Friday, May 2, 2025
Blog Page 305

Nationalisation of power towards net zero?

Earlier this month, US Congressional representatives Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman introduced a congressional resolution1 calling for the transformation of the United States’ largely private electricity and gas system into that of a publicly owned and governed network. Whilst such a bill poses little chance of passing the Democratic Senate it represents a guiding vision to a Green New Deal extolled by congressional members within the left of the American Democratic party.

The resolution succinctly began with the summary of its intent and rationale to:

“Express that the United States must establish electricity as a basic human right and public good, and eradicate the reliance on monopolized, profit-driven utility corporations and providers and the flawed regulatory regime that has failed to regulate these utilities in the public interest.”

This renewed call for the public ownership and operation of the electricity network is motivated by the United States’ increasingly untenable legacy of decaying infrastructure and continuous deferral of network investment, whilst regimes of private value extraction at the expense of public coffers run rampant. The logic follows that with the public ownership of the network, the surplus capital originally being delivered to shareholders could now be used to reinvest in the energy infrastructure required for net-zero and further develop societal outcomes.

Calls for this radical approach to an energy system transition can be observed in the white paper2 released in 2019 across the pond by the Labour Party, outlining the party’s plan for publicly owned energy networks. The evidence for such an approach may also be increasingly compelling; with it coming at a moment when the UK’s energy sector is decried to be central to decarbonisation3, yet Ofgem4 reports how our energy networks are contradictorily underequipped to respond to the task at hand. In fact, an estimated £35 billion worth of up-front capital is estimated4 to be required to realise a clean grid by 2030. Simultaneously, Citizens Advice5 in 2019 decried the ‘eye-watering’ high profit margins at the expense of households with the UK’s privately-operated distribution network operators making an estimated £7.5 billion in unjustified profits over the past 8-year period. What is more, this failure to invest appropriately in the infrastructure required to modernise the grid and reduce renewable energy bottlenecks comes at a time when British customers have reportedly ‘overpaid for electricity for years’6.

In sum, no matter how convincing the numbers are, the Labour Party’s manifesto to ‘Bring Energy Home’ and this short 12-page resolution have and will ultimately fail to galvanise change given the contemporary political landscape. They should however be understood as expressions of the silent battle at play between antagonistic narratives for different energy transition pathways in the West today; the clashing views of energy as both a fundamental human resource and as a basic unit of capital accumulation for a growth economy.

1 Bush, 2021. https://bush.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/bush.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/Bush%20Public%20Power%20Resolution%20FINAL.pdf

2 Bailey, 2019. Bringing Energy Home. Labour’s proposal for publicly owned energy networks. [online]

3 BBC, 2020. Customers ‘overpaid for electricity for years’. BBC News [online].

4 CitizensAdvice, 2018. Energy Consumers’ Missing Billions. The profits gifted to energy networks. Citizens Advice [online].

5 GOV.uk DBEIS, 2020. Energy white paper: Powering our net zero future. GOV.UK [online].

6 OFGEM, 2020. Ofgem proposes £25 billion to transform Great Britain’s energy networks. Ofgem [online]

The Power of the Placebo Effect

The placebo effect is a phenomenon which clearly illustrates that having belief in the effectiveness of a treatment can be enough to cause significant improvements in health. The human mind can cause people to believe that fake medication gives real results, and the effects on health can sometimes be as significant as those seen with genuine treatments. Simply the thought that you are receiving medical help can have a large impact on your perception of the symptoms which you are experiencing.

Placebos are often used in clinical trials alongside the medication being tested, to be analysed in comparison to the real drug. This allows the power of new medicines to be investigated more thoroughly. Drugs are quite frequently shown to be no more effective than a placebo, and so they do not get past the trial stage.

Placebos are also used as a treatment in themselves. Often, sugar pills are administered to sick patients, who are told that it is a drug which will aid their recovery. Although the medication contains no active ingredient, appreciable effects are frequently seen. These chemically inert medications have been seen to help people with a fairly wide range of conditions such as back pain, insomnia, irritable bowel syndrome, fatigue and nausea.

It has been shown that even just the colour of the tablet can alter the effect which the placebo has on the body. Researchers at BMJ have shown that red, yellow and orange pills are associated with a stimulant effect, while blue and green pills relate to a tranquilizing effect. Larger pills also seem to produce a stronger effect than smaller ones, while branded placebo pills are seen to be more effective than unbranded ones. Preconceived expectations and biases held by people before taking medication can affect the outcome drastically. Fake surgeries have also been carried out, and a 2014 review of these surgery placebos showed that improvements were experienced around 75% of the time.

There is some ambiguity surrounding the science behind the placebo effect, but it appears to be linked with the idea of conditioning. This idea of conditioning was shown by Ivan Pavlov in the 1890s, who conditioned dogs to relate his presence with being given food. His arrival would then consistently cause the dogs to salivate, even when no food was being given. Many signals, for example a buzzer, were also shown to trigger automatic responses. This shows that a cue can be directly linked with a physiological response, and because our brains associate taking a pill with relief, brain chemicals will be produced, and will start the pain relief process as soon as the medication is taken.

Brain-imaging studies also show that placebos cause quite significant changes in neurobiological signalling pathways. Reward pathways are activated in the brain when you expect that an effect will be felt. This can then stimulate the release of endorphins, which act in a similar way to opiates such as morphine. When these bind to opioid receptors, pain relief can be experienced. It has also been proved that placebos cause dopamine to be released, which is another neurotransmitter which can help to decrease pain sensitivity.

Many doctors today prescribe placebo drugs to their patients, which many people argue is an unethical approach which can easily be classed as deception. It can also be seen as immoral to give people ineffective remedies in clinical trials when there are chemically active medications available. There may be serious consequences if the patient in need of treatment does not receive authentic medication to begin with; there is even a risk of experiencing a ‘nocebo’ effect, meaning that negative side effects are felt in response to the drug. Additionally, some people are more genetically disposed to placebos, while others are less likely to react to them. However, if there is still a likelihood that the placebo will have a positive effect, then surely the doctor is carrying out his duty of trying to help the patient, which cannot be considered unethical.

Placebos can be incredibly useful in certain scenarios, and sometimes they can be used when other drugs cannot. For instance, opioid pain relief cannot always be given to burn victims due to associated respiratory depression. In a case like this, there is no real debate about morality. A saline injection can be given rather than a painkiller, and often this is a good option to make the patient feel more comfortable.

Today, lots of researchers are looking into ways in which we can improve and extend the uses of placebo medication. Further research is definitely required, but it seems that a more extensive use of placebos in medicine could be beneficial. Serious side effects from taking medicines would not be experienced to the same extent, it would be more cost effective, and people would not become dependent on the drugs. However, the issue of ethics may slow down this process.

The placebo effect clearly shows that the mind has a very powerful influence on the body, to the extent that it can mimic the effects of genuine medical treatments. Further investigation into this field could greatly advance our knowledge of both the brain and the success of various medicines. A more extensive understanding of the effect could lead to some very interesting discoveries; however, the issue of morality lingers over all those looking into the phenomenon and the use of placebos.

BREAKING: Chaos in the Union chamber as positive COVID-19 case causes evacuation

An attendee of the Oxford Union hustings tested positive during the debate, leaving the chamber when they got the result. Close contacts were informed, and members were locked down in the chamber for a short period after the Presidential debate was cancelled. Cherwell was informed that the attendee received a positive test result during the course of the hustings, but attendees who were not close contacts were only informed of the case after the hustings had finished, soon after the attendee had identified themselves to Union staff. After everyone inside the chamber was evacuated, the chamber was sanitised and aerated.

Union President, Adam Roble, commented: “As soon as I heard about the possibility of a potentially positive Covid case, which could be a danger to our members and our guests, I made the decision to activate the protocols we had in place in order to protect the safety of our everyone involved in any way. Unfortunately, these required the evacuation of our chamber and the cancellation of the debate. I strongly believe in the current circumstances that this was the correct decision to make, and am hugely grateful to our security team, and our logistics team, led by the CCC, for their swift and effective action on this matter.”

Attendees then gathered on St Michael’s Street after being evacuated from the chamber and courtyard. One student that attended the event expressed their thoughts to Cherwell: “I guess there’s a perception that people in the Union think that they can do whatever they want, and I think this just reinforces that narrative – that even in terms of COVID-19, when people are dying, people are putting student politics over actual lives, and I think it’s horrific.” Entry for the debate – ‘This House Believes Veganism is the Only Ethical Choice’ – was at the same time as the entry for the hustings, with the hustings taking place before the debate.

According to government guidance, if you are contacted by Test and Trace and told to isolate, you are legally obliged to. NHS guidance states that if you or anyone else in your household has symptoms of COVID-19, you should isolate at home until you get your result. 

Some of the guests invited to the debate offered comment. Author Louis Gray said: “It’s a real shame that it’s been cancelled, but I’d love to come back. The point of a Union debate is to share ideas and to expand our own views of the world – we’ve done that this evening over dinner. It’s just a shame we didn’t get a chance to debate, but that’s a consequence of these crazy times and
prioritising everyone’s safety. I just think it’s brave to speak up in this situation and do the right thing. I look forward to doing this debate in due course.”

James Bailey, CEO of Waitrose, said: “I was delighted to be invited and it was a pleasure to meet the committee and the other speakers. It was a shame we weren’t able to speak but it was for all the right reasons. The Union took action as soon as it became aware and acted on protocol which had been put in place to put everyone’s safety first.”

During the hustings, the candidates for Secretary, Treasurer, Librarian and President each gave short speeches alongside responding to questions from the chamber.

There were also numerous questions about the impact or politicisation of sexual assault. Candidates all condemned the politicisation of sexual assault and expressed empathy for survivors. Molly Mantle and Viren Shetty, candidates for the position of President, expressed the need for following “formal procedure” and “due procedure” respectively.

Candidates were also asked to tell the chamber a joke and to name who they deemed the most influential thinker. Laughter ensued when one Union member attempted to pose a question from the balcony – they were told that, according to the rules of the Union, they had to walk downstairs and repeat their question.

Image Credit: Sasha Mills

16:30, 11/06/2021 – this article was updated following more information from the Oxford Union.

Clash of Titans – and Logan Paul?

0

Earlier this month, Tyson Fury and Joshua Anthony agreed to participate in an historic fight to take place on the 14th of August in Saudi Arabia. The boxing world exploded in reaction to this news, eagerly anticipating the face-off between the two British heavyweights. 

Joshua, 31, has garnered an impressive array of titles in both his amateur and professional careers — the boxing star turned professional in 2014 at the age of twenty four. These include an Olympic Gold Medal from the 2012 London Olympics, the British and Commonwealth heavyweight titles from 2015 to 2016 and the WBA Super, IBF, WBO and IBO titles since December 2019. Of his twenty five career fights, he has won twenty four and lost only one. The Ring and the Boxing Writers Association of America named his fight against Wladimir Klitschko in 2017, from which he emerged victorious, Fight of the Year.

Tyson Fury’s career is equally dazzling. Nicknamed ‘Gypsy King’ and ‘The Furious One’, a number of sporting organisations including ESP ranked him the world’s best active heavyweight as of December 2020. Fury is a two-time world heavyweight champion, and currently holds the WBC and Ring magazine titles. Standing at six feet nine inches (206 cm), he towers over Joshua’s six feet six inches (198 cm). Impressively, he has won thirty of his thirty-one career fights and drawn one. 

Given the respective weights of their reputations, the boxing world responded to the announcement of the fight with much media coverage and speculation as to who would be crowned the British heavyweight king. Only days after the fight was confirmed, however, Fury pulled out. Deontay Wilder called for an arbitration hearing as to whether he had a right to face Fury for a third time. The American professional boxer, who held the WBC heavyweight title from 2015 to 2020, is known for his knockout-out-to-win percentage, which is currently 98% with forty one out of forty two wins as knock outs. He has lost and drawn only one match each. Wilder has faced Fury twice before, with the first (in December 2018) ending in a draw and a highly anticipated rematch (in February 2020) in a loss for the American. This victory led Fury to clinch the WBC heavyweight title. 

Casting Joshua and Fury’s plans for a clash later this summer into disarray, Wilder recently announced that he would be enforcing Fury’s contractual obligation to face him for a third time. They are expected to fight on the 24th of July in Las Vegas, although this has not yet been confirmed. Both Joshua and Fury are reportedly upset by this, with boxing promoter Bob Arum predicting that Fury will ‘take out his frustration and anger on Wilder’ and will ‘knock Wilder out quicker than he did last time’. Joshua, for his part, has been ordered to defend his WBO heavyweight title against Oleksandr Usyk in light of the unravelling of his plans with Fury. Negotiations for the long-awaited fight between Fury and Joshua are expected to resume in the Autumn. If both Fury and Joshua win their respective rights, it is possible that their long-awaited clash could take place towards the end of this year or early 2022. 

In a very different sphere of influence, another tussle is taking place on the same plane. Logan Paul, Youtube Influencer and internet personality, is to take on seasoned professional boxer Floyd Mayweather on the 6th of June in Miami. Throughout his almost twenty year career from 1996 to 2015, Mayweather won fifteen major world titles and retired undefeated, with a total of fifty wins. The Boxing Writers Association of America named Mayweather ‘Fighter of the Decade’ for the 2010s. Paul, in contrast, is a twenty-six year old social media celebrity who is most known for the controversial stunts that he pulls for views. He currently has over 22.9 million subscribers and 5.71 billion views on Youtube. Many hold that the fight is simply one of these stunts intended to increase his media presence, and lament the degradation of the sport of boxing.

Mayweather, also, is not without stakes in the game. Nicknamed ‘Money’, the boxer has participated in the four biggest-selling pay-per-view events in boxing history. When asked about the potential revenue of the fight, Mayweather said that while he could make £25 million from any fight, this special fight could earn him £72 million. Opinions on this match – or ‘mismatch’, more accurately – are divided. Some hold the old adage that any publicity is good publicity, choosing to believe that Paul’s presence will broaden the cultural reach of the sport. Others, however, argue that this could take the sport’s history of artificial spectacles to an unacceptable extreme. Either way, fans will doubtless flock to watch both Joshua and Fury’s eventual clash and Mayweather and Paul’s more imminent fight, and millions will watch on the television to see who emerges victorious from the ring. 

Fans will doubtless flock to watch both Joshua and Fury’s eventual clash and Mayweather and Paul’s more imminent fight, and millions will watch on the television to see who emerges victorious from the ring. 

Image credit: James Prince / CC BY 3.0.

Watching Youtube a predictor for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy

0

An Oxford study has found that general vaccine mistrust, conspiracy beliefs, low government trust and watching YouTube are key predictors of an individual’s COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. 

Conducted with 1,476 UK adults between 12-16 December 2020, the study found that “trust is a core predictor, with distrust in vaccines in general and mistrust in government raising vaccine hesitancy.” Researchers found common misunderstandings among people who are covid-vaccine-hesitant fell under believing that herd immunity provides virus protection, fearing rapid vaccine development and unknown side effects, and believing that the virus is man-made and used for population control. 

After government mistrust, the social media channels Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube were the next indicators for vaccine hesitancy. Facebook and Twitter had little correlated impact on vaccine hesitancy or eagerness.  

Researchers pointed to in-built components of the social media platforms as directly responsible for hesitancy. The study pointed to “relatively unregulated social media sources—such as YouTube—that have recommendations tailored by watch history.” Top 5, Up Next and other algorithm tools were also blamed for increasing the likelihood of users getting stuck in echo chambers. Futhermore, it seems that fake news spreads more effectively than real news; an analysis of 1300 Facebook pages during the 2019 measles outbreak found that anti-vax pages grew by 500%, compared to 50% growth of pro-vaccine pages. 

Increasing numbers of people are turning to social media for health advice. Even in 2013, 72% of Americans and 83% of Europeans used the internet as a source of health information, and the covid-19 pandemic has only exacerbated the trend. The Oxford vaccine hesitancy study pressed for intervention from governments, health officials and social media companies to combat health misinformation in the future. 

When asked for reasons why they did not want to take a covid vaccine, “they offered either some adapted understanding of herd immunity, or arguments that the virus was not as deadly as described (linked to scepticism of registered deaths), concluding that most people do not need a vaccine. Similarly, in justifying their decision not to get a vaccine, they highlighted their belief that the vaccine process had been rushed, that not enough testing had been undertaken, and the potential of unknown side effects.”

Some believed that those who were must vulnerable to covid should receive a vaccine, but as they did not personally see themselves to be at-risk, believed that they did not need a vaccine.  The WHO listed vaccine hesitancy as one of the top ten threats to global health in 2019. 

Covid vaccine hesitancy draws on long-standing issues regarding general vaccine trust. A study of vaccine related YouTube posts found that 65.5% discouraged vaccine use, focusing on autism, undisclosed risks, adverse reactions, and alleged mercury content. 

The study suggested that “emotional thinking during conditions of uncertainty” can make individuals unable to assess risk, citing the example of the 0.0004% instance of rare blood clot disorders in the Oxford/AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines. 

Potential interventions could include advertisers boycotting their advertisements appearing alongside harmful content, altering keyword searches and redirecting individuals to correct sources, banning overt conspiracy groups such as QAnon, flagging misinformation, or rapidly removing content. A large difficulty with regulating social media sites is the rate of transmission; YouTube and Facebook removed a video titled “Plandemic” but only after it had been viewed 1.8 million times

As for direct actions of the government, the study warned that “reversals in advice” can generate a great deal of mistrust, adding “social trust enables the collective action needed to achieve sufficient population vaccination level.”

The Undercurrent: Miffed monarchists march on Magdalen

Forgive me for being cynical, but who gives a fuck what Gavin Williamson thinks about interior design? A quick google of his desk reveals a stark wooden surface, with no ornaments other than an actual whip positioned in the foreground. As is standard Tory practice, the only background decorations are a grotesquely large British flag and an ancient clock with the two hands set to look like a frown. Not a photo to be seen, not even of the wife he cheated on in 2004! Fascinating, considering his sudden interest in portraits . . .

Yes, Oxford’s students are once again front page news. This time, for the crime of democracy. Magdalen’s MCR voted to have a picture of the Queen that hangs in their common room taken down, which was labelled ‘absurd’ by Williamson. Other highly respectable figures have been quick to put in their two cents, including the inimitable Laurence Fox, who labelled the students ‘little twerps’ like he’s some sort of Simpsons bully. It’s a fascinating volte-face to see the ‘respect the vote’ crowd turn against democracy at the drop of a hat to protect an image of an unelected monarch.

All of these strange non-events follow the same formula: take something that doesn’t matter and create a battle out of it that makes students seem sensitive and pathetic, while making the government seem like it’s actively protecting ‘British values’ . Never mind that it’s none of the government’s business, nor that there’s a blatant hypocrisy to promoting ‘free speech’ while condemning students for taking a vote. The only thing that matters is making a government that has a reputation for incompetence seem like it’s fighting for the ‘normal’ people of Britain, who are apparently those who cannot bear the thought that someone else’s room doesn’t have a photo of the Queen in it. 

I’m sick and tired of watching Oxford be used as a means of winning a fabricated culture war. It’s exhausting for normal students who just want to get on with our lives without provoking adult men into social media hissy-fits every time we move a muscle. It sometimes feels like there’s a magnifying glass hovering over Oxford, watching for any hint of liberalism or subversive thought so that it can be broadcast to the entire country. Tory rhetoric about confronting ‘cancel culture’ only seems to matter when it’s their mates feeling like mugs, not when a government official is criticising students for a democratic vote on an issue that, frankly, sounds extremely dull.

Perhaps the ‘snowflake’ generation isn’t the students. Perhaps it’s people who are taking out their mid-life crises on us for short-term publicity. When Julia Hartley-Brewer is going on national television describing people involved with student politics as “sad people without any friends”, you realise that this country is totally screwed. As Magdalen’s President Dinah Rose put it, “Being a student is… sometimes about provoking the older generation. Looks like that isn’t so hard to do these days.”

Image Credit: Ed Webster. CC BY 2.0

Cher-ity Corner: Oxford Pink Week

One of the most important lessons I have learnt, as I imagine many others have too from this pandemic, is the value of offering up our time to help others. Cher-ity Corner is a weekly column that highlights local Oxford charities that students can volunteer with and make a difference.

I spoke to Casey Taylor, who is the Merchandise Officer for Oxford Pink Week. Pink Week is a week of events that raises awareness and funds for Breast Cancer Charities. We discussed opportunities that are on offer for current students and lots about what they do. Find out how you can get involved and more about their amazing work!

What’s Oxford Pink Week?

Pink Week is a week of events that is aimed at raising funds and awareness for various Breast Cancer charities. For this year, 2021, the charities were: Coppafeel, Walk the Walk, The Leanne Pero Foundation, Breast Cancer Now and Sakoon through Cancer.

Pink Week was established because of inspiration by activism of the late Dina Rabinovitch, a journalist and writer who unfortunately lost her life to the disease but wrote widely and publicly about to create awareness and bring about change. As a national event, Pink Week ran for the first time in 2011 and has been running at the University of Oxford since 2016.

“Our key mission is to get people talking about breast cancer, no matter how uncomfortable it may be. By normalising the conversations about breast cancer, we can encourage people to check themselves and potentially save lives if abnormalities are caught quickly.”

Just one conversation can trigger a lifesaving action, and its only through events such as Pink Week that raise awareness, that the disease can be stopped in its tracks.

This year, Pink Week Oxford hosted various events such as a 10k walk, karaoke night and 3 ‘Pink Night’s,’ an evening of live music, drinks, and fun! There was also collaborative work with various societies such as LGBTQ+ society, OUCA, Oxford Dance Society and OxFemSoc to introduce a fundraising element into their own events.

Despite the evident success of this year’s Pink Week, COVID-19 had impacted it significantly. As a committee, the decision was made to move Pink Week from its usual place in Hilary Term to 3rd week Trinity as many people were at home and there was an inability to host any in-person events. This enabled the hosting of the Pink Night, which allowed for a significant proportion of total profits to be raised. However, the pandemic also led to an emphasis being placed on online presence, resulting a podcast being created! This was a great addition to the already great ongoings and so there’s also the possibility for something good on the flip side of things.

How can students get involved?

Pink Week would be unable to run if it was not for the magnificent work of the committee that organises everything. This year, the committee consisted of: President, College Reps Officer, Treasurer, Publicity Officer, Digital Designer, Events Officer, and a Merchandise Officer. There were also reps from different colleges who were tasked with fundraising for their own JCR as well as helping to run some of the events.

Committee applications are currently open for next year, so if you want to help change lives, want to get involved in charity work at Uni, you can apply here until the 12th June:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfb9lRK6ZghMJNFKkzodapXIk0GUgvyfcTymiMhqyZa6o7Ptw/viewform?usp=sf_link

Why should students get involved?

“Being part of something like Pink Week is extremely rewarding, and it’s something that I’ve really enjoyed throwing myself into this year. Attending Pink Night especially, finally seeing people in a room together having a good time in aid of such a good cause, really made all of the hard work worth it.”

The money that is raised over the course of Pink Week goes a long way in helping in the mission of tackling breast cancer.

“I really cannot encourage enough anyone who’s thinking of getting involved with Pink Week next year.”

Want to get involved?

You can follow and contact Pink Week through the following:

Instagram: oxpinkweek, (or feel free to message Casey directly @caseytaylorx)

Website: oxpinkweek.wixsite.com/home

University of Oxford takes home ‘Apprenticeship Employer of the Year’ Award

0

At this year’s Oxfordshire Apprenticeships Awards, the University of Oxford won the ‘Apprenticeship Employer (250+ employees) award’, and two Oxford University apprentices won or were nominated for further special awards.

Apprenticeship Manager Helen Johnson commented: “It was an absolute honour to accept the award for Apprentice Employer of the Year Award (250)+ at OxLEPs Oxfordshire Apprenticeship Awards last week. This is the first time we have entered the awards and to be shortlisted as a finalist was on its own a great achievement.” 

Lab scientist apprentice Emilia Reyes Pabon won the ‘Advanced Apprentice of the Year’ award and the ‘Overall Apprentice of the Year’ award. She said: “it feels great that my work as an apprentice has been recognised. I still can’t believe that I was selected for the Advanced Apprentice award AND the Overall Apprentice of the Year award!”. Administration apprentice in the finance division Ellie Knight was shortlisted in the ‘Shining Star’ Apprentice award. She said: “It felt amazing to have been shortlisted and to have been recognised for my work. I recognise how great of an achievement it was to be a finalist and how proud it has made me feel.”

The University is the biggest apprentice-employer in the county, and offers a diverse range of apprenticeships in various departments, such as Clinical Trial Support Officer Apprentice, Apprentice Mechanical Technician, or Digital Marketing Apprentice

Apprentices earn a wage while they work, which depends on the level of qualification, although the University guarantees to always pay a living wage. Apprentices achieve an accredited qualification and often gain many practical and experiential skills during their apprenticeship. Apprenticeships can last from one up to four years, and come in three different qualifications: intermediate: level 2 (GCSE A-C passes), Advanced: Level 3 (A-Level passes) and Higher: Level 4-7 (Certificate of Higher Education through to Masters Degree).

Image credit: Green Chameleon on Unsplash

Submarine: A Study in Soundtrack Writing

0

Submarine, the directorial debut from comedian Richard Ayoade, turned ten years old this year, but the hold its soundtrack has on cinematic music is just as strong as ever. The soundtrack is comprised of six original songs written and performed by Arctic Monkeys frontman Alex Turner, who brings his signature philosophising and eclectic lyrics. Together with the film’s cinematography, these songs idealise the mundane as the protagonist, Oliver, makes himself the romantic hero of his own story.

There is nothing as intrinsically teenage as the awkward first relationship, something which is encapsulated in all its toe-curling glory in Submarine. The film follows Oliver (played by Craig Roberts of ‘who stole my Maroon 5 CD?’ fame in The Story of Tracy Beaker) as he navigates his relationship with his classmate Jordana (Yasmin Paige). Nothing is done by halves in this film, including the emotional intensity; when you’re watching, you feel at all times like you’re stuck in Oliver’s head, forced to hear all of his fifteen-year-old-boy thoughts and schemes. The soundtrack follows all of this perfectly, letting Oliver’s state of mind bleed through into the lyrics, which is the key to what makes Turner’s music so powerful and so fitting to the film.

The film begins with a panning shot of Oliver’s bedroom, a visual reflection of the character we will soon be introduced to, and the ever-quotable opening lines: “Most people think of themselves as individuals, that there’s no one on the planet like them…” It is here that the soundtrack starts, with a snippet of ‘Stuck on the Puzzle’ – one of, in my opinion, the best songs from the admittedly very short soundtrack (it is not even twenty minutes long, the perfect length for a Main Character Walk round Uni Parks). As soon as the music begins, we know that we are in for a ride; this is not just any teenage boy, but a teenage boy on a mission to romanticise every element of his life and cast himself as the lead in his own movie.

The mix of often-misplaced confidence and half-concealed insecurity that Oliver’s character brings is caught with eagle-eyed precision in the first full song to play, ‘Hiding Tonight’. Turner sings as though he has everything in his life planned out – he’s the kind of guy who boasts “you can leave off my lid and I won’t even lose my fizz” and “I’ll be the polka dots type” – but who also puts all these things off until tomorrow, comfortable in himself for the time being. The sweet message here is undermined somewhat by the position the song holds within the film, as a track on a ‘celebratory’ mixtape given to Oliver by his Dad to mark his first relationship, featuring songs for stages such as ‘Embarrassment’ and ‘Seduction’. It provides the background music to a Skins-esque montage of Oliver and Jordana setting off fire-crackers and burning things on the beach, which is itself undermined by the way Oliver chooses to sum up their relationship so far: “two weeks of atavistic love making, humiliating teachers and bullying the weak”. This sequence makes you squirm in all the ways a teen romance film from the early 2010s should.

It is this constant balance between the heartfelt and the cringeworthy that makes the film so watchable and its soundtrack so listenable. When Oliver and Jordana sit and look out at the ocean together, this cliché romantic scene is subverted by the way she keeps shrugging off his arm – there is still a lingering sense of that teenage awkwardness. The song that plays, ‘Glass in the Park’, explores the hugeness of this moment, as the two work out where they stand in relation to one another. Turner takes this sense of scale to its furthest point by talking about outer space: “paraselene woman, I’m your man on the moon”. He captures the way that when you’re a teenager, everything feels enormous until you look back at it a few years later – for Oliver, the events of the film are ground-breaking, filtered through a subjective, first-person worldview, but as the viewer we know that this isn’t all there is.

No exploration of the Submarine soundtrack can be considered complete until we talk about ‘Piledriver Waltz’, the song so mesmerising it was reworked into a track on the Arctic Monkeys’ own 2011 album, Suck It and See. With lines such as “you look like you’ve been for breakfast at the heartbreak hotel” and “if you’re gonna try and walk on water / make sure you wear your comfortable shoes”, Turner takes us into his own nonsense world, where everything can mean a million different things. There is no better way of summing up what it’s like to be inside a teenager’s brain, stepping into the shoes of an adult but bringing all your adolescent anxieties with you. This is what gives Submarine its magic.

Tragic Female Friendship in The Pursuit of Love

0

Emily Mortimer’s new series The Pursuit of Love was the latest glitzy TV show to hit screens last weekend, in a blur of sex, cigarettes and Andrew Scott surrounded by rainbow coloured pigeons. Adapted from Nancy Mitford’s 1945 novel, the show follows best friends Linda Radlett (Lily James) and Fanny Logan (Emily Beecham) as they try to find love and satisfaction in 1930s Britain. The story itself isn’t an especially original one – indeed, the trope of the dowdy, intellectual best friend and her attractive, unstable counterpart has become so hackneyed in popular culture that it produces an immediate sense of déjà vu. In everything from Little Women to My Brilliant Friend, Lady Bird to The Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants, women are offered a pretty clear choice: do you want to be sexy, or clever? Do you want to be stimulated, or happy? According to Mortimer, you can’t have both.

Mortimer’s series plays on Freud’s famous Madonna-whore complex, in which men can only desire a sexual partner who has been degraded (the whore), while they cannot desire the respected partner (the Madonna). Naomi Woolf later argued that the trope not only prevails in modern culture, but has gotten worse since the sexual revolution, as women contend with the worst aspects of each stereotype. The Pursuit of Love poses the question: what happens when the whore and the Madonna become friends?

The answer is one poignantly staged at the centre of the series, which focuses closely on Linda and Fanny’s friendship. From sweetly domestic scenes in which the girls bathe together (friendship bordering on the erotic in the way that all popular depictions of women doing anything together often do) to Fanny’s quest across war-torn Europe to find Linda, their love for each other teeters on the obsessive. The advantages and disadvantages of each girl’s life are pretty clear: Linda’s chaotic love life leaves her with a string of divorces and a traumatised daughter, whereas Fanny’s dull, domestic bliss is undercut by a constant feeling of dissatisfaction that means she can never truly be happy. “Why did I stay behind with the unadventurous ones?” she implores of her disinterested husband. He can’t answer.

The series is a comedy in the way all feminist comedies are: funny, but with a disturbing undertone of relatability that leaves a nasty taste in your mouth. Even the idyllic Cotswolds setting of the show’s ending, as Emily Beecham drinks tea surrounded by gambling children, can’t disguise the unnecessary tragedy (spoiler alert) of Linda’s death. As Fanny’s Aunt Emily (played by Annabel Mullion) tellingly muses in the episode’s last minute, ‘Let’s hope that these boys granddaughters can be more than just a Bolter or a Sticker, a Linda or a Fanny, but can decide who they are’. The series can only acknowledge its real tragedy right at the end, tentatively imagining a world where female friendships aren’t divided into these two inevitable tropes – where both whore and Madonna get to live happily ever after.

I’m not sure it’s a vision that’s come true. In The Pursuit of Love’s literary equivalent, Elena Ferrante’s Neapolitan Quartet sets a similarly intense female friendship in late 20th century Naples. Elena is nervous, intelligent, insecure; Lila is beautiful, savage and unstable. Have we heard this story before? Although Ferrante’s characters are nowhere near as two-dimensional as Mitford’s, the same trope plays out again and again. Through a combination of war, gang violence and bad decisions, Lila transforms from a character around which the entire world seems to revolve to erratic old woman whose narrative tragically peters out. Mitford, Ferrante and Mortimer are all telling us the same thing: the intensity which makes us fall in love with these characters is impossible to maintain, and their extreme femininity can only lead to death or tragedy.

The Pursuit of Love demonstrates once again, not only the centrality of female friendship in film, literature and life, but the double edged sword that is being a woman. In the oppressive pre-war society of Mitford’s world, the distinction between ‘a Linda or a Fanny’, a whore or a Madonna, is strict enough to destroy the lives of the women that it hopes to enclose. Although we might hope that modern society is one in which women have a more fluid identity, unencumbered by such black and white stereotypes, this trope’s prevalence across contemporary culture acts as a constant reminder of these tragic dynamics.