Monday 2nd June 2025
Blog Page 484

Album Review: Dua Lipa’s ‘Future Nostalgia’

Emily Cope
-
0
Album Review: Dua Lipa’s ‘Future Nostalgia’

Dua Lipa’s sophomore album Future Nostalgia is pop escapism at its best, just when we need it most. The singer belts her way through break-ups, new love and female empowerment, all whilst remaining upbeat, optimistic and, ultimately, fun. At a time when we are all seeking escape from the confines of our newly-restricted lives, Lipa proves the value of pop beats and dreamy lyrics for lifting our spirits.

From start to end, Future Nostalgia is a cohesive and perfectly planned concept album. The immersive, funky title track introduces the record’s flashy retro vibe whilst framing it at the innovative cusp of modern pop: “You want what now looks like, let me give you a taste”. ‘Cool’ is a light and summery take on new love, built on by the romantic lyrics and cheerful synth beats of ‘Levitating’, a highlight of the album. ‘Pretty Please’ continues Lipa’s romantic storytelling, with a pounding bassline and experimental instrumentals.

Future Nostalgia shows no sign of slowing down as it hits its stride with ‘Hallucinate’, ‘Love Again’ and ‘Break My Heart’, laden with striking vocals and deep, dance-heavy beats. The eleven-track record – relatively short in comparison to the longer albums many artists are currently producing – leaves no time for unnecessary filler tracks, never pausing in its relentlessly upbeat appeal. The concluding track, ‘Boys Will Be Boys’, drags the listener from Lipa’s glitzy ‘80s vision of love back into our reality. The string-heavy finale is the album’s most overtly political, tracking the accelerated pace at which girls are forced to grow up in today’s society.

The album is spearheaded by powerhouse lead singles ‘Don’t Start Now’ and ‘Physical’. The former feels almost like a second act to Lipa’s wildly successful 2017 single ‘New Rules’, offering closure to both the listener and the singer, who has gone from repeating her own mantra to herself (“One: don’t pick up the phone / Two: don’t let him in / Three: don’t be his friend”) to boldly warning her ex to keep his distance (“Don’t show up, don’t come out / Don’t start caring about me now”). The latter, ‘Physical’, is a stand-out track that best exemplifies the singer’s commitment to bringing the sounds of the ‘80s back to the top of the charts. A fast-paced synth beat lies beneath its powerful vocals, its lyrics making direct reference to the 1981 Olivia Newton-John classic. Lipa’s powerful and assured vocals on both catchy singles demonstrate the confidence and energy that underpins Future Nostalgia. Lipa, a credited writer on every song, sounds emboldened, empowered and in control from start to finish.

The myriad influences of disco, dance and pop run throughout the album, to its advantage. From the sampling of White Town’s 1997 hit ‘Your Woman’ (itself sampling Al Bowlly’s 1932 ‘My Woman’) for the song ‘Love Again’, to the use of the guitar riff from INXS’s 1987 hit ‘Need You Tonight’ on ‘Break My Heart’, the album is certainly a homage to the music of decades past. Lipa is evidently not the first to be influenced in this way – the use of ‘80s-style synth pop is becoming increasingly commonplace within the mainstream, seen in notable recent projects such as The Weeknd’s new album After Hours – but she perhaps takes it the furthest.

However, rather than blindly following a trend, Future Nostalgia consciously crafts a distinct sound for the singer. Lipa’s nods backwards do not simply replicate the sounds of the past, but use and manipulate them to shape a record which sounds undeniably modern. The album twists ‘80s pop tropes in a way that feels unique, personal and fresh, creating a project that evidences Lipa’s growth from rising radio favourite to Britain’s leading popstar. As promised by its title, Future Nostalgia takes the listener on a nostalgic ride to the future: whilst recalling the dance pop of the ‘80s and ‘90s, the album cements Lipa’s place in the future of British pop. Catchy, bright and enthusiastic, the album leaves the listener with no option but to dance along and be pulled into its worry-free world, if only for a few minutes.

Dua Lipa succeeds in building on the successes of her chart-topping first album by layering her well-established vocals and commanding lyrics with new sounds in pursuit of a cohesive and innovative follow-up that certainly tops its predecessor. The album marks a turning point in her own career, as well as marking Lipa out from her pop peers. Future Nostalgia is completely its own, refusing to fade into the background of the crowded field of contemporary pop music.

Album Review: Sufjan Stevens, ‘Aporia’

Isobel Falk
-
0
Album Review: Sufjan Stevens, ‘Aporia’

Sufjan Stevens is most widely known for his acoustic folk—or, as he terms it, “the strummy-strum acoustic guitar song”. Such stuff constitutes the bedrock of his early work, being a source for later accolades, such as his Oscar nomination for the soundtrack for the 2017 film Call Me By Your Name. He is, admittedly, a master of the form. With elfin features belying his 44 years of age, Stevens established a name for himself within independent music with early albums such as Michigan and Seven Swans, both quiet, introspective works laced through with the tinny delicacy of banjos and his high, fragile vocals. 

But to write Stevens off as yet another ‘Pitchfolk’ softboy is, to my mind, a disservice. Stevens has been wildly experimental throughout his career, expanding to a cosmic scope in synth-laden The Age of Adz. His second-latest outing, Carrie & Lowell, collapses back down to the intensely personal, with Stevens stripping back to his folk-influenced roots to mourn the passing of his mother. Throughout the trajectory of his oeuvre, Stevens’ delivery has remained a constant: in ‘Carrie & Lowell’, his voice is barely a whisper above the cold twinkling of a guitar, with ambient synth intermissions granting breathing space to the palpable anguish of the vocals. His latest album, Aporia—made in collaboration with his stepfather Lowell Brams—seems to be an explosion of these aspects to a grander scale.

A Google search defines ‘aporia’ as ‘an irresolvable internal contradiction or logical disjunction in a text, argument, or theory.’ To me, this epitomises Sufjan Stevens as an artist. Stevens’ signature vocals are an unending source of ambivalence, seeming to fluctuate between euphoria and despair, breakdown and revelation. His early love songs waver in meaning, between being chronicles of Christian faith and of gay desire. His music is both acoustic and electronic, his lyrics both personal and metaphysical. His work’s dominant mode is tragedy, and yet he retains a taste for the camp and kitsch.

Aporia is largely instrumental. Working without an emphasis on his distinctive vocals or his signature acoustic guitar, Stevens still manages to retain all of the emotional articulacy that makes his work so compelling. The album is ambient and spacious, using synths to create vast swathes of uninhabited sonic terrain, as in the opening track ‘Ousia’. The track retains the feel of cosmic serenity that such sections create in Carrie & Lowell, inducing a trancelike sense of calm, laced with sitar-like twangs drawing from the Indian classical tradition. Stevens, however, is uninterested in restraining himself to chilled-out synths. The album bounces with virtuosic dexterity between tone and genre. The 30-second interlude ‘Palinodes’ sounds like a child’s recorder practice rendered in synth, giving way to the hysteria of sirens in ‘Backhanded Cloud’. ‘For Raymond Scott’ (named for the composer and electronic music pioneer) sounds like a malfunctioning 8-bit video game. Fuzzy shoegaze influences are discernible throughout.

Stevens’ vocals are present for a moment in Aporia, wrapped in the deeply layered synthesisers of ‘The Runaround’, the album’s seventeenth track. When his voice finally does appear, it is heavily modulated, lending it a gravity rarely found in his frail, boyish delivery. The lyrics seem to hint at the frustrated possibility of transcendence: ‘What are you waiting for? An open door?’

Aporia maintains a constructive tension—or, perhaps, a harmony—between the human and the cosmic. The ambient synth tracks approach mystic proportions only to lapse back into kitschy discordance or unbearable tension. A balance is maintained between transcendence and farce. With this album, Stevens has revealed himself once again to be an expert chronicler of the human condition, switching effortlessly between close-up, often painful, introspection, and visions of a higher order of being.

Starmer’s Labour: the long road to relevance

Ed Lawrence
-
0
Starmer’s Labour: the long road to relevance

On the 27th of February 1900, a group of trade unionists, politicians and intellectuals gathered in the Memorial Hall on Farringdon Street, London. United in their commitment to improving the lives of workers, they established what would become known as the Labour Party. The labour movement had already made inroads into local government, bringing about the construction of social housing, better conditions for council workers, and the provision of free school meals. But on that day, a new dream was born: power in Westminster.

Keir Starmer is now tasked with reigniting that dream. He has already taken steps to renew the Party internally, with the appointment of a formidable Shadow Cabinet and immediate action on antisemitism. He also needs to re-evaluate whom the Party represents, looking outwards to the country instead of inwards to the membership. He must engage with voters on the issues they care about. He must address the big changes of the coming decade. And he must tailor his message to each region of the country. Labour can only win if it is relevant.

In 2010, Labour didn’t just lose an election – it lost its way. The subsequent leadership election saw Ed Miliband narrowly beat his brother, bringing with him internal reforms that boosted the power of the membership. Whether good or bad in their own right, these reforms were a sign of the Party turning inwards. We began to debate the issues that mattered to us, not the issues that mattered to the country. We spent five years picking apart the previous Labour government, giving Cameron’s government the space to run our public services into the ground. Miliband is a brilliant politician. However, he talked up his programme to be more radical than it was in order to appease the left of the party, while buying into the Tories’ rhetoric on austerity and immigration in a misguided flail at electability.

Devastated, the Party looked for change in the form of Jeremy Corbyn. The ideas generated during his leadership were exciting and much needed. Yet while the long-term, comprehensive vision was there, the political strategy wasn’t. Instead of honing in on issues relevant to people’s lives, the campaign tried to whip up a 1970s class consciousness that simply wasn’t there. The pitch of “For the many, not the few” left many wondering which camp they were supposed to be in. The sweeping ideology behind it seemed disconnected from people’s lives – a more truthful slogan would have been “For the members, not for you”.

Moreover, Labour didn’t behave like a party of government. With his activist skillset and rigidity in the face of criticism, Corbyn couldn’t foster unity. Factionalism drained talent from the front bench and allowed antisemitism to tear through the movement. If you don’t look ready to lead the country, the country won’t put you in charge.

Under Starmer, Labour must rediscover relevance. First, that means looking like a government-in-waiting, not an opposition-ad-infinitum. The COVID-19 pandemic has raised the bar for anyone hoping to run the country: voters will ask whether Labour can be trusted when crisis hits. Starmer’s moves so far to work constructively with the Government are encouraging. The breadth and talent on the front benches are colossal. However, it will only shine through if there is unity on the backbenches, so Keir must continue to cultivate this. The Party administration should be competent, not factional. It’s evident from the way Starmer staffed his campaign that he shares this view.

Second, it means listening to the issues which people care about now. This is where we failed on Brexit. We refused to believe that people really cared to leave. We didn’t listen when they spoke about sovereignty – surely, we thought, people only really care about incomes and public services. As a result, we campaigned only on the latter, treating Brexit like some minor inconvenience to be dealt with later. We must learn that if something matters to people, it matters full stop.

Third, it means getting ahead on the issues that will define the coming decade. We are already strong on climate change. But we are too quiet on emerging technologies – big data, artificial intelligence, and the dangerous concentrations of power that will accompany them. We haven’t mapped out how to engage with China’s rise and its increasing tensions with the US. We will face various crossroads regarding our role as a global player: trade relations; international development; and defence alliances against threats of nuclear, cyber and biowarfare.

Lastly, it requires a country-wide strategy. In Scotland, the SNP is the default party for progressives and the Conservatives are the default for unionists. Yet progressive politics needn’t entail nationalism, and unionism needn’t entail conservatism. Starmer’s plan for a federalist settlement is a bold attempt to harness the best of both. He must be equally as proactive in finding solutions tailored to every region, heeding the core message of Nandy’s campaign.

There’s a long road ahead. But after a decade of stalling, Labour is on the move again.

Ed Lawrence is on Twitter @ed_lawrence_

Image via Bloomberg

Ode to a Waitress

Sophia Cerullo
-
0
Ode to a Waitress

‘I’d rather be doing anything, anything than this shit’, falls out between hysterical bouts of sobs – my Mum didn’t sign up for this. Sat across the kitchen is a shell of a 17-year-old – clad in a densely-woven, pillar box red polo shirt, smelling, or rather reeking, of roast beef. The thick polyester material of her uniform (I use this term in its loosest meaning) retains such a delicious musk even after multiple washes, and also adds a flattering 2 stone to her form. She’s a waitress, fresh out of a Christmas shift.

During the Cerullos’ state-issued daily dog walk the other day, we happen to pass the greasy palace itself. I turn to my brother­ – and former pot-washing colleague – and ask, ‘how many hours on end would you work in there to get rid of lockdown?’ He pauses, casts his eyes to the middle distance as if to recall a long-suppressed memory, and shivers: ‘we’re not at that point yet.’ ‘Yeah, you’re right. Never again’. Surely these can’t be the words of a couple of young adults who had the joys of working in their picturesque local pub, an intrinsic part of a blissfully pastoral Somerset adolescence? 

Don’t get me wrong, I too was fooled by the mysterious lure of ‘the waitress’. They were something to be revered, so nonchalant despite taking stage as the magicians of any meal out I’d ever had. I was commanded by their presence, fascinated by their elegance and ease in commanding a table of 30 in an instant. My cousin had been one, even Graham Norton had been one (I distinctly remember the advice he gave to teens on his Radio 2 show, that ‘everyone should work in service’). My 14-year-old self, CV trembling in hand that brisk autumn morning five years ago, couldn’t wait to join them.   

In hindsight, I should’ve smelt something fishy­ – or rather, beefy – upon entering such an establishment. There’s a beautiful metaphor in my CV getting stained with honey-roasted peanut dust and Otter as I passed it nervously over the bar. My future boss barely cast her eyes over the envelope, which, if she had opened it, contained a perfectly-penned smattering of A* predicted GCSE grades and ‘work experience’ as House Languages Captain. Instead she simply fixed her narrowed eyes upon my eyebrowless, frizzy-haired form. In manner of some ale-brewing, cod-frying Yoda, she cackled through a missing tooth, ‘bit shy. I’m gonna work you ‘ard mind you!’ Was this a job offer? ‘Great, oh that’s great, wonderful, oh thank you so much.’ I might have curtseyed on my way out.

I felt a bit of a legend swanning into registration the next morning at school, dropping in the odd bit of career-girl jargon: ‘shift’, ‘pay’, ‘National Insurance Number’, ‘leave’, ‘tax’, ‘apron’ etc. In retrospect I was a bit of a prick about it: ‘Yeah, no Toby’s party sounds really fun but I just need to check I’m not WORKING.’ Yes, the uniform was disgusting, the legality of wage distribution questionable, but that didn’t matter to me. 

My first shift was the sweatiest, busiest, most stressful 5 hours of my life. To say I was thrown in at the deep end was an understatement; ‘service’ seemed to make monsters of every member of staff in that place: screaming, throwing and swearing (‘If they don’t think that’s medium rare they can shove it up their fucking arse’) echoed throughout the kitchen, and also the surrounding tables; a woman stopped my crimson, sweating, frizzy form at one point and asked, ‘are you alright?’. Nothing worse than a waitress who can’t handle the heat of the kitchen. I had majorly underestimated this whole charade. 

I began to understand Pegg’s chosen setting for Shaun of the Dead. But I’m not a quitter, and at the time was a bit too proud; when asked at school how it was going, I simply replied, ‘Yeah no really good, we’re actually coming up to the Festive Season which is really exciting because we’ve got a new menu.’  Unlike school, the life of the waitress was not something I could intellectualise from the depths of my shy character. In some ways I’m grateful to my waitressing experience: the late shifts, endless weekends spent smelling of batter have provided me with some excellent formal chat fodder. A particular favourite amongst friends has to be ‘The Cheesecake Incident’: a girl is 4 hours deep into an extremely busy shift and is therefore in autopilot customer-is-always-right-do-anything-and-everything-for-the-customer-mode. She cuts a piece of cheesecake that as soon as knife touches pud she knows will be too flimsy, too small. She leaves the kitchen– there’s no turning back. As she moves through the air – an odd but specific posture, a bit like you’re taking a shit, is required to keep the plates you’re carrying steady – the cheesecake wobbles, beginning then refraining to succumb to the wind created by its master’s swift motion through the restaurant. ‘Who ordered the cheesecake?’ The man who claims it is helpfully placed next to the fire; as the waitress’ arse begins to gently bake she lowers the cheesecake to the table, yet as she does, it beautifully topples into the man’s lap, in the manner of a trapeze artist at the Cirque de Soleil. In super-helpful-handy autopilot, she immediately goes to fish the cheesecake from the man’s crotch. ‘It’s alright’, he says, ‘I think I’ve got that.’ It looks like I’m trying to feel him up. Instead of tossing a customer off mid-shift I draw back my hands, muffling a sentence together which reassembles ‘I’ll just go get… another slice of that one… and a napkin so you can… clean up that cheese… on your lap.’ Really well played. 

I could recall countless others– the lovely Adam, who, addressing each waitress by their breasts, would plonk himself at the bar every day and drink a bottle of wine as he watched the shift play out, akin to a twatted Chaucer in The Canterbury Tales. There was the time I got a 25p tip from a table of 40 who stayed until 2am (we closed at 12); the time a woman popped a dirty nappy along with the waste contents of her handbag (train tickets, tissues, an old mascara etc.) into her empty desert dish – upon finding the custard (and perhaps faeces)-smeared train tickets, my people-pleasing-16 year old wiped them down and ran out after the customer only to be laughed at: ‘Oh, those were meant for the bin!’ 

Despite this, my career as a waitress has spanned 5 years and counting. I agree with Graham– I do think everyone should work in service at some point. As odd as it might sound, I valued by boss’ indifference to my academic pursuits – for her, getting Table 6 their starters on time was just as important as one of her staff members leaving early for an Oxford interview. Waitressing has allowed me to put the stress I might feel into perspective; trying to remember 5 different orders whilst pulling pints and maintaining some sort of conversation with the person you’re serving demands a certain mindfulness. I’ve grown to love talking to everyone and anyone; the witty balls needed to assert yourself in a loud kitchen has formed the basis of my chat, far from the bag of nerves which entered those doors all those years ago. 

I suppose this is a love letter to the pub, in all its greasy, frantic glory. Much like school can’t teach you the things that working in service can, the peculiar magic of Oxford lies just as much in the relationships it fosters as its stony, bookish physicality. I’ll take as much from my academic pursuits at this university as I will from the memories made over a cold pint.  

Paris Fashion Week reviewed

Eliana Nunes
-
0
Paris Fashion Week reviewed

The year is 2020, a change is happening. The year is 2020, a revolution is happening”, sang New-York-based singer, No Bra, during the show Andreas Kronthaler For Vivienne Westwood. A few weeks later, amid the worldwide Coronavirus-induced end-of-world frenzy, these words feel prescient. Without the bias of hindsight, an apocalyptic sentiment pervaded the whole of Paris Fashion Week Fall-Winter 2020. Balenciaga had its models, mostly clad in black, stomp through a water-filled runway; Marine Serre’s futuristic vision included face-masks matching those worn by guests (some of which were handed to members of the audience at the entrance before shows); Paco Rabanne’s collection, inspired by historical dress, contained long, gothic-like garments and chainmail headgear.

  1. THE COLOUR BLACK

In keeping with the somber mood, all-black looks opened virtually all of the shows. For Givenchy, Fran Summers paced along the catwalk, her black oversized hat casting a shadow over most of her face and her pendant mesmerizingly swinging from left to right. For Kenzo, Jan Baiboon wore a similarly black face-obscuring hat with a cape and an oversized tailored ensemble. Black even made its bold appearance in designers least expected. Giambattista Valli, whilst retaining the signature ladylike touch to his looks, incorporated the colour heavily.

  1. THE CAPE 

The cape also made a strong appearance, in particular in Givenchy and Balmain collections, a powerful reminder that nothing commands dominance like the cape. 

  1. THE LATEX LOOK

Regardless of one’s views about the Kardashian-Jenner clan, their role in anticipating, voicing and determining fashion trends cannot be denied. So when Kim Kardashian showcased three Balmain skintight latex ensembles during Paris FW, which debuted on the runway that very week, it became clear that this was a big season for latex in general. Latex was present in every look of Saint Laurent’s Fall-Winter collection. Vaccarello described his inspiration for the collection: ‘the Saint Laurent woman loves to take risks, she wears lace and cashmere with latex.’ 

The week also exposed designers’ fixation with leather accessories, reminiscent of the 80s biker look: from Valentino’s stunning ruffled leather bags and long leather gloves, to Haider Ackermann’s boots and Miu Miu’s memorable motorbike (or surgical) short-cut gloves. 

  1. THE STRONG SHOULDER 

In a similar reimagining of the 80s, designers also kickstarted the new decade with a bold shoulder, whether by shoulder pads, as those observed in Balmain’s latex looks, recurrent simple square-cuts, Balenciaga’s distinctive pointy shoulder blazers or numerous ruffled sleeves. 

  1. THE ‘POWER-SUIT’

Another 80s trend which has made its return yet another year is the ‘power-suit’. Sarah Burton once again proved that the impressive sharp tailoring inherent to Alexander McQueen who had trained on Savile Row, is immutable. There were also charming variations to the suit-look: Chanel graced the runways with adorable blazers intricately-detailed with lace. Altuzarra created elegant suit-skirt pairings and suit-dresses.

This season proved to be yet another vindication of the suit for woman, especially in light of Maria Grazia Chiuri’s collection, the designer often being credited for bring feminism to Dior. Only a day after Harvey Weinstein was convicted, Dior’s show was opened with Ruth Bell’s confident stride in a black pant-suit – a choice of outfit in which the model has declared that she feels most herself – under a series of neon signs: “Consent, Consent, Consent’.

  1. THE RE-ENVISIONMENT OF TULLE 

Paris FW also called our attention to tulle. The fabric has often been associated with the white tutu material of ballerina costumes, and is thus often regarded as the archetypal touch of femininity in the West. Its subversion in compelling statement looks was thus refreshing. Nicolas Ghesquière, in this season’s Louis Vuitton collection created striking tensions through his pairing of tulle with latex finishings and a leather corset. Virgil Abloh too dressed the Hadid sisters in hybrid outfits of tulle-skirt with ruffles and hooded parka jacket, in a turn of tulle meets streetwear.

  1. THE SHEER DRESS 

Last but not least, the sheer dress, made iconic by Marilyn Monroe’s performance of ‘Happy Birthday, Mr President’, has in recent months been very much in the vogue. Who could forget Kim Kardashian’s wet Met Gala look or Cardi B’s diamond-bedazzled look at the Grammy Awards? Both of which were designed by Thierry Mugler, Sovereign of Sheer and self-titled architect of the feminine silhouette: ‘I am an architect who completely reinvents a woman’s body’. This season’s Paris Fashion Week, saw many other brands including Dior, Valentino, Y/Project and Ingie Paris also embrace the sheer dress, often showcased with nothing underneath. 

From all-black, all-latex, all suited up and caped-up entrances to wholly exposing sheer looks and daring combinations of fabric, this was not a week for the spiritless of fashionistas. This week showed both nostalgia for the 80s, as well as underlying awareness of the momentousness of ‘today’ – its milestones, shifts and calamities. 

Leaders of Tomorrow? It is Time to Practice Some Humility

David Tritsch
-
0
Leaders of Tomorrow? It is Time to Practice Some Humility

At a recent job interview, I was asked whether I considered myself a follower or a leader. Later at lunch with some other candidates, we compared our answers to the questions we had been asked. It was clear to all of us that at least for this one, there must have been a correct answer: companies never fail to emphasise leadership as a desirable quality in applicants and not a day passes by without seeing a careers service ad for some “leadership seminar”. But maybe we need to stop putting leadership on a pedestal, and start to understand the importance of those who follow. 

Leadership. For a term that has experienced almost inflationary use and has become fetishised by politicians, graduate recruiters and career-hungry PPE students, there has been surprisingly little clarity regarding its meaning. It seems like even the most competitive industries have realised that bullying your competition into submission as if you were on an episode of “The Apprentice” is rarely conducive to getting any actual work done. It is difficult to forget Rory Laing’s painful appearance on the show, instructing his colleagues to take their jackets off whilst keeping his own on to remind everyone who was in charge. In the eternal words of Tywin Lannister: “Any man who must say, ‘I am the King’, is no true king”. And while this might seem like an awfully gendered expression in times of workplace equality, it is undeniable that some of the more toxic premises of masculinity, such as associating empathy with weakness or conflating dominance and qualification, have shaped such tragic figures as Rory. 

What, then, characterises good leadership? It does not seem particularly helpful that the leading voices on this issue appear to be consultants, politicians, and LinkedIn Gold Status members. In search for these authorities’ qualifications, we only keep discovering more ambiguous terminology. “Visionary creators“ who list “relationship management” under their top skills – you would be forgiven for concluding that the entire culture around leadership is nothing more than a gigantic ball of hot air. But after all, there must be something that my interviewer was aiming at – some candidates whose answer he judged to be inadequate and who would go on to receive an email beginning with “We regret to inform you…”. Bernhard Schroeder, a senior Forbes contributor, counts the ability to delegate, excellent communication and a high degree of commitment to be among the qualities that make you a top leader; knowing exactly what you want to accomplish and being able to coordinate a team that can achieve it. While those are without doubt valuable skills, they do not always turn out unproblematic in practice. What should a team do with a room full of equally confident leaders that cannot wait to work on their own brilliant ideas, with the help of a team that is eager to implement them? No matter how great you believe your input is, sometimes the only thing that will lead to positive change is to admit that someone else’s idea is better. Not only that, sometimes you have to admit that someone else is much better at being in charge of a team altogether, be that thanks to their superior expertise or their personal attributes. Insisting on having your vision for a project implemented can all too often be a path to guaranteed failure. 

But asking people surrounded by a culture of individualism and self-advertisement to practice humility is a difficult sell. It is estimated that eight out of ten start-ups in the UK close shop in just a few years. What this should teach us is not entrepreneurship is doomed to fail but that having great ideas is not enough. Being able to step back and acknowledge a great opportunity for having someone else take the lead is just as important as providing good leadership yourself. Perhaps we should commend “followers” more than leaders for being able to take the psychological hit of sacrificing the centre of attention for the success of a project. Want to see the catastrophic consequences of a culture that excessively glorifies leadership? Look no further than our world leaders: in times of a global pandemic, where political advice from epidemiologists and the WHO deserves maximum attention, leaders like Trump, Johnson and others have chosen to trade the lives of millions for their own sense of security in a position of authority. In Germany, on the other hand, where virologists like Christian Drosten are now regarded as a de facto source of technocratic power, politicians have understood that the greatest leaders must be able to surrender leadership when necessary.

In a place like Oxford, a cluster for so many “leaders of tomorrow”, we should start being more critical of our self-positioning in the social hierarchy of leaders and followers.  Not only do we need to understand that neither of the two binary choices can be exclusively sustainable, it is also time to celebrate our ability to pick the side of the follower . Granted, it might not look quite as impressive on your LinkedIn profile, but it might make you a better team worker. 

Pembroke provides food for 100 homeless people

Mark Robins
-
0
Pembroke provides food for 100 homeless people

Pembroke College is providing homeless people in Oxford with three meals a day in response to the COVID-19 outbreak. The College is participating in a Council-run scheme which delivers food to three temporary homeless shelters. An email to Pembroke students suggested that the project may reach 100 people.

The scheme provides two hot meals and a cold breakfast, which are delivered by volunteer drivers each day. Coordinated by Oxford City Council, the scheme began a two-week trial period on Saturday, with the aim of an extension if successful. Thousands of meals will be provided, offered by the College at cost price.

“I’ve always said that while we have one student in College who needs our support the kitchens here will not shut”, said Kevin Dudley, Pembroke’s Executive Chef. “We continue to look after those who have had to stay in residence, and when the Council got in contact about this need in the wider community it seemed obvious that we could provide the solution.

“My team, who are working long shifts with small numbers on duty at a time, have been fantastic in stepping up.”

The College is confident that the increased demand on the catering team will not place staff or the 50 students remaining in college in danger. A College spokesperson confirmed to Cherwell that the small number of staff adhere to social distancing policy and that drivers are asked to clean their hands and are provided with new pairs of gloves at each pick-up.

Dame Lynne Brindley, Master of Pembroke, said: “Everyone in College is immensely proud of our catering team who are once again putting in extra effort to show the meaning of being a caring community.”

The Council has taken further measures to help homeless people during the crisis. 100 hotel rooms have been leased to provide accommodation, whilst the Porch day centre for homeless and vulnerable people has launched a £20,000 COVID-19 Response Fund. However, the Council reports that some rough sleepers have not yet been accommodated or have refused offers of accommodation.

Image Credit to Djr Xi / Wikimedia Commons. License: CC-BY-SA-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0.

Pandemic Democracy: Trump, Biden, and the politics of coronavirus

Spencer Cohen
-
0
Pandemic Democracy: Trump, Biden, and the politics of coronavirus

The 2020 election already had all the elements you’d expect from a blockbuster political thriller. An impossibly large star-studded cast, a twin election conspiracy that resulted in a primetime impeachment trial, and a loopy yet ever-so-predictable plot that will result in a long-awaited showdown between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. 

And yet, in a shift in genre from thriller to horror, the 2020 election is being disrupted by one of the worst public health crises in modern history – and the 2020 election will never be the same for it. Indeed, coronavirus has hit the US particularly hard – at the time of writing, it has claimed over 3 million jobs and 2 thousand lives. While regional variations persist, the virus has forced most of the country in quarantine – fundamentally altering people’s everyday lives, and, by extension, the presidential campaign. Many questions have been raised regarding how and whether the election can move forward. 

First and foremost, the process of the vote, for both the primary and the general, has been called into question. In the age of social distancing, how does democracy organize its most vital process? 

Secondly, if an election is indeed inevitable, how will coronavirus change how voters see the candidates, and how the candidates campaign? Will the gravest public health crisis in a generation consume the campaign and become the main sparring point between the candidates?

So, amidst all this uncertainty, here is your guide to understanding how the coronavirus pandemic will affect the 2020 election and how American democracy lives on through the most challenging public health crisis of our time. 

How will Coronavirus Affect Voting in the Democratic Primary?

In the age of social distancing, holding elections has become an unprecedented public health challenge, and Governors around the country have negotiated their states’ primaries to strike a balance between democracy and health concerns. Primary elections, unlike the general election contests, are statutorily organized under the authority of the state – meaning state legislatures and governors around the country have the prerogative to change, cancel, or postpone Democratic primaries. There are two ways that Democratic primaries in most states have been adjusted to accommodate coronavirus.

The first is postponement: 14 states, at the time of writing, have postponed their primaries. Most postponements have pushed the election calendar past mid-June, with June 2ndbecoming a popular date. This is despite the DNC’s June 9thlimit for states to hold primaries (the penalty for contravening this rule is a reduction in delegates allocated to the state at the national convention), which, as of yet, has not been pushed back or eliminated. Two issues remain for those states: first, it is uncertain whether the sanitary conditions under which holding an election is safe will exist by then; and secondly, most postponements don’t accommodate a change in rules to expand virtual or remote voting. 

The second way in which states have altered their elections is by making them totally remote, and by making voting entirely by mail. Three states have taken this approach: they will mail ballots to registered voters and extending registering deadlines. Additional states, who have often already postponed their elections, are also considering switching their elections to this format.

In conclusion, most states (all, in fact, but Wisconsin, which, despite a stay-at-home order in the state and general chaos around the question, is somehow still holding a vote on April 7th) have gone to impressive lengths to preserve and maintain their primary elections in safe conditions for their citizens despite the coronavirus, by postponing, or rendering virtual, their primary contests. 

However, in addition to the primaries themselves, the convention has also been affected by the coronavirus. American primary elections are indirect elections: each state holds primaries, and uses the results of these primaries to allocate delegates to each candidate, and these delegates are then charged with voting for them at the party convention, which officially chooses the party nominee. The Democratic Convention plays an essential role in formalizing the nominee but it also plays a symbolic role, showcasing the party’s enthusiasm and support for the nominee before the general election with surrogates and balloons aplenty. It has recently been moved from July 13thto August 17th. 

How will Coronavirus Change the Campaign of the Democratic Primary?

The Democratic Primary, according to FiveThirtyEight’s election prediction model, is settled at 99% in Joe Biden’s favor. Indeed, Joe Biden’s delegate lead, accumulated through impressive wins over Bernie Sanders over the last few weeks, is near insurmountable. 

Nevertheless, Bernie has stated that, despite “an admittedly narrow path” to the nomination, he intends to stay in the race to push his agenda further into the Democratic mainstream, as he did in his contest with Hillary Clinton in 2016. He has expressed interest in another debate with Joe Biden, a proposition which the former Vice-President has dismissed, stating “I think we have had enough debates. I think we should get on with this”. 

Coronavirus has thus created an awkward dynamic in the primary: Joe Biden has attempted to use it as a way of contrasting his leadership with President Trump’s, emphasizing his alternative, more proactive plans, and experience dealing with the Ebola crisis in the Obama administration. He has attempted to turn his campaign’s focus to the general election. However, with Sanders refusing to bow out, it has created a weird space where the primary is settled, but still exists in the background of the public health crisis ongoing, sucking any energy out of Joe Biden’s public media presence. 

Moreover, with the Convention being moved back a month (to August 17th), three issues have arisen. First, the delegates that formally vote for the nominee at the convention are determined by state party conventions – and while the convention has been moved back, it’s unclear whether it gives the time, given the public health conditions, for these state conventions to take place. Secondly, it also raises questions about the timeline for Joe Biden to choose his vice-presidential nominee: traditionally, they are announced right before the convention, but with this delay, will Joe Biden want to announce his pick so late, giving his choice for the second highest-ranking job in the executive only 2 months to campaign alongside him? Thirdly, and most importantly, this dramatically shrinks the calendar of the election. This reduces the amount of time Joe Biden has to reduce his fundraising deficit and campaign by 2 months. Worse, with a pending unfinished primary challenge, it could keep focus away from him in the already politically suffocating time of coronavirus.  

In sum, it seems more likely than not that coronavirus remains a pressing public concern until the Democratic convention, which would suck any oxygen left in the primary away. This would mean that, even if Bernie wants to stay in longer, it would be very secondary to the coronavirus response,   and to the general election, which already seems set. Biden’s general election is further complicated by the elongated primary timeline, and the delayed convention. 

How will Coronavirus Affect Voting in the General Election?

The general election is set by acts of Congress – meaning that if it were to be delayed it would require bipartisan consensus, as it would have to be agreed by both the Democratic House and the Republican Senate. However, postponing the election would not extend President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence’s terms in office – the 20thAmendment to the Constitution provides that their terms “shall end at noon on the 20thday of January”. This would require a constitutional amendment to change, meaning 2/3 of Congress and 2/3 of all States need to approve extending Trump’s first term, which is extremely unlikely. 

So, it seems inevitable the general election is set to take place on November 3rd. The real question regarding the general is not when, but how, the election will take place. As with the Democratic primaries, it seems that a dramatic expansion of voting-by-mail is the most desired outcome. Speaker Pelosi suggested as such when she recently stated: “In terms of the elections, I think that we’ll probably be moving to vote by mail”. Other initiatives that could be taken are the expansion of online voting registration, the introduction of early voting in states that currently don’t allow for it, and the reconfiguration of polling places to accommodate for the risks posed by coronavirus. 

Nevertheless, this prerogative belongs to individual states, who set their own voting laws. Of course, in the past states have not shown themselves to be above the weaponization of voting laws to influence the outcomes elections. Decades of systemic voter suppression aren’t just symptomatic of structural racism in the USA, but exist largely as the product of hyper-partisan Republican legislatures and governors seeking to maintain their political offices by suppressing minority voters, who vote disproportionately for Democrats over Republicans. In this vein, coronavirus could be used to distort voting patterns, repress voter turnout, and target specific communities or states. 

There are two risks that coronavirus could pose to the integrity of the election in 2020. Firstly, the election could be underfunded, leaving states unable, even if they wished to, organize the election with the proper measures to keep voters safe. The 400M$ provided by the first stimulus package passed by Congress just days ago for election security and to expand voter access in the public health crisis is a far cry from the 4B$ the Democrats initially demanded. Secondly, a fearmongering campaign about the risks of voting, targeting specific liberal areas especially, could be used by the President as a weapon to depress voter turnout. 

So, in sum, with the election undoubtedly set to take place on November 3rd, Congress must act swiftly to secure safe, open, and fair elections. A pressure campaign must be waged on states so they render access to voting easier – by expanding voter registration online, vote-by-mail, and no-excuse absentee ballots. More money must be invested into election security to secure the safety and freedom to vote without risk, and more focus in public discourse must revolve on how to create the best conditions to facilitate voting in November despite the impending public health crisis. 

How will Coronavirus Change the Campaign in the General Election?

Finally, the coronavirus will profoundly change the dynamics, substance, and the nature of campaigning in the race between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. 

The first, most obvious, effect coronavirus will have on the election is changing the length and focus of the campaign. Traditionally, the general election begins from the point that both presumptive nominees are chosen (traditionally April) until November 3rd. However, coronavirus will dramatically shorten the time both candidates have to campaign. In addition to the dramatically shortened campaign period, the campaign’s focus and means will also necessarily adapt themselves to the public health crisis. 

The way campaigns are run usually involve extensive on-the-ground operations, large rallies, and intense use of earned media. Instead, with the media (rightly) covering the coronavirus instead of the campaign, and organizing and rallies at a halt, campaigns have instead begun to move to a more digital space. 

For President Trump, this certainly plays to his strengths: his campaign has built a digital juggernaut (his 2020 campaign manager, Brad Parscale, served as his digital media director in 2016) that has spent over 3 times as much money as Joe Biden’s campaign on Facebook and Google ads since the 2018 midterms. In addition to digital advertising, the Trump campaign has been swift to continue its digital organizing initiatives, hosting three targeted virtual town halls this week (“Latinos with Trump”, “Women with Trump”, and “Catholics for Trump”) which have each regularly reached over 250k views on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. Besides this digital advertising edge, President Trump, as an incumbent President leading the response to a national disaster, has earned countless hours of earned media, with most networks live-broadcasting his press conferences on coronavirus. 

Naturally, these advantages have led to a bump in the President’s approval ratings, as the result of a “rally-around-the-flag” effect. In portraying himself as a wartime President, Donald Trump has managed to hoist his approval ratings to their highest point in his presidency. Nevertheless, this bump has been very modest compared to those received by other government leaders in times of crisis, like George Bush’s after 9/11. The relatively “small” bump can be explained by President Trump’s muddled messaging, late response, and still-divisive rhetoric. These approval ratings are also constantly evolving, and will have more meaning for the election once the crisis comes to an end and Americans are able to fully evaluate President Trump’s performance. 

Joe Biden and the DNC currently face a cash deficit of 200M$ on Trump and the RNC. This deficit is even more difficult to make up virtually in the context of an impending depression some economists have projected to be worse than 2008. Joe Biden has consistently been outraised and outspent online by the Trump campaign – and the virus is set to exacerbate this trend. 

This is especially troubling for the Democrats as Biden has naturally been sidelined during the coronavirus. His lack of office has meant he has no official role in the fight against the virus – as a result, he has been outshone by Democrats across the country on the front lines of the response to the crisis, from Governors like Andrew Cuomo of New York and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, to members of Congress like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Nevertheless, from his home in Delaware, Joe Biden has tried, with mixed results, to stay a visible and credible alternative to the President. This has included taking symbolic measures, like drawing contrasts with Trump by promising to wear a face mask in public, and stoking speculation about his vice-presidential and cabinet picks on fundraising calls. However, the consensus among Democrats is that he needs to ramp up his media presence and play more of a role within the Party in establishing a strategy for the crisis and how to communicate about it. 

Finally, perhaps the most consequential result of the coronavirus crisis will be the way it shapes the election’s main areas of contention and focus. The Trump campaign’s plan was a simple one: run on the strength of the economy. Needless to say, this has been complicated by the impeding global depression. Joe Biden’s moral argument has now transformed into a more offensive one, tying President Trump’s late and faltering response to the crisis to the impending death toll and economic fallout. Whereas the economy and healthcare were expected to play central roles in the election, they will now take an even more pivotal place in the debate between Biden and Trump, and will likely give Joe Biden a more effective line of attack on the President. 

Blind Spots and Vigilantism: Learning from the ghosts of recent pandemics past

Francesca Butt
-
0
Blind Spots and Vigilantism: Learning from the ghosts of recent pandemics past

As word of the coronavirus began to grace newsfeeds in January, the initial posts were inevitably accompanied by righteous reminders that there are other, bigger problems in the world. In the naïve, early belief that media fear-mongering was blowing the grim prospect of a tsunami of COVID-19 cases well out of proportion (and side-stepping the likelihood that the Chinese government were underplaying, rather than overstating, the severity of their situation) multiple posts called for things to be brought into perspective.

Whilst the virus seemed locked behind a screen on the other side of the world, the savants of Facebook took it upon themselves to remind the masses of the following: the burgeoning bug had no right to occupy more space on our timelines than the instances of war and starvation which had gone ignored for a long time theretofore.  

Invoking alternative crises as topics for conversation in an attempt to deflate the hyperbolic coverage of a single issue cannot represent pure, undiluted caring. Telling followers to quit harping on about Brexit and to lend their social media attention to starvation in Yemen does not smack of altruistic passion.

The implicit denial of a forthcoming crisis and the apparent irony of calling to attention the plight of the Third World in order to demonstrate a new-found, empathetic awareness of difficulties overseas whilst belittling present difficulties overseas might rightly be construed as hypocritical.

However, there is a valid point to be extracted from such trending tirades. Twitter-folk sometimes harbour more noble impulses than I have let on. Regardless of the actual, intention of each ‘serial poster’ or ‘content creator’ in sharing posts like these, encoded within the decision is a will for advocacy by a member of the public who has not been supplied with the background information to formulate a compelling argument.

Many apt comparisons would better voice the concern that the media’s attentions and inattentions require evaluation. Just last week, I stumbled across three documents which convince me that articles on the coronavirus should have felt like old news, rather than appearing as an explosively new-on-the-scene media frenzy.  

First, according to this blog post, schools in Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone were closed for six to eight months during the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak. I had no idea.  

Secondly, according to this piece by the Global Education Monitoring (GEM) report, in 2016 experts voiced the importance of ‘plan[ning] now’ ‘in order to mitigate human and financial losses as a result of future global pandemics but the statement languished in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases. Likewise, the phrase ‘the world is ill-prepared to respond to a severe…pandemic’ recorded in The New England Journal of Medicine after the 2009 H1N1 outbreak seems not to have made it practically beyond the page.

Thirdly, as someone who finds current circumstances ‘eerily familiar’, the writer of this Guardian Article berates the ‘inescapable’ nature of the Coronavirus which ‘dominates the news and our conversations’.

These articles exposed my lack of knowledge of international crises beyond Europe, the repeated pleas of academics for a mobilising effort to plan for global health crises, and the wealth of recent, historical precedents for situations just like this one. In combination, they represent a literally fatal lack of communication of the experiences of relief workers and researchers to the general public, for which world news forums must be at fault. 

In line with the vigilantes of social media, I would like to challenge a disparity in the media’s portrayal of comparable events. I take issue not with the lack of equal airtime for crises at home and abroad (this ground is covered elsewhere). Rather, I refute the claim that news cannot be made directly relevant, engaging, and motivating wherever it happens.

Presumably, posts which call attention to far-off disasters do not find gratification in flooding feeds with an influx of negative news. Instead, they oppose ego-centric panic reporting and advocate for broader opportunities to become invested in socially bettering schemes at all times. At the very least, they demonstrate a will to look beyond one’s borders for some perspective, lessons, and potentially answers on how to live during times of adversity. This implication is lost only because of the layman’s difficulty in projecting a voice in earnest about situations they know little about, but almost certainly should do, given that a response needs be collaborative.

I have learned two things from the indignant voices of social media in response to the coverage of COVID-19; one, that attention to off-piste journalistic enterprises which translate the distant experiences of others into a universal call-to-action might just be the secret to worldwide development; and two, that a large number of people are probably poised to listen to the reasonable and imaginative relation of international stories to their own contexts.

The media should not shy away from promoting interest in issues which have the potential to be universally implicating. In doing so, they leave it to social media goers to seek their own methods of correction.  

Opinion – Oxford Finalists Deserve a Proper ‘Safety Net’

Ferdinand Otter-Sharp
-
0
Opinion – Oxford Finalists Deserve a Proper ‘Safety Net’

On Wednesday 25th March I released an Open Letter to the University advocating for a ‘guaranteed minimum’ grade to be implemented to protect students particularly affected by the extraordinary circumstances of the Covid-19 crisis. It was signed by 1600 finalists; over half of this year’s finalist body. 

In the letter, I argued that sitting online exams during lockdown without a ‘safety net’ wouldn’t measure student ability so much as inequalities of home environment: inequalities such as access to books and tuition, the effects of coronavirus on the health of students and their families, amplified generalised anxiety, difficult family relationships, lack of workspace, and countless other issues.

One finalist told me that the Open Letter had been“a source of great hope and joy for me personally in a difficult time”. Another signed because they had been made to feel as though “the examiners don’t care that much about the concerns that students have.”

Numerous prestigious UK universities have since implemented ‘guaranteed minimum’ grade policies, including Exeter, St Andrews and Warwick. The day before the University of Oxford was due to announce its examination policy, the University of Cambridge followed suit, announcing that they too would be introducing a ‘safety net’.

When Oxford announced its examination arrangements, they contained several issues. Departments have been left to interpret the rules however they like. As a result, several haven’t reduced workloads whatsoever. Concerns around cheating were not alleviated by a reliance on an ‘honour code’ to prevent students collaborating. The statement (like its precursors) reads as if the only academically relevant effect of Covid-19 is the fact we can’t sit our exams in Exams Schools and the consequent uncertainty over their format.

I don’t know who in the University needs to hear this but even after examination arrangements are made clear, students will continue to struggle to revise effectively. Students do not want finals that are as close to conventional as possible, they want finals that reflect the very unconventional environment in which we are studying. We are asking for a human response to this crisis rather than a managerial one.

For students unable to take exams, the University offers a ‘Declared to Have Deserved Honours’ (read: unclassified) degree, presenting it as a ‘special class of degree’. Punishing the students most disadvantaged by the pandemic by denying them honours is unjust. Cambridge’s decision to award students their deserved classification but retain raw marks on degree transcripts is much fairer, and more closely aligned with the views of the Oxford finalist body, as outlined in the open letter. If students were likely to receive honours before the pandemic, they should be given honours now, not a tokenistic half-degree that future employers will neither recognise nor understand.

At the end of the statement, the Vice Chancellor announced a safety net policy although “the details of this are still being finalised and will be communicated as soon as possible.” It’s possible that this policy was added at the last minute in response to our letter, as well as Cambridge’s announcement the day before. This would explain its vagueness but suggest that Oxford had been intending to announce a policy considerably less responsible or fair than Cambridge and many other leading universities. If a safety net has been part of Oxford’s plans for longer than this, then there is no excuse for the continuing lack of detail around this policy. 

Oxford University has one last chance to prove its commitment to equality of opportunity, and to its duty of care for students. Details of the proposed safety net should be announced as soon as possible for all subjects, and they should constitute a “a genuine Safety Net Policy that covers allfinal year students on allUG and PGT courses” as advocated for by the Oxford SU VP of Access and Academic Affairs in an email to finalists. In addition to this, I hope that the University will reduce the overall assessment burden across the board.

More broadly, Oxford needs to reform its ideology and attitude towards its own responsibilities as an institution. So far during this pandemic the University has increased the anxieties of the student body rather than eased them, and this is part of a larger historic pattern. From access issues around class and race, to student mental health, to conservative curricula, Oxford has demonstrated that it prioritises its traditional image, wealthy donors, and high ‘academic standards’ over moral social values and the wellbeing of its students.

From nations to food delivery companies, Covid-19 is highlighting the need for bold, ethical leadership and systemic reform. The University of Oxford is no different, and announcing a genuine safety net as soon as possible would be a good first step on a positively transformative journey. When the individuals responsible for Oxford’s examination policies are asked the question “what did you do for your students during the pandemic?”, the answer “I safeguarded the academic rigour of Oxford degrees” will not be looked upon favourably.If ever there were a time to put compassion before misjudged standards of ‘academic rigour’, that time is now.

1...483484485...2,504Page 484 of 2,504

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