Tuesday, May 13, 2025
Blog Page 529

Opinion – With its most catastrophic defeat since 1935, Corbyn’s Labour has failed us

Miles Pressland & Joe Davies consider the reasons why Labour saw such a landslide defeat – and the common denominator is Jeremy Corbyn.

Miles Pressland

A few years ago, I was discussing the unsteady political climate with a Conservative friend of mine. At a moment during which I thought the conversation couldn’t get any more ridiculous, he claimed that it was possible for a Conservative campaign to successfully win seats in the traditional Labour heartland of the North. To me, this seemed completely absurd – yet I was very much mistaken.

Alienation from the Labour Party has been occurring steadily but surely over the last few decades. As Labour have continuously failed to present a viable alternative to Conservative governance to the British public, the working classes have inevitably lost confidence in their usual party. Most voters are under no illusion as to the state of the country – in my experience, the majority will readily admit the poor state of the NHS, the worrying rise in homelessness and poverty, generally stagnant wages, and ever-increasing rent prices. Nonetheless, many continue to vote passionately for the Conservative party; including those who have traditionally suffered under Conservative governance, such as Blyth Valley in Northumberland. One might concede that Labour failed to convince the public of the economic viability of their spending plan – yet this doesn’t appear to have been the principal concern.

Labour’s policies in their 2019 manifesto feed into a truth all too readily acknowledged by these lost voters; that its central administration and leadership has now emigrated to London, thereby becoming wholly out of touch with the issues facing voters in the wider country. This perception was in turn exacerbated by Labour’s spending policy, seen by many as bourgeoissocialism.

Of course, it may be surprising that I’ve gotten this far without even mentioning Brexit. Since the original referendum, Labour was dropped into a somewhat impossible dilemma, risking the alienation of a significant fraction of its voter base, irrespective of their decision. Nevertheless, the influence of Starmer and Thornberry has evidently harmed Labour – through backing a second referendum, and leaving it unclear as to whether Labour would even support its own reached deal with the European Union, it became impossible for the voter, concerned principally with the deliverance of Brexit, to tick the box for Labour. This did not necessarily lead to an increase in the Conservative vote; rather, the traditional Labour voters felt alienated, and were left an option in the form of the Brexit Party. Whilst this party did not win any seats, they were undoubtedly part of the puzzle in that they contributed to the loss of votes for Labour.

This visceral disdain for the Labour party is nothing new, and it has hardly increased since the referendum. The reality is that Johnson has successfully outmanoeuvred Corbyn on the matter not only of Brexit, but also of a wider-presented ‘image’, in which Corbyn came off as outdated, patronising, and secretly supportive of subverting the referendum result. None of this was conducive to a Labour victory, thereby allowing Johnson to sweep in and hoover up a vast swathe of disenfranchised voters.

This, unfortunately, is now the state we Labourites must address. We cannot hide from this painful truth with reference to media bias or the like; whilst I have little doubt that much of the media viscerally attacked Corbyn, we simply cannot pretend that voters did not have substantive concerns with Labour, based in passionately held convictions. If we fail to address this fact, we shall simply perpetuate our image as a party of the intelligentsia, separated from the subjective interests of the working and lower middle classes.

I worry as to the route Labour will now go down. We must not swallow a Blairite myth that we lost this election as a consequence of being too radical; the failure of the Liberal Democrats shows very clearly that the political aspirations of the likes of Chukka Umunna should not be entertained. We are, undeniably, living in a time of radicalism, in which people of all stripes demand real substantive changes. To go down a route of centrism would do little to aid us, and would mock those Labour has vowed to represent.

Yet, it would be foolish to sit back and hope Labour will do better next time. There must be dramatic change, in the form of both a new image and a new leader. Sadly, none of the prospective candidates really offer this; to choose the likes of Starmer or Thornberry as leader would, given their consistent support for a second referendum, do little to heal these persistent political wounds. The Labour party now must be extremely careful in considering its future in opposition – these Corbyn years have shown us that, despite popular policies, an unpopular leader can ring the bell for a party’s electoral chances. To choose a figure already within the shadow cabinet therefore would be a foolish move – we must not read this as a defeat only for Corbyn or the 2019 manifesto, but as a disastrous defeat for the entire current cabinet.

Returning to my thoughts during the conversation with my Conservative friend, it becomes clear that the Conservatives have to some degree overturned the political status quo, winning seats Johnson would have only dared to win in his wildest fantasies. Yet, we must still celebrate Jeremy Corbyn; under his leadership, we witnessed a party fundamentally critical of the many social vices maintained and exacerbated by the Conservatives.What Corbyn offered to the electorate was, unquestionably, a fundamentally radical vision for a better Britain. For my part, I am indebted to Corbyn for providing this true alternative. But we must look consciously and lucidly to our abject failures in relation to Brexit, the presentation of the fiscal responsibility of our spending plan, and of the specific individuals we asked the electorate to place into the cabinet office. If we don’t accept the new political status quo, and we are not careful to redress our problematic image, it may be a while before Labour can win another election.

Joe Davies

I will never forget the moment the exit poll came in on Thursday night. For many of us, especially those of us who spent hours, days, or even weeks out in the rain and cold campaigning, the heartbreak is tangible. Yet, we do not have time to wallow in self-pity. Our party must rebuild, and fast, because this country simply cannot afford for us to lose to the Conservatives. We need to diagnose exactly what went wrong, and ensure that such a catastrophic defeat never occurs again.

I spent the five days between the end of Michaelmas and polling day in Southampton Itchen, a Tory-held marginal with a majority of just 31 in 2017. For Labour, there was no path to victory that did not lead through this constituency. We were very confident that we could win it – but we didn’t. Instead, there was a 5% swing away from Labour, and the Tories now hold a 4,498-vote majority.

My campaigning in Itchen – speaking to hundreds of voters across the seat – taught me one thing: this was not the Brexit election. It was the Corbyn election.

I assumed on my first day campaigning that the most common issue brought up on the doorstep would be Brexit. To be sure, this issue arose frequently. I’d say that about 1 in every 3 or 4 voters brought up Brexit unprompted. Yet, this was far from the biggest issue at hand. More than 2 in every 3 voters – perhaps as many as 3 in every 4 – brought up their dislike of Corbyn as the reason for them not voting Labour. This was entirely unprompted. Shockingly, only three voters, out of the hundreds I spoke to, discussed Corbyn in a positive light.

It seems that this isn’t merely my own subjective experience. Today’s Delta Poll asked those who deserted Labour at this election why they did so; nineteen-percent said Brexit, whilst forty-six-percent said Jeremy Corbyn.

Corbyn was, undoubtedly, the reason Labour didn’t win Southampton Itchen. On polling day, we desperately grasped lists of voters we believed were committed to voting Labour. My job was to knock on their doors to make sure they had visited the polling station. By lunchtime, it became clear we were in troubled waters: as many as half of the Labour voters I was speaking to told me they weren’t even going to bother voting that day. Even when I attempted to persuade them to vote, explaining that we had a majority of just 31 votes to overturn, I was rejected. Most wouldn’t give me a reason, and those who would were emphatic: they wouldn’t want Corbyn at 10 Downing Street.

What we must learn from this defeat is simple: we can never afford to ignore the electorate again. It doesn’t matter how much we like Jeremy Corbyn, or how inspired he makes the student demographic feel. If, after 4 years, our leader still has a net approval rating of -30%, we are simply not going to win an election. Politics isn’t about feeling positive or rebelliously radical; it’s about changing people’s lives. We are the Labour Party, and the most vulnerable people in the country depend on us to win. We, as a party, will always have a duty to keep the Tories out of government and to create a fairer Britain. We cannot shirk this responsibility.

I will never leave this party – I am Labour to the core. Yet, we all need Labour to stop being a party of protest and become the party of government once again. I am not suggesting for a moment that we abandon all of our polices from the Corbyn era. We will continue to fight for a radical vision of a fairer Britain – but we will not return to New Labour. Similarly, we will not lose our radical agenda – we simply need to ensure that it is both credible and viable.

Moreover, what is also clear is that the scourge of anti-Semitism within our party needs to be actively dealt with. Nothing in this election broke my heart more than hearing progressive, socialist Jewish individuals telling me that they could not vote Labour in this election because of anti-Semitism within the party. Solidarity means nothing if it is not solidarity for all. We must urgently rebuild trust with the Jewish community, and this has to be our top priority moving forward.

Politics isn’t a game, and you don’t get a silver medal for coming second. Millions of people up and down this country need a Labour government; our basic services, such as our hospitals and schools, cannot continue seeing Tory cuts. Tonight, thousands of people will go to sleep on the freezing streets of the 7th richest country on earth. It was our duty to give these people a home, to give the 4 million children living in poverty in this country hope for the future, and to protect our NHS from Donald Trump and his cronies. We failed in this duty, and this will always remain heart-breaking to admit.

We are not mere rebels. The Labour Party isn’t about sitting around in church halls and celebrating our socialism. Singing the Red Flag and calling each other “comrade” is fine – knock yourself out, I’m not trying to stop you – but that can’t be all we are about. We must form a government at the next election. If we do not, this country will never recover.

Please, when you come to vote in the upcoming leadership election, think of the electorate at large. Ask yourself which of the candidates has the best chance of uniting this country and winning back Scotland, the “Red Wall”, Wales and Southampton Itchen. Think about their principles, yes, but also ask yourself how likely it is that they will be able to win the power to act upon them. Our country needs a credible Labour Party; it is our duty to deliver it.

Two dinner date ideas for people you can’t make up your mind about…

0

Make your mind up about your chirpse: The Supermarket compatibility challenge

This is one you can whip out just before taking the big plunge into the pools of exclusivity, or to ascertain whether your suspicions of your prospective mate being a low-key freak are true (a friend’s date once selected baked beans and diet coke for 2 out of 3 of their ingredients. Oxford boys never fail to astound me). The premise of the test is to see if your tastes complement each other, like plump strawberries dripping with hot velvety chocolate, or if like tinned pineapple on soggy pizza, the combination leaves much to be desired. Each half must go off and chose 3 savoury ingredients, and as a couple you proceed to create a meal from the 6 combined ingredients (ground rules on vegetarianism are a good way to test immediate compatibility). Remember, do not be too alarmed at your relationships fate if your partner disappoints, for in the kitchen you may yet create a gastronomic masterpiece and from this feat true love may blossom. If your palates do align, I wish you a delicious and fruitful union. I regret to inform you however that baked beans and coke do not go with anything, and any purchaser of equally sinful items should be lovingly ditched in the Tesco’s self-checkout area.

Impress XR enthusiasts with your vegetable knowledge: Covered market perusing

Dating an eco-warrior? Covered market has your back. A trip to Bonners vegetable stall is the perfect way to see if your date is all chat, or if they really know the difference between locally sourced oxford tender stem and imported Italian purple sprouting broccoli. This is also a great way to figure out if you can put up with such observations, and if indeed gobbets on how to neutralise your carbon footprint are the way to win over your heart. If you are more of a ‘steak 4 nights a week’ person, and they only eat raw organic vegetables, perhaps the union is unwise. However, if your hands gently graze while reaching for an organic fennel, perhaps this could be the start of something wonderful and carbon neutral. You might even bond over a shared love of porcini mushrooms and end the night with a delicious ragù and a sizzling romance. Always keep in mind that if in the market you grow weary of your increasingly preachy champagne socialist, you can always ditch them for the charming French man who can regularly be found working the stall. A win win!

Stubbly Saints: Hilda’s raises over £8000 for Movember

0

Moustaches made a moneymaking come-back for charity last month. St. Hilda’s College, taking part in Movember for the first time, has reportedly raised more money than any other individual college in the charity month’s history. The college collected £8,939.60 in donations, over £4000 more than the next most Movember-friendly college, Teddy Hall.

Kamran Sharifi, the college’s Movember rep, describes how the movement grew from a handful of stubbly students to a college-culture phenomenon. Overshooting the University-wide goal of 15 Moustaches per college team, Sharifi drummed up a force of 40 moustache-growers. “The more people who agreed to it the better, because then you feel like you’re part of something … It was almost like a trendy thing to do by the end of it.”

Of course, not everyone could grow a moustache. Movember encourages three different types of actions for their donation and awareness movement. Only one is bringing back the eighties for a month.

Another is ‘Move’, a challenge to move 60km in any way possible. This is partly to promote the benefits of physical exercise for mental well-being. Mainly, however, it’s to spread awareness of the statistic that every hour across the globe, an average of 60 men commit suicide. The third action, ‘Moment’, encourages impactful awareness events such as mental health talks.

In response to these briefs, students at Hilda’s banded together to spontaneously create a whole program for Movember. From individuals taking on 60km runs and shaving their heads, to whole-college events like jazz nights, moustache-themed Shakespeare renditions and a non-stop 60-hour relay run.

On top of fundraising events, the college hosted talks by charities like Restore and Mind, first aid courses and personal stories of students’ experiences with cancer and mental health.

The success of the campaign is largely attributable to the college’s community-based approach. Almost every part of college was involved, from bar management to SCR members. Spurred on by “Hairy Hildabeast” social media accounts, the college managed to foster a sense of inclusion and excitement, regardless of moustache growing ability, gender, job or college role.

Originally established as a women’s college, Sharifi notes that “Hilda’s is founded by people with a really acute awareness of the role of gender in society and culture and how it can be harmful to people. And that really is the basis of Movember. It encourages people, especially men, to talk about things that they’re going through, to open up to people, and not be afraid to admit they’re having a hard time. It breaks down gender stereotypes.”

He is confident the movement will have a lasting effect on college awareness of mental health and create a culture of looking out for each other in and beyond colleges.

Stubbly saints: St Hilda’s raises over £8000 for Movember

0

Moustaches made a moneymaking come-back for charity last month. St. Hilda’s College, taking part in Movember for the first time, has reportedly raised more money than any other individual college in the charity month’s history. The college collected £8,939.60 in donations, over £4000 more than the next most Movember-friendly college, Teddy Hall.

Kamran Sharifi, the college’s Movember rep, describes how the movement grew from a handful of stubbly students to a college-culture phenomenon. Overshooting the University-wide goal of 15 Moustaches per college team, Sharifi drummed up a force of 40 moustache-growers. “The more people who agreed to it the better, because then you feel like you’re part of something … It was almost like a trendy thing to do by the end of it.”

Of course, not everyone could grow a moustache. Movember encourages three different types of actions for their donation and awareness movement. Only one is bringing back the eighties for a month.

Another is ‘Move’, a challenge to move 60km in any way possible. This is partly to promote the benefits of physical exercise for mental well-being. Mainly, however, it’s to spread awareness of the statistic that every hour across the globe, an average of 60 men commit suicide. The third action, ‘Moment’, encourages impactful awareness events such as mental health talks.

In response to these briefs, students at Hilda’s banded together to spontaneously create a whole program for Movember. From individuals taking on 60km runs and shaving their heads, to whole-college events like jazz nights, moustache-themed Shakespeare renditions and a non-stop 60-hour relay run.

On top of fundraising events, the college hosted talks by charities like Restore and Mind, first aid courses and personal stories of students’ experiences with cancer and mental health.

The success of the campaign is largely attributable to the college’s community-based approach. Almost every part of college was involved, from bar management to SCR members. Spurred on by “Hairy Hildabeast” social media accounts, the college managed to foster a sense of inclusion and excitement, regardless of moustache growing ability, gender, job or college role.

Originally established as a women’s college, Sharifi notes that “Hilda’s is founded by people with a really acute awareness of the role of gender in society and culture and how it can be harmful to people. And that really is the basis of Movember. It encourages people, especially men, to talk about things that they’re going through, to open up to people, and not be afraid to admit they’re having a hard time. It breaks down gender stereotypes.”

He is confident the movement will have a lasting effect on college awareness of mental health and create a culture of looking out for each other in and beyond colleges.

Opinion – With its most catastrophic defeat since 1935, Corbyn’s Labour has failed us

Miles Pressland & Joe Davies consider the reasons why Labour saw such a landslide defeat – and the common denominator is Jeremy Corbyn.

Miles Pressland

A few years ago, I was discussing the unsteady political climate with a Conservative friend of mine. At a moment during which I thought the conversation couldn’t get any more ridiculous, he claimed that it was possible for a Conservative campaign to successfully win seats in the traditional Labour heartland of the North. To me, this seemed completely absurd – yet I was very much mistaken.

Alienation from the Labour Party has been occurring steadily but surely over the last few decades. As Labour have continuously failed to present a viable alternative to Conservative governance to the British public, the working classes have inevitably lost confidence in their usual party. Most voters are under no illusion as to the state of the country – in my experience, the majority will readily admit the poor state of the NHS, the worrying rise in homelessness and poverty, generally stagnant wages, and ever-increasing rent prices. Nonetheless, many continue to vote passionately for the Conservative party; including those who have traditionally suffered under Conservative governance, such as Blyth Valley in Northumberland. One might concede that Labour failed to convince the public of the economic viability of their spending plan – yet this doesn’t appear to have been the principal concern.

Labour’s policies in their 2019 manifesto feed into a truth all too readily acknowledged by these lost voters; that its central administration and leadership has now emigrated to London, thereby becoming wholly out of touch with the issues facing voters in the wider country. This perception was in turn exacerbated by Labour’s spending policy, seen by many as bourgeois socialism.

Of course, it may be surprising that I’ve gotten this far without even mentioning Brexit. Since the original referendum, Labour was dropped into a somewhat impossible dilemma, risking the alienation of a significant fraction of its voter base, irrespective of their decision. Nevertheless, the influence of Starmer and Thornberry has evidently harmed Labour – through backing a second referendum, and leaving it unclear as to whether Labour would even support its own reached deal with the European Union, it became impossible for the voter, concerned principally with the deliverance of Brexit, to tick the box for Labour. This did not necessarily lead to an increase in the Conservative vote; rather, the traditional Labour voters felt alienated, and were left an option in the form of the Brexit Party. Whilst this party did not win any seats, they were undoubtedly part of the puzzle in that they contributed to the loss of votes for Labour.

This visceral disdain for the Labour party is nothing new, and it has hardly increased since the referendum. The reality is that Johnson has successfully outmanoeuvred Corbyn on the matter not only of Brexit, but also of a wider-presented ‘image’, in which Corbyn came off as outdated, patronising, and secretly supportive of subverting the referendum result. None of this was conducive to a Labour victory, thereby allowing Johnson to sweep in and hoover up a vast swathe of disenfranchised voters.

This, unfortunately, is now the state we Labourites must address. We cannot hide from this painful truth with reference to media bias or the like; whilst I have little doubt that much of the media viscerally attacked Corbyn, we simply cannot pretend that voters did not have substantive concerns with Labour, based in passionately held convictions. If we fail to address this fact, we shall simply perpetuate our image as a party of the intelligentsia, separated from the subjective interests of the working and lower middle classes.

I worry as to the route Labour will now go down. We must not swallow a Blairite myth that we lost this election as a consequence of being too radical; the failure of the Liberal Democrats shows very clearly that the political aspirations of the likes of Chukka Umunna should not be entertained. We are, undeniably, living in a time of radicalism, in which people of all stripes demand real substantive changes. To go down a route of centrism would do little to aid us, and would mock those Labour has vowed to represent.

Yet, it would be foolish to sit back and hope Labour will do better next time. There must be dramatic change, in the form of both a new image and a new leader. Sadly, none of the prospective candidates really offer this; to choose the likes of Starmer or Thornberry as leader would, given their consistent support for a second referendum, do little to heal these persistent political wounds. The Labour party now must be extremely careful in considering its future in opposition – these Corbyn years have shown us that, despite popular policies, an unpopular leader can ring the bell for a party’s electoral chances. To choose a figure already within the shadow cabinet therefore would be a foolish move – we must not read this as a defeat only for Corbyn or the 2019 manifesto, but as a disastrous defeat for the entire current cabinet.

Returning to my thoughts during the conversation with my Conservative friend, it becomes clear that the Conservatives have to some degree overturned the political status quo, winning seats Johnson would have only dared to win in his wildest fantasies. Yet, we must still celebrate Jeremy Corbyn; under his leadership, we witnessed a party fundamentally critical of the many social vices maintained and exacerbated by the Conservatives.What Corbyn offered to the electorate was, unquestionably, a fundamentally radical vision for a better Britain. For my part, I am indebted to Corbyn for providing this true alternative. But we must look consciously and lucidly to our abject failures in relation to Brexit, the presentation of the fiscal responsibility of our spending plan, and of the specific individuals we asked the electorate to place into the cabinet office. If we don’t accept the new political status quo, and we are not careful to redress our problematic image, it may be a while before Labour can win another election.

Joe Davies

I will never forget the moment the exit poll came in on Thursday night. For many of us, especially those of us who spent hours, days, or even weeks out in the rain and cold campaigning, the heartbreak is tangible. Yet, we do not have time to wallow in self-pity. Our party must rebuild, and fast, because this country simply cannot afford for us to lose to the Conservatives. We need to diagnose exactly what went wrong, and ensure that such a catastrophic defeat never occurs again.

I spent the five days between the end of Michaelmas and polling day in Southampton Itchen, a Tory-held marginal with a majority of just 31 in 2017. For Labour, there was no path to victory that did not lead through this constituency. We were very confident that we could win it – but we didn’t. Instead, there was a 5% swing away from Labour, and the Tories now hold a 4,498-vote majority.

My campaigning in Itchen – speaking to hundreds of voters across the seat – taught me one thing: this was not the Brexit election. It was the Corbyn election.

I assumed on my first day campaigning that the most common issue brought up on the doorstep would be Brexit. To be sure, this issue arose frequently. I’d say that about 1 in every 3 or 4 voters brought up Brexit unprompted. Yet, this was far from the biggest issue at hand. More than 2 in every 3 voters – perhaps as many as 3 in every 4 – brought up their dislike of Corbyn as the reason for them not voting Labour. This was entirely unprompted. Shockingly, only three voters, out of the hundreds I spoke to, discussed Corbyn in a positive light.

It seems that this isn’t merely my own subjective experience. Today’s Delta Poll asked those who deserted Labour at this election why they did so; nineteen-percent said Brexit, whilst forty-six-percent said Jeremy Corbyn.

Corbyn was, undoubtedly, the reason Labour didn’t win Southampton Itchen. On polling day, we desperately grasped lists of voters we believed were committed to voting Labour. My job was to knock on their doors to make sure they had visited the polling station. By lunchtime, it became clear we were in troubled waters: as many as half of the Labour voters I was speaking to told me they weren’t even going to bother voting that day. Even when I attempted to persuade them to vote, explaining that we had a majority of just 31 votes to overturn, I was rejected. Most wouldn’t give me a reason, and those who would were emphatic: they wouldn’t want Corbyn at 10 Downing Street.

What we must learn from this defeat is simple: we can never afford to ignore the electorate again. It doesn’t matter how much we like Jeremy Corbyn, or how inspired he makes the student demographic feel. If, after 4 years, our leader still has a net approval rating of -30%, we are simply not going to win an election. Politics isn’t about feeling positive or rebelliously radical; it’s about changing people’s lives. We are the Labour Party, and the most vulnerable people in the country depend on us to win. We, as a party, will always have a duty to keep the Tories out of government and to create a fairer Britain. We cannot shirk this responsibility.

I will never leave this party – I am Labour to the core. Yet, we all need Labour to stop being a party of protest and become the party of government once again. I am not suggesting for a moment that we abandon all of our polices from the Corbyn era. We will continue to fight for a radical vision of a fairer Britain – but we will not return to New Labour. Similarly, we will not lose our radical agenda – we simply need to ensure that it is both credible and viable.

Moreover, what is also clear is that the scourge of anti-Semitism within our party needs to be actively dealt with. Nothing in this election broke my heart more than hearing progressive, socialist Jewish individuals telling me that they could not vote Labour in this election because of anti-Semitism within the party. Solidarity means nothing if it is not solidarity for all. We must urgently rebuild trust with the Jewish community, and this has to be our top priority moving forward.

Politics isn’t a game, and you don’t get a silver medal for coming second. Millions of people up and down this country need a Labour government; our basic services, such as our hospitals and schools, cannot continue seeing Tory cuts. Tonight, thousands of people will go to sleep on the freezing streets of the 7th richest country on earth. It was our duty to give these people a home, to give the 4 million children living in poverty in this country hope for the future, and to protect our NHS from Donald Trump and his cronies. We failed in this duty, and this will always remain heart-breaking to admit.

We are not mere rebels. The Labour Party isn’t about sitting around in church halls and celebrating our socialism. Singing the Red Flag and calling each other “comrade” is fine – knock yourself out, I’m not trying to stop you – but that can’t be all we are about. We must form a government at the next election. If we do not, this country will never recover.

Please, when you come to vote in the upcoming leadership election, think of the electorate at large. Ask yourself which of the candidates has the best chance of uniting this country and winning back Scotland, the “Red Wall”, Wales and Southampton Itchen. Think about their principles, yes, but also ask yourself how likely it is that they will be able to win the power to act upon them. Our country needs a credible Labour Party; it is our duty to deliver it.

Stubbly Saints: Hilda’s raises over £8000 for Movember

0

Moustaches made a moneymaking come-back for charity last month. St. Hilda’s College, taking part in Movember for the first time, has reportedly raised more money than any other individual college in the charity month’s history. The college collected £8,939.60 in donations, over £4000 more than the next most Movember-friendly college, Teddy Hall.

Kamran Sharifi, the college’s Movember rep, describes how the movement grew from a handful of stubbly students to a college-culture phenomenon. Overshooting the University-wide goal of 15 Moustaches per college team, Sharifi drummed up a force of 40 moustache-growers. “The more people who agreed to it the better, because then you feel like you’re part of something … It was almost like a trendy thing to do by the end of it.”

Of course, not everyone could grow a moustache. Movember encourages three different types of actions for their donation and awareness movement. Only one is bringing back the eighties for a month.

Another is ‘Move’, a challenge to move 60km in any way possible. This is partly to promote the benefits of physical exercise for mental well-being. Mainly, however, it’s to spread awareness of the statistic that every hour across the globe, an average of 60 men commit suicide. The third action, ‘Moment’, encourages impactful awareness events such as mental health talks.

In response to these briefs, students at Hilda’s banded together to spontaneously create a whole program for Movember. From individuals taking on 60km runs and shaving their heads, to whole-college events like jazz nights, moustache-themed Shakespeare renditions and a non-stop 60-hour relay run.

On top of fundraising events, the college hosted talks by charities like Restore and Mind, first aid courses and personal stories of students’ experiences with cancer and mental health.

The success of the campaign is largely attributable to the college’s community-based approach. Almost every part of college was involved, from bar management to SCR members. Spurred on by “Hairy Hildabeast” social media accounts, the college managed to foster a sense of inclusion and excitement, regardless of moustache growing ability, gender, job or college role.

Originally established as a women’s college, Sharifi notes that “Hilda’s is founded by people with a really acute awareness of the role of gender in society and culture and how it can be harmful to people. And that really is the basis of Movember. It encourages people, especially men, to talk about things that they’re going through, to open up to people, and not be afraid to admit they’re having a hard time. It breaks down gender stereotypes.”

He is confident the movement will have a lasting effect on college awareness of mental health and create a culture of looking out for each other in and beyond colleges.

Overcoming Vacation Limbo

0

Oxford is a strange place. Each term is eight weeks. That’s twenty-four weeks of university a year. That means for twenty-eight weeks of the academic year you are not at university. That means that each academic year you are not at university for longer than you are at university. Everyone acts like that’s normal but it really is not. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it’s completely nuts. Tell literally anyone from a different university or walk of life about this and I promise you that they too will think it is completely nuts.

“Ok”, a rational person may think, “That’s weird that your terms are so short but at least that means you have less work. Right?” Wrong. A typical humanity student at UCL, a highly reputable institution, can expect four or five essays a term. At Oxford you can expect at least twelve. Sometimes sixteen, depending on how your course is structured. That’s a workload multiple times heavier than a normal university’s in a term that’s two weeks shorter. Again, this is absolutely nuts. Maybe this system worked in medieval times, when the colleges were basically monastic communities and there wasn’t much else to do besides read and write anyway. Perhaps each term was viewed as a form of penance back then.

Anyway. I’m getting side-tracked moaning about the system, a pursuit which is bound to be about as fruitful as arguing with a brick wall. The point is, this system wisely engineered by our betters, the all-knowing and unquestionable university bureaucrats (by the way, who is actually in charge of this place? Is anyone? What is a Proctor? Why do they carry those staffs? Probably to strike us peasants if we dare to get in their way), makes for a very intense term. When you add on the plethora of extra circulars and social engagements that every over-achieving Oxford student is bound to have, each term is so intense that you barely have time to step back and process what on earth is going on.

There are times when things get so busy that you feel like you are drowning, and the only thing keeping you going is the light at the end of the tunnel, the end of term in sight; “only two more weeks”, you think to yourself, “I can do two more weeks. Everything will be fine in two weeks”. In these times it’s hard to conceive of a worse situation. But then something worse does happen. It ends. Unceremoniously and abruptly, like a car crashing into a tree, the term just ends. You suddenly go from having constant deadlines weighing down on you like Sisyphus’ stone to having none. You go from constantly being surrounded by friends (and maybe foes) to being surrounded by what feels like no one.

Oxford is a place of extremes. I’m convinced that the human being isn’t built for these extremes. The human being likes some degree of constancy and predictability. When you go from a highly pressured and structured period of time to 6 weeks (which is too long for a vacation by the way) of the exact opposite, there are bound to be consequences. These consequences manifest themselves in a feeling that I call vacation limbo; a feeling of aimlessness and loss of purpose where you just do not know what to do with yourself once term has ended. It is a feeling that I have documented well in myself and countless others that I have spoken to. Its symptoms have a remarkable similarity and its cause has reliably been described in the way that I have discussed in this article. We must, then come up with some ways to combat this feeling, this illness. We must overcome the antagonist of this story, Oxford University, which has, in the way described, set itself up directly against the human being and its nature.

I will end this article by briefly offering a few tips that I have found useful in this battle. I do not offer these in a haughty manner as someone who has it all figured out, but meekly and humbly, as much for my benefit as yours, as I constantly need to remind myself to do these things to stay fighting fit.

Firstly, I would really recommend doing regular exercise. Even if you really do not feel like exercising or you just don’t think of yourself as a sporty person I promise that you will feel better for having done it. There is so much choice when it comes to exercise, there’s bound to be at least one type that you at least don’t hate. Regular exercise can add much needed structure to the vacation and the boost of endorphins can help make that limbo feeling a thing of the past.

Secondly, I would try to meet with friends whenever you can. It can be as simple as getting coffee with home friends every couple of days; some sort of forced social interaction to make you feel human again so that you are not just stewing at home for weeks on end seeing no one except maybe your family, which feels incredibly unnatural when you have been at university for a while.

Lastly, I would suggest trying to organise the holiday in some way. I am quite a tactile person so I print out a calendar, mark out when the vacation starts and ends, and when I am doing fun things. This helps to get a hold on the vast expanse of time which can otherwise turn into a leviathan which you can hardly think about. I would also mark out when you are going to be working and when you are going to be relaxing; allocating specific periods of time to relax is essential, as you can finally let loose in the knowledge that you have assigned specific periods to work. As a serial procrastinator, trying to start work early on can be incredibly helpful, as this helps to avoid the feeling that you can never relax because you have so much to do.

And so, my friends, I will stop writing as I have already probably said more that I am qualified to. It’s funny how this article just kind of ends.

Council makes £19 Million Climate Commitment

0

Oxford City Council has pledged £19 Million for a Climate Emergency Budget in response to the Assembly on Climate Change. They are working on a number of different initiatives, such as a network of charging ports for electric vehicles in the city and introducing electric busses.

The Assembly was established by the council this year to consider possible solutions to carbon emissions. It consists of 50 Oxford residents selected from different demographics and Oxford postcodes. After discussions with climate experts, 90% of the members agreed that Oxford should aim to overshoot the national goal to implement a ‘net zero’ policy by 2050.

Oxford City Council said: “We’ve listened to the Assembly and our brand new climate emergency budget acts on its findings by providing at least £18 million of new money to the City Council’s zero-carbon mission, plus a further £1 million of new money to ensure that we deliver on those investments.” This is in addition to the £84 million of ongoing investments in Oxford council’s climate commitments.

One of the concerns raised by the Assembly was that the responsibility for emissions was being placed on the individual instead of institutions and businesses.

According to a report commissioned by the council, residential buildings are the biggest contributors to Oxford’s emissions. However, in 2017, institutional and commercial buildings summarily amounted to 51% of all emissions in the city. At least 8% is solely attributable to the University of Oxford.

As a result, the council intends to encourage businesses and institutions to cut down their carbon footprint. The council itself plans to reach a ‘net zero’ rate by switching to renewable energy sources in 2020 and offsetting any unavoidable emissions.

Other initiatives include increasing residents’ awareness and engagement with climate issues, encouraging shifts away from private car ownership through transport improvements and safer bike routes, and lobbying in government to bring the end of new petrol and diesel vehicle sales forward by ten years.

After declaring a climate emergency earlier this year, City Council has actively searched for new ways to increase climate awareness and sustainability in Oxford.

The council claim: “We are setting a new course, taking the city towards zero carbon.” Currently, in the process of a “stock-take” of council projects and circumstances, they intend to make detailed plans on the implementation of their response to the Assembly in the coming months.

Oxford Students Protest India’s Citizenship Amendment Act

0

Yesterday students gathered outside the Radcliffe Camera to protest the Citizenship Amendment Act, a bill passed in India’s Parliament which has been widely criticised as Islamophobic.

Those attending the event joined protesters across the world, expressing solidarity with students who had been subject to police brutality as they carried out demonstrations in universities across India.

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act passed through India’s Parliament on 11th December this year. The bill is designed to enable the provision of citizenship as a right to religious minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan who have suffered from, or who stand the risk of suffering from religious persecution. However, the bill specifically nominates six religions as being eligible for citizenship: Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians. The bill has been criticised for its omission of Muslim refugees, which violates India’s constitutional commitment to secularism.

Protests against the bill erupted in cities and at universities across India. During a protest at Jamia Millia Islamia University in Delhi, police were accused of firing tear gas at the library, locking the gates of the university’s campus, and using batons on students. Excessive police force is also believed to have been used at a number of other universities.

A statement released by the Oxford India Society said: “Oxford India Society stands in solidarity with our fellow students at university campuses across India who are protesting against the unjust Citizenship Amendment Act, and we condemn police brutality against these protestors.

“OIS celebrates India’s unity in diversity; we are saddened that this spirit of unity is under threat, and we hope that the right to peaceful protest is upheld.”

The protest outside the Radcliffe Camera, which endured the rain this afternoon, was attended by approximately one hundred despite term ending for undergraduates last week. Placards at the event read “selective democracy is not democracy”, “trust anyone but Delhi Police” and “unconditional solidarity with Jamia, Amu, DU [Delhi University] and others”.

As well as at Oxford, today students gathered in protest at a number of campuses across the UK and the world including Harvard, Yale and MIT. A statement was released on behalf of students and alumni protesting at American universities. The statement criticised the use of force by police responding to the peaceful protests, and made a number of demands of the Indian government:

  • “We demand cessation of violence by the police and their complete withdrawal from the university premises.
  • “We demand an immediate, independent, and robust investigation into the abuse of power by the Delhi Police, Uttar Pradesh Police, and the Central Reserve Police Force.
  • “We demand that student protestors be allowed to continue to protest peacefully in exercise of their fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution without any threat of use of force by the police or other law enforcement agencies.
  • “We call upon officers of the Indian Police and Administrative Services to fulfill their duty to uphold the Constitution of India, and to resist any political demand to act in abuse of the powers that have been conferred upon them; and, to ensure police forces under their command act strictly in accordance with the constitutional, legal and ethical constraints that bind them.
  • “We call on the Minister of Home Affairs, Mr. Amit Shah, to immediately take these necessary steps to curb police brutality, or resign.”

Another statement open for signature by Oxford students also called for an end to violence against those protesting, as well as criticising the CAA: “We, the students, scholars and alumni of the University of Oxford, are in solidarity with students exercising their fundamental right to dissent and protest across India.

“We condemn the violence unleashed on students in Jamia Millia Islamia (New Delhi), Aligarh Muslim University (Aligarh), Delhi University (New Delhi), Cotton University (Assam) and other educational institutions. The use of police force against students exercising their fundamental right to protest in university spaces and elsewhere is a direct attack on the foundations of a democratic society. We demand an immediate end to all forms of violence against the protesting students and call for accountability of those responsible.

“Over the last week, we have seen many peaceful protests and demonstrations across India against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. The Act stipulates preferential treatment to religious minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan in the process of acquiring Indian citizenship, while explicitly excluding Muslims from its purview. This explicit and blatant exclusion of Muslims from citizenship upends the long-standing fundamental ideals of equality, liberty, pluralism and secularism enshrined in the Constitution of India. We lend our voices in support of the fight against this immoral and unconstitutional law and call for its immediate withdrawal.

“As we watch, with extreme concern, the events unfolding in India, we lend our unconditional support for the students and others peacefully taking to the streets to fight injustice.”

By Tuesday at 8:00 am the statement had received more than 300 signatures by members and alumni of Oxford University.

St Anne’s attempts ethical investment, joining Responsible Investment Network

0

St Anne’s College has joined the Responsible Investment Network (Universities), alongside the Universities of Cambridge and Edinburgh. The purpose of the Network is to assist educational institutions in investing its endowments responsibly. The current three members of the network have a combined endowment of approximately £5.4 billion.

The College commented on its website that the three educational institutions comprising the RINU are “united in their ambitions to create positive change through their investment practices. They will share ideas on topics such as stewardship of their investments, engaging with their asset managers, educating students and staff, and social impact investment.”

“The founding members of the network have seized an opportunity to use their endowments to further their missions and take action on global threats such as climate change and ecosystem breakdown as well as local issues including inequality and homelessness.”

The Network is run by the charity ShareAction, with support from Big Society Capital, the UK’s largest social impact investor, and the National Union of Students’ sustainability charity, SOS-UK. The Network’s role in the investment of these institutions is an advisory one, providing various opportunities for each establishment, depending on its specific interests. It exists to provide a forum for discussion between different institutions, and to incentive them to invest responsibly, though it cannot force them to do so. Each institution has the option to leave the Network, or renew its membership, on an annual basis.

John Ford, the Treasurer of St Anne’s, said the RINU “is a means of sharing ideas and best practice with like-minded organisations on responsible investment, as well providing some structure as to how fund managers, employed by the college, engage with the companies that they invest in”

While many educational institutions invest through passive investment managers, with the goal of simply maximising returns, the Network looks to foster engagement between the two parties in order to incentivise ethical investment.

St Anne’s move to ethical investment comes after Cherwell revealed, in November 2018, that the College had invested in corporations that had been accused of causing significant environmental damage, committing human rights abuses, selling arms to Saudi Arabia and producing nuclear weapons. Corporations that received investments from St Anne’s included BAE Systems, Rio Tinto Group, and Barrick Gold Corporation.

Through the Network, the College also hopes to invest in companies that pay their staff a living wage and support local communities. This investment strategy comes amid recent condemnation by the College’s own JCR for a failure to pay Anne’s staff the Oxford Living Wage. St Anne’s pays its staff the National Living Wage via a termly levy from students.

After joining the RINU, St Anne’s will conduct a consultation with both students and staff as part of its current investment review in Hilary Term. Ford commented, “the college is currently undertaking a review of its entire investment strategy not only in terms of what it invests in, but also how it generates income to support its students. Part of the review will involve a college wide consultation to take place next term.”

“The college is keen to be as transparent as possible with its students and staff on its future investment strategy, which is why we are undertaking the consultation.”

The impact of the Network, and responsible investment, will be assessed as part of the review.