Tuesday 17th June 2025
Blog Page 235

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image credit: Adi Ulici

What’s the real deal with Oxford PPE?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FJ: How have you found the Oxford PPE stereotype?

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

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

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

Image credit: Ray Harrington

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At least we still have Black Holes and Revelations.

Scenes With Girls : A Review

Jenna Colaco
-
0
Scenes With Girls : A Review

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

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

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

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

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

Interviews to be held online for third year running

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The slow death of liberty

Sam Cherry
-
0
The slow death of liberty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image: CC4.0: Wikimedia Commons

Still in the shadow of the men: the uphill battle for women’s sports

Zoe Abereoje
-
0
Still in the shadow of the men: the uphill battle for women’s sports

Name three women’s tennis players, easy right? Now try three rugby players who are women, much tougher, no? Here’s why.

I propose it is the distance from which the women’s sport operates from the men’s equivalent. I’ve tried to prove myself wrong but according to my totally sound parity tester, my theory is rock solid.

The Zoe sports gender parity test:

1. Name a widely known, successful sportswoman.

2. Name the sport she competes in.

3. Is there a men’s equivalent, in terms of visibility and funding?

4. Does the men’s equivalent have MORE visibility and funding?

When my test is gender flipped for men, too often we can’t get past stage 3. Does a sport for men exist where the men enjoy success and there is no women’s equivalent? Formula 1 is a great example of this. Is this the same case for women?

Spoiler alert, no. Every notable sportswoman fails my challenge. You will likely have to say yes at stage 3, highlighting a key gender difference. You will also likely say no at stage 4. Serena Williams? Men’s tennis exists, undeniably has the upper hand, and pay parity is only a recent feature of the game. Danica Patrick? NASCAR, like much of motor sport, is dominated by men. Shelly Ann Fraser Pryce? Women’s athletics may be one of the better examples in terms of parity to men, but it’s hard to argue that women get more funding and visibility consistently.

Truthfully speaking, my flimsy gender parity test isn’t even necessary to see that the most successful women’s sports are those which occur in the presence of the men’s equivalent. In other words, it’s very hard for women’s sport to exist independently from the men: in fact the trend seems to be that the more distant the women’s sporting event operates from the men’s, the less success it has. Compare sports that gain their relevance and viewership from large international multi-sport events like the Olympics or Commonwealth Games against those who rely on leagues and tournaments like the World Cup. Gendered events feature equally in the Olympics, but in football the men’s and women’s World Cup are entirely separate.

The Olympics are known to be better for women because both men and women are able to compete alongside each other. In fact, most famous women’s sport competitions exist with a men’s counterpart. Renowned women’s grand slams occur alongside the men’s. UFC fight cards feature women’s matches often amongst the men’s.

Put plainly, in these competitions and fights both men and women are able to compete. Not only that but they tend to occur at the same venue, in front of the same audience, in the same competitions. The European Swimming Championships for example will have events for both men and women: neither get ignored, both get equal coverage. Now let’s take rugby. The Six Nations Championship, a competition contested between six European national teams, is separate for men and women. Different locations, crowds, and competitions. Nothing unites the two except in name. Unlike the trend in swimming, viewership is entirely different. With new sponsorships like Tik Tok and coverage on the BBC, the women’s competition has grown but it’s nothing like the men’s equivalent. The point isn’t to suggest a social wrong or an inevitable outcome, but rather to point out the sad trend that many women’s sports seem to thrive when in company with the men’s equivalent and just about survive when in solitude.

This is why I consider the Lionesses to be so impactful, not just for the celebration of European women’s football and the growth in the women’s game, but for the wider message that women’s sport can establish itself separately from men’s sport yet still have significant relevance. The fact that a women’s tournament with no men’s equivalent competing at the same time managed to pull viewership figures of over 17 million is extremely significant.

This is a step in the right direction. However, after the tournament so much of the conversation was whether women could ever be on par with the men’s game in terms of pay and fame. That would be a dream come true for many, but it’s so far away at the current moment. I argue, rather, that the main win gained by the Lionesses’ victory was the ability for women to be successful and renowned in a competition that didn’t have men competing; full focus fell on women athletes and to have achieved that success is certainly a win.

Image Credit: Zoe Abereoje

‘Personal imprint’: an interview with the founder of Tree Artisan Café

Kenny Cota
-
0
‘Personal imprint’: an interview with the founder of Tree Artisan Café

During exams, my friends and I formed a study group. While it took us three years to realise that studying might be important even for a History degree, the dread for our upcoming exams eventually sunk in. Amidst the panicked conversations about misogynistic late-Roman chroniclers (looking at you, Procopius) were the study breaks at some point in the day to visit a café. A European-style working day with a long lunch break was essential to feeling like a real humanities student, and spending on coffee or cake proved to be an excellent means of coping with exam stress.

Now that exams are long gone, I have found time to consider what I could write about that would allow me to reflect on my experience of Oxford as a city, and I was torn between pubs and cafés. However, having been teetotal for the first year of my degree, in lockdown for the second and a finalist for my third, my pubbing credentials are well below par. Being a sugar-addict, however, my café CV is brimming with relevant experience, and I felt the need to pay some kind of tribute to the coffee shop scene here.

Bored witless by the Law Library, I applied for a loyalty card at the adjacent coffee shop, Missing Bean, and I also occasionally resorted to the suspiciously cheap coffee in college, where the exciting catch is that the oat milk is off and the coffee tastes burnt. As Exeter’s Cohen Quad is in Jericho, Tree Artisan, located on Little Clarendon Street, became our most-visited café. To find out what coffee shop life is like in Oxford from the point of view of the owners, I decided to interview Tree Artisan’s founder and owner, Graziella Ascensao.

Tree Artisan Café now feels like a fixture of the Oxford coffee scene, but it faced challenges from the very start. Graziella moved to Oxford from Brazil at 18, and later worked in the service sector, as both a barista and a waitress, and began to save up until she could afford to open her own café. It seemed as if fate had conspired against her when the COVID-19 pandemic hit as soon as she had secured the lease for the premises.

However, consistent with the rest of her attitude connected to her work, Graziella approached the challenge with a positive mindset and turned it into an opportunity. ‘At that time, I saw it was the time to open,’ she says. ‘When people were in front of their computer all day, they wanted to pick up a coffee and go to the park’. While, due to COVID-19 restrictions, she found it harder to cultivate the atmosphere she wanted within the physical space, she managed to generate a small community of regular customers who appreciated the friendliness and good coffee on offer. ‘I found positivity in that. I am always trying to be a warm person’.

This attitude is Graziella’s main take on the difference between the culture of chain cafés and that of independent ones. She takes pride in buying everything from independent suppliers, from bread to coffee beans, not wanting to compromise the culture of a small local enterprise. ‘There is more love, more passion. With chains, whoever you are, you are a number. The staff are a number, the customers are a number, everybody is a number. It is completely different to when you have a focus on the people’.

This focus is arguably what makes Tree Artisan Café unique. After exams, my friend and I worked there one afternoon, while the café was quiet. As we worked, we noticed that the staff recognised and talked to almost every customer who walked through the door. For a generation that appreciates the personal experience afforded by food vendors, this kind of human interaction sets Tree Artisan Café apart from chain cafés, where the staff often seem stressed and keen to hurry along to the next customer. The feeling that you’re part of a community is a huge appeal, and one that makes sitting in Tree Artisan much more appealing than, for example, sitting in Café Nero.

While the independent café market in Oxford is crowded and competitive, Graziella does not feel this is a hostile environment, and rather sees a market where independent outlets do not have to try and beat each other down to stay in business. ‘Honestly, I respect all of them, because I believe in this world there is space for all of them. Tree Artisan has my biometric, it is different from all the others. It is my personal imprint on them. It is like my baby. I am not comparing to others; I love it because it is mine’.

This ‘personal imprint’ is a huge part of independent coffee outlets in Oxford, and Graziella’s experiences definitely shape how Tree Artisan operates. Having been vegan for three years, she ensures there are multiple dairy-free, gluten-free and vegan options on the menu. As a lifelong member of the allergy club myself, it is welcome to have actual choices, especially when they’re genuinely delicious and likely to even be bought by someone who isn’t allergic to the other options. The menu is also rotated regularly, according to which options prove most popular, which allows Tree Artisan to be customer-driven, rather than constantly supplying the same, bulk-bought generic options available at a chain.

Graziella’s enthusiasm talking about running her own café is infectious. ‘It is hard work,’ she tells me at the end of our interview. ‘I’m here at 4:30 in the morning every day, and I have gratitude to be here. It is my passion, I am happy to be here’. It is this highly personal desire to create a positive experience for every customer that sets Oxford’s independent outlets apart from their corporate competition, and Tree Artisan Café is the perfect example of this alternative, people-focused approach to growing as a café in Oxford.

Image credit: Emily Perkins.

Flora’s Fringe Guide

Flora Symington
-
0
Flora’s Fringe Guide

The Edinburgh Fringe is probably one of my favourite places in the world: there is a literally limitless amount of comedy and theatre on offer to see 24/7, and everyone you meet is usually as obsessed with it as you are. What’s not to like? Well, the downside is that with a limitless amount of shows you are inevitably going to miss most of them, and it turns out people obsessed with theatre and comedy can be a bit…much. Overall it can be an incredibly overwhelming experience, and the main thing is make sure that while you can’t see everything, the shows you do see are so mind-blowingly good you completely forget about all the ones you missed. This is where I come in: I went up to Fringe in the first week and saw as much as I possibly in order to recommend to you lot what’s worth seeing and what’s not, so please read on for my top recs! 

Sketch Comedy 

Dirty Laundry – Greenside @ Infirmary Street, 21:55 until Aug 20th 

I’m kicking things off with Sketch because a) it’s my favourite kind of show and b) perhaps unsurprisingly, my top pick of the Fringe goes to an outrageously funny sketch show, ‘Dirty Laundry’. Cambridge Footlights Emily, Maddie and Robbie (Meat and Two Veg) are looking for a fourth housemate (as they will tell you as they flyer in the streets with a washing line – genius), and in the process the audience is treated to a no-holds-barred look at modern life through the medium of their sketches. The chemistry between these three is palpable, and it’s hard not to get caught up in their enthusiasm as they gallop from one sketch to the next with hilariously apt change music and slick staging. Favourite sketches include musical theatre kids trying to find their keys (pun – I presume – intended), the song of the Student Landlords, and the efforts of stubbornly monolingual Ben to keep up with his ridiculously advanced Spanish pen pal, Marta. These three will have you in stitches from the minute they get on stage, and I challenge you not to want to move right in with them by the final bows. Don’t miss! 

Mudfish: Might as Well – Underbelly, Cowgate, 14:35 until Aug 28th  

Veering towards the more absurdist side of sketch comedy, this show takes for its setting the bottom of a well in which two twins find themselves trapped – and it only gets more bizarre from there. From a gym where people still work out despite the arrival of the apocalypse, to two Southern diner employees who can’t keep their gossip to themselves, comics Molly and Dan never fail to entertain, making even the most outlandish situations hilarious by their sheer skill on the stage. It is no understatement to say that by halfway through the show every person in the front row was crying with laughter, an intensity that was carried through right till the end of the show, where some unexpectedly heart-warming moments provide the show with an emotional climax. A must-see for sketch/absurdism fans. 

Britney: Friend and Nothing More – Pleasance Below – Pleasance Courtyard, 17:45 until Aug 28th  

This show proves the paradoxical rule of comedy that the more successful you are as a sketch comic, the less sketches you actually have to do. This quirky, sparky duo only have about 5 sketches in the hour-long show, but I for one did not feel the lack: their on-stage repertoire, established over 13 years of writing and performing together, sets you immediately at ease, and the story of their first-ever collaboration holds the show together. The moment I and the rest of the audience really lost it was a masterful piece of meta-theatre in which current sketch show and debut story overlap to hilarious effect, but there were plenty of laughs throughout – no wonder they’ve got a brand new pilot out on BBC iPlayer. If you want to be that excruciating person in two year’s time going ‘oh you mean Britney? Yeah I saw them in this tiny theatre at Fringe before they got big’, this is the show for you.  

Girlboss (ended 14th August but deserves a mention!) 

This energetic and inventive sketch show takes us on a hunt for that ever-elusive thing: ‘The Girl That Has It All’ and glides seemingly effortlessly through the trials and tribulations of modern womanhood – or in other words, the Girlboss. Cambridge comedy duo Dulcie and Ella make an hour fly by with their witty and well-observed sketches, from a bank’s International Women’s Day ad campaign to two beta males with a podcast called ‘Should Women Have…?’. My favourite sketch however has to go to the indie boy band they close the show with, strumming away on blow-up guitars whilst singing about their questionable hopes and dreams. Whether you identify as a girl, boss or neither of the above, this show is a good time.  

Theatre 

Boy – Summerhall, 11.30 until Aug 28th  

This was the first show I saw in Edinburgh and has to take the crown of the most ‘Fringe-y’ show as well, by which I mean something so experimental and unique you’re not going to see it anywhere else. Following on from previous successful Fringe runs, Belgian theatre troupe Carly Wijs brings us the true story of the Reimer family, who, after the circumcision of their baby boy goes wrong, decide to raise him as a girl, with the help of eminent psychologist Dr Money. If this sounds upsetting please don’t be put off, as the premise of the show is to tell the story as a child would understand it, with just two performers using stuffed toys to represent the different characters. This technique cushions the blow of the subject matter, allowing it to be handled with the utmost sensitivity, and the expertly crafted script withholds and obscures the truly horrifying parts of the story so that they can be processed in a manageable way. An extremely thought-provoking piece that will stick in your mind long after the curtain falls. 

Ghislaine/Gabler – Greenside @ Riddles Court, 18: 40 until Aug 29th 

A Broadway Baby reviewer I spoke to said he had been to see it three times: it’s not hard to see why. This one-woman tour de force intersperses an imagined monologue given by Ghislaine Maxwell awaiting trial in her cell with fragments of dialogue from Ibsen’s Hedda Gabler. Possibly because I’ve never read the play I found the interruptions from Ibsen’s work a little superfluous: I would happily have watched Kristin Winter’s utterly captivating performance as Ghislaine for the whole hour. With snatches of physical theatre and monologues from Epstein’s victims mixed in, the script centres mainly on Ghislaine’s relationship with her father and reaction to his death (which is where the parallels with Hedda Gabler emerge). Winters finds the perfect balance between composure and despair, never falling into the ‘hysterical woman’ trap nor losing our feeling of intimacy by appearing too collected.  While it would be a stretch to say I felt sympathy with Ghislaine, after an hour in her company I certainly felt I understood her story a little better.  

This is Not a Show About Hong Kong – Underbelly – Cowgate, 14:00 until Aug 28th 

If your idea of Fringe is not so much about the comedy but about ground-breaking, serious theatre, this show is for you. It transferred from London as one of four shows promoted by New Diorama Theatre and is selling out every day, and rightly so. The performance starts with an unsettling bit of immersive theatre, blurring the line between a security announcement and the beginning of a show about repressive government. It then takes us through a series of short scenes, some with dialogue and some purely physical, which represent different parts of the loss of freedoms and increasing repression in Hong Kong. Some are deeply moving, others frankly bizarre – a few are funny but only in ‘you have to laugh or else you’ll cry’ sort of way. In fact, by the end of the performance all four performers were shedding tears on stage, as were a fair portion of the audience. This is not a show to compare with the comedy and silliness we usually associate with the Fringe, but it is nevertheless an impactful piece of theatre that should not be missed. 

Stand-Up 

Ania Magliano: Absolutely No Worries If Not – Pleasance Courtyard, 16:35 until Aug 24th  

Some of you might already know Ania Magliana and her famous horse-girl segment from TikTok, in which case I’m sure you’ll need no convincing to go and see her debut, but for the rest of you allow me to introduce you to a rising star of the stand-up world, whose hilarious show has just won Best New Show of the Leicester Comedy Festival. On the day I went she had just added fans to her stage because of the heat, and before the show even began she was ad-libbing to the audience about this with the comfortable demeanour of someone much more experienced. Once she launched into her set things only got better: her speciality is long, surreal speeches that take us into the depths of her imagination and push observational comedy to its limits, my favourite of which has to be her comments on the people who work at Lush. Seriously, they are a different breed. Even you think stand-up isn’t your thing, I urge you to go and see her. You will not be disappointed. 

Chelsea Birkby: No More Mr Nice Guy 

A word to the wise: contrary to the popular wisdom that walking alone in deserted areas of cities at night time is ill-advised, in Fringe season what is to be avoided doing alone at all costs is walking down a very busy street, in the daytime. ‘Hi there, sorry to disturb you but you just look like a really perfect fit for my show. I love your outfit! What’s that book you’re reading? It looks so cool’. I’m hooked before they’ve even handed me the flyer, convinced that a person paid or otherwise obliged to get people into a show by any means available could not possibly have any ulterior motive in complimenting me. No need to romanticize and aestheticize every waking moment in Oxford in the hope of someone finally writing an Oxlove that could plausibly be directed at you: during a particularly gratifying 5 minute period on Cowgate I was flyered by two people simultaneously, one for a sketch show (‘I can tell you have a great laugh’) and one for a debut female stand up (‘you have such a cool aesthetic going on you’re gonna love the show’). Naturally being the good feminist I am I went to the stand up, to show solidarity with a female comic and absolutely not because the flyerer complimented my appearance. Cue 55 minutes of wondering if the sketch show would have been a better bet – I’m not sure if Chelsea and I just didn’t get on or the ‘what if’ was just too much for me, but this wasn’t my favourite show. There were some funny bits about how to go from being a ‘nice girl’ to a young woman doing whatever she wants, but for me this didn’t go far enough to cover the fact that the basic story being told was actually quite traumatic (involving being diagnosed with BPD and sexually manipulated by an authority figure). On the plus side Chelsea is Oxford-based, so if this does sound like your kind of thing you can probably catch her next show a bit closer to home. 

Cabaret  

How to Keep Up with the Kardashians (ended 14th August but deserves a mention!) 

This was probably the show at Fringe where I had the most fun, thanks to the engaging performance and razor-sharp writing of Manchester-based theatre group So La Flair. Ranging from group choreographed dances to intensely personal monologues, this show is loosely based around the theme of body image and learning to love yourself despite the pressure to ‘keep up’ with modern beauty standards. Each performer gets some alone time on stage to express their own personal relationship with their body, whether that be through a song, story or satirical strip tease.  The overall impression you leave the theatre with is one of joy and celebration, which let’s face it is a pretty rare and impressive feeling to cultivate with reference to the female body.  

One-person shows which fall somewhere between comedy and seriousness and are a bit confusing (surprisingly more than one of these) 

Colossal – Underbelly, Cowgate, 12.45 until Aug 28th 

Having seen Patrick McPherson’s hugely successful one-man show ‘The Man’ back in 2019, I had high hopes for this show. Like ‘The Man’ it deals with themes of toxic masculinity, bisexuality, and the perils of modern dating, with a biting self-awareness that reveals itself throughout the show and ensures things never get too self-righteous. For me ‘Colossal’ was a little too far on the self-conscious, performative side of things, with moments of comedy thrown in but tempered by earnest audiences addresses such as ‘what’s the best part of a story?’. Indeed, McPherson’s story telling is skilful, but the overall message, that men are usually emotionally unintelligent and therefore bad at dating, didn’t seem like much of a ground-breaking revelation to me. I did however hear a lot of good things about McPherson’s other show ‘Pear’, a comedy duo with his twin brother, so maybe go and see that instead. 

Destiny – Underbelly, Cowgate 17.20 until Aug 28th 

This was one of the few shows I booked before arriving after seeing it on The Guardian’s Top Picks for Fringe. This is perhaps my fault for blindly trusting any Guardian article I read without further scrutiny, but Destiny was not altogether what I expected. What starts off as a cringe-worthy monologue of a young girl getting ready for a night out on the town in Chippenham quickly becomes a narrative of grim survival after she is violently assaulted. The perspective of a 15-year-old girl who barely understands what has happened to her is all too familiar, but Destiny’s mistrust of the those who try to help and quick attachments to those who exploit her, bring a unique perspective and devastating poignance to this show. 

So, there you have it: 3,171 shows whittled down to 12. Even if they’re not all to your taste, I hope this gives you somewhere to start, and remember: you simply can’t see everything so enjoy what you can and forget about the rest! 

What are Conservative Party Members thinking?

Oliver Hall
-
0
What are Conservative Party Members thinking?

Friday 2nd September is creeping ever closer and with a government that seems to be set on inaction until then in the midst of the biggest cost of living crisis in decades, for millions it can’t come soon enough.  Before then though, 0.3% of the population will decide who the next Prime Minister is and all signs now seem to suggest that that person will be Liz Truss. 

Personally, I see it as a tragedy on several levels but, above all, I cannot cease to be totally baffled by the polls that show Truss will win by such a landslide.  Not only is it now with seeming daily regularity that a new independent report, financial expert, or ‘Tory grandee’ points out her economic plans are both unfundable and inadequate.  More than anything, the Conservative Party Members seem set to condemn themselves to losing the next election by electing a leader and resulting cabinet that is beyond impalpable for the general population.

I suppose the first step in trying to get inside the mind of Tory members is understanding who they really are, something that is notoriously difficult and explains why opinion polls in leadership contests vary so much in comparison with those of general elections.  Although the information is not officially published, Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University, concluded nearly ten years of study on this and told the FT last month that “There hasn’t been much change in the demographics of the Tory grassroots since we began our research on party members back in 2013.”  The research found that, rather unsurprisingly, that members are disproportionately older men.  63% were male (compared to roughly half of the UK population), their median age is 57 (the national average is 40), and 80% fall in the so-called ABC1 category of the most highly-paid demographic group (this makes up 53% of the country).   They also match the classic stereotype of being white and right-leaning on issues, with 76% voting for Brexit and 95% identifying as White British in a country where that makes up just 83% of the population.  Now, that is a lot of numbers, but the fact that those voting on our next leader come from such a small and narrow segment of society is not only plainly a crazy and scarcely believable part of our democratic system but goes some way to explaining how and why they have leaned so heavily on Truss over Sunak. They have rewarded her ludicrous attempts to evoke Thatcherite policies which don’t fit the current economic climate and, much like the Foreign Secretary’s desperate efforts to emulate Thatcher’s personality and dress sense, are outdated.

Despite this, in fact for this very reason, one would think that the constant comments from some of the Tory party’s oldest, most successful, and most well-respected names, about just how baseless much of Truss’ economic policies are, would have swayed more of the base towards Sunak.  Kenneth Clark has described her approach as “nonsense and simplistic” and related it to techniques that might be used by a Venezuelan government.  Former leaders Michael Howard and William Hague, as well as well-respected current MPs such as Dominic Raab, Jeremy Hunt, and Michael Gove, have all taken to the airwaves and newspapers in the past few days to speak against the idea that tax cuts can resolve the crisis.  Even Lord Lamont, Treasurer in the Thatcher government remembered so fondly by much of the conservative party base, has publicly backed Sunak over the holes in Truss’ plans. It isn’t only individuals who think that her plans are misguided either: the IFS joined countless other economists last week in pointing out that her current ideas are simply unfundable unless they are accompanied by spending cuts.

What makes all of this even more crazy and difficult for me to get my head around is that the members seem blissfully unaware of just how unelectable Truss is for the electorate as a whole.  With a general election looming in 2024 you would think that there would be an appetite for a relatively inoffensive leader who appeals to as broad a base as possible.  Whereas Sunak has at least shown his ability to appeal to a large spectrum in the past, earning himself the nickname ‘Dishy Rishi’ during his Eat Out to Help Out glory days, Truss has never shied away from bulldozing ahead with unpopular policies and divisive comments.  Whether that is upsetting Scots by saying that the best way to deal with their democratically elected leader is “to ignore her” or regular workers by telling them to put in some more “graft”, Truss trails Keir Starmer and rival Sunak in every poll of the general population.  And if recent leaks of her planned cabinet are to be believed, placing Jacob Rees-Mogg as Levelling-up Secretary, she hardly appears to be planning a change of course on this front.

So – why?  What is it that appeals?  It might well be a case of Johnson continuity – indeed in surveys, many have said that they feel Sunak betrayed their leader by resigning and becoming one of the major catalysts for the Prime Minister’s downfall.  In reality though, I think it is more of a case of the members being genuinely detached from the real world themselves.  For whatever reason they don’t seem able to see their impending decision risks disaster for millions of people across the country by worsening current financial pressures as well as putting them in a catastrophic position ahead of the next general election. Two years is a long time in politics, but right now I struggle to see why on earth the turkeys are voting for Christmas.  

Image: CC 2.0 – UK Government via Flickr.  

1...234235236...2,512Page 235 of 2,512

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