Saturday 13th December 2025
Blog Page 3

50 years of women’s cross-country Varsity

Alice Rubli
-
0
50 years of women’s cross-country Varsity

The 50th anniversary of women’s cross-country in the Oxford-Cambridge Varsity Competition is set to be celebrated on Saturday 6th December. The event will be held at Roehampton Vale, the headquarters of Thames Hare and Hounds, the oldest adult cross-country running club in the world. 

The Oxford-Cambridge University Cross-Country Races is one of the oldest inter-club matches still in existence, with the very first race occurring in 1880. However, it wasn’t until the early 1970s – 1975 for Oxford – that both clubs welcomed their first female participants, with the first official women’s race taking place in Shotover, just outside of Oxford. The following year, in 1976, the race was granted official status; hosted at Thames Hare and Hounds, Oxford were victorious with Lynne Wightman (Lady Margaret Hall) winning the first official race.

Since then, over 300 female runners from Oxford and Cambridge have participated in the Varsity race, including Olympians Louise Shanahan and Mara Yamauchi. 

Women’s Captain of Oxford University Cross-Country Club, Tamsin Sangster, said: “This special anniversary will be an exciting celebration of past and present members who have contributed to our achievements. OUCCC is forever grateful to the women and men who paved the way for women’s participation in the Varsity Match.” Lilian Lewis, Women’s Captain of Cambridge University Hare and Hounds, reflected a similar sentiment: “In this anniversary year it is exciting to be able to bring the number of Women’s Varsity teams equal to the Men’s side. I can’t wait for this year’s Varsity and to see what the next 50 years of Women’s Varsity brings.”

Originally, races would alternate location between Oxford and Cambridge, before the decision was made that this system was “shockingly unfair” for the visiting side. As a result, the races have since been held at the neutral grounds of Thames Hare and Hounds. Nestled in southeast London, this location provides competitors with the essential cross-country obstacles of deep mud, logs, and the ‘watersplash’ across Beverley Brook. In 2021, Thames Hare and Hounds received recognition of their importance in the development of cross-country. The club was named as one of seven new recipients of a World Athletics Heritage Plaque, awarded for “an outstanding contribution to the worldwide history and development of the sport of track and field athletics and of out of stadia athletics disciplines such as cross country”.

Simon Molden, Secretary of Thames Hare and Hounds, told Cherwell: “Thames Hare and Hounds is proud to be hosting the University Races in 2025, particularly as this year sees them reach another important milestone with the 50th anniversary of the women’s contest.”

The men’s and ladies’ races are run in an eight-a-side, six-to-score format and, with competitive selection, the races have seen the likes of Sir Roger Bannister and Stephanie Cook MBE participate over the years. Bannister, famously known for running the first sub-four minute mile at Iffley Sports Centre in 1954 – which is now home to the Sir Roger Bannister Track – won the 1949 Varsity race. Cook also took victory for Oxford in the 1966 race, going on to win the gold medal for Great Britain in the modern pentathlon at the Sydney Olympics in 2000.  

After 133 years, competition is close between the universities on the men’s side, with Oxford in the lead by just one victory (67 wins to 66). The women’s side sees Oxford lead with 28 wins against Cambridge’s 20. Last year, Oxford were victorious on both the men’s and women’s sides, winning 7-0 against Cambridge in the first clean sweep in several years. 


This year’s edition of the race will take place at 3pm, with results available on the OpenTrack website after the races conclude. Both female and male former members of the Oxford and Cambridge clubs will be welcome to take part in the Old Blues’ Race, with the Gentlemen’s and Ladies’ Races occurring afterwards.

Jeremy Hunt on OUCA, Silicon Valley, and the post-war world order 

Hassan Akram
-
0
Jeremy Hunt on OUCA, Silicon Valley, and the post-war world order 

Cherwell: What was your experience of Oxford when you did PPE at Magdalen? 

Hunt: They were some of the happiest times of my life, but there were lots of ups and downs. In my first year I struggled a bit, found it hard to make friends. I had such high expectations of ‘Oxford’ that I was a bit disappointed when it didn’t quite live up to what I hoped for. In my second year I found a great group of friends. I really enjoyed my subject. My main passion was actually philosophy, of the three. I also did university politics, I became president of the Oxford University Conservative Association, that was my first exposure to the sort of – madness – of politics. I made lots of friends who I’m still friends with today. I do think that studying at Oxford or Cambridge is one of the greatest privileges you can have because they are the only two universities in the world where you get the chance to sit down once a week, one-to-one, with one of the greatest experts in the world in the field you’re studying. That is an extraordinary privilege. 

Cherwell: Would you say your time at Oxford shaped your trajectory towards politics? 

Hunt: In some ways it slightly put me off. There was a lot of backstabbing in those elections, I’m sure that hasn’t changed. I think what you get in university politics is actually the worst of what you get in the real thing. In university politics, because you’re only president for a short period – say, a term before someone else comes in – people’s track record doesn’t count for much, you just have to be good at winning elections. Whereas, in the real thing, in Westminster, your track record does actually count for something –perhaps not as much as it should, but it does count for something.  

Cherwell: Why would you say you entered politics? 

Hunt: I didn’t give it too much thought. I was just really interested in political issues. I was at Oxford 1985-88 when Margaret Thatcher was at the height of her powers. She inspired me to do something first, which was to set up my own business. I was a kind of card-carrying Thatcherite, perhaps a bit more than I am today. I just thought the political world would be fascinating to be a part of, but I didn’t really understand the personal sacrifices that were necessary for a political career – the crazy pressure you can be under in certain jobs, the impact on family life, it is not a great career for families. I didn’t really understand any of that. Perhaps I should’ve given it more thought. Despite those downsides, I don’t regret a second of my career, and I do think there is no greater privilege than public service. That could be being a teacher or working for charity – not necessarily politics – but doing things that make the world a better place is a wonderful thing. Despite all the flack that politicians get, it’s worth it. 

Cherwell: What’s your proudest achievement since you entered Parliament? 

Hunt: I was in Cabinet for most of the fourteen years the Conservatives were in office, and I did four jobs. It’s just impossible to be around for that long without making a lot of mistakes. For sure I didn’t get everything right. Probably most people will remember me as the chancellor who came in during a crisis, when inflation was 11%, and got it down to 2%, got the economy growing again despite predictions of the longest recession in history. But if you ask me what I’m most proud of, when I was Health Secretary I was very unpopular – a 2016 YouGov poll put me as the most unpopular politician in the country, because of the junior doctors’ strike – but my focus was on patient safety, reducing the amount of avoidable deaths. During my period, the number of baby deaths fell by about two-a-day. I think that’s a statistic which for me personally I’ll be proud of until the day I die. 

Cherwell: What’s your biggest regret in politics? 

Hunt: What I’ve been doing is trying to write – I want to be a writer now – and as a writer you do reflect on things you got wrong. I think, looking back, that I was generally thought of as a safe pair of hands. As an entrepreneur, I was a radical innovator, and I think the system made me more of an incrementalist, and less radical than I would really like to have been. 

Cherwell: So, your regret is more about things left undone than anything you did which you wish you hadn’t? 

Hunt: When I was Chancellor, working with Rishi Sunak, I steadied the ship. We had less than two years before the end of parliament. I would like to have done more radical welfare reforms, which are badly needed, and which, sadly, it doesn’t look like the current government is going to do either. Whether Rishi Sunak would have wanted me to do them, I don’t know, but it’s much more about wishing I could have done more, perhaps with a bit more time, than regrets about things I actually did do. 

Cherwell: When Labour won the election in 2024, you said, “Whatever our policy differences, we all now need them to succeed.” Do you think you made it more difficult for them to succeed when a few months earlier you cut National Insurance by 2p? It was an unnecessary pre-election giveaway which you must have known would create problems for the next government. 

Hunt: Not at all. The biggest problem facing the country is low growth and those NI cuts were independently forecast by the Office of Budget Responsibility to increase GDP by 0.6%, which sounds like a small number but makes a big difference in terms of the tax receipts the Chancellor gets. That was my growth strategy; to reduce tax in ways that would get the economy growing. In truth anyone who criticises that, that’s fine, but they need to say what their growth strategy is instead, and I don’t think we’re seeing that from the current government. 

Cherwell: Do you foresee a return to government? 

Hunt: I really, passionately, want a Conservative government. I think as a country we only succeed when we have parties in power that understand business. All the things we want to do – funding the NHS, the police force, the education system – can only be done on the back of a strong economy. But I think it’s pretty unlikely that I will ever go back into government. Times move on. I think my wife might have something to say as well! But I want to contribute to public life and hopefully I can do that through my writing. 

Cherwell: You’d ideally like to see the return of a Conservative government. Do you think that’s been made less likely by the fact that, a) a lot of the moderate wing of one-nation Conservatives were expelled in 2019, and b) the pressure from Reform has driven the current party further and further to the right? 

Hunt: I don’t think so. I think we are a long way behind in the polls but you would expect that just over a year on from our worst-ever election defeat. Having been in office for fourteen years, the country clearly wanted a change. Even though Labour’s first year has been pretty disastrous, people won’t come running back straight away with buyers’ remorse. It will take time. What the Conservative Party is respected for is, time after time in our history, taking the difficult decisions to get the economy growing after some kind of crisis. I think as we approach the next election, that’s what people will be worrying about. They can see the mistakes that have been made by a Labour government. So, I think we will be back in the race by the next election. You mention Reform, but they have no economic credibility at all, and so this is our area of competitive advantage. 

Cherwell: Which contemporary figure do you find yourself most in sympathy with, in politics? 

Hunt: Now, that’s an interesting question. [Long pause] If you’re talking sympathy, I feel for Rachel Reeves, because it’s a pretty tough gig being Chancellor. I don’t agree with a lot of the stuff she’s done, but I do recognise it’s a very tough job. If you’re asking who I’m in sympathy with ideologically, I think I am very aligned with what the current Conservative Party is saying. I think that people want radical change and if we’re going to persuade people that we’re a better option than Reform, we have to embrace a rational radicalism. I think that some of the ideas that Reform are championing are very badly thought-out. We have to show people that we will deliver big change but that it will be thought-through change, not chaotic change. So, I don’t tend to look at everything through the prism of left and right. What people want is a leader who will give them confidence that they are actually going to be able to sort out the big problems that we face. Frankly, that’s a challenge for Labour as much as for the Conservatives. At the moment, people are worried that both parties are unable to tackle the big problems we face. For the Conservative Party, that’s what we’ve got to show everyone. 

Cherwell: Moving onto your new book, Can We Be Great Again? Why a Dangerous World Needs Britain, a sort of memoir-cum-manifesto. What inspired you to write it? 

Hunt: I think we have become too gloomy as a country. There are various reasons for that, but there’s a paradox which is that you can do surveys where nearly a third of young people want to move abroad and then you ask young people across the rest of the world what they think of Britain, and we are considered the third most attractive, appealing country in the world, after Japan and Italy. We are the second most trusted country in terms of its government and people. When it comes to the country that’s a force for good in the world, we’re rated top in the world by 18-to-34-year-olds surveyed across G20 countries. There’s a disconnect between how we see ourselves and how the world sees us. I wrote this book to understand who’s right. 

What I found when I was Foreign Secretary was that we are much more respected than we perhaps understand in the UK. After the Second World War, Britain and America set up a global order which has been the most successful in the history of humanity. It has been better at reducing poverty, maintaining peace, helping people to live in freedom, than any other order – that is until quite recently, with big problems in Ukraine, and the rise of China, which is an avowedly autocratic system that doesn’t share our democratic ideals. In my lifetime, the proportion of the population living in extreme poverty – which is defined as less than $2 per day – has fallen from half the world population to only 10%, and that too in a period where the world population has tripled. That’s an extraordinary achievement but people are saying, “is this going to continue?”, they’re looking to the countries that set up that order, saying, “are you going to step up to the challenge?”. 

This book is not a jingoistic book. I’m not saying that Britain is superior to other countries. I’m saying that in a really dangerous world the worst thing is to underestimate your own influence and that we – and the same is true of the Germans, the Japanese, the French, Americans, and Australians – are countries of influence and we need to use it. We need to work with our friends and allies around the world to solve these big problems. 

Cherwell: You speak about our place in the post-war world order, and in the book, you talk about the position we should have in promoting democracy, security, human rights. Do you think these values are undermined when in world affairs we do not practise what we preach? Most recently, it’s been in the Middle East, but that hypocrisy has been there since the early days of the liberal international order. To give the example of a friend who you praise highly in your book, Henry Kissinger in the 1970s helped overthrow a democratic regime in Chile and killed hundreds of thousands of Cambodians through carpet bombing. That doesn’t sound to me like either democracy or human rights. Don’t you think things like that undermine the American-led world order? 

Hunt: For sure, we haven’t got everything right. Sometimes we are hypocritical. But remember that in the 1970s and 80s, during the Cold War, we were up against the Soviet Union that was actively trying to subvert regimes all over the world and turn them into part of the Communist bloc. When you’re dealing with a threat like that, there are trade-offs. It’s not possible to conduct a foreign policy where all you think about is talking to people with exactly the same values as you. You need to deal with the world as it is, not as you’d want it to be. I think there is a world of difference between what Britain and America did in Afghanistan and Iraq and Libya – where we made big mistakes – and what Russia is trying to do in Ukraine. We’ve got things badly wrong in all those three countries but we were never trying to turn them into imperial possessions, it was always the plan to go in, install a democratic regime, and then leave again. We were naive and made big mistakes and we need to learn from that. That’s not the same as what Putin is doing in Ukraine by invading an independent country and turning it into a vassal state. I think it’s a big mistake to conflate those two and we should be very clear about the difference. 

Cherwell: Clearly there’s a difference between Britain and Russia insofar as we didn’t invade Iraq to make it an imperial possession again, but surely you can see why these wars, and their enormous human cost, have delegitimised the West and its world order. 

Hunt: Yeah. For sure. When you make mistakes, you lose moral authority. And that means that we go into this global struggle between autocracy and democracy not being in as strong a position as we might otherwise. Despite that I think it’s important that we don’t lose confidence, that we recognise that our system is better, that open societies are morally superior to dictatorships in which people who disagree with the government get locked up. And it’s really important that we don’t forget that basic truth. The evidence is that, in the global migration crisis, people aren’t banging the door down to become Russian citizens, they’re not trying to get into China. They want to live in Europe and North American and Australia and Japan and Korea, because they know that for them, and their families, our system is more humane. One of the things Henry Kissinger said to me is that his concern about the West was that there was so much self-doubt, even self-loathing, and we need to be really careful not to let that get out of hand.  

Cherwell: On China and the need to stand up to their autocratic system, you’ve spent a lot of time in China, what do you foresee in the years to come in its relationship with Britain and the West? 

Hunt: We’ve had this rather fake debate between hawks and doves. I think the truth is that both sides have a point. The hawks are absolutely right to say you need to be strong because that’s the language that autocrats respect. The doves are right to say we need to keep talking to China, because we’re not going to bankrupt them as we bankrupted the Soviet Union in the 1980s. It’s a formidable economy and it’s growing very fast. There’s no solution to global problems like climate change without having discussions with the world’s biggest emitter. We need to talk to China but do so from a position of strength. We need to recognise that there is a global struggle between democracy and autocracy. Only 20% of the world’s population lives in fully free countries, according to the American think tank Freedom House. When it comes to flying the flag for open societies, the UK is one for the most influential countries on the planet: our universities are the most respected in the world outside the United States, we educate more foreign students than anywhere outside America. Our media, whether its the BBC or the Financial Times or the Economist, is read all over the world. That kind of makes us a global leader in washing our dirty linen in public, because when something goes wrong in the UK everyone knows about it. But we, in truth, have a big influence in how that argument unfolds, and I think that we should stand up for our values. 

Cherwell: In the book you talk about the UK’s path as the next Silicon Valley. What do you think is the path forward with that, and do you welcome, for example, the Oxford-Cambridge Silicon Valley which the government is trying to create? 

Hunt: I do. In every speech I gave as Chancellor I said that Britain should aim to be the next Silicon Valley. The new government has endorsed that, they say they want us to be an “AI superpower”, but it’s the same vision. I think the first thing to ask is, “why with all the problems Britain has, are we not being laughed out of court when we say these things?”. The reason is that people can see we have a couple of really fundamental strengths that are difficult for other countries to imitate. The first is that, as the most respected universities and biggest financial centre in the world, outside the United States. This means we have the most extraordinary ideas which are now coming out of science parks, business parks, Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial, and many major universities. Ten years ago, you’d only find those business parks in the Ivy League universities in the US and Stanford. Now we have them everywhere in the UK. Ten years ago, you could say that Britain was really good at inventing things, but it always ends up being commercialised by the United States, but now we have more unicorns than France and Germany put together.  

Cherwell: What are you writing next? 

Hunt: It’s an interesting thing, writing. When you do a job in government, let’s say you’re Health Secretary, you know nothing about the NHS, but you’re answering non-stop questions about it day and night. You get quite good at answering these questions and after a month or so you think you’re quite an expert. It’s only when you sit down and write a book that you find all the gaps in your knowledge. I want to write optimistic books that give solutions to some of the big problems we face. The book I published this year, Can We Be Great Again?, is about Britain’s place in the world, trying to answer the question of whether we can be a great country. The next book will be about how to fix the economy and I want to write an equally positive book that says the problems of economic growth are intrinsically solvable. If you like, Can We Be Great Again? is the book I wish I’d been given on the day I became Foreign Secretary, and the next one is the book I wish I’d been given on the day I became Chancellor. 

Jeremy Hunt’s new book, Can We Be Great Again?: Why A Dangerous World Needs Britain, is available now from Swift Press.

The inescapable exhaustion of the tennis season 

Gavriella Epstein-Lightman
-
0
The inescapable exhaustion of the tennis season 

The fatigue is inescapable as the tennis season draws slowly towards a close. Players compete with their last fragments of energy, willing their weary bodies towards the finish line. Simply getting through an entire season has become an endurance sport, a physical feat to be admired. Contrast the buzzing energy and novelty displayed at the Australian Open with the muted jadedness of the US Open and one realises what is lost when tennis never stops. 

Sport is not supposed to be an exhausting grind. Yet the tennis season, which lasts for eleven months and encompasses 116 tournaments, has become far too long. Last year, the 2025 season started on 27 December 2024, highlighting how one season begins just as the previous one ends. 

Record numbers of players have ended their seasons early this year, despite missing out on the points and prize money offered by the year’s remaining events. Australian Daria Kasatkina, ranked 37th in the world, was surprisingly candid about the reality of life as a pro: “Truth is, I’ve hit a wall and can’t continue. I need a break. A break from the monotonous daily grind of life on the tour.” Other players have echoed her concerns about the relentlessness of life on tour. Elina Svitolina posted on Instagram in September to announce the premature end to her 2025 season. “I haven’t been feeling like myself lately”, she wrote. “I’m human and need time to rest, to feel, to breathe and to just be.” 

Taking a break from tennis doesn’t just mean missing out on ranking points and prize money – it’s contrary to the official rules. Both the WTA and ATP tours set strict requirements on how many tournaments players must enter: male players must play at least seventeen, female players twenty. Ranking points are deducted for a failure to play enough tournaments, as Iga Swiatek found out in 2024 when a points deduction caused her to lose her ranking as World No. 1. 

Tennis is not moving in the right direction. Not only are there too many tournaments – the events themselves are getting longer.  In 2021, Masters 1000 events – the tournament tier second only to the grand slams – were extended from one week to twelve days, spearheaded by ATP Chairman Andrea Gaudenzi. This change was intended to increase ticket sales and thus prize money. This part has gone to plan. For instance, the money pot at the Italian Open enlarged by on average 60% in the four years since the changes were introduced. Yet as the 2025 season nears its end, the increased length of these events has ignited a firestorm of criticism from players, who lament the fact that they must now spend 21 extra days on tour. 

The never-ending nature of tennis isn’t just a problem raised by journalists to dramatise the final weeks of the season. Many top players have spoken out about it, including British No. 1 Jack Draper, who agreed to be interviewed by the Tennis Podcast specifically to express his concerns. He said the extended Masters 1000 tournaments left players “feeling like you’re on a constant treadmill”. Speaking about the off-season, Draper added: “I’d say a month and a half would be more than enough. Just not two, three, four weeks…if I were just watching tennis, I’d want it to be a bit more scarce.” Other stars of the sport have aired their grievances, including Jannik Sinner and Iga Swiatek. Last year Carlos Alcaraz, deploring the length of the season, said: “They are going to kill us in some way.” 

In his interview, Draper acknowledged that words can only do so much to address the length of the tennis calendar, saying: “I think it’s now up to the players to stop talking about it all the time and actually take some action.” He’s right: it’s easier to complain about a problem than to propose an answer. To effectively push for change, players need to speak with a united voice, rather than expressing their concerns individually in separate press conferences. Draper agreed to be interviewed so that he could use his platform to encourage other players to join him to consolidate that common position. Crucially, players must first acknowledge that if the Masters 1000 events are to return to their shortened format, prize money will decrease. Only by recognising this can their concerns be taken seriously. Other elements of their stance could include a six-week off-season and a reduction in the number of mandatory tournaments. Such steps would allow top players to focus on the most significant events, avoiding the strain and burnout that comes with the current status quo. 

Ultimately, it remains to be seen whether players will be able to convert words into action and unite around a pragmatic but ambitious programme for reform.

‘Lux’ by Rosalía review: A breath of fresh air

Imogen Forrest
-
0
‘Lux’ by Rosalía review: A breath of fresh air

On Friday the 7th November, Catalan musician Rosalía released her most anticipated and controversial album to date. After the world experienced a brief and tantalising foretaste with her single Berghain, which featured Björk and Yves Tumor, everyone was eager to experience her fourth album when it dropped in full.  

The Latin title ‘Lux’ perfectly embodies the concept and overall aesthetic of divine femininity, as well as the multilingual aspects that run throughout the work. With complex and meaningful lyrics written in 13 languages, and split into four movements, the record is a breath of fresh air for the pop scene. 

In terms of genre, the album has proved difficult for critics to define. Some argue that Rosalía’s mainstream position as a cultural and fashion icon unavoidably renders her work ‘pop music’ regardless of the album’s individual identity. Others have labelled it classical, even operatic, with hints of flamenco, which was a key part of her earlier album, El Mal Querer. 

In an article for Elle, Samuel Maude writes of influence from Vivaldi, as well as various other Baroque composers. Likewise, Rosalía’s decision to work with the London Symphony Orchestra has dramatically elevated the style of the album. When paired with the cinematography for Berghain’s music video, the effect of this collaboration is particularly striking. Director Nicolás Ménendez collapses the boundaries between everyday domestic life and the high art sophistication of an orchestra, which alongside Rosalía’s angelic voice makes for an exquisite theatrical experience. 

It is interesting to observe how the different languages play a role in the feel of each song, and how Rosalía adapts the melody and arrangement to complement or contrast each one. For instance, the song ‘Mio Cristo Piange Diamanti’ showcases operatic Italian music at a slow tempo, which creates a dramatic and emotional listening experience. Whereas in ‘Porcelana,’ the Latin lyric is sung over an upbeat and modern sound. This creates a different kind of complexity through the contrasting sophistication and antiquity of the Latin language against the modern, high-tempo beat. 

There are also lyrics in Sicilian, Ukrainian, Arabic and English. This adds a unique dimension to the listening experience. In essence, to have a multilingual album is to accept the fact that listeners will not understand it at face value: they must engage closely. 

In a world that seeks instant dopamine hits, the depth and complexity of Lux is more than welcome.  

From beginning to end, the music maps out a divine journey for its listeners. Through various interlocking fragments, which broach heavy topics of religion, memory and feminist theory, Rosalía pieces together a powerful and thought-provoking body of work. 

As anticipated, Lux is also full to the brim of contributions from compositional and lyrical icons. In ‘La Rumba del Perdón,’ Estrella Morante’s feature complements the song’s flamenco style perfectly. Morante is well-known across Spain, especially for her single ‘Volver,’ which features in the cult classic Almodóvar film of the same name. On a side note, Rosalía herself had a cameo in the Almodóvar film Dolor y Gloria (Pain and Glory) just a few years ago. She is also set to appear in the third season of Euphoria. 

Some of the album’s other featured artists appeared more unexpectedly but have nonetheless created exciting and diverse listening experiences. Among them are British singers Sophie May and Matt Maltese, who are credited for the writing of her sombre closing song, ‘Magnolias.’ Rosalía even sampled a few words from American songwriter and poet Patti Smith towards the end of her song ‘La Yugular.’ 

Throughout the four movements, the lyricism is awash with mysticism and metaphor. Notably, Rosalía includes multiple allusions to the number three, the Holy number across religious texts. This is seen in ‘La Rumba del Perdón,’ “Para hacerlo como se debe, tres cosas necesitarás.” (To do it right, you will need three things). In the same song, the phrase ‘Yo sé que tú eres pa’ mi’ (I know that you are for me) is repeated three times. 

As the album draws to an end, Rosalía closes the cyclical journey by returning from Heaven to Earth: ‘Hoy me convierto en polvo / Pa’ volver con ellas.” (Today I turn to dust / to return to them). Many have been quick to point out the album’s stark difference to her third album Motomami. Perhaps Motomami is a more earthly, hip-hop exploration of pop, whilst Lux emerges as a contemplative, introspective and divine branch of Rosalía’s versatile musical talent. 

Lux has gained a tremendous deal of mainstream success and provoked a lot of discussion within just weeks of its release. Thanks to her latest masterpiece, Rosalía is positioning herself as a pioneering figure of this decade’s eclectic music scene. 

Digital Rivalries and Virtual Victories: What Makes a Game Competitive?

External Contributor
-
0
Digital Rivalries and Virtual Victories: What Makes a Game Competitive?

In the age of global servers, voice chat, and instant matchmaking, competitive gaming has evolved from casual arcade challenges into a cultural juggernaut. Whether you’re watching a packed esports arena or hearing the frustration of a friend who just lost LP in ranked, one thing’s clear: competition is baked deep into the DNA of modern gaming.

But what actually fuels this hunger to win? And why do some games, especially multiplayer online battle arenas (MOBAs) ignite such fierce loyalty and rivalry among players across the world?

The Mechanics Behind the Madness

At its core, a competitive game needs more than just a scoreboard. It requires well-balanced mechanics, a high skill ceiling, and room for creative decision-making. Games like League of Legends have mastered this trifecta, offering players a variety of champions and strategies to climb the ranks with. The mix of tactical depth and split-second execution is what transforms a good match into an unforgettable one.

When players are deeply invested in a game’s meta, progression system, and community, they’re often willing to take that next step to sharpen their edge or express their in-game identity. That’s where a League of Legends gift card comes into play, not just as a way to unlock new champions or skins, but as a means to fuel personal growth, celebrate victories, and set yourself apart in a match.

Skill, Strategy, and Something Personal

What separates casual play from true competition isn’t just winning—it’s how you win. Every high-stakes match becomes a test of reflexes, communication, and psychological resilience. In MOBAs, every decision matters, from champion picks to vision placement. The weight of every moment keeps players coming back, because each match feels like a new opportunity to outsmart, outplay, and outlast.

That emotional investment also extends to how players engage with the ecosystem around the game. From watching pros to unlocking new cosmetic rewards, the competitive spirit stretches far beyond the match itself. Custom skins, battle passes, and unique emotes help players tell their story and tools like gift cards streamline that access.

Communities That Thrive on Competition

One of the biggest drivers of competition isn’t the gameplay, it’s the people. Multiplayer games often form micro-communities around ranked ladders, Discord servers, and weekend tournaments. These digital rivalries fuel friendly banter, skill improvement, and in some cases, long-term friendships.

LoL, for example, thrives not only because of its design, but because its community has turned it into a lifestyle. The game offers just enough structure for serious growth while leaving space for meme pics, off-meta experiments, and unconventional tactics. In other words: competition doesn’t mean sameness. It means evolution.

The Endgame Is Different for Everyone

For some, virtual victory is reaching the top of the ranked ladder. For others, it’s finally pulling off a five-man combo with friends. What makes a game truly competitive is the ability to define success on your own terms and still be driven to improve each time you queue up.

Modern gaming thrives on that mix of mastery and expression. Whether you’re climbing the solo queue ladder or just flexing your style in champion select, the drive to outdo yourself (and others) keeps players coming back season after season.

Powering Up Your Competitive Edge

With competition fiercer than ever, it’s not just about better reflexes, it’s about smarter choices, upgraded tools, and a strong community around you. Whether you’re pushing for Challenger or just vibing in normals with a new champ skin, digital marketplaces like Eneba make it easier to access the extras that elevate your experience without breaking routine.

International student fees increased by 37% since 2022

Peter Chen
-
0
International student fees increased by 37% since 2022

Overseas student fees have increased more than 37% over the last three years, a Cherwell investigation has found. BA Biomedical Sciences and BA Psychology have seen the biggest increase at 69% and 67% respectively. But even those rises do not make them the priciest degrees. In the Sciences Division, most degrees now charge £59,260 per year as of 2025/26 for overseas undergraduates, compared with the £9,535 cap for home students. In other words, an international science student can be paying roughly six times what a British counterpart pays for the same lectures, labs, and exams. These figures were obtained from publicly available information and through a Freedom of Information Request.

Broken down by division, the steepest increases are in science and medical subjects. In the Mathematical, Physical and Life Sciences Division, 23 degrees have risen by an average of about 47% over 3 years. 15 programmes have increased from £39,010 in 2022 to £59,260 in 2025, while the remaining 8 have moved to £44,880. Courses in the Medical Sciences Division, including Biomedical Sciences, Experimental Psychology, and Psychology, Philosophy and Linguistics, record the highest average increase at around 53%, driven by BA Biomedical Sciences and BA Experimental Psychology, which have jumped from just over £30,000 to £51,880.

Graph credit: Oscar Reynolds for Cherwell.

STEM vs. Humanities

By contrast, Humanities and Social Sciences courses are tightly clustered around £41,130 for 2025: 27 humanities and eight social-science degrees move up from either £29,500 or £32,480, producing more moderate average increases of about 27% and 36% respectively.

Although tuition fees for domestic students are capped by the government at £9,535 – a figure that is now set to rise with inflation from next year – universities are largely free to set their own charges for overseas students. The home-fee cap was effectively frozen in cash terms for most of the last decade. Since 2012 it has only risen once, from £9,000 to £9,250 in 2017, before being nudged up again from 2025. 

International origins

Over a period of high inflation, that has translated into a substantial real-terms cut in income per home student. Since Brexit, “overseas” has also included most students from the EEA and Switzerland who do not have settled or pre-settled status under the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement, meaning many EU students who would once have paid the home rate and accessed UK loans are now treated as full-fee internationals.

Unlike their American counterparts, it remains highly unusual for British universities to offer scholarships or bursaries to overseas undergraduates that cover a substantial proportion of tuition fees or living costs. In the United States, around 20% of international students receive some form of student loans. In the UK, overseas students are not eligible for loans from the Student Loans Company, and students at Oxford must complete a financial declaration which demonstrates their ability to pay their fees before they are finally admitted. 

A handful of high-profile, highly competitive schemes – such as Reach Oxford or country-specific awards – exist, but they reach only a tiny fraction of the international cohort. Cherwell estimates that fewer than 30 of these places are available. For most overseas students, the sticker price is broadly what is paid. In practice, this means international undergraduates are funding their degrees out of family resources, private or government sponsorship, or commercial loans.

At the same time, the government has tightened rules on international students. Dependants have been largely removed from the student route, financial and English-language thresholds have been raised, and ministers have repeatedly stated that international recruitment needs to be “curbed”. These moves are justified by reference to data showing that a non-trivial number of people who entered on study visas later claimed asylum. 

National problem

Universities across the UK are, by the sector’s own admission, in serious financial trouble. Because the home-fee cap was frozen for so long, teaching a home undergraduate, especially in a lab-based subject, now often costs much more than the regulated fee brings in. The Guardian reported back in 2022 that Russell Group universities make “a loss of £1,750 a year teaching each home student”. The effects are now clear: courses closed because of finances, departments merged or hollowed out, staff made redundant, and institutions in the regions openly talking about insolvency.

At the University of Cambridge, most STEM degrees cost £44,214 – around 25% less than Oxford – while Humanities and Social Sciences remain broadly comparable at £29,052. Cambridge’s Medical Sciences stand out at £70,554, one of the highest fees in the country. By contrast, University College London offers STEM degrees at £36,500 and humanities at £29,800, closely aligned with the University of Edinburgh, where STEM tuition is £36,800 and humanities £28,000.

Oxford and Cambridge Universities are often presented as exceptions, insulated by their large endowments and research income. To some extent, that characterisation is accurate: both institutions have kept the proportion of overseas undergraduates relatively stable, while many other universities have shifted much more aggressively towards international recruitment. The fee rises at Oxford indicate that these institutions are also operating within the same financial constraints that affect the wider sector.

The University of Oxford was approached for comment.

Too hot to handle: Tracking Oxford’s energy efficiency

Gaspard Rouffin
-
0
Too hot to handle: Tracking Oxford’s energy efficiency

A Cherwell investigation can reveal that 89% of buildings owned by the University of Oxford do not have valid Display Energy Certificates (DECs). The University has discontinued the maintenance of DECs following changes in regulations.

DECs are on a scale of A-G, with the best score of 0 being equivalent to an A, and the average rating being 100 or D. Anything above 150 would be a G, the worst possible rating. The average rating for all University buildings examined by Cherwell is 128, equivalent to an F rating. This raises concerns regarding the University’s ability to monitor the energy usage of its more than 200 buildings, as well as its commitment to energy efficiency in the context of fossil fuels and climate change.

Display Energy Certificates (DECs) are legal requirements for all buildings occupied by public authorities – such as universities, local councils, or hospitals – and must be renewed every year for buildings with surfaces of 1000m2 or more. They are issued following assessments carried out by professionals, and publicly display the building’s energy performance, alongside details about heating and energy emissions.

Cherwell has analysed 1,356 DECs available publicly on a government database. Over 300 unique buildings were then identified, owned either by Oxford colleges or the central University or its subsidiaries, such as Oxford University Press, and only their most recent DEC kept for this analysis.

The University told Cherwell that it “takes its energy and sustainability commitments seriously, and has a programme to ensure all required DECs are up to date and are regularly reviewed”. For instance, the University has committed to “significant reduction in energy consumption over the winter months”, through the implementation of energy-saving policy measures, such as reducing the temperature of buildings to 19 degrees and encouraging staff and students to act responsibly.

The energy sector is the leading driver of climate change, producing around three-quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions. In the UK, buildings remain a major contributor: they generated about 17% of the nation’s total. Public sector buildings make up roughly 2% of UK emissions from direct fuel use, mainly from heating, but this rises to around 10% when electricity and other indirect sources are included.

Oxford’s expired certificates

Of the 121 University-owned buildings examined by Cherwell, only three received an A rating, the highest score on the scale. Around half of the buildings were rated D or above – the average rating for buildings (where a score of 100 is typical and lower scores indicate better performance) – while 59 fell below this benchmark.

Of Oxford’s famous landmarks, many have substandard energy ratings. The Ashmolean Museum has a rating of 117 (E), Oxford University Press of 111 (E), and the Weston and Bodleian Libraries of 105 and 98, equivalent to an E and D respectively. 

Some do have more positive ratings, like the Sheldonian Theatre which sits at 38 (B), or Examinations Schools at 43 (B). The Radcliffe Camera sits in the middle, with a rating of 66, equivalent to a C. 

As of the end of November, only 13 of the 121 DECs seen by Cherwell were still valid. This means that 89% of certificates are expired, including several that have been expired for more than five years. Buildings with expired certificates include the Radcliffe Camera, the Bodleian Libraries, Oxford University Press, and the Blavatnik School of Government.

Cherwell understands that due to a recent change in regulations, DECs are no longer a pathway to comply with the University’s legal obligations with the Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme (ESOS), meaning that many DECs that were formerly voluntarily maintained as a pathway to comply with this scheme are no longer maintained by the University. 

The University told Cherwell: “Recent changes to the Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme (ESOS) mean many of the DECs that used to be required for University buildings are no longer needed. These are therefore no longer being maintained.” It is unclear how the University will continue to monitor energy efficiency across its buildings.

Changes and improvement

Many of the University’s buildings have benefited from significant energy efficiency improvements over the past two years, as evidenced in the data analysed by Cherwell.

For instance, the central University offices, located in Wellington Square, improved their rating by 21% over that period, going from a D to a C. Similarly, the Ashmolean Museum improved by 16%, and the Radcliffe Science Library 15%. The most significant improvement was the Department of Biochemistry, which improved its rating from 301 to 149 by 50%, just barely passing the threshold of the worse rating band.

During the same period, the rating of certain buildings got worse – for instance the Taylorian Institute, which saw an 85% increase in its score to 89, now ranking it as a D. Other buildings include the Engineering Department, now at 91, or the Rothermere American Institute which saw an 85% increase to 113, placing it at an E. 

An Oxford spokesperson told Cherwell: “The University’s Environmental Sustainability team are continually working to monitor and improve the energy efficiency of buildings across our estate. Since its initiation in 2022, the Oxford Sustainability Fund allocated £3.5 million to support energy-efficiency projects and feasibility studies, paving the way for improvements across more than 200 University buildings.”

Energy Sources

Of 178 buildings analysed by Cherwell, 166 source their energy from natural gas. Natural gas is a fossil fuel, but which is widely available and produces significantly less carbon dioxide emissions than oil or coal. It is therefore considered a transition between non-renewable and renewable energy sources.

Of the remaining buildings, eleven source their energy from grid supplied electricity, and one from oil – the University Parks Tentorium, which acts as the operational and administrative centre for University Parks.

Of all the buildings analysed by Cherwell, only three list renewables as an energy source – the Department of Pharmacology which takes 30% of its energy from renewables, the NDM Building at 11%, and the Department of Biochemistry at 0.1%.

Colleges

Of all Oxford colleges, only four have publicly available DECs: St Peter’s College, Lady Margaret Hall, Wadham College, and Wolfson College. Cherwell understands that unlike the central University, it was never a requirement for colleges to obtain and maintain DECs, but some chose to do so voluntarily.

Speaking to Cherwell about their energy efficiency policy, many colleges explained that they monitor energy use throughout buildings with a platform called Eyesense. Wadham College explained to Cherwell that they “take monthly meter readings that are put into our energy database”, and that CO2 emissions are “calculated and reviewed against the amount used in the previous year, adjusted for outside temperatures”. 

St Catz told Cherwell that the voluntary procurement of DECs was part of their “commitment to environmental responsibility, transparency, and steady improvement in the College’s energy performance”, while St John’s College said that it voluntarily acquired an Energy Performance Certificate – similar to a DEC – for its most recent building, the Library Study Centre, “as it was considered more appropriate for a new build”.

Across the collegiate University, a varied picture of energy monitoring is emerging. Some colleges have chosen to track their usage through their own systems, while many central University buildings currently operate with expired DECs following recent regulatory changes. The difference highlights a practical challenge rather than a divide: without consistent, up-to-date data, it becomes harder to understand how energy is being used across Oxford’s estate. As the University continues its sustainability work, ensuring clear and regular measurement will be an essential step in assessing progress.

Is the future of student protest set in stone? 

Lilly Law
-
0
Is the future of student protest set in stone? 

Niamh Lynch did not expect to attract international attention during Trinity term of her second year. That changed after her arrest at Stonehenge for spraying orange cornflour onto the ancient monument. From there, it was a barrage of articles, press requests, and more praise than she’d expected. Not that she registered much of this. Almost immediately after the protest, Lynch went to the Isles of Scilly to carry out her dissertation fieldwork. In her brief contact with her parents and friends, they would carry reports that “there’s been something in the paper, another thing in the paper, and someone’s saying this, someone’s saying that”. Lynch was unperturbed: “Jeez Louise, okay…I’m fine, just monitoring my birds, living in my tent.” 

Perhaps that was for the best. The protest was not well-received in the political arena. Then prime minister Rishi Sunak called it a “disgraceful act of vandalism”. Sir Keir Starmer, then Opposition leader, was barely a few steps behind – he called for the protesters to face the “full force of the law”. Online abuse mounted. None of this was expressed to Lynch in person: “People were saying it was cool. I had loads of messages from my uni friends” expressing admiration. Even those who didn’t agree with her actions appeared to understand that she was acting from “a place of love and a want for things to be better”.

That understanding didn’t just extend to her peers. Last month, Lynch and her co-defendants Rajan Naidu and Luke Watson, were acquitted unanimously of causing a public nuisance and damaging an ancient monument, making waves in activist circles: “My phone has just been pinging with messages from… activists who have seen it all, who have been doing this for 60 years.” It comes at a time when the climate protest movement could do with some hope. More arrests are being made under nuisance laws than ever before. Sixteen sentences handed down against climate protesters in the last year have been found to be manifestly excessive. And even once activists are released from prison, they may face licence conditions which are generally reserved for extremists. Despite this, Lynch is “tentatively optimistic”. Her experience at trial is a glimpse into the future of protest in the UK, and how student activism forms the foundation of national efforts. 

Niamh Lynch, BA Geography (Regent’s Park), with permission

Ancient Monuments Act 1979

This was the first time the Ancient Monuments Act had been used for a prosecution. The Act covers tens of thousands of scheduled monuments, and its name is slightly misleading: the list includes World War I factories and a swing bridge in Oxford built in 1851. It made Lynch’s bail conditions perplexing. She couldn’t go within 100m of an ancient monument. This would prevent her from going within 100m of the Oxford city walls, Oxford castle, and the Grandpont causeway (which runs underneath Folly Bridge – good luck getting to the Cherwell offices). This wasn’t seriously followed up, but raises concerning questions for future prosecutions. With such restrictive conditions permitted under the Act, activists could end up in a kafkaesque spiral of avoiding 20,000 different sites across the UK. There is no debating that Stonehenge is an ancient monument, although the same cannot be said for many other sites on the list. 

There was considerable debate before trial whether Lynch and her co-defendants had caused any physical damage to the stones. One argument put forward had been damage to the rare lichen that made their home there, but the prosecution’s own expert witness certified that there had been none. Lynch found this the most reassuring outcome: “It wasn’t that the defence had commissioned a lichenologist report that was likely to be sympathetic…this was the prosecution’s expert witness.” 

The serious annoyance of bad drafting

There was something surreal for Lynch about her prosecution under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (PCSC). She was arrested for aggravated trespass and damage to an ancient monument, but the CPS later changed the charges to public nuisance, after “the police told us it was being referred to the specialist protest unit of the CPS”. Public nuisance is now a statutory criminal offence, established under the PCSC. The 2022 Act attracted huge protests while it was going through Parliament. Its vague definitions, increased ability of police to place conditions on gatherings, and expansion to peaceful and non-violent protest were strongly criticised. Lynch herself had attended those protests, watched friends be arrested, and eventually been arrested under the same Act. She recalled reading the bill in 2022 and seeing the lack of definitions for serious annoyance: “I remember… thinking this is wild…and that was literally what we were debating in court last week.” 

A public nuisance under the PCSC is committed when a person does an act (or omits to do a legally required act) that creates a risk of serious harm to the public or a section of the public. While serious harm is defined in the Act, it’s split into three categories, and one of them is not like the others. Death and personal injury appear clear-cut questions of fact, as does loss of or damage to property. However, the prosecutions under the Act have largely arisen from section 78(2)(c), the third category: “Serious distress, serious annoyance, serious inconvenience or serious loss of amenity.” Defining serious harm and using it as an adjective four times gets a reader (or a judge) no closer to understanding just what “serious” means. As a result, the scope of public nuisance is broad and open to overuse, particularly against protesters. After all, protest is intended to be disruptive. 

The prosecution attempted to take advantage of this breadth. The prosecutor Simon Jones told the jury that annoyance, distress, and inconvenience were “common English words” which did not require explanation. He appealed to how they felt when they heard the news of the protest, to which Lynch took issue: “They said so many times to the jury, you judge this case just on the facts that you hear in this room. But then they’re being told by the prosecutor to think about how they felt at the time.” 

The most serious aspect of the whole trial, for Lynch, was the potential ten-year prison sentence: “The only thing you’ve got to go on is the fact that it’s serious in the context of a ten year maximum prison sentence…That is how serious the seriousness has got to be.” For comparison, grievous bodily harm (GBH) or wounding without intent to do serious harm will give a maximum five-year sentence. Racially or religiously aggravated GBH or wounding will give seven years. Bringing these questions into criminal law had been daunting to activists, particularly when looking at the length of sentences.

In order to threaten a ten-year sentence the case must be tried in the Crown Court, which brings in the option of a jury trial. Lynch was acquitted unanimously by a jury, which meant a lot to her, particularly since they were all from Wiltshire. “There is a huge, huge love for Stonehenge in the country, but especially in Wiltshire and in Salisbury” – it was “massive” for “twelve members of that community to say you did a good thing”. She saw the reasoned deliberation of the jury, and the careful discussion of facts throughout the trial, as an antidote to sensationalist, unnuanced reporting.

A question of human rights? 

In the end, Lynch was acquitted after using the defence of reasonable excuse. The defence is found within the Act, but also drawn from Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protect freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly. Together, they effectively form the rights to protest. The defendants have to apply to the judge for permission to use the defence – while Lynch was successful, many other activists have been denied. She knew people who “weren’t allowed to use their article rights because the act of throwing had an essence of violence”. Protesters have praised the defence for the nuance and context it brings to cases, but whether it is available at all depends on the discretion of individual judges. It also depends on continued support for the ECHR. 

In its article on the acquittal, The Telegraph attributed the decision to the ECHR. Lynch emphasised that this may not be the reason. For the jury to convict, they would have had to have found that the defendants caused damage, were reckless to causing damage, and had no reasonable excuse. To acquit, they would just have to find that one of those three elements was absent. The jury may have found that there was no damage (on the Ancient Monuments charge) or no serious annoyance (on the public nuisance charge). Lynch argued: “We haven’t been let off because of the ECHR. I think we’ve been found not guilty because there is no case.” 

This defence has been valuable for activists, but whether it will continue to be available is dubious. Two prominent political parties have strongly advocated repealing the Human Rights Act and pulling out of the ECHR, which would dismantle the foundation on which it stands. Even at the moment, the availability of the defence depends on the discretion of individual judges, leading to a patchwork of decisions and extreme uncertainty that could lead to a chilling effect on protest. 

The future of student protest 

Lynch was optimistic about the future prospects of protesters, particularly in the light of the ruling. Still, the fact that one judge applied the law sympathetically does not change the fact that Parliament’s words could be interpreted in any way, and that this area of case law is by its nature uncertain and unpredictable due to the vague wording. More broadly, it’s not a pretty picture. Justice Secretary David Lammy recently set out proposals to phase out jury trial for almost all indictable offences. Just Stop Oil has ceased protesting disruptively Lynch herself said she wouldn’t carry out any similar protests in the future. After the police posted her town of origin (which is their standard policy), she remembered being “suddenly kind of scared, being on my own thinking that one of the people that [didn’t] like me could literally just come and knock at my door and, you know, do anything”. She didn’t want to put her family through the same stress again. At the same time, she saw a strong community of activists, particularly based in universities. She’s been involved with activism for some time, taking part in the Fridays for Future climate protests and Extinction Rebellion before university. Once she got to Oxford, she joined the activist societies at the University. There, she found company in people who “see the world in a similar way…and this desire to change it”. There was a practical importance to this as well. Planning a protest, anticipating arrest, and navigating the legal system are all daunting tasks. Being surrounded by people who had been through the same experiences gave some “power in a situation where you’re otherwise totally powerless”. 

Unlocking Entertainment: How Mobile Gaming Is Changing In-App Spending Habits

External Contributor
-
0
Unlocking Entertainment: How Mobile Gaming Is Changing In-App Spending Habits

For years, mobile games were synonymous with simple time-wasters puzzle apps, endless runners, or low-stakes arcade titles. But times have changed. Today, mobile gaming sits at the forefront of global entertainment, outpacing even console and PC in both revenue and reach. As the quality of mobile games continues to rival traditional formats, the way players interact with and spend on these games has evolved dramatically.

From Pocket Change to Micro-Investments

In-app purchases are no longer just about skipping the wait timer or buying extra lives. With battle passes, limited-time cosmetics, and narrative expansions, spending in mobile games has taken on a more strategic form. Rather than spontaneous microtransactions, users now treat certain in-app buys as part of a personalized entertainment budget.

That shift in behaviour has also introduced a change in how people pay. Instead of linking cards directly to app stores, many opt for safer and more flexible options like a Google Play card. These prepaid cards allow users to control spending, avoid surprise charges, and even gift credit to others, all without sharing banking details online.

The New Gamer: Mobile-First, Always Connected

What was once considered “casual” gaming has matured into its own powerhouse. From competitive titles like Mobile Legends and Call of Duty: Mobile to narrative-heavy experiences and cozy management sims, mobile platforms now offer full-fledged gaming ecosystems. This broad appeal has created a mobile-first generation of gamers who value flexibility, on-demand access, and cross-platform availability.

And unlike older audiences tied to consoles or PCs, mobile-first users don’t always consider themselves “gamers” in the traditional sense. They’re entertainment consumers – downloading a rhythm game one week and diving into a story-driven RPG the next. In-app purchases allow them to enhance these experiences on their own terms.

The Psychology Behind the Spend

In-app spending habits are fueled by more than just gameplay. Developers have become adept at blending monetisation with engagement, offering aesthetic upgrades, seasonal events, and exclusive content that feel rewarding rather than obligatory. For many, buying that limited-edition outfit or unlocking a premium quest line is less about “winning” and more about personalizing the experience.

Prepaid solutions like gift cards fit into this mindset naturally. They feel like low-risk, self-contained transactions that avoid the ongoing commitment of a subscription. This structure appeals especially to younger users and parents looking to put healthy boundaries on spending.

Gaming on Your Terms

Another reason prepaid options are thriving? They promote autonomy. Not every player wants to store card info or navigate monthly charges. And in regions where banking access is limited or privacy is a concern, gift cards offer a reliable way to interact with digital ecosystems. Whether you’re stocking up on in-game currency, unlocking music streaming features, or renting the latest movie, flexible payment methods enhance the experience without overcomplicating it.

What It Means for the Future of Mobile Entertainment

As mobile games become deeper and more interconnected, the systems surrounding them, especially how we pay, will continue to adapt. We’re likely to see even more personalisation in monetisation models, with options that cater to specific spending habits, age groups, and regional needs. One thing is clear: mobile gaming is no longer a side gig for the industry; it’s leading the charge.

Wrapping It Up

From bite-sized distractions to expansive story-driven journeys, mobile games now reflect the full spectrum of modern entertainment. And as spending within these ecosystems becomes more deliberate, tools like Google Play Cards offer a convenient way to stay in control. Digital marketplaces, offering deals on all things digital, are part of what makes this shift so accessible, empowering users to unlock more from their favourite mobile experiences, one tap at a time.

Illuminating American conservatism: William F Buckley’s biography, reviewed

Gavriella Epstein-Lightman
-
0
Illuminating American conservatism: William F Buckley’s biography, reviewed

The ornate, Latinate vocabulary. The debates peppered with witticisms. The patrician air, the untraceable accent, the playful glint in his eyes. 

William F. Buckley was arguably the most influential American journalist of the 20th century. He was famous and influential not simply for his ideas but for the theatrical manner in which he delivered them – his distinct mannerisms, his performativity, his personality. Sam Tanenhaus captures this vividly in his captivating biography, Buckley: The Life and the Revolution That Changed America (2025), which uses Buckley’s life to illuminate the rise of 20th-century American conservatism.

Born in 1925 and raised on a grand estate in Connecticut, the young polemicist grew up in a cloistered world. At fifteen he left to attend boarding school, where he first entered politics, speaking out in favour of the “America First” movement that opposed US involvement in the Second World War. Even as a teenager, he demonstrated the uncompromising conviction that would define his public life. Tanenhaus notes the “ferocity of his attack” in debate and his belief that “overstatement increased the theatrical excitement for himself and his listeners” – an early glimpse of the performative politics he later mastered. 

Buckley enrolled at Yale in 1946, sceptical that the full four years of study were truly necessary, yet Yale formed him. Tanenhaus describes him as “the uncrowned king of the Yale campus”. Even the predominantly left-leaning coterie of student journalists appointed the young conservative as Chairman of the Yale Daily News. In his first editorial as Chairman, Buckley vowed that there would be “no squeamishness about editorial subject matter”. He spent his year as Chairman unabashedly slamming what he saw as liberal homogeneity of thought on campus, even calling out professors. His columns were always met with clamorous criticism, yet everyone wanted to read what Buckley had to say – his eloquence and influence were undeniable. 

Campus notoriety soon extended nationwide with the publication of his first book. God and Man at Yale (1951), a withering attack on his alma mater, argued that Yale no longer promoted its historic values of Christianity and free markets in favour of secularism and collectivism. To his surprise, it became a bestseller, and he was hailed as “the most exciting conservative writer in the land”. 

Determined to pursue journalism, he created National Review (NR) in 1955 as the right’s intellectual vanguard intending “to change the nation’s political and intellectual climate”. He championed Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential campaign, hoping to free the GOP from its liberal establishment, and remained undeterred by Goldwater’s crushing defeat.  Next came Firing Line, the public affairs program he hosted for 33 years, pitting him against leading intellectuals in long-form discussions about political and philosophical issues. It was on air for some 33 years. His “erudition and wordplay and courtly praise of his combatant” masked his desperation to defeat opponents. With his instinctual theatrical flair, Buckley was made for television.

Buckley’s ascendance coincided with the civil rights era. In 1957 Buckley wrote the infamous column “The South Must Prevail” defending the disenfranchisement of black Americans in the South by insisting that “the claims of civilisation supersede those of universal suffrage”. By 1969, however, he renounced his position, arguing that “we need a black president”– a startling transformation for a man known for unrivalled obstinacy. 

During the turbulent 1968 presidential election, the TV network ABC invited Buckley to a series of debates with liberal intellectual Gore Vidal. Their clashes became a sensation, further elevating his profile and cementing his status as the foremost spokesperson for the conservative right. By the 1970s, he found in Ronald Raegan the political leader he had long sought. Reagan’s landslide election victory in 1980 was a realisation of the dream Buckley had harboured when he first set up NR in 1955. His politics had prevailed. 

Tanenhaus is skilled at sketching the political environment of Buckley’s earlier years. Yet his analysis of the 1980s is thinner, an inevitable cost of Buckley’s success. Buckley was no longer the lone voice of counterrevolution. He had become the defender of a new status quo. The biography, however, is a riveting read, transporting the reader into the mind of a man whose “weapons were not his ideas, which could be heard elsewhere, but his words, which sparkled with freshness”. In the life of Buckley, a paradox emerges: he practiced a dying mode of politics whilst ushering in a new political age. All that he did – NR, his books, Firing Line, his debates with Vidal – smacked of the very intellectualism that is so disdained, yet he predicted the rise of performative politics and use of the media which is so central to the politics of today.

1234...2,550Page 3 of 2,550

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