grown up eating for breakfast, a free and democratic political system is the only kind of political system worth having: it is from this point only that any other ideas and hopes we might have can grow.

But on what basis do we believe this? Putin is often criticized by western analysts for reversing many of Yeltsin’s democratic reforms. This is denounced by those campaigning for democracy and freedom of speech, but, for the majority of Russians, it has not been a negative step: they don’t mind what Putin’s politics are – however abhorrent we may find them – because life is getting better. Who are we to tell them how they should want their country run?

Natasha tells me: “You don’t understand Russia. We do not care about politics – we care about Russia. All I know is this: Vladimir Putin has made the word ‘Russia’ mean something again.”