Have you ever wondered how James Bond jumps out of an aeroplane? How Interstellar’s astronaut Cooper enters a black hole? How Rocky rides the pie machine in Chicken Run? If you’re a humanities student, let me tell you that none of this was real. James Bond didn’t almost plummet to death, Matthew Mcconaughey wasn’t sent into a black hole and, sorry to say it, Chicken Run isn’t real. The creator behind it all is the Chief Scientist at DNEG (Double Negative), Oliver James.
Oliver has created visual effects for Christopher Nolan’s Tenet, Oppenheimer and Batman Begins, along with a few James Bond and Harry Potter films amongst his other works. His involvement in Interstellar won him an Oscar for visual effects and awed the audiences with its simulation of a black hole.
It was through a passion for photography, knack for computing and deep understanding of physics that Oliver was able to find his niche. Not unlike Harry Potter, he says, “I was one of those kids who had a dark room under the stairs where I used to do my black and white photography.” During his time at Christ Church college, Oxford, Oliver enjoyed Physics and specialised in courses on light. “I was really interested in things like modern optics and laser physics and atomic physics. But after I graduated, I wanted a bit of a break from that, and wanted to try photography as a profession.” A leap of faith landed him a job as an assistant in a photographic studio with only two other people on the team. “You sweep the floors, make the coffee, lift the lights, but you also learn absolutely everything about the photography business.”
Harnessing his skills with Physics and Maths, Oliver’s approach to complicated problems is to abstract it into a way you know how to solve. Except the damp, dark rooms of Christ Church: “There was a photography club in the basement of Christ Church and my pictures would come out muddy. I did finally realise that this was because it was a cold, damp cellar. You get your chemicals the right temperature but 10 minutes later, they’ve dropped down to 5 degrees rather than 20.” It was a step towards learning how to do things properly and fostered an appreciation for the right conditions. Conditions to create a black hole perhaps.
Creating something out of thin air, something you’ve never seen before, and making it seem so realistic that you could almost say that you have really seen it, is no small feat. Oliver talks about his most challenging and rewarding project of them all: Interstellar. Although it was 3 years before the first photograph of the black hole, Oliver was able to simulate the prettiest picture to date.
“Kip Thorne (Nobel Prize winning physicist) was one of the writers for Interstellar. That means that he wrote a short draft of what the movie could be and got involved very early on, and he wanted to stick to the premise that the movie would incorporate as much physics as possible while keeping it as realistic as possible. He sold Christopher Nolan that idea. So when they asked us to look at the black hole, he was available as a science advisor. There was one point, however, that changed things for me. At an early meeting, we were brainstorming about how you might depict a black hole. He was trying to explain over the telephone what would happen and what light does. At one point, I said, “Could you send me an equation describing the path of a ray of light around a black hole into an observer’s eye?”. And that must have struck the right note, because it’s literally 24 hours later that I receive a paper with all the equations I needed. And I realised that if I gave him very, very precise questions, he could give me, very, very, very precise answers to them.”
So here’s ‘How to Create a Black Hole 101’: “we started off by modelling just a black hole with no spin which makes the equations much simpler. But then there’s a plot point which needed the degree of time dilation to be right.”
For every hour spent near the black hole, 7 years passed on Earth.
“Kip Thorne made the calculations that unless the black hole has a particular spin you won’t have a stable orbit. In his mind it would be spinning at 99.8% of its maximum possible speed, but this breaks symmetry and makes the equation more complicated. So we went down that rabbit hole and designed to see what a spinning black hole will look like. And it’s actually quite subtly different from a non-spinning black hole. It looks slightly egg shaped rather than spherical.”
Christopher Nolan didn’t like the look of that, so they went 60% in the end.
“If you look very, very closely, it’s in the movie. It’s that attention to detail that led us down wonderful rabbit holes, and it almost made that part of the movie-making develop a life of its own.”
Films can bring great things: “about a year after the film came out, Kip Thorne’s project, which is LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory), detected gravitational waves. He won the Nobel Prize off the back of that. It almost felt like the visualisations of black holes brought this idea that black holes are not some kind of funnel in space, but actually spherical objects that might collide and bash into things. I think it’s helped the public understand, maybe, the significance of his discovery in gravitational waves.”
In a slightly different universe, James Bond, in Quantum Of Solace, jumps off his plane with Camille, magically touching the ground undamaged. But what do you do when hair dryers aren’t enough to mimic the wind?
“They thought they could film it in his wind tunnel, to get something more convincing. They also want to be able to do more dynamic camera movements in a very limited space. So we came up with this idea of filming it from multiple camera angles, and then recreating the geometry as a post process. A lot of the challenge in that was coming up with a way of designing software that would take eight Dalsa cameras. These were some of the early digital high res cameras used on the Mars lander.” Proving again the potential for film’s imaginative impact in science.
Image reproduced under CC BY 3.0 License from Gravitational lensing by spinning black holes in astrophysics, and in the movie Interstellar, Oliver James
When sitting through a 2 hour movie feels like a bit much for our attention span as a society attuned to youtube, the number of hours underlying the 2 that we see are more than one could imagine: “In some ways, it sort of sums up moviemaking. What you’re seeing is a distillation of millions of man hours or person hours into a two hour movie.” Speaking of behind the scenes, Ron and Hermione weren’t the only people that fell in love in Harry Potter: “In fact, I met my wife on the set of Harry Potter. We both were working at DNEG in different departments. She was going to be operating the Disney Animation and my role was working on a system for overlaying the character for Hagrids’s half-brother. So we ended up going to the studios, probably every day for a couple of months, or working on the scene. I suppose on the film set there’s quite high pressure for very short amounts of time. A lot of the time you’re sitting around waiting. Hanging out, drinking tea, eating cakes.”
Currently, Oliver is generating excitement with the integration of AI in VFX. “I didn’t really know what I wanted to do until I left university. Photography was something I’d always been interested in, so I took the plunge.” It’s often not easy to know what you want to do with your life, and much harder when your relatives ask. Whether you wish to remain an academic weapon for life, desk away crunching numbers on your laptop or bring your vivid imagination to life, there is room to do it all – if you’re anything like Oliver.
“At this rate novices will still be eligible for next year’s novice regatta” was a rower’s off-hand comment that inspired this investigation. Twelve term weeks into this academic year, unsafe river conditions have grounded rowers from the River Isis on 61% of days and the River Godstow on 85% of days, with novices especially impacted. Captains further expressed frustration over the unequal practice opportunities that favour colleges with external training facilities, a problem exacerbated by bureaucratic inefficiencies.
Because college boat clubs are under pressure to maintain their image of strength and concerned about speaking out against University-level governance, the majority of captains that spoke to Cherwell asked for anonymity. They will be referred to as captains of College A, College B, and College C.
Flag Colours
Rowers are allowed on water based on different conditions signalled through flag colours that are calculated based on how fast (and therefore how dangerous) the stream is on the respective stretch. A green flag is ideal, while light and dark blue flags impose a detailed set of restrictions on where boats can spin, who can be on crew, and whether a bankrider must be present.
Amber flags mean that only senior crews can row provided they have a senior cox, of which there are very few across the University, according to the College A captain. Red flags mean no crews are allowed on water. Black flags, which signal “do not expect to be rowing any time soon,” occurred for a dozen days toward the end of Christmas vacation when rivers around Oxford burst their banks amid severe storms.
Cherwell charted the flag colour of every day since the beginning of this school year as favourable – green, light blue, or dark blue – or unfavourable – amber, red, or black. Days that saw a change in flag colour are recorded based on morning conditions unless the change occurred before noon.
Percentages of Isis and Godstow flag colours for term days only.
During term time, Isis was unfavourable on 61% of days while Godstow was unfavourable on 85% of days. According to their respective captains, College A novices have only been on water three to four times, College B novices five to six times at best, and College C novices between one to six times.
Training during vacation was also impacted. While the flag has not typically been used during vacation time, allowing the few rowers who stay in Oxford to make their own decisions, this year OURCs kept flags up during vacation for the first time, according to College B captain. When term and vacation days are combined, Isis was unfavourable 72% of the time and Godstow was unfavourable 90% of the time.
Percentages of Isis and Godstow flag colours for all days.
Waning engagement
Notably, the majority of favourable flags took place in the first few weeks of Michaelmas, after which colleges without private external facilities were forced to seek alternatives such as a tank at Iffley, Tideway in London, or Dorney Lake, which is owned by Eton College.
College B captain told Cherwell that the tank is “very old” and in a “miserable state” with “screws falling apart” despite ongoing repairs. Tideway is “not cheap to get and arguably more dangerous than the red-flag Isis” and Dorney is “expensive and a headache to organise.”
Rowers turned to ergometers (ergs), conditioning, and group runs; College C also organised ice hockey and swimming sessions together. Still, it is difficult to maintain engagement.
College A captain said: “Enthusiasm for land training is understandably limited when the novices have barely been on the water to know what they are training for! For a sport where a lot of the teaching comes from the years above, there is also a danger that the novice year group may not be able to propagate that experience down to novices in the years to come.”
College C captain said the conditions have impacted motivation for both novices and seniors as “water time is much more fun.” The captain also said it has been harder to set crews as they haven’t seen people in a boat.
College B captain said: “a lot of clubs almost got destroyed after Covid due to a big gap in new recruits; this will have a similar impact into the future for sure.”
Bureaucratic inefficiencies
Traditionally, Isis flag colours have been set based on the number of weir gates – sliding discs used to control water level. As the river rises, more weir gates are opened to release water, and so indicate river flow rate.
During the early January flooding, however, debris of a boat got stuck in Iffley Weir. The obstruction blocks water from flowing, allowing Isis to calm down enough that it was safe to row, according to College B captain. However, the piece of boat also prevented the weir gate from closing, so the gate-based calculations yielded a red flag.
As a result, College B missed out on six days of rowing. The captain said that while this sounds “silly to complain about,” when one accounts for the scant few days College B was able to row, this missed opportunity for “about 25% of [College B]’s rowing days,” therefore making a big difference.
Instead of anchoring the flag colour to the number of open weir gates, captains advocated for measuring flow rate by calculating lock differentials – essentially the difference between the height of water at the top of the river and at the bottom, indicative of flow rate. A project by two previous OURCs Captain of Coxes, Jameson Lee and Joe Hitchen, calculates the differentials and their corresponding flag colours.
Isis lock differential from the beginning of Michaelmas until now. By Lee and Hitchen.
On the Godstow, the flag was traditionally set by a St Edward’s School Boat Club employee based on long-time experience, which has worked well. Recently a new employee took over, and College C captain said that he “lacks the experience to set this more confidently, and thus was far more cautious [as of 28 January] in lowering the flag than his predecessor. While safety is a priority, this obviously frustrates clubs like our own who pay significant sums for racking.”
A notice from OURCs in Michaelmas concurs that “the new team there is not yet familiar with all the peculiarities of the [river] stretch.”
A spokesperson from St Edward’s School told Cherwell: “St Edward’s School takes the safety of rowers and coaches on the Godstow stretch extremely seriously. All flag decisions are taken by highly qualified personnel based on updates about river conditions from the Environment Agency alongside all available data about river flow and level.”
Godstow lock differential from the beginning of Michaelmas until now. By Lee and Hitchen.
Slow to change
Any change to the flag system requires multiple levels of authority to sign off. The first level, student-run OURCs, has been efficient and responsive according to two captains.
The College C captain told Cherwell: “I have it on very good authority that most of the plans ‘politely suggested’ by captains on social media [to OURCs] have already been in the works, and just can’t be made public for a range of safety and privacy reasons.”
When Iffley Weir was blocked by debris, OURCs announced on its mailing list that “it has been agreed with the University authorities that the flag can be set using a combination of several types of objective data and with the confirmation of the [OURCs] Senior Member. This temporary method takes a lot more time to confirm than the usual lock-checking and needs confirmation of data and decisions via multiple conversations which can’t always happen instantly.”
College C captain said that Oxford’s Sports Safety Officer “took a fair bit longer” and “hold ups usually come from connecting with University bodies.” The approval was given several weeks after the initial debris blockage, which includes the time it took for the Environment Agency to remove the boat.
College B captain believes that the University exhibits “massive risk aversion” but this caution should only pertain to racing, not training. The captain further notes that while Isis saw a change in system after the debris incident, Godstow initially did not.
According to OURCs Captain’s Meeting minutes early this term, “The OURCs committee and a number of Senior Umpires are gathering data on alternative systems for setting the [Godstow] flag. Any new system will require the approval of the relevant authorities and a body of data, covering a range of river conditions, [and] will be vital to demonstrating that the new system is safe. No changes are therefore expected this term, and possibly longer, though all involved hope a solution can be found as soon as possible.”
College C captain acknowledges the importance of caution: “It’s really tough as safety must remain a priority, and it can seem nonsensical in extraordinary times like this where the river is nominally safe and yet the flag remains high. However, it is my belief that these systems should remain in place as for the most part they work well, and to change them would be to jeopardise safety in future instances.”
OURCs, the Sports Safety Officer, and the Head of Sport and Physical Activity did not respond to requests for comment.
Disparity in opportunities
While Isis and Godstow flew unfavourable flags, not all colleges were grounded: six clubs have access to external training facilities. 18 colleges (including College A) row on Isis and eight colleges (including College B and C) row on Godstow, while Christ Church, Balliol, Magdalen, Queen’s, and St Edmund Hall can row at private facilities including at Sandford, Wallingford, and Abingdon. College Captain B said Wolfson and University College have been able to arrange travelling to Dorney Lake approximately every weekend since Michaelmas.
College B captain told Cherwell: “From a competitive standpoint this will massively tear the field in half between [colleges] that have the funds and the size to go train elsewhere quite regularly versus those that [train externally] as a one-off thing.”
Arriving at the TS Eliot theatre to be greeted by a small (intimate?) venue, I was fascinated to see how the Merton Floats, in collaboration with the Univ Players, would deliver on their promise of a ‘film noir’ take on Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. We were warned before the sold-out Friday showing that a cast member had been taken ill and other members would be ‘filling in’- but as the cliché goes, the show must go on, and soon enough the lights dimmed, and the play began.
From start to finish, it was a show filled with excellent performances from leading cast members. Take, for example, Cassius (Lucas Haskins). He was depicted perfectly as the brooding plotter, disillusioned by Caesar. Particularly brilliant was the visible rage behind his eyes in the scene where he is mocked by Caesar. Both his and Brutus’ (Ethan Bareham) drawn out speeches to each other were also excellent, and we felt a real connection build between the two as the play went on. Brutus himself was also very well played, with the internal turmoil seen through the body language exhibited during scenes like that of the murder of Caesar, in which he appeared to be in a state of agony.
At the right moments, it was also a play which didn’t take itself too seriously. Our Julius Caesar (Myfanwy Taylor-Bean) was especially good at knowing which moments to bring lavish extravagance to and generate laughter from the crowd as a result. Her hubris was visible, and her charisma convincing. As Caesar should be, she was the centre of attention in every scene she was a part of. Other cast members were also incredibly good at making the most of the funny parts of the script- take the comic relief of the murder of Cinna the poet; a silly scene, and suitably silly in its delivery in this performance.
By far and away though my favourite moment of the evening has to go to Mark Antony (Thomas Allen). His Soliloquy following the death of Julius Caesar just before the interval was filled with the passionate rage that such a speech wouldn’t be right without. Indeed, from his first appearance in the play, Antony delivered an incredibly mature performance, exhibiting the manipulation of Brutus and Cassius with his changes in demeanour perfectly. His speeches were convincing even to an audience member, and he had us all in stitches with the way he worked the crowd up at Caesar’s funeral.
One must also give credit to the crew for the very intelligent use of the space in the theatre. Though I was concerned upon entry about the small venue’s ability to do justice to the grand and extravagant speeches that this play is laced with, its intimate setting actually did much to enhance the experience. Being so close to the actors allows the audience to pick up on every detail of the cast’s body language, an aspect of their performance that many members had perfected. The compact setting also worked in the cast’s favour in scenes like the Caesar’s funeral, in which the cast surrounding the audience to heckle the characters during their speeches made us feel at one with the crowd. The hilarious fickleness of the Roman citizens through the switching tones of the heckles was a hysterical touch (made particularly funny by whichever cast member was repeatedly shouting ‘bastard’ at any mention of Brutus).
The only major aspect of the play which I felt more could have been made of was the ‘film noir’ theme. The opening scenes which utilised the piano and the warning to Caesar of the ‘Ides of March’ taking place over the phone were great uses of this, but it felt as though beyond the costuming the theme was much forgotten after that, other than the odd gun being waved around here and there. Of course, the scope of what can be done with Shakespeare is incredibly limited, especially given the size of the set, but it might have been nice to see the periodic nature of the interpretation drawn out slightly more.
Nevertheless, these minor points did not detract from a performance that was truly admirable. I was stunned by the maturity of all of the lead actors- especially given challenging circumstances out of their hands on the night. It is a difficult play, made even more challenging by the constraints on the size of both the cast and the venue. However, they did a very impressive job, and I look forward to seeing what all those involved take on next.
Shake Shack is more than a fast food restaurant to me. I’d go there on half days with friends or eat and talk for hours with my teammates after our last practice of the year. My parents would always take me out for burgers there when we went out to the Museum of Natural History. So when the chain opened a new location on Cornmarket Street last month, I was relieved to be able to cure my homesickness with a late-night black-and-white milkshake.
Walking into the restaurant the day after arriving in Oxford, there were high expectations. The goal was clear: emulate the food and experience I’ve had for years in New York without breaking the bank. And, with their earliest closing time at 11:30 PM, I was excited to finally have a non-kebab option for a late night dinner in uni.
Originally, the founders intended to only run restaurants in NYC but decided to expand in 2010. With their first UK location only opening in 2013, it’s certainly newer than most American fast food exports.
The menu has always been basically the same–burgers, fries, ice cream, shakes– but there are rotating specials seasonal to the menu. When I went, a pistachio shake was on offer. The burger offerings are plenty, so it’s easy to find something you’d like: besides the “Shackburger” with their delicious house sauce, a bacon cheeseburger, shallot burger, and chicken burgers, for the vegetarians, there’s a scrumptious mushroom burger as well as veggie burgers. The crinkle cut fries also had the option of an added cheese sauce and/or bacon. They tend to be in the conversation when discussing the best fast food French fry, so I never miss out, even if I’m never hungry enough to not have to share. The hot dogs, which shot the restaurant to fame, are less-ordered, though people still got plenty of shakes in classic flavors like vanilla, chocolate, caramel, and strawberry. There’s also alcohol, ice cream with a twist (‘Concretes’), and even dog treats.
I got my usual: a Shackburger, cheese fries to share, and a black and white milkshake. It was a bit pricier compared to at home, especially with the conversion rate – £8.95 for a burger and £4.25 for a portion of fries.
So, in all honesty, I was dismayed at the results when taking a bite.
The burger tasted fine: well-seasoned and fresh, with crunchy Romaine and tomatoes to cut through the heavy meat and brioche bun. My one qualm was the absence of delicious tangy sauce. The fries were crunchy and salted just right with a fluffy, warm middle – a reliable buy. The cheese sauce, though, tasted different from the one at home – blame British cheddar – and it was much thicker and cold. And the texture was hard to dip and often broke the fry I wanted to eat . I blamed it on the cold day and moved on. The shake gave me mixed feelings. I was used to super-thick shakes that were more like ice cream than shakes, and it certainly tasted the same– sweet vanilla ice cream with hints of fudge sauce swirled throughout. Yet the texture felt wrong– too runny and only at the bottom did it start to get thick enough to feel right.
Essentially, this Shake Shack was not the Shake Shack luxury I’m used to. It felt just like any other part of my experience at Oxford – similar enough to what I knew that I understood what it was supposed to be, yet different enough that it could never be like my expectations. The sit down experience upstairs, with its cute bookshelves and view of the street, truly had high yapping potential. The food was good, though not worth a daily visit (especially with those prices!)
If you really want a burger, Shake Shack’s is so much better than McDonald’s, Wendy’s, and Five Guys, and it’s worth the extra pound just for that sauce. If you’re ever craving cheese fries with a real sauce rather than shredded cheddar or a shake when Najar’s machine is broken, Shake Shack is the place to go.
Image Credit: Peter Dutton/ CC BY 2.0 Via Wikimedia Commons
I have to admit, as someone who is quite invested in movies and fashion, one of my guilty pleasures is always seeing who takes home the ‘Best Picture’ prize at the Academy Awards, or which designs are featured on the red carpet. I’m not quite at the level where I stay up until four in the morning to watch the Oscars, but I will, without fail, google the winners the next day.
It has been a couple of years since I engaged with the Golden Globes ceremony due to the ignorance of the Hollywood Foreign Press. However, in June of last year, the HFPA was dissolved, and the Golden Globes were sold to Eldridge Industries and Dick Clark Production. The collapse of the HPFA and the consequential sale of the Golden Globes wasn’t exactly a shocking move for anyone aware of its objectionable history which has been especially highlighted in the past four years. 2022 saw NBC cancel the TV production after reports came to light of the extreme lack of diversity and the expulsion of the ex-president over the sharing of a racist article via email. Just a year earlier, ‘‘The Times’’ reported that out of the odd ninety members of the HFPA, not one was from the BAME community. This led to the inclusion of thirteen black members in 2021 after it was, rightfully, put under intense scrutiny. But many called this act out for what it was – tokenism. I thought that the selling of the ‘brand’ might allow for a reappraisal of its spoiled past and a new future for the company. Yet, after watching clips from this year’s ceremony, its fate seems clear to me. I’m not sure why I thought a new billionaire buying the company might give it a new lease on life, but this year’s show further proved it should follow in its founder’s footsteps and disband.
The opening monologue from the presenter, American ‘comedian’ Jo Koy, certainly set the tone for the rest of the evening. During his six-minute speech, he managed to make several misogynistic jabs which left the attendees and viewers across the world less than impressed. His first sneer of the night was to the Barbie movie: ‘Oppenheimer is based on a 721-page, Pulitzer Prize-winning book about the Manhattan Project. And Barbie is based on a plastic doll with big boobies.’ The camera turned around the room as we saw the faces of stars such as Greta Gerwig, Ryan Gosling, and Selena Gomez fall in disgust. But he wasn’t finished there! Later in his monologue, he turned his attention to Taylor Swift ‘joking’ that: ‘The big difference between the Golden Globes and the NFL? On the Golden Globes, we have fewer camera shots of Taylor Swift.’ To which she responded similarly to the rest of the crowd – a blank stare and a straight face.
What’s confusing to me is that the speech would have had to go through multiple checks to ensure those higher up were happy with what was said. So, either every person involved was casually misogynistic, or were being provocative for the sake of increased publicity. Ultimately, the jokes felt cheap, especially considering Barbie’s feminist message. In a post ‘Me Too’ and Harvey Weinstein world, there has been a sense that Hollywood might change: it felt like actors and companies alike were no longer going to stand for misogyny. I suppose, the reactions of the audience proved that true – but if those in power are still accepting these types of ‘jokes’ on global television, one must ask whether much progress has truly been made at all.
Perhaps more controversially, I have an issue with Christopher Nolan’s ‘’Oppenheimer’’ winning the majority of the awards, especially the ‘Best Film – drama’ category. Whilst I wouldn’t consider myself a ‘war film’ type of person, ‘’Oppenheimer’’’s success drove me to my local Picturehouse in the hope I would be proven wrong. After seeing the biopic, I can genuinely say it would’ve been my last choice to win compared with the other films in its category. Justine Triste’s ‘’Anatomy of a Fall’’ offers an impeccable ‘courtroom drama’ that cleverly explores relationships, subjectivity, and the treatment of women in the legal system. Celine Song’s directorial debut ‘Past Lives’ is an equally beautiful, tender study of identity, memory, and lost love. Yet both missed out to a film about a white man who made a bomb that was responsible for the death of an estimated 200,000 Japanese civilians., All three films are rated equally as well; ‘Past Lives’ and ‘An Anatomy of a Fall’ both scored a 96% rating on ‘’Rotten Tomatoes’’, whilst ‘’Oppenheimer’’ scored 93%. ‘Past Lives’ further pipped both ‘Oppenheimer’ and ‘Anatomy’ for the five stars in ‘’The Guardian’’. Ratings aside, Song and Triste’s movies possess something much more important than Nolan’s – diversity.
‘Oppenheimer’ was so lacking in diversity it almost didn’t qualify for an Academy Award due to their guidelines. It also failed to pass the ‘Bechdel Test’, and the screentime of one of the two prominent female characters in the film, ‘Tatlock’ (Florence Pugh), is largely confined to having sex and mental disrepair. As Nolan’s filmography has made clear, he doesn’t really ‘do’ women characters. If you need further convincing, Oppenheimer conveniently excludes the government’s displacement of Hispanic and Indigenous families to create their ‘Los Almos’ lab. This whitewashed narrative allows the film to avoid questioning Oppenheimer’s moral responsibility. So,does it really make sense to award Oppenheimer the Golden Globes’ highest esteemed prize?Perhaps you might feel this topic is already benign; many don’t participate in celebrity gossip, pop culture, and award ceremonies. But a huge amount of people do engage in this content. Ultimately, the Golden Globes represents what much our society places considerable amounts of value on – which in the eyes of the elites is money, war, and men.
This Thursday night, the Oxford Union voted against the motion “This House believes Ukraine should negotiate with Russia to end the war now.” The final count had 71 members voting for the motion and 171 members voting against.
Speaking for the motion were third-year Theology student Finley Armstrong of Regent’s Park College, second-year Magdalen PPE student James Lawson, and Aniket Chakravorty of New College – who recently placed first in the World Debating Championships.
Opposing the motion were former Chief of the Defence Staff of the British Armed Forces Lord Houghton of Richmond and Ross Skowronski, founder of Mission Kharkiv – an organisation which has facilitated the transportation of over 70 tons of life-saving pharmaceuticals to Ross’ native Kharkiv since the war began. First-year History and Politics student Rachel Haddad of Balliol College also spoke against the motion.
Opening the case for the proposition, Finley Armstrong described Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as “the largest attack on a European country since World War Two.” He told the audience that everyone was in agreement that the war must end at some point. “The question is when and how.”
Armstrong touched on the lack of success Ukraine has had in its counteroffensive which it launched against Russia in June 2023 before discussing the current lack of artillery among Ukrainian troops – while Russia has mobilised arms production to be able to fire 10,000 rounds per day, Ukraine is only capable of firing 2,000. He emphasised that, although the “international community has demonstrated an unprecedented level of solidarity with Ukraine,” aid is not an inexhaustible resource and is subject to political contingencies. He asked the audience “How long should we allow this brutal war to continue before accepting that Ukrainian victory – whatever that may look like – is unlikely?” Armstrong urged the audience to vote for the proposition: “By voting for opposition you are voting for … continued violence and bloodshed as the answer.”
Rachel Haddad began the case for opposition on a personal note, telling the audience “Almost two years ago today, Russia invaded my country Ukraine.” She stated further that Russia is currently waging an offensive in her grandmother’s town and that her family is forced to “endure the horrors of this conflict every single day.”
After introducing the proposition speakers, Haddad outlined her central thesis by declaring “I do not believe Ukraine should be negotiating with a terrorist state, which does not recognise, let alone respect, the sovereignty [of Ukraine].” She ran through the historical record and Russia’s previous abrogation of non-aggression treaties with Ukraine. In particular, she spoke of the Budapest Memorandum signed by Ukraine in 1994 which exchanged its nuclear arsenal for security guarantees – guarantees she stated that Russia subsequently violated. According to Haddad, peace talks with Russia are impossible since “negotiating with Russia is like negotiating with Hitler himself.” She concluded her speech by citing the words of a Ukrainian poet who urged Ukrainians to “keep fighting.”
Speaking second for the proposition, James Lawson began his speech by taking issue with Haddad’s categorical stance against negotiations with terrorists. He asked audience members what they would do if a terrorist had captured a loved one at gunpoint and the only way to save them was through negotiations. He argued that the only sensible path in such a situation would be to at least consider entering negotiations.
Lawson’s central argument revolved around Ukraine’s reliance on the West – both now and in the future – and how avoiding negotiations with Russia would hinder the post-war recovery effort. He argued that the West would have to provide substantial economic aid to Ukraine but that continuing the war creates costs that hinder the West’s assistance in a future “Marshall Plan-like” recovery program. In addition to discussing economic problems which arise from avoiding negotiations, Lawson touched on political problems. While the West initially rallied behind Ukraine at the start of the war, according to Lawson “that cooperation is crumbling… newspapers are growing tired of the war.” He concluded by reiterating his call for reasonable negotiations.
Ross Skowronski continued the case for the opposition, describing the war in Ukraine “as one of the cruellest wars ever.” His argument centred on Russian motives in waging war against Ukraine – according to Skowronski, since negotiations are only possible when each party offers something of value to the other and Russia is only motivated by “the land and the people” of Ukraine, negotiations are doomed to fail. Skowronsky stated further that negotiations were unwarranted since they are unlikely to be respected if Russian elites’ sources of income are left undisturbed.
Closing the case for the proposition, Aniket Chakravorty began his argument by stating that self-determination is the most important objective for Ukranians. According to Chakravorty, this self-determination can only be achieved through a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine, which, in turn, can only be achieved through an opening of negotiations.
Chakravorty argued further that the greatest hindrance to the Ukrainian war effort is the lack of continuous training for Ukrainian troops and the dearth of missiles and other weaponry in the army. Given the opposition of Congressional Republicans to Ukrainian aid, Chakravorty argued that the dynamics of the war are unlikely to change any time soon. He predicted, however, that American policy could change following a Ukrainian commitment to negotiations, since “Western support is likely to increase to Ukraine when there is a clear endgame in mind.”
Lord Houghton of Richmond closed the case for the opposition. He began by stating that, “despite advances in the human condition that we have made… I do fear that our world remains a most imperfect place.” Lord Houghton argued that, although Europeans have not seen such fighting since the Second World War, seeking a premature peace “despite many of its attractions” would not be in the long-term interests of Ukraine and the West.
Lord Houghton then enumerated three assumptions under which Putin launched his invasion of Ukraine: his assessment of the strength of Russian troops, his assessment of the weakness of Ukrainian troops, and his belief that NATO would not intervene sufficiently on Ukraine’s behalf. According to Houghton, Putin was wrong on all three counts, and Russia has failed in its war effort. To continue deterring Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Houghton argued “we should be ever more confident in supplying Ukraine with the military resources it needs.” At the end of his speech, Lord Houghton addressed the audience directly: “The way you vote tonight sends a message. It sends a message to Putin, and it sends a message to the people of Ukraine. Please do not send the wrong one.”
Cherwell’s “Sextigation” is back and better than ever. After 450 responses and some pretty groundbreaking analysis that followed, the results are in.
This year, 55% of respondents were female, 38.5% were male, and 5.6% were non-binary. In a slight dip from last year’s survey, the (mean) average number of sexual partners comes in at 4.5, compared with the 5 from last year. Taking a closer look at the numbers yields a different picture. For female students, the mean average is 3.9 sexual partners, with a median of 2. The mean male student has had 5.2 partners with a median of 2 as well. Non-binary students come out on top with an average of 6.2 sexual partners, with a median of 3.
However, not all students share the same experiences. 13.2% of Oxford students have had no sex since matriculating, with 9.9% of students having never had sex before. The most common number of sexual partners for an Oxford student, since being at Oxford, was 1, at 28.9%.
As they say, good things come in threes. 69 respondents (lol) claimed to have had sex with two or more people at once, with 18 students confessing to a threesome, 4 to a foursome, and 1 to a five-and-sixsome respectively. Having googled the term ‘orgy’ to find it constitutes 4 or more people, perhaps having that as a single category would have sufficed. However, the survey’s level of detail was not lost on the two adventurous students who clocked in with a tensome each.
Knocking St Peter’s from their throne, this year, Regent’s Park took the trophy for sexiest college, with their students averaging a whopping 11.7 sexual partners since being at Oxford. Close in the runnings were Catz, Anne’s and Worcester, whose students averaged 9.8, 8.6 and 6.9 sexual partners respectively. At the other end, Blackfriars, Kellogg, St Cross and Harris Manchester came bottom of the pile, doing a disservice to Dominicans, post-grads and mature students everywhere.
Whilst Peter’s has been relegated to the middle of the pile, Merton, who came second in last year’s survey, is the undergraduate college whose students have had the fewest sexual partners since matriculation, averaging just over 2. Clearly, the singular Mertonian who drove up the average last year has since moved on to bigger and better things.
As for satisfaction levels, this year has seen Oxford graduate from 2023’s ‘mid’ to an average score of 3.5/5. In fact, an encouraging majority of students (82%) would rate their sex lives at a 3/5 or above. Even so, some people had gripes with the “conservative” nature of Oxford’s sex scene, with one student expressing frustration: “too! Vanilla!!!”. Breaking down satisfaction ratings by college reveals a more marked difference, too. While Queen’s students rate their sex lives 4.4/5 , bad news for LMH students who sit at the bottom of the pile with an average rating of 2.6/5.
This year, Geography takes the lead as the top-shagging degree, boasting a whopping 14.7 average number of sexual partners since coming to Oxford. This is followed by Biology (13.5), English and Modern Languages (7.8), Law (7.6), and Biomedical Sciences (7.5). This is almost an exact return to 2022’s “degrees which get the most action”, with last year’s top shaggers, the medics, taking a backseat. Geography has been the only degree consistently in the top 5 of each Sextigation.
On the flip side, Maths and Philosophy come in as the subject having the least sex, with an average number of 0 partners post-matriculation. They are followed by Physics and Philosophy, History and Modern Languages (both with 0.5), and Computer Science and Philosophy (0.75).
Low body count does not necessarily mean an absence of sex, however (apart from for Maths and Philosophy students, sorry). 70.9% of respondents in a relationship of any kind reported having sex more than once a week with their partner. Quite impressively, 7.4% of respondents overcame the challenging Oxford work-life balance, recording that they have sex with their partner multiple times a day. Perhaps this is made easier by proximity: 32.1% of students admitted to having had a relationship with a member of their college.
Importantly, where mutual pleasure eludes us, in Oxford, self-love is always close at hand. When asked about masturbation, the majority of respondents said they masturbate at least 2-3 times a week, and nearly 3 in 4 do so at least once a week. Male respondents were the most frequent masturbaters, with over half saying they masturbate at least 4-5 times a week, whereas 8.6% of female respondents said that they never masturbate. Meanwhile, 1.2% of male respondents, and all non-binary respondents said that they masturbate at least once in a while. Whilst the most popular frequency of masturbation for both female and non-binary respondents was 2-3 times a week, male respondents preferred masturbating 4-5 times a week, with 1 in 4 saying that they do so at least every day.
A major development from last year’s survey is that the percentage of queer and questioning respondents has officially overtaken the percentage of heterosexual respondents, with the proportion of heterosexual respondents falling from 50.4% to 46%. The makeup of queer respondents is as follows: 32.8% bisexual, 14.5% gay, 1.8% pansexual. 4.9% don’t know or prefer not to say.
The average partner count for queer people since matriculation is higher than for straight people by one whole person (4.6 vs 3.5), whilst the total partner count for LGBTQ+ was 9.1, vs 5.4 for straight respondents, suggesting that LGBTQ+ beat straight respondents at Oxford and have more sexual experience before coming by an even greater margin. One respondent summed up the scene wistfully: “so much sex, so little time…”. Though one respondent said that the dating pool offered “too much choice tbf it’s like trying to shop at one of them massive tesco(s)”, others noted its limited size. One respondent wrote that “everyone has shagged everyone.” Another particularly effusive respondent said: “There is a tiny pool, and an even tinier selection of attractive / genuinely normal queer people (ie a lot are a bit too unhinged etc for me),” noting Oxford’s peculiar standards for sexual eligibility: “Being attractive and confident often is seen by others as being narcissistic or a bitch (in this city), so weirdly I don’t get nearly as much attention here as I do in other cities etc.” Others, however, enjoy the drama: “It’s messy, we love it”.
There is a marked difference in hookup culture for sexual orientations. Several gay men complained about being pressured into engaging in frequent casual sex, more so than other demographics, and while hookups may be easy to find, one respondent characterised the dating scene as “horrific”. “The stress of life here (and) the fact everyone’s always busy means that many are inclined towards casual sex/hookups”, contemplated one student.
Particularly those seeking female partners reported difficulty: “There are no lesbians here!!!”, said one such respondent. Several bisexual women commented on the difficulties of finding female partners, with one person replying that the experience is “upsetting in the way it sometimes feels like I’m contributing to the erasure of my own identity”.
But while some find “the Oxford gay scene is grim”, for others it has been an “incredible” chance to explore their sexuality in a city with a “much higher volume” than other places. “Shout out to tuesgays”, remarked one respondent.
Speaking of, the best place to find hookups in Oxford was Plush, receiving the highest percentage of votes at 24.8%. This checks out with the 6 people who admitted the weirdest place they’d had sex in Oxford was the Plush dancefloor/toilets (but only “briefly before being asked to leave…”). While Atik and Bridge offer similar opportunities at 17.7% and 14.8%, respectively, don’t bother trekking to Cowley if you’re looking for a fling: O2 Academy and Bully only received 2.2% of the total votes.
Casual sex is not overwhelmingly popular with Oxford students, with 42.3% of respondents reporting they had not had a one-night stand before. Even so, there was a large range in those who had experienced one-night stands, from the most significant portion having had a one-night stand 2-4 times (43.2%), to the 14 respondents who reported over 20. However, there remains the challenge of deciphering the intentions of those inviting you back, as highlighted by one respondent’s memorable encounter. This experience involved a wrestling fetish, donning leotards, and staying up until 3 am with the initial guy and his unexpected friend.
On hook-up culture in general, 54.6% of respondents found that there was no real pressure to participate in it, or at least the pressure was “not worse than anywhere else” and was “just the same as other uni culture”. “It’s easily accessible for those who want to find it but there’s not a pressure to participate”, summed up one respondent. As for why, one person commented “everyone’s doing too much work to fuck around”, while another supplied a different reason: “people are clapped”.
However, a significant minority of people who responded either with yes or maybe – 18.7% and 26.2% respectively – worried that there was an expectation to sleep with people they had got with in a club, with one respondent noting “you can’t really get with anyone in a club without being told you have to go back to their accommodation”. Similar pressures were sometimes present while dating, with one student commenting, “when I’ve gone on dates the expectation seems to be to hook up”.
A related aspect of Oxford’s sex life is slut shaming. A third of respondents – 33.5% – felt that there was a culture of shaming people for promiscuity. It seems that this is more nuanced than “actual slut SHAMING”. Instead, it underlies the lighthearted merriment of “things like sconcing on crewdates” – as explained by one respondent, “even though it is funny, getting sconced every couple of weeks for something that happened once can start to feel a bit like a form of slut shaming, especially for girls”.
29.8% of students answered that they do use dating apps to find sexual partners, with Hinge being the most popular dating app, beating Bumble, Tinder, and Grindr. Students seem to use dating apps for a variety of purposes, mostly with the intent of finding longer relationships: “most people… are looking to meet people and go on dates more than just hook up”, wrote one student. For the LGBTQ+ community, however, dating apps seemed more limited in providing opportunities to meet partners, who are “few and far between”, due to the limited user base.
Regarding the types of relationships Oxford students enter with each other, 51.1% of respondents answered that they had entered an ‘official’ relationship while at Oxford. As some students noted, the culture in Oxford seems to be “way more focused on serious relationships or at least fwb”. While universities, in general, can provide the meet-cute needed for any good love story, Oxford is apparently the 2nd university in the UK where you are most likely to marry the partner you meet here, at 21%, aligning with the 36% of respondents who have had an official relationship of a year or more. Situationships followed, with 40.5% of participants having not put a label on it, and one student creating their own category of relationship: “‘Pure delusion :D”.
When it comes to sex positions, missionary – including related sex positions, such as “eagle” or “legs in the air” – was most popular. Of the 268 people who gave a preference, 33.2% said that missionary was their preferred position, with cowgirl coming in second at 24.2%. Notably, missionary was the most popular position for both female and male respondents, whilst cowgirl took the prize for non-binary respondents. However, whereas 17.7% more male respondents opted for missionary than the second most popular position, cowgirl, for female respondents, missionary, doggystyle and cowgirl all came within 4.8% of one another. Although roughly the same proportion of female respondents as male ones nominated cowgirl as their sex position of choice, 4.9% more female respondents than male respondents said that doggystyle was their favourite, and around 7.4% of both female and male respondents chose speed bumping. Oral sex was nominated overwhelmingly by non-binary respondents, with no female respondents saying that it was their go-to.
For some respondents, it was not the position, but satisfaction that counts above all. Viewing the question in a more abstract sense, one respondent wrote that their preferred position was “seeing her happy.” Another respondent was either flustered by the subject matter or spoilt for choice, writing: “I don’t know 😔😔.” Others were fans of some more niche positions including “seashell,” “the big dipper,” and – the ominously titled – “French delivery.” Nevertheless, nearly 80% of those who gave a preference said that either doggystyle, cowgirl or missionary were their favourites. Evidently, when it comes to go-to sex positions, in Oxford, you can’t go wrong with a classic.
There has been little change in relation to the safety of sex in Oxford since last year. This year, 59.2% of respondents said they ensure that some kind of contraception is used when having sex, whilst 26.3% said that they do not, up a perhaps concerning, but marginal 2.5% on last year’s survey. Much like last year, condoms were the most used form of contraception, used by 51.6% of people who use contraception. As regards the differing attitudes towards contraception of female, male and non-binary respondents, the differences were relatively minor. Whilst female respondents were most likely to ensure contraception was used – 71.1% of female respondents who gave a definitive answer said that they did so – non-binary respondents were the least likely to, with only 63.2% answering positively.
Besides being “too! vanilla!!!”, we wondered whether there were any other peculiarities that make sex at Oxford stand out. Some respondents noted with great fondness some classic aspects of the Oxfordian sex life. One in particular recalled “leaving someone at 5am to go to rowing practice,” whilst another reminisced about “being asked for my LinkedIn after a hook-up,” a testament to how truly no kind of relationship is sacred for Oxford hacks and careerists. Another respondent ruminated that “less neeks would vastly improve the quality of sex at Oxford.”
The city of dreaming spires is naturally home to some more unconventional locations where one might “get jiggy with it.” Particularly astounding was one respondent, among the 43.1% of respondents who confessed to having had sex in a public place, who “had sex in the Bridge of Sighs,” noting that “it is really difficult to have sex in the Bridge of Sighs but I managed it.” Other notable sex spots included: the Radcam, the Sackler, apparently everywhere in New College, Exeter College chapel, the alleyway between the two Spoons pubs, St John’s boat house, Green Templeton’s garden, and “… Brasenose.”
Some students noted their frustration with Oxford sex life. One respondent took issue with its stiffness in particular, writing that “everyone needs to loosen up.” Another wrote regretfully, “I wish I hadn’t had sex here. I’d have been happier waiting until marriage.” Others noted troubles in finding sexual or romantic partners around Oxford. Besides expressions of disappointment such as “How do people ever enter relationships with each other?”, another respondent spoke to a feeling of alienation arising from Oxford’s clubbing culture: “It’s just hard to get into if you don’t go clubbing, I think. Lots of people just want one-night stands while they’re drunk, not friends-with-benefits arrangements or, God forbid, proper relationships.” Finally, while this sex survey sheds insights into the varied and diverse sex life of the Oxford student, one student remarked that they wished “people were more open about their sex lives, not because I want to be creepy or anything, but just because it would help me rationalise it all better (and hopefully let me know I’m not alone in my inexperience)”.
On a more serious note, a number of respondents expressed concern at the normalisation of sexual assault within Oxford: “the prevalence of sexual assault and rape here is absolutely insane. Even worse is the acceptance from the rest of the cohort, and apparent mission to protect their reputations once they find out”. Others noted the lack of education around consent, and that “some people arrive here and have NO boundaries”. But the problems seem to start earlier than Oxford – with one student attributing such attitudes to the culture in same-sex private schools, a reminder of theEveryone’s Invited initiative, which began in 2020 to eradicate rape culture, and allowing survivors to share stories. Within Oxford too, then, it seems there needs to be a change in countering such normalised practices, to “hold people accountable”.
Concerned with the betterment of the sexual experience in Oxford, a number of students proffered insightful words of wisdom and advice. “Don’t f**k your ex or lend them £2,000,” wrote one student, whilst another suggested that the “walls ought to be thicker because I can hear you f***rs screaming.” Another took issue with the stiffness of Oxford sex life, saying “everyone needs to loosen up.” Whilst “Oxford has really hot women,” another respondent noted that “Oxford men are very disappointing (sorry).” One respondent suggested that a solution to this problem would be to “branch out from Uni of Oxford men” to other male residents, writing that “Oxford Brookes were better, but better still were the flight school and people who work around the city.” Good to know. Despite the generally sex-positive attitudes students expressed, we found that there sometimes is a lack of conversation talking about sex at Oxford. While some students celebrated their friends as providing a “supportive”, “open, respectful”, space, others noted that “everyone seems to be having it [sex] but nobody ever talks about it”. Perhaps then the answer is openness, normalising conversations to understand that there is no singular sexual experience which defines the average Oxford student. As the wise Salt-N-Pepa once proclaimed: “Let’s talk about sex”.
Sergeant Tom Robinson RLC/MOD/OGL v1.0OGL v1.0, via Wikimedia Commons
This week’s article will focus on the two people who are, in all likelihood, the candidates for Prime Minister in the next British elections. Just a quick reminder, elections in the United Kingdom generally happen every five years, unless parliament is dissolved earlier, which is not unusual. Every citizen votes for a member of Parliament who will represent their constituency at the House of Commons and the party that wins the most constituencies (out of 650), will try and form the government. The winning party’s leader – today, realistically, either Rishi Sunak (Conservative) or Keir Starmer (Labour) – will become the next Prime Minister. But, who are these people? In this article you will get to know the version they like, and that they don’t.
First, the Prime Minister: Rishi Sunak. Sunak tells us he was born to ordinary immigrants to the UK and grew up in a middle-class family; his mother owned a “tiny” pharmacy, and his father was an NHS family GP. His parents sacrificed a lot so he could attend a public school and the University of Oxford (PPE at Lincoln), and he then studied for an MBA at Stanford. His professional career was in finance, he co-founded an international investment firm and succeeded thanks to his hard work. Sunak is married and has two daughters.
However, what does this story miss? According to The Times: “Sunak is not an immigrant success story, but an English public school and Oxbridge success story. He is the product of an upper-middle-class education.” Furthermore, it is important to know that although Sunak portrays himself and his family as average, upper-middle-class, his wife is the daughter of one of India’s richest men and is worth around £300 million. Tthe family has a mansion in Northallerton, a house and an apartment in Kensington, London, and an apartment in California. In politics, he is regarded as a non-ideological liberal who made smart tactical decisions in supporting Johnson and had a very quick rise to power.
Now, to Sir Keir Starmer. Starmer, married with children, tells us he grew up in a working-class family, his father worked in a factory, and his mother was a nurse for the NHS. Also, he was the first in his family to attend university and studied law at Leeds. After graduating he became a lawyer taking many pro-bono cases, including against big corporations, later worked in North Ireland, and then became the Director of Public Prosecutions. In 2014 he received a knighthood for services to criminal justice.
But, what doesn’t he tell us? Quite importantly, his opinions are not clear. Starmer has been known to politically flip-flop and adjust his message to the crowd and his needs. As a young Oxford graduate student, he became involved in Socialist causes, and seemingly maintained many of those opinions. However, he has also moved the Labour Party in a more centrist direction and often supports centrist ideas. Additionally, he is perceived as a boring, corporate person by voters, and not political enough by the political class.
Finally, it is important to note that there are other parties in Britain, but only the big parties are true contenders for the premiership – meaning one of these two will, unless there is a leadership change, become PM.
Image Credit: Emma Kaden/CC BY-SA 2.0 Deed via Flickr
Joe Biden is in electoral danger. That is the verdict from numerous recent polls which show a reinvigorated Trump in the ascendancy. Unfortunately, Biden’s efforts to come out fighting in Thursday’s address to the media did little to assuage fears of his ageing memory and unsuitability to remain as President.
Biden successfully managed the media for about 10 minutes, forcefully pushing back on many attempts to attack the quality of his memory, a worry stoked recently by Special Counsel Robert Hur’s comments that presented Biden as ‘an elderly man with a poor memory.’ Even though Hur recommended against charges for faults in Biden’s retention of classified papers and his remarks on Biden’s abilities were attacked as a ‘partisan hit job’, worries abound in the Democrat camp of public perception of Biden’s cognitive capacities. Enter the fateful final question.
Having successfully dodged the worst pitfalls of Fox News’s interrogations about his age, Biden returned to the lectern to answer a final question on Gaza, in the process managing to assert that Abdel Fattah al-Sisi was the President of Mexico. Therein lies the rub, for al-Sisi is in fact not the President of Mexico, but the President of Egypt. What memory problems?
Add into the mix Biden’s bizarre allusions to meetings with the (long deceased) François Mitterrand and Helmut Kohl, and Trump’s charges of ‘Sleepy Joe’ may hit home where they did not fully in 2020. Worse still for the Democrats, Trump’s multiple criminal charges do not seem to have a substantial effect on his polling: always pitched as the anti-Establishment candidate, throwing everything that the Establishment has at Trump only plays into his narrative.
Winning the Nevada primary with little opposition, it seems near certain that Biden will take the Democratic presidential nomination. Save for a sudden surge in support for Nikki Haley, who lost to ‘none of these candidates’ in the equivalent Republican primary, Trump will run for the Republicans. There are therefore two routes to avoiding the disaster that would be a second Trump term: his disqualification or a Biden victory.
A federal court ruled on the 6th of February that as Trump was no longer President, he was not immune from charges related to an alleged conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election results. However, this carries the unfortunate implication, and reminder, that if Trump were President again, he would effectively have few obstacles in his path to taking America further down the road of government by social media diktat.
The damage that Trump could wreak on America and the world with a second term cannot be understated. With a campaign theme of ‘retribution’, he has talked up using the military to crush protests in Democrat-leaning cities, abolishing the ‘Marxist’ Department for Education, and repealing Obamacare. The danger extends to the existential: with an energy policy mantra of ‘Drill, drill, drill’ and a promise to leave the Paris Accords, a second Trump term would kill stone-dead any prospect of limiting global warming below 2 degrees, and perhaps also 2.5. The world has, after all, already hit 1.5 degrees warming.
Trump’s foreign policy could be yet more calamitous for European security and global peace. Taking ‘America First’ to new levels, the fate of NATO and Ukraine would hang in the balance as Trump develops ever closer ties with fellow populist strongmen like Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Viktor Orbán. His economic policies could push the world towards a fully blown trade war. The world cannot afford a second term of Donald Trump. If it gets one, it cannot be sure that it will not then see a third, and a fourth – once American democracy has been hollowed out by further authoritarian vandalism of political institutions.
Biden’s 2024 campaign policies are predicted to involve capping costs on prescription medicines, attempting to ban assault rifles, and restoring a nationwide right to abortion. While the success of many of these programmes is contingent on Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress, the contrast between Biden’s platform and Trump’s could not be starker. Even if Biden cannot implement all of his policy agenda, he has his continued respect for America’s allies and his commitment to at least not destroying the (albeit insufficient) global coordination on tackling climate change. And he is the Democrats’ only option now.
With a Supreme Court packed with Trump nominees which casted doubt on Colorado’s decision to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot, disqualification from election seems unlikely. The Democrats should not count on it, and as discussed, such a narrative only plays into Trump’s hands. Accusations regarding Biden’s age often forget that Trump would turn 80 during a second term. He is also at least as foggy, having appeared to suggest that he beat Barack Obama to win the 2016 election. Some scientists have also characterised both as ‘super-agers’ and give Biden a higher chance of surviving than Trump. Like in 2020, Biden is now the Democrats’ only option. Octogenarian presidents are not ideal, but American democracy, world peace, and a fighting chance at averting the worst of the climate emergency may well be at stake. For all the talk of memory, that is the one thing that Americans should remember.
With my ramshackle GCSE/Wikipedia knowledge of 70’s American politics, I feared that I would struggle to follow this student adaptation of David Morgan’s 2006 work about the 1977 Nixon interviews – an unexpected choice for a student play, perhaps. Luckily, my fears were misplaced. Elspeth Rogers’ production sweeps its audience along in a tale of power, popularity, and politics. Frost/Nixon is about much more than a television exchange between ambitious media man David Frost and a President looking to come back from the wilderness. It tells the story of men obsessed with fame and driven by the attention of others.
The play is jointly narrated by Jim Reston (Georgina Cooper), who joins Frost’s crack team to strategize on interviews that hope to nail Nixon as a criminal once and for all, and Jack Brennan (Philip Nedelev), the ex-President’s Chief of Staff who is loyal to his core. Thanks to Rei Tracks’s excellent lighting design, Reston and Brennan ‘step out’ of the narrative to provide a retrospective on events through clever spotlighting and precisely timed cues.
Rohan Joshi is a star turn as President Nixon. His wounded gait, booming American accent, and measured pace of delivery kept the audience rapt. If Joshi was aware of the pressure of taking a difficult lead role as a fresher, it did not show. One scene worthy of particular praise is a telephone conversation between Nixon and Frost in which Joshi expertly portrays Nixon’s angst as it reaches a crescendo, lamenting his distance from the dizzying heights of Washington while effectively in exile on the Western Seaboard. Another is the final interview, specifically on Watergate, in which Frost finally strikes home with the revelation of new evidence and Nixon is shown to be a sweating, farcical demagogue, desperately asserting that ‘well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal’.
Sol Woodroffe, in the role of Frost, delivers a powerful performance as an early television news ‘star’ at a time where the power of such globalised popular culture was only just emerging. His recklessness is brought to the fore when Frost contritely asks why nobody tried to stop him after the failure of the first three interviews to get anything interesting or compromising (and ideally both) out of Nixon. The venture is especially risky as Frost has paid Nixon $600,000 for the privilege of interviewing him, a figure negotiated up by Nixon’s greedy and seedy talent agent, ‘Swifty’ Lazar (Hasina Ibrahim).
After all, with the confidence to fund much of the interviews himself given a lack of backing from big networks and sponsors, Frost is a man driven by vainglorious, vaulting ambition which chafes against the other characters in a frequently humorous way. Frost spends a cringe comedic transatlantic flight with co-passenger Caroline Cushing (Freya Thomas) and his snazzy brown Italian shoes produce many a laugh in themselves as a source of much fascination from Nixon and others.
John Birt (Blaze Pierzchniak) and Bob Zelnick (again Hasina Ibrahim) round out the cast of characters and Frost’s team. Each have their own backstories that only serve to raise the stakes surrounding the outcome of the interviews. The plot is infused with a note of nervous desperation that makes the moments of comic relief – including Nedelev’s (improvised) comment that Nixon ‘got that dawg in him’ – an enjoyable counterweight to the dynamic tension that Joshi and Woodroffe bring so expertly to the fore.
Particularly striking is the play’s musings on the unfortunate blurring between media, stardom, and politics. Jim Reston, a man desperate to publicize Nixon’s crimes for the good of the American people, closes the show with the comment that at one of Frost’s (in)famous parties, filled with star figures from government and media alike, it was difficult to know where the showbiz ended and the politics began. In today’s Trumpian era of politics as entertainment, where even on these shores it is seemingly normal to witness Rishi Sunak take a bet with Piers Morgan, the play’s message – teased out skilfully by this student cast – continues to bear hugely on our perception of public life today.
A crash course in British politics: Who will be the next Prime Minister? (Week 3)
This week’s article will focus on the two people who are, in all likelihood, the candidates for Prime Minister in the next British elections. Just a quick reminder, elections in the United Kingdom generally happen every five years, unless parliament is dissolved earlier, which is not unusual. Every citizen votes for a member of Parliament who will represent their constituency at the House of Commons and the party that wins the most constituencies (out of 650), will try and form the government. The winning party’s leader – today, realistically, either Rishi Sunak (Conservative) or Keir Starmer (Labour) – will become the next Prime Minister. But, who are these people? In this article you will get to know the version they like, and that they don’t.
First, the Prime Minister: Rishi Sunak. Sunak tells us he was born to ordinary immigrants to the UK and grew up in a middle-class family; his mother owned a “tiny” pharmacy, and his father was an NHS family GP. His parents sacrificed a lot so he could attend a public school and the University of Oxford (PPE at Lincoln), and he then studied for an MBA at Stanford. His professional career was in finance, he co-founded an international investment firm and succeeded thanks to his hard work. Sunak is married and has two daughters.
However, what does this story miss? According to The Times: “Sunak is not an immigrant success story, but an English public school and Oxbridge success story. He is the product of an upper-middle-class education.” Furthermore, it is important to know that although Sunak portrays himself and his family as average, upper-middle-class, his wife is the daughter of one of India’s richest men and is worth around £300 million. Tthe family has a mansion in Northallerton, a house and an apartment in Kensington, London, and an apartment in California. In politics, he is regarded as a non-ideological liberal who made smart tactical decisions in supporting Johnson and had a very quick rise to power.
Now, to Sir Keir Starmer. Starmer, married with children, tells us he grew up in a working-class family, his father worked in a factory, and his mother was a nurse for the NHS. Also, he was the first in his family to attend university and studied law at Leeds. After graduating he became a lawyer taking many pro-bono cases, including against big corporations, later worked in North Ireland, and then became the Director of Public Prosecutions. In 2014 he received a knighthood for services to criminal justice.
But, what doesn’t he tell us? Quite importantly, his opinions are not clear. Starmer has been known to politically flip-flop and adjust his message to the crowd and his needs. As a young Oxford graduate student, he became involved in Socialist causes, and seemingly maintained many of those opinions. However, he has also moved the Labour Party in a more centrist direction and often supports centrist ideas. Additionally, he is perceived as a boring, corporate person by voters, and not political enough by the political class.
Finally, it is important to note that there are other parties in Britain, but only the big parties are true contenders for the premiership – meaning one of these two will, unless there is a leadership change, become PM.