Sunday, April 27, 2025
Blog Page 333

2020 Oxbridge admissions statistics sees two state schools make the top five

Sasha Mills
-
0
2020 Oxbridge admissions statistics sees two state schools make the top five

Data released by Oxford and Cambridge and collated by The Spectator has revealed the top schools for Oxbridge offers in 2020. 3 of the top 5 schools are private, while Hills Road is a selective sixth form college, and Peter Symonds School is a non-selective sixth form college. Research by The Sunday Times has shown that several top private schools have seen a decrease in Oxbridge admissions. Data collected by UCAS has also shown that the 2020 admissions cycle saw a 34.8% increase in students from POLAR4 Q1 (a measure of University participation by area) applicants finding places in the top 15 most selective universities and colleges.

The top 5 schools for Oxbridge admission vary in size: Westminster sixth form has approximately 200 students in year 13, while Peter Symonds College has approximately 2000 students in its sixth form, a similar number to Hills Road College. St Paul’s school currently has 217 students in year 13.

A graph showing applications and offers made at the top five schools

At Hills Road College, 69 students have now also received an offer for the 2021 cohort, 38 from the University of Oxford and 31 from the University of Cambridge. Hills student Joseph Clarke has been offered a place at Oxford to study history, and told Cherwell: “I hadn’t originally intended to apply to university, and I had only decided that I would apply to Oxford a few months before needing to hand in the application. It was a good deal of work, especially preparing for the admission test and interview, but I’m so glad that I applied because of everything I have learnt.”

Awa Ndour, another Hills Road student, has been offered a place to study Experiment Psychology, and told Cherwell: “I didn’t properly consider applying to Oxford until I got my UCAS predicted grades in the summer, and it suddenly dawned on me that I had a chance at getting in. I decided to apply because I knew it was a unique opportunity and I really liked the look of the course. Even though I wasn’t certain at the time I would go if I got an offer, I wanted to give myself that option, and I was up for the challenge.”

Hills student Lena Van Dongen has been offered a place at Cambridge to study Maths: “I’ve always loved Maths, and knew that Cambridge was renowned for its Maths graduates, so I naturally wanted to apply. The process has been generally fine so far but quite demanding. The interview was a great opportunity to try some advanced maths, but I still have to sit the STEP entrance exam, which will be the most challenging part of the process.”

Peter Symonds College has had 56 successful offers for the 2021 cohort. The College has a dedicated Oxbridge tutor and offers an Oxbridge preparation program, which includes interview and entrance exam support. Principal Sara Russell told Cherwell: “With the effects of the pandemic students have faced additional challenges this year so we worked hard to overcome some of these. The moment the first lockdown was announced we knew we needed to adapt our strategy, and develop distance ways of delivering the things that have worked so well for decades.”

Peter Symonds student Milosz Kowalski has been offered a place at Cambridge to study Human Social and Political Sciences, and said: “As someone from a working-class, migrant background, it was sometimes difficult to see myself at Cambridge, but the supportive atmosphere at Symonds made me feel that truly anyone can succeed.”

A spokesperson for St. Paul’s School told Cherwell: “We are delighted that so many of our students who wished to study at Oxbridge have been offered places. It is a testament to our students’ talent and commitment to their studies during an exceptionally difficult year for all schools that so many have achieved their first choice of university. We are also delighted with the success enjoyed by candidates from our partner schools with whom we have worked in support of their applications, in almost all subject areas.”

A spokesperson for the Westminster School told Cherwell: “We are delighted that our pupils continue to achieve excellent outcomes despite the challenges of the pandemic, including opportunities to study at the world’s best universities. We are equally delighted by the increasing numbers of pupils from the maintained sector progressing to these institutions, including from Harris Westminster – just one example of what can be achieved through meaningful partnership and hard work. We are proud of each and every one of these students, and applaud their achievements.”

A spokesperson for the University of Oxford told Cherwell: “From expanding our digital outreach offering during lockdown, to voicing and upholding concerns about the Ofqual algorithm used to award A-level grades, to the collegiate university this year forming a nationwide community outreach programme offering bespoke and local support to students of mixed ages, their parents and teachers, we are consistently working to make Oxford first choice for students from under-represented backgrounds.”

“This commitment to supporting talented students of all backgrounds to achieve their Oxford dreams and potential, has seen a record number of state-school students arriving at Oxford in October 2020, and state school applicants receiving more than 68% of offers in the most recent admissions round.”

“We are particularly pleased to have been able to welcome the inaugural class of Opportunity Oxford students, notwithstanding the constraints imposed by the pandemic. It is going to be a challenging year ahead for all of us but we are confident that our concerted outreach efforts are focused on the right areas, and allowing us to find talented students from a broad range of backgrounds who are passionate about their subject.”

Eton College has been contacted for comment. 

Image Credit: JR P/CC BY-NC 2.0

25/3/21, 16:22 – this article was edited to include comment from the University

Defending Democracy: why we must prevent the protest bill

Natasha Voase
-
0
Defending Democracy: why we must prevent the protest bill

2020 was a bad year for democracy. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index, 70% of countries around the world reported a decline in their levels of democracy. The factors to blame are rushed legislation, suspended civil liberties and weariness with the whole damned thing. Thanks to the bill currently being discussed in Parliament, 2021 might be a whole lot worse.

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is a threat to our democracy. It’s come under fire for several problems, including its attacks on already marginalised groups and the lack of focus on gender-based violence. The attacks on the right to protest have become a focal point for civil liberties campaigners everywhere as it will remove a critical avenue of democratic expression. Section three, however, has demonstrated the government’s worrying attitude towards democracy.

The measures contained in the bill constitute a clear attack on the right to peacefully protest, which will increase the already extensive powers of the police to restrict protests. The new measures will give the Home Secretary the power to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the protest,” regardless of whether or not this is a static protest of one person or a large procession (54, 2, ab, i, p. 45). In addition, the police will be able to impose strict start and end times, as well as a noise limit on a static protest which is, practically speaking, concerning. What’s to stop them from abusing this power by curtailing a protest they do not personally agree with? In short, the government is launching a severe attack on civil liberties. 

The bill is both absurd and unaccountable. It grants the Home Secretary sweeping powers to determine what constitutes a “nuisance.” This sets a worrying precedent. What’s to stop the government from telling a protest that it can only be one hour long and no louder than the sound of a library? Add to that the fact that it will permit the Home Secretary to add to the existing legislation without parliament, and also to  “define any aspect” of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest.” By removing the necessity to consult Parliament on additional legislation, this removes any semblance of accountability as MPs – who are elected to scrutinise legislation – would be powerless to prevent new legislation from being added. Accountability of power is key in a democracy and this legislation is a direct attack on this principle.

For a government that has so frequently lambasted “woke cancel culture,” it’s remarkable that they’ve decided to employ similar tactics in their very own culture war. Is seeking to diminish the voices of those who dissent while amplifying the voices of those who agree with you not an example of cancel culture? The bill demonstrates a worrying mindset – that liberty only applies to those with whom one agrees.

While protests such as Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion have been lambasted as threats to democracy, in reality, they are a cornerstone of it. That the bill has been motivated by a personal dislike of these movements – particularly of Extinction Rebellion – demonstrates the worrying mindset behind it. According to the Home Secretary, Black Lives Matter is “dreadful” and Extinction Rebellion are “eco-crusaders turned criminals.” While not all Conservatives share this opinion, with Theresa May urging the government to rethink the Bill, this demonstrates a worrying attitude towards free speech in the British democracy. The legislation isn’t about protecting society from overzealous protestors; it’s about silencing them. It’s true that democracy isn’t always easy. While you have the right to voice your opinion, someone else has the right to criticise it. Just as you have the right to protest, someone else has the right to oppose it. It’s a two-way street but one which has never before been subject to such a direct attack by a piece of legislation. That’s the price of a free society. Who would want it any other way?

It’s often said that you don’t realise what you have until it’s about to be taken away and that’s certainly the case with this legislation. While civil liberties have no doubt been altered during the pandemic, the current situation is temporary. This legislation will not be. So, to the government which so frequently invokes the “Blitz Spirit” and “fighting Britons”, we ask: what did all those brave people fight for? That’s right: liberty. The kind of liberty that will protect us long after this pandemic.

At the time of writing, protests have successfully delayed the government’s attempt to sprint the Bill through Westminster, demonstrating just how difficult it is to ignore the will of the people. This petition has already gathered enough support that if the government ignore the people’s mandate, they will be breaking their own rules. What we can do is hold them accountable for this. Signing the petition, being vocal on social media, writing to MPs (find out how here), and generally scrutinising the government will all ensure that nothing is swept past our eyes.

Image credit: Michael Coghlan via Flickr & Creative Commons. 

Is this the end of the gig economy?

Johannes Moehrle
-
0
Is this the end of the gig economy?

In the past weeks, prosecutors in the UK and Italy have scored big wins against pillars of the gig economy. On 19th February, the supreme court in London unanimously ruled that Uber drivers must be considered as workers rather than self-employed. Four days later, on 24th February, prosecutors in Milan moved in a similar direction when they ordered the four food delivery companies with activities in Italy (Uber eats, Deliveroo, Just Eat, Foodinho-Glovo) to hire 60,000 workers and pay a total of €733m in fines.

These decisions in the UK and in Italy will have a serious impact on the way these companies carry out their activities, since their drivers and food-couriers will soon have to be paid at least the minimum wage, and will be entitled to holiday pay, as well as maternity and medical leave. This essentially means that Uber in the UK and Uber Eats and its competitors in Italy will need to have a significant change in their business model in order to comply with their workers’ new status. Above all, these two court rulings set a precedent for thousands of gig-economy workers in these countries and beyond. After a tentative start to this rapidly changing system, new regulations are likely to be put into place in the near future, which will apply to more than just taxi-hailing and food delivery companies. 

So, with these major companies under scrutiny in several countries, are we witnessing the crumbling of the gig-economy? Perhaps it is worth defining what is commonly understood under the term ‘gig economy’ and how we have ended up where we are now. The ‘gig economy’ is a labour market characterised by the prevalence of short-term contracts or freelance work, as opposed to permanent jobs. In sectors such as the arts and journalism, for example, this system has been in place for decades, but for services such as ride-hailing and food delivery, it is a fairly new phenomenon that has been growing hand-in-hand with the rapid technological progress of the last decade.

For the proponents of this system, it is a liberalisation of the market that allows flexibility for everyone. Workers should have the freedom to choose when and how much they wish to work and get paid accordingly, and customers have access to quicker and cheaper services around the clock. Theoretically, companies such as Uber and Deliveroo do nothing more but put both workers and consumers in contact; often, this is done through a very well-designed app, which makes the whole process all the easier. It is undeniable that, for us consumers, our lives are ameliorated by the fact that companies like Uber and Deliveroo enable us to find a driver and hop into their car within five minutes or have hot meals delivered to our door at any time of the day. 

This system, however, has a far darker flip side for these working in it. For them, the ‘flexibility’ and ‘freedom’ so often praised by these companies’ executives are generally nothing but an illusion. Workers for companies such as Uber and Deliveroo are in fact fully dependent on their apps; Uber for example sets the rates, sets the contract terms in which drivers have no say, requires drivers to take certain routes, and disciplines drivers through a rating system. These elements clearly show that drivers are in a position of subordination to Uber and that the company is doing more than just connecting drivers and customers.

In fact, Uber has deliberately put drivers in a system where they feel compelled to work for increasingly long hours, as the algorithm punishes drivers for turning down rides, and in turn, gives them fewer rides. Indeed, working ridiculously long hours is the only solution for many drivers to make ends meet, with some drivers working over fifteen hours a day, in order to barely make a living after having paid for the maintenance, the license and the insurance of their vehicle. Furthermore, it is worth noting that drivers only get paid once they are given rides by the app and that the hours they spend waiting for ride-requests to pop up are hours in which no money is made. These dire conditions have led drivers around the world to sleep in their parked cars in order to cram in more work hours. More worryingly, others admit having already nodded off behind the wheel due to a lack of sleep, which in turn also casts doubt on our security as passengers.

Food-couriers are just as dependent on their app, be it Deliveroo or Uber Eats, and expose themselves even more to the dangers of the road late into the evenings trying to make a living. These narratives only get sadder and more dangerous when you consider that these same ‘self-employed’ drivers do not have the right to injury compensation in case of accidents. Taxi-hailing and delivery companies are well aware of these situations, but deem them necessary if they want to continue offering their services at unbeatable prices around the clock.  

So perhaps, it isn’t so much the gig economy as a whole that is crumbling, but more the new form it has taken with the development of technology, which has been morally and legally questionable. In European countries, the rising popularity of apps such as Uber, Uber Eats and Deliveroo has put a strain on welfare states; in recent years, there has been an expanding number of workers who are dependents of a company, without receiving the social security that comes with such dependence.

It is, therefore, high time that the status quo undergoes change, and these two landmark court rulings are hopefully the first step towards a legislative update regarding self-employed workers in the UK and abroad. Today there is a need for change. With the development of platforms such as Uber or Deliveroo, the line between what is a self-employed, independent worker, and what is a worker whose income solely relies on a single company – but is not an employee – is getting blurrier. 

We can only hope that legal action on its own will regularise these sectors in the near future, but more than that, it is our responsibility to reflect on how we want our society to function, how we want its workers to be treated, and whether we accept that increasing numbers of working people, do so without the safety net that basic social security offers. If we as consumers don’t acknowledge the dire conditions in which people we rely on work, there will be no incentive for anything to change.

Yet, there is hope for change if we understand that the cheapest prices for services are often made at the cost of decent working conditions. In the ongoing pandemic, we have seen that drivers and especially food couriers perform essential jobs, which many of us have come to rely on in our everyday lives. But, it is worth asking ourselves what is behind the ever-lowering price of these services and whether we accept it by contributing to it.

Image credit: Leonhard Lenz via Wikimedia & Creative Commons. 

The ‘Foxification’ of British news: the impact of new right-wing media in the UK

Biba Jones
-
0
The ‘Foxification’ of British news: the impact of new right-wing media in the UK

While you might not choose to tune in to its shows, News UK TV should concern you. Media mogul Rupert Murdoch, who created the hugely influential conservative network Fox News in the US in 1996, launches his newest channel, News UK TV, in Britain this year. The venture was granted a license by government media regulator Ofcom in December 2020 and will combine entertainment with right-leaning news commentary and opinion. The channel is set to begin a staggered rollout in April, racing against rival GB News, another similarly ‘Fox-News-style’ channel also arriving on UK televisions soon.

These channels, neither of which have yet aired a single minute, are already stirring controversy by their mere existence. Calls for advertising boycotts, and words of warning for the decline of impartiality have set an ominous tone. One TV executive asked: “Will it be that they will try to ‘out-Fox’ each other?” Will they push each other, as well their left-wing counterparts, to greater extremes and away from centrism — a spiral of division for us to watch uneasily from our sofas at home?

It certainly paints a dark image. Even though the stringent regulation of broadcasting in the UK means that these networks will not be overtly one-sided or spread ‘fake news’, they are worrisome. A new fixation on ‘opinionated’ and ‘politicised’ news commentary will feed into ‘bubble culture that isolates viewers in echo chambers. These channels also have the potential to widen political polarities, bring anti-political correctness debates to the fore, and could eventually be joined by more extreme digital news sites which are not subject to the same regulation as television broadcasting.

Indeed, the introduction of these channels has led many to question the future direction of broadcast journalism in the UK. Unlike the US, Britain has a long history of strict rules that limit bias and inaccuracy in news broadcasts, but News UK TV and GB News have both stoked fear of more divisive and partisan journalism. With Boris Johnson eyeing ex-Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre as the next chair of Ofcom, the Financial Times has described a ‘storm of outrage within the media industry’ that has questioned the way in which regulation could be stretched or relaxed. Former chairman of Independent Press Standards Organisation Alan Moses is not worried, arguing that if Dacre is appointed he will have to “have to embrace the standards he had previously opposed” because “regulation is a rigorous business”. According to Moses, any chair will find it hard to make significant changes because “the scope of jurisdiction is enormous”.

So TV regulation is unlikely to be loosening any time soon, but will Murdoch really play by the rules? There certainly are concerns that even if Ofcom regulations stay the same Murdoch will push against the boundaries of its impartiality code. The channel will be legally obliged to include both sides of arguments and thus offer balanced coverage, but ‘balance’ can be achieved over a day or over a series of programmes, which leaves a significant leeway that can be taken advantage of.

Murdoch also has a track record of bending the rules. Kevin Rudd, a former Australian Prime Minister claimed that “Murdoch will say anything and do anything to win regulatory approval, and then do the reverse in practice”. When Murdoch started airing US Fox News in Britain, it was twice censored in 2017 for violating impartiality standards, and TalkRadio, which Murdoch bought in 2016, has been fined for breaching impartiality rules. A push towards more right-leaning opinionated news might threaten balance in less obvious ways, with both GB News and News UK TV likely to use a careful selection of guests and language to push certain sides without breaking regulations. GB News has rejected suggestions that they will be biased, writing to the Guardian to complain about ‘anti-impartiality’ accusations, claiming that they will comply with Ofcom’s rules. The network’s chairman Andrew Neil, however, has claimed that GB News is “about disrupting the status quo”, which makes me sceptical that they will comply entirely to existing regulations, or that they will do so without stirring anger and discontent. It seems likely that these channels will call for greater freedom of expression once faced with stringent rules, feeding into global populist complaints about restrictions on freedom of speech.

The fixation of Fox News on ‘cancel culture’, which has largely intensified in the past month, is a testament to a wider resistance to ‘cancel culture’, and by extension to limitations to free speech. Fox News contributor Tomi Lahren recently called on conservatives to “start cancelling” companies that engage with ‘cancel culture’, while, on one day in early March, Fox reportage on Dr Seuss being ‘cancelled’ lasted over twice as long as its coronavirus coverage. I believe a similar fixation on ‘cancel culture’ and freedom of expression will likely arise on these new channels, especially due to stricter in the UK, which are likely to cause friction among those expecting a Fox News alternative in the UK.  The recent events concerning Piers Morgan, who stormed out of Good Morning Britain following criticisms for his treatment of Meghan Markle, could well be early signs of this. Perhaps Morgan, who has now stepped down as a host on Good Morning Britain, will join the GB News or News UK TV ranks. Andrew Neil has ardently criticised ‘cancel culture’ on numerous occasions and hatred towards ‘woke’ culture will likely be fomented by these channels.

GB News and News UK TV are already inciting hatred for centrist and left-leaning broadcasting platforms. Neil has said that GB News will cater to the members of the population who “who feel underserved and unheard by their media”. He appears to believe that he is speaking on behalf of a large number of ordinary citizens when he describes disillusionment towards the incumbent news broadcasting services, and it is likely that many feel this way, but comments like this further influences people, and foments anger and discontent to a degree that may not have existed before. Neil has called the BBC a “mortal enemy” and “determined propagandist” whose “very existence should be the subject of a very intense and well-funded campaign”. It is likely that this rhetoric, and the idea that existing platforms let the British population down, will be a common theme across the network and in its marketing.

Some media experts are particularly worried about the timing, predicting that the social division seen in the UK during Brexit will resurface, having been set aside by the current pandemic. Opinionated news will only widen this gulf when it returns, and increase partisanship and xenophobia. Right-wing populism and the fears of immigration that drove the Brexit campaign will likely be fuelled by right-wing partisan news. Could covert racism and xenophobia filter though? Will Brexit criticism be absent from these channels? The sources of fundraising and endorsements for GB News foreshadows the Brexit-sympathetic approach the channel is likely to take as the effects of Brexit come into fruition in the following months and years. 60 million pounds raised by a Dubai-based investment firm, Legatum, and a pro-Brexit hedge fund manager Paul Marshall for example.

GB News’ logo itself seems to be a subtle hint to the Union Jack. It seems likely that this logo was designed to appeal to right-wing nationalism and its use, the introduction of two right-wing broadcasting networks, and the finalisation of Brexit earlier this year makes for a cringingly nationalistic image for Britain. Rasmus Kleis Nielson, director of the Reuters Institute of the Study of Journalism at Oxford University argued that the politics of resentment, “often driven by older white men who are right-wing”, is “a market that is well-served in print and online already.” Do we need it on our screens? Entering a post-covid and post-Brexit world we don’t need a war on “woke” culture, or increased divisions — we need unity, empathy and cooperation.

It might be argued that Murdoch’s past failures in the UK suggest that these new channels will not prove seriously influential or popular; that the British audience is different from the American audience and fewer will therefore receive right-leaning news commentary warmly. Murdoch’s attempts to bring Fox News to Britain, for example, was a complete failure, and it was pulled off the air in 2017 after failing to attract an audience. At the time, 21st Century Fox said “Fox News is focused on the U.S. market and designed for a U.S. audience and, accordingly, it averages only a few thousand viewers across the day in the UK”. However, GB News is a much more ambitious venture, will run for 24 hours and recruit journalists from all over the UK and Northern Ireland, hoping to appeal to a much wider and more diverse audience.

Others may argue that even if GB News and News UK are initially influential, their popularity will fade away as viewers slowly lose interest and potentially revert to more centrist broadcasters. The shrinking popularity of Fox News in the US does not however come as a result of a move towards centrism, quite the opposite.  Fox News’ recent dip in ratings is due to the increase in other radical far-right outlets such as Newsmax and One America News. Newsmax is one of the most popular online fringe media networks in America, with a subscription count that increased over 300% in the two weeks following the election, it brandished 1.7 million subscribers by 5 January. Online news and opinion sites are not subject to the same regulation, and Newsmax is far more extreme than Fox, pushing conspiracy theories and hatred, and arguably playing a large role in inciting the violence at the capitol earlier this year.

I believe that this is the most harmful potential outcome of the ‘Foxification’ of British news. It seems likely that right-wing commentators and viewers who were promised a voice for right-leaning journalism and opinion will be disappointed with the restrictions placed on News UK TV and GB News. Their disappointment, influenced by the polarisation of post-Brexit Britain and fed by these channels, will turn them to more extreme media outlets for opinions.

GB News and News UK TV will be highly regulated and will need, legally, to provide a balanced array of views. These channels should worry us nonetheless. ‘Bubble culture’, whereby the individual surrounds themselves only with commentary with which they agree, will only be heightened with the rise of opinionated, partisan news. To predict what a post-Covid world will look like can only be conjecture, but these channels will not help to close post-Brexit political and social chasms within the UK.

Image Credit: Elf Sternberg via Flickr & Creative Commons.

Meet the Balliol student running for Oxfordshire County Council

Sasha Mills
-
0
Meet the Balliol student running for Oxfordshire County Council

Sasha Mills speaks to Michael O’Connor, a student at Balliol studying for a master’s in philosophy, who is running in this year’s County Council Elections for the University Parks Ward who is also a member of the last standing Oxford team in this year’s University Challenge. 

SM: I thought I would start by asking how you got into politics in the first place. Not everyone does this kind of thing, you know?

MOC: I obviously have a general political interest in things like climate change, or homelessness in the city. All these things just matter to me.

In terms of why local government specifically, my parents live in London. And in 2018, I happened to live next door to the local Labour Party campaign coordinator. And one day I bumped into him, and he said, “Do you want to come knocking on doors?” And I sort of said, “Yeah, okay!”

And I ended up spending a lot of time knocking on doors for three counsellors. And they just seemed like really wonderful people who cared about even [the] very boring bits of local politics, which wasn’t something I knew that much about. There’s something that’s very attractive about knowing a community well, quite aside from the broader things that you can do in local politics, there’s also just the fact that talking to people, doing things for them on that close, local level is just very rewarding. 

And then there’s also the fact that in this particular situation, where there’s a pandemic on, Labour are looking for candidates and when there’s a Tory government at Westminster that isn’t doing very much on climate change. And when you do walk through the city every day, or when you’re driving into the city, you see the marks of inequality. Or you go from Greater Leys to Central Oxford, and there’s a 15-year life expectancy difference, or you walk to the city centre – and it’s not unfamiliar as somebody who has lived in London and been at the centre of London – but you do see people who just don’t have homes on the streets. 

So, it’s a sort of cocktail of those things.

SM: You’re obviously running as a Labour candidate. How does what you do relate to what people tend to think of as ‘Labour,’ which is Labour in Westminster, Keir Starmer, etc. 

MOC: Hmm, well, I guess there is quite a difference between local politics and national politics. But equally, there’s substantial value overlap. The National Party cares about addressing issues like climate change, it cares about making sure that we live in a country where everybody has a home, everybody has an opportunity. 

So in that sense, there’s a link, but local councils are, I would say, quite autonomous to some degree. And that is a good thing, insofar as it means that when there’s a government at Westminster, that isn’t doing as much as you’d like on certain issues, local government can still do its own thing. Obviously the local government has to balance its budget. Other than council tax, it doesn’t have the same powers of taxation. 

There is that fundamental value overlap. But then [it’s also] a powerful site of change in its own right, and has that degree of autonomy.

SM: How do you think the University Parks fit into what’s going on at the county level? And what do you think are the issues that are most pressing specifically in this area?

MOC: The city council deals with housing planning, waste collection, leisure, it’s technically responsible for things like homelessness and the environment, but it has to work very close to the county council on them. And the county council [is] just education, social services, transport, etc. 

And the University Parks division of the county council is basically just the very centre of Oxford, and some residential areas a bit North. So the only thing that it directly influences in that area is transport. But that’s critically important at the moment, because many of the city’s plans to reduce emissions and make Oxford greener and more livable hinge on cooperation from the county council in that area. 

But also, you have a vote on all issues on the county council. So anything that it deals with from, education, to social services, all fall within that sort of purview. And especially because University Parks is mostly student-y, it kind of gives you licence to rove further, and to take a more ideals based approach.

SM: How do you think that student politics and the political scenes in unis, like Oxford, fits into the national scene? And also that kind of links into, how do you think the best way of representing students will be in the county council? So it’s kind of a two-part question, one that’s kind of ideological and slightly wishy-washy. How do students fit into politics? Do they fit into politics all the time? I’m not convinced that they do. 

MOC: In Oxford itself, there’s student politics in terms of, OULC and OULD, and that sort of thing. There’s Oxford SU, the JCRs, and there’s also the great activist campaigns – Oxford Worker Justice, Oxford Climate Justice Campaign, Oxford Fair Living Wage Campaign. And then things like It Happens Here, which exist in pretty much every university. 

Oxford [University] is quite crucial to the visual life of the city as a whole, because the university is such a big part of the city. It employs so many people, it’s so big and wealthy. So anything that they can do, together with, say, the SU, to change how the university works, inevitably has effects in the city, like efforts made for the living wage. 

The activist groups in Oxford SU and JCRs are important because they influence the university and the university has an influence on how the city council operates. And these little activist groups can often exert influence within, say, the labour group on the council. Lots of counsellors work closely with them. 

In terms of where students fit in more generally, they have lots of time on their hands, and they care about lots of things. And so it’s often in student groups or people in further education [that]  really powerful ideas come out. That’s as true in Oxford as anywhere else. 

I guess that because students don’t have set places of residence, they switch from one place to another – they’re only at University for three years – they don’t necessarily see that much of the whole city. And they’re hard to canvas: you can’t walk down the road and knock on their doors, especially if they’re in colleges. They do perhaps tend to be sidelined by big parties trying to get votes. 

And University Parks, for instance, the turnout is often very low indeed, like 20-30% or something. Even in [2017], when there’s a general election, the local elections turnout still wasn’t huge in these Central wards. So the product of that is that maybe their voices don’t get heard as much as they might be.

SM: It seems like, from what I read in your campaign materials, that climate change and climate policy [is] the heart of what you want to work on. What do you think the best would be the best policies for Labour to be pushing for on a national level? And what do you think can happen in Oxford further to the initiatives that are already ongoing?

MOC:  Well, I don’t want to commit myself too far, because I’m really not an expert. I mean, I should say that one of the reasons why I’m emphasising say climate change [is] you want to give people something that you can actually do. And Oxford is taking great measures on the environment. The county council is sort of getting in the way. 

So, I can say, if you vote Labour, this is something we can give you. This is something we will give you. And it resonates with students who are not necessarily in Oxford for the long term, [and] care about lots of different issues. But climate change is one that just hits home because it affects everybody everywhere. 

Setting a target can be self-fulfilling, [and] if you set an ambitious target, you then change your policy to meet the ambitious targets. Merely setting the target already has an effect. So just an ambitious Net Zero target, probably combined with the kind of Green New Deal that was being sold a couple of years back, and [that] Keir Starmer committed to in running for leader, something along those lines. 

Oxford is already sort of over a decade or more ahead in its targets. And it’s not just its targets, they’re actually meeting them, the council will go Net Zero at the end of this year. And one of the best things Oxford’s ever done is had a climate assembly a couple of years ago, which just got together with lots of ordinary people who gave them lots of information about the climate. And then said, “What do you think we should do?”, and the overwhelming consensus was ‘the climate crisis is a huge issue and Oxford needs to do as much as possible and go as fast as it can’. 

And the city’s policies have reflected that. Recently, as well as its main budget, it had a whole climate budget, increasing funding by [18] million pounds per year, with 50 million pounds towards insulating homes and all these different measures. 

SM: There is a really massive contrast between this enormously wealthy University, and then the poorer parts of the city. What do you think are the long term changes that need to happen in order to address this wildly imbalance situation in the city?

MOC: There’s a really interesting reflection by Danny Dorling, a Professor of Geography at Oxford, who grew up in Oxford, on how Oxford has changed, and how it’s always been unequal. But the inequality, as in so many other parts of the country, has accelerated, and become even more geographically divided. 

The real inequality is between the north of Oxford and then the East, especially areas like the Leys out beyond Temple Cowley, where the car factories still are. And the problem with trying to resolve inequalities like that is that there is no single thing behind them all. I guess one of the central issues is housing and poor quality of housing, food poverty, fuel poverty, high rent payments, all these things that play into that.

I mean, the city council announced last year a plan to build 11,000 New Homes, and had a very active [plans] for the past five years or so on food poverty and fuel poverty, the former of which is mostly modelled on the ones that they have in Bristol, and it’s championed the Oxford living wage. 

And those sorts of things have had an effect. I think in 2015, there were several Oxford areas in the bottom decile of most deprived areas in the country. And then 63 of the 83 areas into which Oxford’s divided improved, according to the government’s indices of deprivation, between 2015 and 2019. So something’s clearly having an effect. 

But equally, there is still that big educational and income inequality, and that massive life expectancy difference between, I mean, the far north of my division, life expectancy is late 80s, and might even be 90. And then some parts, sort of in the east of Oxford, just beyond the and around the ring road, it’s 15 years below that.

So in terms of what can actually be done, one of the key things is housing, it’s building more homes, it’s improving the homes already there, it’s doing things like improving the efficiency of those homes, because if they’re not well insulated, then that means higher energy bills, and that leads to fuel poverty. And that also ties in with the environmental agenda; they mesh quite neatly. 

Danny Dorling’s essay is about the University in relation to the inequality in the city. Oxford hasn’t built many schools in the past 50 years. And he says it wouldn’t be that hard for, say, a College to give up a playing field for a new school. And you look at things like for instance in the living wage, the University recently signed up as a living wage employer. But I mean, as Cherwell recently wrote, many colleges are not still not paying the living wage. The University can’t abdicate its responsibility on that front. Because it exists in the city. 

SM: So we’re going to wrap up by talking about University Challenge. How did you even end up doing that? How does it work? I don’t understand it to be honest. 

MOC: Usually, if you’re a JCR president, you get an email from a producer at University Challenge around September every year. And it is (laughs), a quiz show I should clarify. 

And a couple of years before I joined Balliol, a Balliol team won it. And one of the remaining team members was there when I was in first year. And I took the test and got on the team, but then we didn’t get on TV. 

And then last year, [I] did it again for the third time, my third year, and we got on. And I suppose that, clearly, you’re not somebody that watches University Challenge, but for a certain small segment of the country – I was sort of aware of it. I knew Balliol had won it and I’d watched a couple of series quite closely. 

And it’s one of those things that’s just very enjoyable to be on. I mean, it’s such a nice home for all those useless bits of information that you have buried in your head. I was on it with four people from Balliol […]. We did our first first sort of sets of filming a few months ago, and then everything stopped because of lockdown. So to film the rest of the rounds, we journeyed up to the studios in the middle of the long pandemic months. 

It’s quite surreal, we checked into a Holiday Inn in Manchester and sort of got into the studio with these great big glass screens between us (laughs). 

The Oxfordshire County Council Elections are taking place on the 6th of May, and the deadline for voting registration is the 19th of April. You can find out more about the election here. 

Image Credit: Michael O’Connor

Remembering Mickey Lewis

Cherwell Sport
-
0
Remembering Mickey Lewis

CW: Death

Members of the Oxfordshire and wider football communities have been paying tribute to Mickey Lewis, ex-player and coach for Oxford United and coach of 18 years for OUAFC, who died on 5th March.

Mickey’s tragic death at the age of 56, after a short battle with cancer, has shocked and saddened clubs and individuals from across the football pyramid, including many of the thousands of young players he coached both within Oxford University and elsewhere in the city.

His contribution to football in Oxfordshire is immeasurable, and nothing short of legendary. Mickey readily took on backroom roles as diverse as caretaker manager, stand-in physio, and occasional coach driver on top of his playing duties at professional club Oxford United. Later, he devoted himself to working as a youth coach at United, as well as with semi-pro side Oxford City (where he led the Velocity Football programme) and OUAFC, whom he guided to one of their most successful periods ever.

Speaking to Cherwell, current Blues Captain Ben Putland described Mickey as “an incredibly kind, generous, and funny man who taught us much more than football” and “a lifelong friend to hundreds of Blues, past and present”.

OUAFC hopes to celebrate Mickey’s life and achievements with a number of commemorative events over the next year and beyond, while a GoFundMe has been set up in Mickey’s memory alongside several of his other clubs, with the aim of supporting wife Suzanne and son Zach, whom Mickey leaves behind.

Suzanne and Zach Lewis made the following statement following Mickey’s death: “It is with deep sadness that we have to tell you our beloved Micky has lost his short battle with cancer.

“Micky fought with typical bravery and tenacity having been diagnosed only two weeks ago with a rare and aggressive form of lung cancer.

“As we all know Micky loved football, loved people and loved life and we will miss him so very much.

“We would appreciate some privacy right now but will announce any details in due course because we know how loved Micky was.”

As a player, Mickey Lewis spent his early years at West Brom and Derby County, before moving to Oxford United, where, between 1988 and 2000, he would go on to make over 350 appearances and become a fan favourite – earning the nickname ‘Mad Dog’ with his tenacious midfield performances.

Despite officially retiring from playing in 1996, Mickey returned to the pitch for the ‘U’s during a short period in the 1999-2000 season, on account of an injury crisis in the first-team squad.

Between 1996 and 2015, he had spells as the club’s youth-team coach, assistant manager, and caretaker manager (twice), while additionally lending his hand when necessary to odd jobs such as driving the team bus and deputising for the club physio – in short, Mickey became a much-loved, much-valued part of the furniture in the club’s backroom. He also spent time working in a coaching capacity at Oxford City F.C. and Banbury United, as well as several other professional and semi-professional clubs outside Oxfordshire.

Mickey joined OUAFC in 2002 and inspired the Blues to a hat-trick of Varsity wins in his first three years as coach. In the period since, Mickey’s side were only beaten over 90 minutes on three occasions, and won four of the five most recent Varsity clashes. Sustained success was also found under his guidance in the BUCS league system and the Brookes Varsity series, while the annual ‘Old Boys’ game offered a chance for OUAFC alumni to return and catch up with Mickey, a “highlight” for many former Blues, according to the club.

Putland told Cherwell: “Mickey coached us like he would coach any of his professional sides. He was passionate about bringing the professional experience to all tiers of the game and to players of all backgrounds and characters.

“It didn’t matter what level you played; everyone got the same treatment and we loved being given that opportunity.

“His unwavering dedication, enthusiasm, and endless positivity drove the Blues’ ambitious and determined culture. Yet, he had a brilliant ability to always maintain a light and fun atmosphere, often filled with his contagious laughter. We enjoyed every session, and a huge part of the enjoyment was down to Mickey’s character and company.

“We feel very lucky to have known him, and he’ll be sorely missed. We’re sending all our love to Suzanne, Zach, and family.”

Players from across Mickey’s 18-year tenure at OUAFC came together to send their messages of love, support, and thanks shortly after his diagnosis. The club will dedicate the annual ‘Old Boys’ game to Mickey, while plans are also being made to honour him at this year’s Varsity match.

Two former Blues gave Cherwell the following statements in tribute to Mickey and his work with OUAFC:

Leo Ackerman (Blues Captain 2018-19): “I remember the first time Mickey and I sat down to discuss our plans for the 2018/19 season.

“I walked into the Costa Coffee on the Banbury Road, full of nerves, fumbling through my pockets to make sure I had enough change to purchase a coffee for Mickey. I spotted him, shook his hand nervously, and asked what he wanted to drink. ‘Large triple latte mate, with an extra shot’. It was 5.30pm.

“I went up, grabbed the coffee, and sat back down, leather notebook in my sweaty palms, ready to share my rudimentary tactical ideas with a man who had played and managed in the game for over thirty years.

“He saw the anxiety and lack of confidence in my eyes. He must have, because he grasped his rocket fuel in his right hand, flashed his eyes open wide, curved a slight but unmistakeable smile at me, and said: ‘don’t be nervous, son. Be your own man and everything is going to be fine’.

“We might have been pretty rubbish that season, but those words still soothe and strengthen me every day. Mickey has motivated, inspired, and guided generations of OUAFC players just like me.

“There have and will be in years to come better fathers, brothers, and sons, because of his legacy. Boys that came to university and left having learnt to be their own men.

“We will always be grateful for everything that he did for us.”

Leon Farr (Blues Captain 2010-11): “Mickey was more than a football coach to hundreds of players who worked with him across his two decades of service to OUAFC.

“As a coach, he was an incredible communicator, motivator and tactician. Passionate, intelligent, with an instinctive ability to get the best out of every player. Mickey enjoyed a successful career as a top-level professional player and coach, but he never patronised OUAFC. He took his role at the club seriously, but never too seriously, and his training sessions were relentlessly fun.

“His energy and enthusiasm were legendary and I’m still laughing at his training ground gags 10 years later. We would have run through a brick wall for him.

“Off the pitch, Mickey was the same as he was on it. Funny, kind-hearted, and generous with his time – a man who loved his family and his job.

“Mickey would often say: ‘Don’t let the game pass you by!’ and for me it summed him up perfectly. He never did let life pass him by, and I feel so lucky to have known him. I’ll miss him terribly.”

Special thanks to Ben Putland for his contribution to this article.

Image credits: Oxford University Association Football Club

Mickey Lewis Memorial Fund: https://www.gofundme.com/f/mickey-lewis-memorial-fund-official 

 

Anti-racism workshops aren’t a waste, they’re essential

Shariq Haidery
-
0
Anti-racism workshops aren’t a waste, they’re essential

CW: racism.

Stories about Oxford and the various policy decisions its constituent colleges make periodically find their way into the national press.  I did not, however, expect to find one about my college and a workshop it put on attacked by the Daily Mail. St Hugh’s College set up a workshop, called ‘It’s All About Race’ at the start of this year to further educate its undergraduate students on racism and how we can tackle it going forward. The Daily Mail article criticises St Hugh’s College for putting on this anti-racism workshop and has a statement from a member of St Hugh’s about how the workshop was a “colossal waste of time and money”.

Before I go on to respond to the anonymous member of St Hugh’s who claims “I have seen no inkling of racism since I have been here,” I would like to clarify a few of the concerns the article expresses about the workshop. Firstly, the article does labour the point that the workshop is meant to “question ingrained attitudes” and frames this as a negative. My own response to this is that the workshop was intended to question ingrained attitudes and have people rethink their perspective. Indeed, this is only logical if the ingrained attitudes in question would be detrimental to the well-being of other members of the college, which racist attitudes obviously would be. As someone who deeply regrets the use of homophobic, antisemitic, transphobic, and racist language when they were younger, I wish I had been able to attend workshops like the one put on by Hugh’s sooner to get rid of the biases that were ingrained into me by my upbringing in a family that were hostile to anyone who was not a Pakistani Muslim. It was not until I went to high school and had my biases challenged by friends that were Jewish, Black, gay, or transgender that made me question the implicit or explicit attitudes I had. Even then, this process took pretty much till the end of secondary school. Workshops like the one put on by Hugh’s would have accelerated this process by directly challenging the way I viewed the world.

The second thing I would like to highlight is how the article consistently refers to the government’s ‘scepticism’ of anti-racism. It does so as if the government is an unbiased and purely latitudinarian entity. One only needs to look at those to whom Boris Johnson has given power and the views they hold to understand the ideological reasoning that lies behind the government’s scepticism. For example, Munira Mirza, who Boris appointed to head his commission on racial inequality in the wake of the death of George Floyd, claims that systemic and institutional racism is not a “reality” but rather a “perception”. She also claims that anti-racism is a “grievance culture”. Is it really surprising that we hear such a sceptical line from the government given the clear ideological aversion Boris and co. have regarding anti-racist activism?

Now that I have clarified a few things mentioned in the article, I want to respond to the anonymous claims. They say, and I quote, “Oxford is increasingly out of touch with the real world. I have seen no inkling of racism since I have been here.” I’m sorry – what planet have you been living on? I honestly find it hard to believe that anyone could make such an assertion in good faith. There is clearly a disconnect between a statement like “I have seen no inkling of racism” and the reality of what BAME students at St Hugh’s have experienced.

I know for a fact awful racial slurs have been used by JCR members. I know for a fact that students have made racist and disparaging jokes about a specific ethnicity or race. I know for a fact that deeply problematic jokes about the BAME community here in Hugh’s have been made. I’d classify these as ‘primary’ incidents of racism, i.e. clearly racist behaviour. The anti-racism workshop obviously helps to solve these issues. A known response to this is that while anti-racism helps solve these issues, simply not being racist would achieve the same. Therefore, shouldn’t we abandon anti-racism and stick to just not being racist if it prevents these primary incidents of racism?

Whilst not being racist might solve these primary incidents, the attitudes that lie behind them remain. This in turn can lead to what I would call ‘secondary’ incidents of racism. These are matters that aren’t explicitly racist, unlike primary incidents. This includes things such as defending racist jokes or harassing other students about whether or not they go to a college. Anti-racism and anti-racist training help to root out the attitudes that help perpetuate these secondary incidents, which in turn prop up the environment where primary incidents of racism occur. Thus, although it may be right to say just not being racist may lead to fewer reports of primary incidents of racism in the short term, in the long term not being actively anti-racist perpetuates a hostile environment for BAME students where secondary incidents go unchallenged and this can lead back to primary incidents.

Before I sign off, whoever this member of St Hugh’s is should be appalled by the social divisions they have helped to inflame. A significant chunk of the commenters on the Daily Mail article are racists who now feel vindicated in their view of Oxford and wider society at large. The article and the Hugh’s member portray such a false picture of how things actually are here at Oxford that it is no wonder this false description perpetuates the image, among Daily Mail readers, that Oxford is a bastion of overzealous wokeness that simply doesn’t work. In reality, Oxford and Hugh’s specifically are taking the right steps in fostering a more accommodating environment for BAME students and making us feel as though the university is a place for us, too. Whilst I am angered by the comments, I do not simply mean to demean my fellow Hughsie’s belief. I hope to express my genuine hurt at their ignorance. Only by addressing my own views and behaviour was I able to develop as a person. If I wasn’t challenged, and instead denied the existence of discrimination that I helped to perpetuate, I wouldn’t be the person I am today.

Why we should listen to the activists of 2020

Matilda Gettins
-
0
Why we should listen to the activists of 2020

As 2020 came to a close, a glimmer of hope appeared on the horizon: not one, but two, but three approved Covid-19 vaccines. The end of the pandemic seemed in sight, and a wave of optimism for 2021 set in. But two months in, not only is the Covid-19 crisis still as present as ever, but we are increasingly realizing that the pre-Covid status quo was no less racist, sexist or Paris-Agreement-compatible than the present.

A history of arbitrary discrimination

A crisis is a condition of instability or danger on a socioeconomic and/or political level. Some crises are external, such as Covid-19 (to a certain extent). But crises can also be internal, meaning that they are (re)produced by the very system they affect. Many structural crises are a product of our history of arbitrary discrimination; unfavourable treatment of a group for reasons unrelated to the basis of discrimination. Contemporary arbitrary discrimination includes race increasing the risk of being incarcerated and women earning less than men.

It’s not just that race and gender are irrelevant in determining a person’s criminal or professional profile. It’s that race and gender don’t exist as biological traits like height or hair colour do – they exist purely as social constructs. These constructs were created to justify exploitation; race was created to justify racism and slavery, and gender to depict women as being “naturally submissive”.

Protesting against injustice in 2020

To fight this injustice, movements such as Black lives matter, NiUnaMenos and Fridays For Future protested throughout 2020, undeterred by the hurdles of the pandemic.

1. Black Lives Matter

“Race does not exist but it does kill people.”
Even if it is a social construct, race continues to perpetuate oppression. UK residents with BAME backgrounds are twice as likely to die from Covid-19. George Floyd, Eric Gartner and Breonna Taylor would not have died if they were white. This reality was never hidden. But it was largely ignored, and still is. The Black Lives Matter movement, demanding that this injustice finally end, gained incredible momentum in 2020. An estimated 15 to 26 million people attended the protests in the US.

Politicians rushed to be seen taking the knee in solidarity, and Instagram was flooded with #BlackLivesMatter and #BlackOutTuesday. But sustainable solidarity – listening and enforcing demands to defund the police and to instead increase spending on social programmes – has fallen short. In January 2021, images of Donald Trump supporters storming the US capitol – facing a stark lack of law enforcement services – shocked the world. But when contrasted against the deployment of the national guard during the May 2020 peaceful Black Lives Matters protests, the situation seems even more perverse. The movement’s global network rightly called out “the hypocrisy in our country’s law enforcement response to protest.”

2. Abortion protests and green Wave

2020 also saw loud cries to end gender inequality. In Argentina, the movement #NiUnaMenos (‘Not one less’ – meaning not one woman more lost to gender violence) brought almost a million people to the streets in 2018. The green headscarf used in protest alludes to the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo movement, who protested successfully against the disappearance of their children during the 1976-83 dictatorship. The resulting ‘green wave’ of feminist activism helped lead to the landmark achievement on the 30th of December 2020: the legalisation of abortion. Abortion remains altogether prohibited in Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador. Despite momentous protests, the Polish conservative PiS party passed a near-total ban on abortion in October 2020.

3. Indigenous rights and climate justice

There are also less evident forms of structural discrimination. The climate crisis – or those contributing to it – indirectly discriminate based on age or nationality. 

Fridays For Future is a global climate justice movement inspired by school-striker Greta Thunberg. It brought millions of people to the streets in 2019; the pandemic required the movement to take different measures. In April, German activists had the biggest ever online protest, with over 200 000 viewers. But the climate crisis will have its biggest impact, not on rich, northern nations, but will disproportionately affect poorer people and the global South – even though these nations have lower emissions.

Yet perhaps the most perverse effects are on indigenous peoples. The impacts of the climate crisis make many traditional ways of life – which are usually low carbon or carbon-neutral – impossible. Not only does it alter entire ecosystems, but it makes predictions and decision-making very difficult. The Nenets, who have lived with their reindeer herds for generations on the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia, are having to cope with increased forest fires, shorter periods in which they can travel on frozen rivers, and a rise in floods.

In Canada, climate activists and indigenous people joined together in a wave of civil disobedience in February. They erected rail blockades to protest against a new pipeline in the Wet’suwet’en territory.

4. Belarusian protests

Corrupt politics is a different type of structural oppression. It is not one societal group being arbitrarily oppressed by another. It is a whole population (with the exception of the profiting elite) being intentionally oppressed through governmental power-structures.

Belarusian President Lukashenko has long been referred to as “the last dictator of Europe”. In August 2020, his rigged reelection – he has been in power since 1994 – sparked momentous protests. The colours of the opposition, red and white, dominated the protests, which resulted in roughly 25 000 arrests. Red and white symbolise the historical Belarusian flag, abolished when Belarus first became a part of the Soviet Union.

Even after their ‘break-up’, Belarus and Russia have, in general, stayed relatively close economic partners, with Russia buying Belarusian loyalty through cheap oil prices. But it’s not just corrupt elites who work together – the current protests against Putin in Russia may be drawing their inspiration from Belarusian activists’ bravery.

Yet even as mass demonstrations in Belarus have quieted, activists continue to spread pictures of snowmen dressed in red and white on Belarusian Telegram Channels. Telegram gained massive popularity as a communication medium when Lukaschenko blocked most internet sites and services as news of the rigged election began spreading.

For the time being, the protests have, in some ways, had opposite effects. The instability worsened it’s already poor currency ranking, making Belarus even more dependent on Russia for currency credits. 

Moving forward

Don’t clap. Listen. 

We have a tendency to glorify activists. Perhaps it’s because we like supporting the underdog, or because we feel better if we know someone else is addressing the problem.  But just like health care workers, they don’t need our applause – they need things to change.

Ending discrimination requires giving up privilege

Privilege and discrimination are two parts of the same coin. If we condemn structural discrimination as being based on arbitrary factors, then acknowledging the resulting privilege is simply not good enough. Our silence allows structural oppression to continue.  We all need to be protesting against and condemning it.

You don’t need to “be an activist” to take action. You can educate people, sharing calls to action or resources on your social media channels. You can donate time or money to existing social movements. You can organise pressure on institutions (e.g. the university) or politicians. You can – and should – make sure to call out racism, sexism whenever you see it.

And yes, that may be uncomfortable. But that’s better than being comfortable in a world of structural injustice. And if we manage that, then, maybe, 2021 will be a little better after all.

Image Credit: John Englart via Wikimedia & Creative Commons. 

 

General Motors’ stake in China’s Electric Vehicle market

Gabriel Ng
-
0
General Motors’ stake in China’s Electric Vehicle market

The Wuling Mini EV is a small, nifty $4500 city car currently on sale in China. It is manufactured by SAIC-GM-Wuling, a joint venture between the American firm General Motors (GM) and two Chinese firms, SAIC and Wuling Motors. It saw record sales in 2020, surpassing all competitors in unit sales in the Chinese market except the Tesla Model 3.

This electric car has somewhat of an odd but likeable look (it looks like it has been compressed from back to front), and it represents a very successful foray for the quintessential American firm GM into the Chinese market. Apart from its significant stake in Wuling Motors, GM also has a significant stake in Baojun, another Chinese auto brand that has its own EV models.

Thus, when I read that GM plans to transition to all-electric vehicles by 2035, it struck me as a strategic move that sought to take advantage of growing global interest in EVs, at the same time as drawing on its established links with its EV subsidiaries in China. In fact, the data shows that a significant proportion of their current EV sales are going to China. It seems that in the future they will be looking to take advantage of the growing Chinese market and expand its market share there.

Other Competition? 

GM is not the only automaker committing to all-electric vehicles. Jaguar has announced recently that they will be an all-electric brand by 2025. These announcements are perhaps motivated by a recent surge in EV automaker’s stocks, suggesting that they are designed to ride the current wave of EV optimism.

Tesla remains the global leading automaker in EVs with the highest profile. It saw a huge rise in its stock price in 2020, increasing nearly ten times, making Elon Musk the richest man in the world.

However, there are also huge hopes being placed in China EV market and automakers. China currently has the largest EV market in the world, with nearly half of the global stock of EVs and twice the market of the US. Its current percentage of EVs on the road is around 5%, higher than the US’s 2%. Although the Tesla Model 3 remains the favourite EV model there, Tesla faces stiff competition from local Chinese automakers.

These companies have also seen a huge rise in their stock price in the past year. In terms of market-capitalisation, while Tesla takes the number one spot, Chinese automakers Nio (7th) and BYD (5th) are in the top ten. In particular, Nio, an EV-only manufacturer, has seen its stock rise so much that it now surpasses the market value of more well-known brands like BMW and Volvo. 

Nio’s high share price cannot be justified by its number of global units sold, only selling around 44000 units, compared with BMW’s 2.3 million units. It can only be explained by the very high hopes currently being placed in China’s EV future, and in the future earnings of these Chinese EV firms.

It remains to be seen if Nio’s share price is a bubble waiting to burst, but there are some indicators that China will continue to lead the world in the major transition into EVs in the future. I experienced it first-hand when I went to Fuzhou, China in 2019, where I was surprised to find that most of their public buses in the city were all-electric buses. I was impressed by the quietness of the journey and also by their swift acceleration.

China’s EV Future: Misplaced Optimism? 

One reason for worldwide optimism of China’s EV future is the enthusiasm and support from the Chinese government for EVs.  The Chinese government has implemented a huge range of policies including EV quotas for vehicle manufacturers and importers, tax exemptions and subsidies, government procurement, and promoting the development of EV charging infrastructure. This sets the stage for even more widespread adoption of EVs in China. In particular, its infrastructure implementation has been particularly impressive. As of 2019, 82% of global fast chargers were located in China.

One gets the feeling that the Chinese government will have the resources and will to implement the necessary investment and policies for the long-haul transition to EVs. As Liu Jing, a professor at the Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business in Beijing says, “[when it comes to the car industry] the most important thing is what the government does”. In the US, there are some promising signs with Biden pledging to turn the federal fleet to all-electric vehicles, but the future remains uncertain depending on the stance of subsequent elected governments.

China’s automakers are poised to take advantage of a rise in demand. The country has the industrial production capacity suited for a huge rollout of EVs, as it is currently the leading maker of big battery packs for EVs and the leading producer of electric motors. China also has control over the world’s production of key raw materials needed for EVs including the rare earth metals lithium and cobalt. So, China has all the necessary ingredients to become the world’s largest EV automaker in the future.

In addition, Chinese firms are competing with Tesla to be the foremost innovators in EV technology. Battery swapping technology, where instead of charging the battery, the depleted battery is swapped with a fully charged identical one in a booth, has recently seen significant uptake in China. Tesla first showcased its own battery swapping technology back in 2013 but so far has failed in the US due to a lack of customer demand. Nio, on the other hand, have built their own battery-swapping stations around China and now offers battery swapping services to all those that buy its cars. It remains to be seen if this can become the mainstream service for battery replenishing.

How do the EV industry prospects of the US (home to GM) compare with China? In my opinion, out of the two markets, China has bigger growth prospects. Their government is, on the whole, more committed to the EV transition and they have promising start-ups. I forecast that China’s EV market will continue to lead global demand and there will be a rise of Chinese automakers.

Can General Motors Compete?

Where does this leave GM, in its move to become an all-electric car company by 2035? Since GM has joint ventures in China, it will certainly be able to carve out some market share there. However, GM is the home to iconic car brands like GMC (Hummer) and Cadillac. Will these all be put aside in favour of foreign offerings such as the Wuling Mini EV?

The recent unveiling of the Hummer EV would suggest not. In fact, when I first heard of the Hummer EV, I immediately dismissed it, saying that surely macho fans of the original Hummer would not be welcoming of a quiet non-revving electric car. However, on seeing the press release video, I warmed to it. To me, the Hummer EV is coolness personified. It has the look of a car from the future (in a different way to the Tesla Cybertruck), but at the same time keeps the character of the original Hummer. Its features such as the crabwalk, which allows its wheels to move diagonally add punch to the whole package.

Where I see firms like GM being able to compete with Chinese automakers is not in the realm of cost or technology. Chinese firms, with their access to their efficient production facilities, have an edge on cost, and they are swiftly catching up to the US in technology. Firms like GM have to compete in terms of design and branding. This is why Tesla still remains the most popular EV today even in China, due to its iconic brand name.

However, it is not certain whether offerings like the Hummer EV will achieve significant sales in either the US or China due to its large price tag (starting at $112,595). The profitability of an all-EV line-up is still in question. Nonetheless, the Hummer EV is a positive affirmation that GM will stay true to its iconic brand in the future. In doing so, there is hope that domestic consumers will warm to EVs along with being attractive to the foreign Chinese market.

Image Credit: David290 via Wikimedia and Creative Commons. 

The Next Giant Leap

Harry Chapman
-
0
The Next Giant Leap

On the 14th of December last year, a routine coronavirus briefing in Thailand became significantly less mundane when a Thai minister accidentally announced an ambitious plan to build, launch and operate a lunar orbiter within seven years. This was met with near-universal scorn from Thai people on social media as yet another of the crazy policy by the kingdom’s hugely unpopular military led-government. The program itself was not meant to be announced until early this year – but, slowly more details have steadily been released before all was unveiled on January 13th. With a budget of 3 billion baht (approximately £72 million, or $100 million), it aims to launch a craft massing 300kg, ferrying microsatellites to lunar orbit to carry out observations and gather data.

Unsurprisingly, another torrent of criticism followed the release of all the details. Some questioned its small budget and fast timeframe. Predictably though, most questioned the fundamental value of a lunar orbiter. This was a project already undertaken by other space programs, with the reasonable assumption that government funds should be spent on better things in a country with a bleak economic outlook.

Of course, these criticisms have some validity. Nonetheless, there are arguably more merits to programs like these for developing nations than would be apparent at first glance. Many lunar programs, such as the Apollo project, and the corresponding Luna programme of the Soviet Union did cost far more than the allotted Thai budget, or than any nation short of a superpower could ever afford to spend on a program.

It is not the 1960s anymore, and more recent lunar lander programs, by India’s IRSO, and Israel’s ISA, are much more comparable in cost, with budgets around $100 million (the two programs took seven and eight years, respectively). True, both countries have much more experience in launching and manufacturing as well as longer history of lunar operations than most developing nations; still, they also were building lunar landers, which are much more technically complicated (evident by the fact both landers crashed on their landing attempts).

The claims that developing nations have more important things to spend their money on also have some legitimacy; but, of the 200-odd nations in the world, for 130 nations, it would account for less than half a per cent of government spending over seven years. For Thailand, India, and Israel, the relative or projected costs of their programs account for less than 0.02% of government spending over a seven-year timescale. This is not a small amount of money but contrasted with the budget for the king of Thailand, Indian corporate tax cuts, or Israeli corruption scandals, it is a rounding error.

Now, this of course does not mean that it could not be spent better. Yet, if other space programs are anything to go by, their return of investment directly and indirectly alone justifies the money spent. The Apollo program has been estimated to have a return of investment of anywhere from $2 to the dollar to $40 to the dollar as a result of the direct and indirect employment; the spinoff technologies and companies spawned by the advances in research of the program. A less sensational and more modern program, like the United Kingdom’s Space Agency (UKSA), has been touted to have a return of investment for space science programs as anywhere between £2 to £4 directly, with £4 to £14 indirectly, for each pound spent. Considering that the UKSA accounts for 0.04% of the total budget, it is much more of an apt comparison than NASA and the Apollo project, which peaked at 5% of the US budget.

Despite strong evidence that investment in space is a good form of investment for development, there are more persuasive reasons for a program like this. These types of programs are ambitious, and, in all likelihood, will overrun, both on time and budget. Only seven agencies (six national agencies, and the European Space Agency) have achieved lunar orbiters before. For both Israel and India, the success of their programs was much to the surprise of the rest of the world, especially compared to the conventional wisdom which informs the gargantuan budgets of ROSCOSMOS and NASA. Developing nations just simply have seldom attempted things like this before. These programs, however, would be a good chance to set up governmental, industrial, and academic infrastructure that would place them at the frontier of development in space.

One of the most important aspects which have been overlooked most in the commentary around space programs is the chance to stem the brain drain that plagues many developing nations. Space programs have always been inspirational and are great ways for governments to retain national talent and inspire more people to get into scientific fields. Space programs are also great ways of creating national investments, as many space agencies are limited to only citizens. Many companies founded in the expansion of a space sector are partially or fully government-owned. This means that investment will stay grounded in the country and no profits and benefits will be sucked up by foreign companies.

Lunar programs would be a great opportunity for any developing nation if handled well by their government; but, many developing nations are beset with corruption scandals. An additional obstacle to any developing nation is the lure of just buying services and products from western companies to further a theoretical lunar program; this is what many developing nations have done previously for terrestrial satellite projects. Whilst this may be an attractive option, as it utilises western experience and established industry, it does not bring any of the development to the nation and may end up in the budget-overrun hell that too many western projects have ended up in recently.  This would defeat the main point of the program and would result in little benefit outside the direct impact of the satellites: telecommunication infrastructure and earth observation data.

The case is clear for developing nations’ involvement in space exploration and programs like India’s, Israel’s, or Thailand’s are exciting. Such programs drive innovations in low budget space exploration and spread the budding space sector boom to more nations. Developing nations can also leverage the space sector as a tool for national investment in high-class research and development capabilities. The barrier to space is lessening and will continue to do so in the years to come, and developing nations should look to not get left behind.

Image credit: NASA via Wikimedia & Creative Commons. 

1...332333334...2,486Page 333 of 2,486

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by James Ashley