Wednesday 13th May 2026
Blog Page 3

Oxford Union town hall HT26 re-run: Meet the candidates

Cherwell News
-
0
Oxford Union town hall HT26 re-run: Meet the candidates

A re-poll for the Oxford Union Presidency for Michaelmas 2026 is set to take place on Monday 11th May, after President-Elect Catherine Xu was found guilty by tribunal of electoral fraud. The candidates running to be President in Michaelmas 2026 – Liza Barkova, Hamza Hussain, Gareth Lim, and Victor Andrés Marroquín – spoke to Cherwell about the current state of the Oxford Union, including recent controversies, their vision for their presidency, and their reasons for running.

Introduce yourself briefly. Why are you running to be President?

Liza: Hey, my name is Liza and I am a second-year PPE student at Christ Church. I have served on the Union Committee three times, including Junior Appointed committee, Secretary’s Committee, and Standing Committee. Why I’m running – I come from a country where free speech is often suppressed by the government regime. The Union was the first place where I found that people truly believe that their opinions can matter on an international scale. That experience made a profound impression on me. The Union has an extraordinary platform, but its success ultimately depends on how well it serves the members who use it today. For me, this election is about INSPIRING a culture that genuinely welcomes all opinions.

Gareth: Hello! I’m Gareth Lim, former Chair of Competitive Debating at the Oxford Union and third year Law student at St Peter’s College. I have only ever run in one Union-wide election (the one that we are re-doing). Before this cycle, I exclusively spent my time in the Union managing consistent budget surpluses, coaching debate, and participating in debates. I believe my skill, character, and commitment make me the best candidate.

Victor: My name is Victor Marroquín-Merino. I read for the MSc in Latin American Studies at Oxford, and since graduating in 2024, I have worked in political consulting after co-founding a public affairs and political strategy firm. Over the past year, my life took me away from Oxford and back into the realities of political life in Peru. I never expected to find myself standing in this chamber again as a candidate for President of the Oxford Union Society. But returning to Oxford during one of the most turbulent periods in the Union’s recent history convinced me that the institution needs leadership capable of restoring confidence, competence, and seriousness. I am running because I believe the Union deserves a clean slate – and a return to the standards that once made it one of the most respected debating societies in the world.

Hamza: Hi, I’m Hamza, a final year History and Politics student. I previously served on the Union’s Standing Committee. I am running to be President because I believe the traditions of free speech and debate upheld by the Union are worth defending.

Which manifesto commitment are you most passionate about?

Liza: I am most passionate about the pledge for financial revival. I have a number of ideas for strengthening the Union’s financial structure so that our events have generous budgets while also remaining financially sustainable. This is not a simple task and we cannot perform miracles overnight, but there are realistic steps we can take. One of the most important is building stronger long-term relationships with Union alumni. The Union has an extraordinary network of former members across politics, business, media, and academia. By reconnecting with that network we can both raise funds and create new opportunities for speakers, mentorship, and engagement with current members. Strengthening those connections would be a reliable and sustainable way to support the Union financially.

Gareth: In the last interview, I stated that I was most passionate about expanding member participation in debating. Given additional time for consideration my third manifesto commitment returning intellectual rigour to the Union is, to me, of the widest relevance. Lots of terms often choose to focus on political or IR issues, but I believe that we can expand ourselves to debates about Art, Science, or even the more than occasional comedy debate! 

In some ways, the Union has limited its selection of guests to those involved in politics. The problem is a lot of these guests are often deeply controversial, unavailable, and often not so interesting to members who would prefer a low-cortisol experience. Oxford is a city with a great deal of potential with regards to guests who are deeply intertwined with a great deal ointellectual pursuits and it is a great opportunity to bring a sense of curiosity back to the Union. This allows the average member to participate again, something that I believe is crucial if it is to remain fit for purpose. 

Victor: What matters most to me is restoring confidence in the Union’s leadership and direction. The Union should be known for the quality of its debate, the calibre of its ideas, and the seriousness of its institution – not for constant controversy and constant internal strife. I want members to feel that the Union represents the very best of Oxford again.

Hamza: I am most passionate about my commitment to see greater transparency in the invitation process. I would like to see a common invitation policy introduced to ensure consistency in the process across terms. This would clearly set out how committee members should identify potential speakers and conduct due diligence. 

What do you admire most about your opponents?

Liza: I have a great deal of respect for everyone running in this election. Victor Andrés Morroquin has impressive professional experience. He entered the presidential race at a late stage but has always shown great commitment to the Union. Gareth Lim is an exceptional speaker and an extremely skilled debater. Hamza Hussain has a clear sense of purpose and has devoted a great deal of time to charitable work, which is always important in someone who wants to hold a position of leadership.

Gareth: I’ve said it before and I will say it again – their time management skills. Running for election is exhausting and I’m having so much trouble fitting the rest of my priorities while campaigning. I have no doubt that the other candidates are among the most high-functioning people in the world. 

Victor: Anyone willing to stand for the Union presidency during such a difficult moment clearly cares deeply about the institution, and I respect that commitment. While we may disagree on direction or leadership, I believe everyone running wants to see the Union move forward.

Hamza: Their commitment to the Society and the courage they have shown in putting themselves forward for the Presidency. 

There has been controversy over the past few terms relating to Union disciplinary procedures and tribunal decisions. Do you believe procedures have been misused? What steps will you take to restore faith in Union disciplinary procedures? 

Liza: I am not aware of any outcome of disciplinary procedures to have been improper. I strictly condemn any attempt to rig or misuse these proceedings. More importantly, I am saddened that the previous successful candidate for the Position of President-Elect has chosen to commit fraud during the Hilary election meaning that honest candidates have to repeat this process. As President I will look to ensure that the people in charge of disciplinary processes are chosen in a more transparent way.

Gareth: Short answer – yes. Candidates are incentivised to use the Union disciplinary procedure as a replacement for campaigning. This has led to a culture of fear regarding getting ‘tribbed’ and toxicity within the Union. It is not my place to comment on the results of recent tribunals at this time. It would be highly irresponsible of me to make specific comments that I am unable to back up. But I definitely believe that we have become over-reliant on the disciplinary process. 

To answer the second question – candidates make big promises regarding the restoration of faith in the disciplinary process. Personally I believe that we should stick with following the rules rather than our constant obsession with reforming them. I believe that a president who is running independently, with no ties to slates and who has no reason to stick around after his term, is a good start in removing the culture of fear that surrounds the disciplinary process. 

Victor: I believe the deeper issue is that many members have lost confidence in the consistency, transparency, and legitimacy of Union governance. Regardless of where individuals stand on specific decisions, that loss of trust is damaging for the institution. As President, I would prioritise procedural clarity, transparency, and communication with members. The Union cannot function effectively if large parts of the membership feel disconnected from or distrustful of its internal processes.

Hamza: While I am unable to comment on individual disciplinary hearings where I was not a party, I do believe there are legitimate concerns about how these proceedings affect those involved. I believe the only route forward is to implement the relevant recommendations of reports commissioned by the Union on disciplinary proceedings. 

Do you support the decision to invite Tommy Robinson to the Oxford Union?

Liza: While I believe that the Union should not shy away from controversial topics and it is at the discretion of the President to invite speakers they want, Tommy Robinson has come to the Union in the past and did not contribute anything worth listening to. His stance is based on hate rather than reason which has no place in a debate. I would not have invited him. 

Gareth: No. But I suspect you would like me to elaborate. One side of the argument states that we are a free speech society and should therefore platform important voices in debates. The other side states that Tommy Robinson has a history of endangering the safety of the marginalized. I think the pro-invitation side has missed the point. It is not just that Tommy Robinson causes a culture of fear, but also that he has been invited to the Union before and that I genuinely do not believe that he would add much to our history of reasoned discussion. 

Free-speech is important, but as the Oxford Union, we must use our institutional power responsibly, inviting Tommy Robinson did not fulfill our responsibility to our members. Presidents should publish clear criteria of who they would invite. I would consider the following: First, do they have a history of inciting violence or criminal charges? Second, how influential are they in our society? Thirdly, how beneficial would their invitation be to advancing useful dialogue? Lastly, how interesting will their speech be? While these criteria must be balanced against one another, Tommy Robinson meets none of these criteria. 

Victor: In my view, inviting Tommy Robinson was the wrong decision. I do not believe it contributed meaningful intellectual value proportionate to the level of controversy and division it generated within the membership and across the wider university community. I absolutely do not support this invitation. But I also believe the issue extends beyond any individual speaker. The Union has a long tradition of defending free speech and hosting controversial figures, and that principle matters. However, free speech also requires judgement, responsibility, and serious consideration of how invitations affect the institution and its members.

Hamza: I would not have invited him. I support the Union’s right to invite controversial speakers for scrutiny, but whether individual invitations are wise should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Tommy Robinson already has a platform and has previously spoken at the Union. No individual has the right to an invitation by the Union, and the President should always act in the interests of the Society, its members, and with due regard for the impact of their decisions. 

Recent weeks have seen widespread opposition from other student societies regarding the platforming of Union speakers, including Carl Benjamin, Tommy Robinson, and Karim Khan. How would you respond to criticism from other university societies in your presidency?

Liza: In the Union all members have the opportunity to ask public questions to the President before the start of the debate. These questions may be put as concerns raised by other university societies. I would have to answer in front of the entire chamber. This would ensure accountability in a civilised and most effective environment.

Gareth: Being receptive to feedback is an important part of being a leader. However, one must also know when to stand their ground with regards to criticism, after all one is elected to serve members of the Oxford Union, not those of other societies. 

I would like to make clear that I would not have invited Carl Benjamin or Tommy Robinson to begin with. However, once decisions are made and invitations made, I believe it is worse to reverse course to rescind an invitation. That compromises the Union’s credibility with future invitations even when those guests are credible. Of course, this depends on how severe the failings of the invitees in question are – ultimately, the best guiding principle is that of preserving the credibility of the Union, now and in the future. 

Victor: The Union cannot keep existing in its own bubble, constantly at war with the wider university community. I want to rebuild those relationships through common sense, better judgement, and a more grounded approach to leadership – one that actually listens to members and brings people back into the institution rather than pushing them away.

Hamza: The decision to invite speakers should rightly sit with the President elected by the members, but this should not mean that dialogue with societies is cut off. I would be happy to sit down and talk with those concerned with the Union’s conduct so their voices can be heard. Objections should be considered on their own merits, and speaker invitations should be handled with seriousness and sensible judgement.

Anything else you might like to add.

Liza: I have stood through many things that happened in the Union and have seen its effects and consequences. What I found is that the culture of the Union is built around the people who contribute to it. Together with my team, I want to inspire a culture of integrity among its people, I hope that the institution as a whole can improve as well.

Gareth: Two things. Firstly, vote with your conscience. Read all the manifestos and vote with the candidate that you believe is going to be the best president rather than what someone else tells you. Your vote is important and if you would like to put your membership to good use, you should exercise your voice. I believe that my organisational experience, character and fresh perspective make me the best candidate for the Presidency. I hope to have your vote, but will be just as happy if you let your own voice be heard through your ballot! 

Secondly, candidates always make the point that the Union is in chaos and that they are the one to fix it. I would encourage voters to ask themselves when the Union’s troubles began, this is not a recent phenomenon that can be tied to any particular Presidents’ term. You should vote for someone who you believe has been uninvolved in any of the Union’s drama and someone who has the competence to fulfill their promises. 


Victor: This election is ultimately about whether members believe the Union can recover from the instability and controversy of recent terms. I believe it can – but doing so requires competent leadership, intellectual seriousness, and institutional responsibility. Having spent the past year working in real-world political strategy and public affairs during a national election cycle, I believe I can bring the experience and judgement this moment demands. That is the campaign I am running. #RETURN

Stubborn, devout, doomed: ‘The Anti-gone’ reviewed

Natalie Tan
-
0
Stubborn, devout, doomed: ‘The Anti-gone’ reviewed

When The Anti-gone begins, the only thing onstage is a lectern – stark in the harsh white light and terribly lonely – before Ismene (Kitty Brown) walks uncertainly down the aisle and stares, torn and lost, into the audience. This is Carfax Productions and Atelier V’s latest play in a nutshell: sparse but affecting, and bolstered by the performances of its incredibly talented cast. 

Sophocles’ original tragedy is simple, though executed with aplomb: in the wake of Oedipus’ (yes, that Oedipus) exile, his sons Eteocles and Polynices have died fighting each other for the throne. Creona, the new ruler of Thebes, has decreed that Eteocles will be buried as a hero, but Polynices’s body will be left exposed to the elements on the battlefield and be prey for the carrion birds, the harshest punishment the Greeks could imagine. The play’s opening scene lays this out for all to see: Antigone (Rose Hansen) seeks to give her brother Polynices a proper burial in defiance of Creona’s edict, but her sister Ismene, too frightened to imagine defying Creona, refuses to help. 

Antigone is a story that turns on three points – Antigone, Ismene, and Creona – and all three more than pull their weight here. Hansen is fantastic as Antigone, turning vitriolic righteousness into reluctant affection from one breath to the next whilst striking the perfect balance of anger and anguish. Brown’s Ismene plays off her perfectly as the helpless watcher staring after her wild sister, storming to her own doom. “Go then if you must,” Ismene tells Antigone, resigned, “but remember: no matter how foolish your deeds, those who love you will love you still.”

Director Marcus F.P. has reimagined the play for a Victorian London setting. It’s brought to life primarily through costume designer Rowena Sears’ impressively detailed vision: the sisters are dressed to contrast each other in every way possible. Ismene with her tightly-plaited updo, not a hair out of place; Antigone with her unbound, voluminous curls. Ismene with only a sliver of skin peeking out from between her elbow-length gloves and the sleeve of her dress; Antigone with bare arms, shoulders, collarbones. Ismene’s face pale and panicked; Antigone’s flushed with rage. They’re both in funeral black for the first scene, but when Antigone reemerges, dragged before Creona to answer for the ‘crime’ of burying her brother, she’s now in white, a sacrificial lamb with a stubborn jut to her jaw. 

F.P’s other major change is that Creon, the sisters’ uncle who has usurped the city and turned tyrant, has been made Creona (Rosan Trisic), the third point of this triangle. Statuesque and menacing, Trisic stalks around the stage in full, bloody crimson, delivering every line with crisp, forbidding enunciation. It’s an interesting change that removes the gendered aspect of the Antigone-Creon conflict to further emphasise the clash between state and family, order and justice, the human and the divine – but also has the added benefit of introducing a new dimension to the character dynamics: Creona’s tyranny is contextualised against the backdrop of the patriarchy. “A man you have always wished to be,” Haemon (Sonny Fox), her son and Antigone’s betrothed, accuses, lashing out at her upon learning she’s sentenced Antigone to death. 

At this point, it would be remiss not to mention the Chorus – played here by a choir with full musical accompaniment, piano and all. Musical director Richard Meehan oversees an impressive and well-coordinated crew that delivers interludes that are rousing and solemn in turns, mocked ironically by Lady Smythe (Sophia Lee) and Lord Fothergill (Ellie Dinning), who switch seamlessly across the fourth wall from singers to servants. 

But it’s the side characters that steal the show, chief among them Lady Sentry (Rachel Wadie). Clad in pale pink with a jaunty hat that trails feathers as she scurries along and affecting a querulous, trembling voice, Wadie provides a much-needed shot of levity. She’s saddled with the burden of various expository monologues – including one where she has to recount Haemon’s suicide after he finds Antigone dead – but shoulders it admirably, even dropping the act at opportune moments to hint at a hidden cunning in Sentry before re-donning it just as quickly. The other standout is Tiresias (Ali Khan), who imbues his role with an incredibly unsettling physicality, shuffling barefoot across the stage with his pupils reduced to unnerving black pinpricks. 

As a way to defuse the original’s sustained bleakness, the play’s tragicomic tone pays off – for the most part, at least. Its only stumble comes at the end, where Creona realises what she’s done as servants present her with the bodies of Haemon and Ismene. As she begins to sob wildly, Sentry hops genially over the corpses with an awkward joke, and the servants follow suit, gingerly stepping around the bodies in a moment that’s played – rather jarringly – for laughs. It leaves the audience with no time for the emotional weight to sink in or Trisic’s masterful breakdown – she’s crying in horror, so violently you can see the tears and mucus dripping to the floor. 

As the Chorus swells with a final song, Creona opens her mouth in a cry of sorrow, but she’s silent and inaudible beneath the music, a hair-raising final image that pulls the play back together. It’s anchored, ultimately, by a clarity of vision and a deftness of execution that student productions can sometimes lack. In contrast, The Anti-gone knows exactly what it should be: a reimagining of a classic with a flavour entirely its own.

Something wicked this way comes: ‘Macbeth’ previewed

Arun Lewis
-
0
Something wicked this way comes: ‘Macbeth’ previewed

Arriving at Somerville College in its full summer pomp, Stanley Toyne and Cameron Spruce, the codirectors of Cross Keys Productions’ Macbeth, walked over with me to the college chapel as we discussed the ephemeral bother of collections and the issues of trying to work amidst glorious sunshine.

Once sat in the space, with the fitting set-up of three grand thrones in the middle of the chapel’s walkway, it was easy to understand why the two have decided to stage their modern, mafia-set take on Macbeth here. There is an otherworldly feel to the chapel, a non-denominational space, shorn of ornate religious trappings yet clearly somewhere to be treated with reverence. Everyone knows the basic story beats of Macbeth – duty, pride, betrayal, downfall – but the use of a chapel was key in protecting the core of the story in a new modern setting.

Discussing the setting, Stan highlighted that, as with the mafia context, the use of the chapel was a deliberate choice, and had in fact been the cause of some difficulties in securing a location for the production, with several chapels either being too expensive or unwilling to host a mafia-themed production. He highlighted the similarities in power relations between the feudal system of medieval Scotland, where the original play occurred, and the mafia – a veneration of violence, an emphasis on family and religiosity – that allowed the play to transpose well. Chiming in, Cameron highlighted that the transverse staging of the chapel with nave, transepts, and chancel offered not just a fluid feel to the play, but an interactive feeling, placing the audience in and among the drama.

The mafioso setting of the play raised questions – how would some of the main characters, particularly Lady Macbeth and her husband, Malcolm, Duncan, and the witches, translate into this  20th-century setting? They both talked at length about how Malcolm, rather than merely being the hapless heir to the amiable Duncan, was to be portrayed as an actor in his own right, capable and willing to manipulate those around him in advancement of his own goals, particularly the vulnerable MacDuff, when news of his family’s murder reaches him. The three witches each aspire to capture an element of mob life and also allude to the Greek mythology of the Fates. Each represents something Macbeth lacks and wants at certain points in the play: authority, love, and excess, capturing the cycle of Macbeth’s character without denying him the agency of his choices. In this production, Macbeth is not solely the unwilling tool of fate – though elements of the fantastical do endure in this plot – but rather an independent agent, influenced not just by his surroundings but also by himself, and so too is Lady Macbeth.

Of note should be the ease with which the two directors bounced off each other, and how the arrival of two cast members, playing Lady Macbeth and Macbeth, did not prompt any great change of character or slip into a new persona. Instead, they genially integrated their cast into the interview, allowing me to enquire about how they found the role, the directorial approach, and their approach to the characters. Working within the setting dictated by the directors, both felt a range to explore the emotional depth of the characters, particularly with Macbeth stylised as more of a bruiser in this play, substituting swords and rapiers for pistols and knives, and Lady Macbeth made to be more than the particularly reductive versions produced in certain modern adaptations, like the Patrick Stewart-led modern take on Macbeth. They both lean into the stereotypical mob depictions of their roles, but Lady Macbeth uses it far more knowingly as a public facade, with her ability to occupy a sweeping veranda of opinion towards her emotionally complex, yet explosive, husband a core part of this rendition’s characterisation.

Both Cameron and Stanley have acted in OUDS productions before, with Cameron giving an excellent turn as Wriothesley in last year’s production of Wolf Hall at Christchurch. They spoke candidly of how their experience on the other side of the dynamic influenced their open, approachable attitude towards the actors, and how an unexpected delay over the spring vac allowed the actors to further develop their characterisations. The play’s newly composed organ score, courtesy of Peter Hardistry, functions as what Cameron described as “motivic glue”, highlighting the changing power relations and positions of the character as the play moves towards its ultimate conclusion. The production effortlessly combines the old with the new to produce what promises to be a thrilling rendition of the Scottish Play.

Oxford Labour defies national trends at city council elections

Ned Remington and Hattie Simpson
-
0
Oxford Labour defies national trends at city council elections

The Labour Party defied national trends in the Oxford local elections yesterday, with their seat count in the City Council dropping slightly from 21 to 20, against a national backdrop of major losses for the party. Multiple students at Oxford University stood unsuccessfully as candidates in wards across the city.

The Labour Party remains the largest party on the council. The Green Party gained four councillors, raising their total count to 13. The Liberal Democrats remained steady on a total of nine seats. The number of Independent councillors dropped from nine to six, with four now representing the Independent Oxford Alliance and two representing the Real Independents Group. The Conservatives and Reform UK still have no representation on the City Council.

A total of 24 councillors were up for election this year, with one councillor elected in each of the city’s 24 wards. Oxford City Council elects half of its councillors every two years, with each ward represented by two councillors overall. The Council remains under no overall control, meaning no party holds a majority. Labour previously held a majority on the Council for 13 years until the 2023 resignation of ten councillors in protest of Labour’s policy on the war in Gaza.

Holywell ward, the City Council ward with a majority student population, was held by the Green Party, with recent Oxford graduate Alfie Davis elected with an overwhelming majority of 622 votes over the Labour student candidate, Awab Kazuz.

Davis told Cherwell that the result in Holywell represents “a profound rejection of Labour” by students and a new form of “politics for the people”. Reflecting on the significance of the result for young people, Davis added that students represent a “unique social community… that is recognised very little”. However, they highlighted that their key takeaway from the Oxford results was the “ridiculously high” turnout, over 40% in most wards, describing this as a “real sign of young people showing interest in local elections”.

The results come amid major losses for the Labour Party in local councils across England, as well as projected losses in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd. Speaking to Cherwell after his loss, Labour candidate Kazuz, a first-year student at St Edmund’s Hall and a member of the Oxford Labour Club Executive Committee, said he was “really proud of the campaign that we ran” and noted that the party was holding “marginal seats”. Kazuz rejected any suggestion that the night had been a “drumming” for Labour in Oxford, telling Cherwell: “We’re doing better than a lot of people expected us to do.” He also said he was “rooting for Alfie so that they can do the best that they can for the people of Holywell”.

Student candidates also stood in the Carfax and Jericho ward – Harriet Dolby for the Conservatives, and Vittorio Cuneo-Flood for Reform UK – with a candidate ultimately elected from the Green Party, replacing the incumbent Labour candidate. Student Harry Morgan stood unsuccessfully for the Liberal Democrats in Osney & St Thomas, Zelalemawee Asheber stood unsuccessfully for the Green Party in Walton Manor, and Indigo Haynes stood unsuccessfully for the Green Party in Blackbird Leys.

Speaking to Cherwell, Morgan, former President of the Oxford Student Liberals Organisation, highlighted the “disconnect between the University and local elections generally”, adding that students have seemingly been more engaged this year. Addressing the wider national result, however, Morgan warned of the rise of Reform UK for students, saying: “They don’t really believe in the climate crisis. I don’t think they have housing solutions. I don’t think they have the deep thinking to deal with any of the problems that are going to affect us.”

Reform UK has made gains in councils across England. Whilst no seats were won by Reform in Oxford, they increased their vote share across the city, and came second in three wards, all of which were won by the Labour Party.

Reflecting on the results of the night, Councillor Susan Brown, Labour Leader of the Council prior to the election, told Cherwell: “I feel we have listened to local residents. We have given a very positive program to the people of Oxford. And so I’m pleased and proud that at the end of tonight, we ended up as still very much the largest party…It seems to me that people are relatively happy with what we are putting forward.” 

Brown acknowledged that it had proved “very difficult…to communicate directly with students”, particularly in the Holywell ward, and recognised that Labour continued to lack a majority (25 seats) in the Council, telling Cherwell she was “always happy to work in partnership and collegiately” with other parties.

The outcomes in each ward were as follows:

Barton and Sandhills – Labour hold

Blackbird Leys – Labour hold

Carfax and Jericho – Green gain from Labour

Churchill – Labour hold

Cowley – Green gain from Independent

Cutteslowe and Sunnymead – Lib Dem hold

Donnington – Green hold

Headington – Lib Dem hold

Headington Hill and Northway – Labour Hold

Hinksey Park – Labour hold

Holywell – Green hold

Littlemore – Labour hold

Lye Valley – Green gain from Independent

Marston – Green hold

Northfield Brook – Labour Gain from Independent

Osney and St Thomas – Green hold

Quarry and Risinghurst – Labour hold

Rose Hill and Iffley – Labour hold

St Clement’s – Green gain from Labour

St Mary’s – Green hold 

Summertown – Lib Dem hold

Temple Cowley- Independent hold

Walton Manor – Labour hold

Wolvercote – Lib Dem hold

G for Georgian? LGBTQ+ representation in historical fiction

Elizabeth Gammaidoni
-
0
G for Georgian? LGBTQ+ representation in historical fiction

It is undeniable that LGBTQ+ representation in the media has become more positive in recent years. One may assume this trend extends across genres, forms, and time, allowing previously unacknowledged LGBTQ+ historical figures to receive recognition. The popular series Bridgerton, for example, deviates from the books to feature two LGBTQ+ main characters. However, the majority of media with LGBTQ+ main characters is contemporary and does not explore the existence of LGBTQ+ identities in previous centuries. It seems historical literature has indeed fallen behind in LGBTQ+ representation. If this is true, then why, and how can this issue be solved?

There are a few reasons to think that this could be the case. For instance, a recent talk at the Oxford Literary Festival, entitled ‘Gender-Fluid Georgians’, saw Carolyn Kirby and Anthony Delaney in discussion on their work about LGBTQ+ Georgians. They discussed the many issues surrounding the writing of texts, both fiction and non-fiction, about historical LGBTQ+ figures. There remains a legacy of concealment that many appear hesitant to deviate from, noticeable archival scarcity (meaning criminal records are the widest body of evidence remaining), and moral discomfort surrounding revealing identities that were so carefully kept hidden. 

Even if there are limitations and worries surrounding the representation of historical LGBTQ+ figures, it is possible to make up for these oversights. If they have been long under-represented, Kirby and Delaney try to undo this in their work. Kirby discussed this in her novel, Ravenglass, which centres on the life of the protagonist, Kit, whose disruption of gender norms forces him to live a life of concealment. Kit must suppress an interest in feminine fashion, and later hides in a more literal sense by living as Stella, in a fascinating exploration of gender identity. 

Delaney’s non-fiction book, Queer Georgians, explores silenced LGBTQ+ voices in the Georgian period. He details the lives of a variety of Georgian people, discussing figures mostly unknown, as well as revealing information from the archives about the undiscovered LGBTQ+ lives of better-known figures. He especially discussed archival gaps and how deep one must look to discover historical figures’ true lives, which is one possible explanation for the scarcity of LGBTQ+ historical texts. However, the existence of Kirby and Delaney’s books is evidence of the increasing recognition being given to LGBTQ+ figures of the past.

One admirable figure that Delaney discusses is Margaret Clap. Nicknamed Mother Clap, she provided a place of refuge for LGBTQ+ people. She ran a Molly House in Holborn, a “pub for homosexual men” and gender-nonconforming people, where they could socialise safely away from the rest of society without fearing the consequences of expressing themselves. Elsewhere, this fear was strong given that sexual activity between men was outlawed by the Buggery Act of 1533, which said that the “detestable and abominable Vice of Buggery committed with mankind or beast” was punishable by death. 

Margaret Clap is a fascinating part of the history of Molly Houses due to her rebellion against law enforcement and being “actively involved in legal battles relating to sodomy charges”. Her aid was selfless; she put herself in danger to protect others and was eventually prosecuted. She was fined, made to stand in the pillory, and given two years’ imprisonment; it is unknown whether she survived her prison sentence. The records of Clap’s actions emblematise the issue of having criminal records as the main source for LGBTQ+ history. Not only does it limit understanding, but it is also reductive of the humanity of these people whose lives now must go unacknowledged outside of the record of their then-criminal activity.

Clap’s form of allyship to the LGBTQ+ community is one that clearly had a great positive effect. However, it is somewhat foreign to forms of allyship today in that it required her to hide those she aligned herself with, rather than championing them openly. In modern society, the latter form of activism is often more prominent because of the increasingly accepting attitudes towards LGBTQ+ people, at least in certain parts of the world. Perhaps it is this tradition, and the lack of source material that comes from this need to hide, which leads to fewer stories being told about LGBTQ+ people of the past, even whilst they are gradually gaining greater acknowledgement in contemporary pieces. We have inherited a legacy of both internal and external suppression, which has such power that it feels more natural to continue this than to break bounds.

Despite the excellent work of these authors, as well as others, there remain difficulties in countering the issue of LGBTQ+ under-representation. Perhaps it does not feel truly possible to celebrate these people, given the need for any author to place themselves in the same position as the law enforcement who cruelly exposed their identities. 

Even with the best intentions and in a much more accepting climate, it may feel uncomfortable to profit off of revelations about identities that were kept so carefully hidden, and for such good reason. It is difficult to celebrate their humanity when LGBTQ+ figures of the past were not perceived (and therefore not documented in the archives) as such, and their stories rarely end happily. However, whilst this may be the case, the books written by Kirby and Delaney, as well as their invitations to speak at the Oxford Literary Festival, are proof of at least some forward movement. 

Therefore, it is possible to overcome the struggles of writing about historical LGBTQ+ figures and responsibly represent them. It may be necessary to spend extra time searching the archives, but this is not an impossible activity. Delaney discussed the limitations of writing a non-fiction text about figures who are often seen solely through the lens of a criminal in the archives. If a piece of information has not been reported, if no humanity has been given to these figures in the records, then no humanity can be recorded in a history book about them. Such limitations do not, however, apply to a novel. A careful amalgamation of historical accuracy with the gift of humanity in a work of fiction could be the answer to this issue of responsible representation of lives once gone despised, who now have the retrospective opportunity to be celebrated.

‘Technologies of capture’: Ben Lerner’s ‘Transcription’ Reviewed

Ben O'Brien
-
0
‘Technologies of capture’: Ben Lerner’s ‘Transcription’ Reviewed

CW: Disordered eating.

As an Oxford student, I often think it would be nice to have fewer screens in my life. No more phone, no more tablet – I’d rid myself of these pointless objects and live life to the fullest, rapturously taking in every note of birdsong, every tree, every tiny vein on every leaf of every tree. I’d be fully engaged with the world instead of aimlessly googling whatever happens to come to my mind at any moment of the day. Most importantly, I might even finish my degree. I’d become a productivity machine.

On the other hand, maybe it would be a kind of living hell. This is a possibility that Ben Lerner’s short new book, Transcription (2026), raises. The book opens with the unnamed narrator travelling to interview his academic mentor and 90-year-old intellectual superstar, Thomas, for a magazine. In the hotel he’s staying in, just before he’s due to meet Thomas, he knocks his phone into the sink. Cue lots of panicking about how he’s not going to be able to record the interview – FOMO of the very worst kind. And yet he’s too embarrassed to simply say, “I knocked my phone into the sink and so I can’t record you”, and instead thinks up a semi-elaborate lie as to why their first meeting should merely be a preparation for the real interview. Not only that, though, the narrator’s lack of a phone makes him less attentive, not more. “Shamefully unresponsive to the old media that surrounded me”, as he puts it. “Paintings, analogue photographs, a vinyl record spinning somewhere in my mentor’s house.” He has the opportunity to engage with all these things, but all he wants to do is check his emails. A bit like me when I’m ‘working’.

Lerner, who is somewhat of a literary superstar, at least in the US, is not afraid to take on the big themes. In Transcription, we find not only the question of “technologies of capture”, in the narrator’s words, but also, in no necessary order of importance: paternal abandonment, dementia, anorexia, suicide, Covid, the generation gap and euthanasia, often all mixed into the same page. It’s a lot to take on, and it’s not always entirely clear what each of these elements is doing, other than to add a certain seriousness to proceedings. And yet there’s something hypnotic about Lerner’s trim and often surprisingly hilarious prose, which keeps you reading on.

And the question the book raises is an interesting one, even if everybody has been asking it for a long time now. Are our screens good for us – an infinite source of knowledge which I’d once have had to traipse to the Radcam and read actual books to get – or are they gradually destroying our souls and our ability to connect with the world and even with each other? One of the strengths of Transcription is that it doesn’t give a definitive answer to this. It’s not a coincidence that Thomas’s anorexic granddaughter only finally starts to eat food once she has the distracting, soothing effect of as much screen time as she could possibly want. “Dad, I want you to cut me an apple”, she says one day as she is watching endless ASMR unboxing videos on YouTube. For her and also for her highly privileged parents, screen time is the greatest of blessings, far more so than books, a university education, and all the organic berries and grassfed beef their money brings them. 

In complicating rather than answering the question, the book is very much a work of fiction, and indeed, fiction is another of Lerner’s themes. People experience different technologies in different ways, some good, some bad, some in between, but one idea the book raises is that there’s a parallel between our screen-dominated lives and fiction. When the narrator is accused of falsifying what becomes his famous interview with Thomas, the charge against him is that of turning the interview into fiction, as a “defence against the reality of losing” his mentor. Fiction as escape, fiction as a kind of reconstructed, mediated reality. Thought of in this way, it’s not clear how much difference there is between fiction and our permanently online world – or whether the one can really be that much worse than the other.

Not unrelatedly, the book also suggests that maybe there isn’t that much difference between a life which is mediated by screens and one which isn’t. Screens have constructed an alternate reality, one in which we quite literally live online, in the same digital house as millions of others, relating to each other in seemingly peculiar ways, hating them, loving them, completely misunderstanding them. But even when the people in Lerner’s book aren’t connected to one another via their phones or tablets, their world is a messy, incomprehensible place. People talk past each other, people forget who it is they’re talking to, people constantly worry about how others are perceiving them. In other words, the ‘real’ world isn’t any more appealing than the online world, precisely because it isn’t all that different. Where exactly this leaves us on the screen question is difficult to know. And what it means for my degree, I’ve got no idea. But I think that I’ll stick to my devices for now.

Oxford, and the ongoing appeal of the literary canon

Jessie Jukes
-
0
Oxford, and the ongoing appeal of the literary canon

I remember my tutor asking us if we thought our literature options were broad enough at the end of an Italian tutorial last term. This question really stuck with me: not because I have a clear answer (I still don’t – could a reading list ever actually be broad enough?), but because, surely, whether I thought so or not, Oxford would continue to teach the same novels that it has been teaching for hundreds of years. 

As a Modern Languages student at Oxford – a primarily literature-focused course – I am no stranger to reading lists built around canonical authors. In theory, we are given freedom within a reading list; we choose, to some extent, the works that we want to study (though of course these include Dante and Petrarch). It would be, as I answered my tutor’s question, easy to describe our literature options as broad. After all, I have managed to study female authors without having to choose a specific ‘women writers’ topic. And yet these choices are already framed by the same set of already-established works. The range of choices may appear to be wide, but its boundaries are clear. 

In reality, while they seem to be fairly inclusive, our reading lists are composed entirely of works that form part of the literary canon – works deemed ‘essential’ and of the highest quality, historically chosen by a narrow and influential elite. These are the books that our tutors studied, as did the scholars teaching them, with their authority only accumulating over time. This status seems to justify their quality: they are good because they are famous, and famous because they are good. With this assumption, though, comes the question of whether we have inherited the habit of valuing these canonical works, rather than that of analysing and questioning them ourselves. 

There is a certain pressure to enjoy the classics at Oxford, especially given our university’s emphasis on tradition, and yet I have found myself writing essays on novels that I didn’t actually like. Enjoying the texts feels like a marker of intellect, seriousness, and taste, while failure to do so is accompanied by a sense of guilt and a suspicion that I’m just not clever enough to “get it”. 

I wonder whether our admiration of these books and the appeal of the canon itself is genuine or just learned. Appreciation of the canon can become performative, something that is expressed rather than felt. I myself have avoided expressing opinions on novels I’ve studied here (in all honesty, I am not a fan of Sand’s Indiana, nor of Ginzburg’s Lessico famigliare): there is a certain awkwardness that arises in a tutorial when someone says that they didn’t like a set text, one which I would much rather avoid. 

Oxford’s relationship with tradition only exacerbates the idea that the canon has endured because of its status: studying here comes with a continual awareness that we are not only reading a selection of texts, but the same novels that have been studied here for decades. There’s a sense of continuity, a link to the past – we are partaking in an intellectual conversation that began years ago. The canon, through our reading lists, is continually pushed onto us, and it can be difficult to form our own opinions on these novels away from the appreciation that is expected from us. When we read a classic, we are aware of its status even before we begin to develop our own opinions; they come with an implicit weight and an expectation of depth, of importance. Our response is shaped before we start to read, which we then do according to this expectation.

So does the canon only endure because we’ve learned not to question it, or is it actually because of the merit of the texts themselves? The canon isn’t simply imposed and followed – its works are (or at least most of the time) there for a reason, and I won’t pretend that I don’t love studying the majority of the works that comprise my degree. The same novels have often remained so influential and so widely read not only because of tradition, but because they continue to offer something to their readers. As a Languages student, reading texts in the original and finally understanding one of Petrarch’s sonnets or a canto of the Divina Commedia provides an intellectual satisfaction that is hard to replicate elsewhere. Though it can sometimes be difficult to separate authority from quality, in most cases, canonical and classic works are genuinely well-written. We have standards for everything else, so why wouldn’t we for books? And I think that’s why the canon is so hard to reject: it’s not just elitism and snobbiness, but its works have genuine appeal. 

It’s easy to think that the canon endures only because of tradition, and because we are taught that it should, but perhaps it continues to hold so much weight because it continues to persuade us. Even as we are encouraged to question it – as I myself was in my recent tutorial – we find ourselves not only guided to but drawn to it. Maybe it has continued for so long just on status alone, but to say this takes away from the genuine appeal that a lot of its works have.

Since I have been considering this tension, I’ve become less interested in whether the canon deserves its status and more in how I respond to its texts. We can approach the canon with both scepticism and appreciation, and doubt about the canon’s prestige can coexist with a genuine enjoyment of its books.

Why Niche Dating Apps Are Becoming Popular Among Young LGBTQ+ Adults

External Contributor
-
0
Why Niche Dating Apps Are Becoming Popular Among Young LGBTQ+ Adults

Dating apps are no longer just tools for finding a partner. For many young people, they are spaces to test identity and see how others respond. This shift is clear among Gen Z, who often treat dating as part of self-discovery. 

Data from Tinder reports that 54% of users first came out on a dating app. These patterns suggest a deeper change. Niche platforms now meet needs linked to safety, identity, and belonging, not just romance.

Micro-Communities Over Mass Matching

Large dating apps often group many identities into broad labels. This can lead to identity dilution. Users may feel reduced to a few tags. As a result, their full identity is not seen or understood. Many start to look for smaller spaces where nuance matters more. This shift is clear as interest grows, with many users searching for bisexual dating sites to find more accurate matches. People using these platforms often want more than access to profiles. 

They look for spaces where bisexual identity is not questioned or treated as a phase. On many large apps, bisexual users report being filtered out or misunderstood by both straight and gay users. Niche platforms respond by setting clearer identity categories and allowing users to state preferences without pressure. This reduces misinterpretation and repeated explanations.

Niche apps also build matching systems that reflect these needs. They sort users based on layered identity traits, not just gender. This helps people feel seen in a more accurate way.

Identity Exploration Happens Faster in Controlled Spaces

Recent data from online dating news points to rapid change. There has been a 30% increase in listed gender identities. Non-binary users have risen by 104%. These figures suggest that more people are testing and naming their identity through apps.

Niche platforms support this process in a more controlled setting. Social pressure is lower, as users expect openness from others. There are fewer heteronormative assumptions built into profiles and matching systems. This reduces friction during early stages of self-definition.

Many users treat these apps as identity rehearsal spaces. They test labels, pronouns, and boundaries before sharing them offline. This allows for quicker self-understanding, with less risk of negative response.

Reframing the Problems with Online Dating

Many discussions about the problems focus on ghosting or shallow chats. Yet a deeper issue is identity compression. Users are reduced to short bios and a few images. This creates a form of market-style comparison, where people are judged quickly and often unfairly. Critics link this to swipe culture and the wider commodification of dating.

Niche apps respond by limiting scale and slowing interaction. They use more detailed profiles and specific matching rules. This shifts focus from quick choice to clearer identity signals. As a result, users face less pressure to fit into narrow categories.

Platform Specialisation vs. Generalisation

Specialisation improves relevance. Users receive matches that reflect more precise identity markers. This reduces noise and unwanted interactions. It also supports clearer communication from the start.

FeatureMainstream AppsNiche LGBTQ+ Apps
Matching logicBroad filtersIdentity-specific filters
User intentMixedMore defined
Safety toolsStandard moderationCommunity-driven safety
Identity expressionLimited depthExpanded options

As a result, connections are based on shared context, not just general attraction.

Why Women-Focused Queer Apps Are Growing

Interest in lesbian dating apps and gay dating apps for women is rising for clear reasons. One key factor is the reduced presence of male gaze dynamics. Users report fewer unsolicited messages and less pressure to present themselves in a certain way. This changes how profiles are written and read.

Communication styles also differ. Messages tend to be more intentional, with clearer context and tone. Many platforms set norms that favour consent and mutual interest before contact. Community moderation plays a strong role here. Users often report issues and shape acceptable behaviour together. These patterns create more predictable interactions and stronger trust between users.

Conclusion

The focus is no longer on scale, but on accuracy and trust. Smaller platforms offer clearer signals and more control over interaction. This supports both self-definition and safer communication. As expectations change, users are likely to keep moving towards spaces that reflect their identity with greater precision.

Plans for new Oxford graduate college approved

Angelina Wu
-
0
Plans for new Oxford graduate college approved

Oxford City Council has approved plans for a new postgraduate medical college in Headington. The plans also include a mental health hospital and a modern facility for brain sciences research, forming a new Warneford Park development centred on mental health and brain research.  

The proposal, led by the Oxford University Hospitals Trust in collaboration with the University of Oxford, was approved on 21st April. Permission, however, is not officially issued until details of the conditions are agreed with the council. Once official, phased delivery of the new campus will take place over the next ten years, with healthcare, research, and teaching provision to continue throughout construction. 

The new college will be known as Radcliffe College, the first University of Oxford college to be located in Headington, and will admit postgraduate medical students. Plans for the development of the college include restoring the Grade II-listed Warneford Hospital building, which will form the centre of the college. 

Radcliffe College will be the first new University of Oxford college founded since Reuben College was established, marking a relatively rare expansion in the University’s collegiate system. 

The site is expected to provide newly-built accommodation for around 250 students, including graduates, DPhil, and postdoctoral researchers in medicine, life sciences, medical engineering, and other related subjects. Researchers and clinicians who currently have no college affiliation are also expected to find teaching roles and membership at the new college. 

The plans have drawn criticism from local residents and councillors, particularly over proposals to increase parking provision on the site by more than 50%. Some have described the changes as “egregious” and “catastrophic”, raising concerns about traffic, environmental damage to Warneford Meadow, and the impact on children travelling to nearby schools.

The new mental health hospital would replace the current 200-year-old Warneford Hospital, which has been deemed no longer fit to provide modern clinical facilities. 

The 200th anniversary of mental health care at the Warnerford Hospital will be commemorated with an exhibition scheduled to take place at the Museum of Oxford, over the summer, on the Hospital’s history. As part of the program of events for the anniversary, there will also be a new play performed at the Old Fire Station theatre which will focus on those who lived at the institution.

The centre is set to cost £750 million and will focus on mental health and brain sciences, forming a major medical research and innovation facility. Combining Oxford’s two Biomedical Research Centres, the research on brain sciences is projected to create an annual growth opportunity for the UK of over £1 billion.

Oxford University has been approached for a comment.

Union President-Elect found guilty of electoral fraud by Tribunal

Cherwell News
-
0
Union President-Elect found guilty of electoral fraud by Tribunal

Catherine Xu, the Oxford Union’s President-Elect for Michaelmas 2026, has been permanently barred from holding office at the Society after an Election Tribunal found that she orchestrated a scheme to impersonate legitimate voters at the Hilary Term 2026 election.

The Tribunal, which sat on 25th and 26th April, found that Xu retrieved a stack of Oxford Union membership cards from her locker at Exeter College on polling day and distributed them to individuals not entitled to vote, instructing them to cast ballots in other members’ names. Yolanda Liu, a successful candidate for the Secretary’s Committee, was also found to have participated in the scheme, receiving approximately six cards from Xu and distributing at least one on polling day. The Tribunal noted that Liu’s witness statement contributed to Xu being added as a defendant in its proceedings,

According to a report seen by Cherwell, the Tribunal’s findings relied on a combination of witness evidence and communications between Xu and Liu. WeChat messages sent by Xu on polling day, in which she asked how the process of “finding people” was going and instructed Liu to be “especially careful”, were found to have “no plausible innocent explanation”. Additionally, a voice note sent by Xu four days after the election, asking Liu if she still had “the cards”, was described as “particularly damning”. Xu’s own witnesses gave contradictory accounts of her movements on polling day.

Xu was found guilty on six of seven charges, including using the Society’s membership records to influence the election, procuring the impersonation of members at the poll, and conspiracy with Liu. The Tribunal described her conduct as “wholly incompatible with the standards of behaviour that would be acceptable for a President of the Society”. 

She was found not guilty of intimidating a Secretary’s Committee candidate who had intercepted one of the individuals attempting to vote fraudulently, but the Tribunal said her conduct towards them “does Ms Xu no credit”.

Xu’s legal team did not file a witness statement despite having one prepared; she herself chose not to give evidence-in-chief. 

Following the outcome of the tribunal, Xu has been disqualified from the Hilary Term 2026 election, and from nominating in any current or future election in the Union. She has further been “permanently barred from holding any Office, Appointed role, or official position in the Society”, “permanently barred from sitting on any Committee of the Society, with the exception of Consultative Committee”, and “suspended as a Member until the end of 9th Week Trinity Term 2026”.

Liu’s membership has likewise been suspended, and she has also been disqualified from the Hilary Term 2026 election.

Liu told Cherwell she “strongly” disputes the Tribunal’s findings and intends to appeal. She argued that the decision rests on “basic misreadings of the evidence and errors of law”, and rejected the Tribunal’s characterisation of her as a “junior partner in the scheme”. Liu maintains that she refused to participate in electoral malpractice. She added that the central finding against her relied on “contested identification evidence” that did not meet the required standard of proof, and that she was “confident” the decision would be overturned on appeal.

The Tribunal has ordered that the election for President-Elect should be annulled, and that there be a re-Poll, to be held on Monday, 11th May. Previously nominated candidates, with the exception of Xu – namely Hamza Hussain, Gareth Lim, and Liza Barkova – are to be included automatically on the ballot. Additionally, members eligible to nominate for President-Elect in the Hilary Term election will also be eligible to nominate in next week’s re-Poll, with no requirement for any qualifying speeches. The Tribunal will remain empanelled in order to oversee the re-Poll.

When approached for comment, the Oxford Union told Cherwell: “A Disciplinary Proceeding has taken place, following which the Election Tribunal has ordered a re-poll. Standing Committee note the findings therein and will discuss them in due course. It would be inappropriate to comment further as the proceedings may become subject to appeal.”

Xu told Cherwell that she “strongly rejects” the Tribunal’s findings and denied that any conspiracy existed. She expressed concern that the decision relied on evidence that she believes to be “fabricated or materially unreliable”, and described the penalties imposed as “extraordinarily severe and disproportionate”. Xu added that the case “must receive strict appeal review, with full procedural fairness and transparency”.

1234...2,586Page 3 of 2,586

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 Jamie Ashley