Tuesday, May 13, 2025
Blog Page 530

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.

Opinion – For the Many, Not the Few

0

Unsurprisingly, a Tory Prime Minister said it best. We’ve heard a lot from Boris Johnson in the last few weeks and months about ‘one-nation Conservatism’. It’s a phrase Tories usually reach for when they have no idea how to sum up their philosophy. It has the added benefit that it’s alleged to come from Benjamin Disraeli. Unfortunately, that’s not quite true: it was first used by Stanley Baldwin between the wars, though my weird historian fondness for Mr Baldwin means that I think that’s really no bad thing. But Disraeli did talk about ‘two nations’ in his novel Sybil: the rich and the poor. Two nations between whom, he wrote: “there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones”. As so many in Westminster, on Twitter and in the vegan cafes and leftist book shops of Britain splutter in horrified indignation as Boris returns to Downing Street with the largest Tory majority since 1987, Disraeli’s words are undoubtedly at the forefront of my mind.

This was an election won by those voters across Britain fed up enough with an out-of-touch liberal establishment and a grotesquely transformed Labour Party to put their trust in the most extraordinary and idiosyncratic – and most successful – politician of his generation. How else do you explain a result so remarkable? Not only did the Tories gain their largest share of the vote since 1979, or Labour their lowest number of seats since 1935, but they did so after nine and a half years of Conservative-led governments. They did so by winning seats that haven’t been blue since before the war, if ever. It’s almost impossible to mention all their phenomenal gains in one go. Don Valley and Leigh had been Labour for 97 years; Rother Valley 101. Bishop Auckland hasn’t had a Tory MP in its 134-year history. It now has a Tory majority of 7,962. That’s alongside seats like Sedgefield (the safest Labour seat in the country when a certain Anthony Blair was its MP), and Bolsover which has been held by the perpetually unfunny Dennis Skinner for the last 49 years. Former mining-constituencies like Blyth Valley and Delyn and industrial towns like Burnley and Redcar are all now Conservative. These are places where the idea of electing a Tory before last Thursday was as unlikely as the PM publicly admitting how many kids he has. This wasn’t just the Conservatives winning seats of Labour but them winning the very seats which were once Labour’s heart and soul.

How could this once-in-a-century result have come about? It was founded on a revulsion against the Labour party by many of its traditional voters. They turned away because of Brexit and Jeremy Corbyn. One of the most enjoyable immediate consequences of the result has been watching Remainers squabbling with Corbynistas over who is more to blame for Labour’s defeat. Seeing John Bercow near-to-tears after the exit poll only presaged a cacophony of voices from those like Alastair Campbell, who furiously denounced the Labour leadership whilst denying that their attempts to reverse the referendum result might have alienated Labour Leave-voters. Meanwhile, Momentum groupies and Corbyn outriders like John Lansman and Owen Jones spluttered that the election was entirely about Brexit, and that Comrade Jeremy was nothing to do with it as he was actually really popular, honest (despite, y’know, leading his party to its worst defeat since the war). It’s a sign of both camps’ delusions that it was clearly a combination of both.

Working-class Brits have always been patriotic. Voting to leave the EU was, for many lifelong Labour voters, the first time they’d defied the party of their parents and grandparents. They did so not because they were thick, or racist, or duped by a bus, as I’ve heard many of my fellow students claim, but because they love their country and happen to think national self-governance might be a better choice for Britain than membership of a bureaucratic monstrosity with aspirations towards statehood. They’re pissed off after watching for three and a half years as MPs, self-important judges and the whole stuck-up political and media establishment have sought to frustrate and denigrate their vote and stop Britain from leaving the EU. Last time, Labour said it accepted the referendum result. This time it stood on a second referendum platform. No wonder it was trounced.  

Voters didn’t just turn away from Labour because they wanted to “get Brexit done”. They did so because they could tell that Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party wasn’t the same party as their fathers’ and grandfathers’. Labour supporters might repeat ad infinitum how popular manifesto policies like renationalising the railways and taxing billionaires more were. But they counted for nowt in the face of a wide-scale realisation by decent, patriotic Labour voters that Corbyn and his party were antithetical to their values. This wasn’t just the basic stuff: not singing the national anthem, his unwillingness to support Britain in any conflict since 1945 or the sneaking suspicion he thought the wrong side won the Cold War. It was the horrifying stuff: his “friendship” with the IRA and Hamas, his inability to condemn the Russian government after the Salisbury poisoning and, more than anything, his failure to properly tackle the explosion of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party under his leadership. After over three long years of Corbynistas branding Brexit voters racist, it was the vile anti-Semitism that has come to be associated with Labour under his leadership that helped doom the party for so many of its previous supporters. These were Labour voters who have abhorred anti-Semitism their whole lives and were rightly outraged at a party that almost seemed to believe abolishing tuition fees was marginally more important than whether British Jews felt safe in their own country. Jeremy Corbyn was not a man they could, in good conscience, vote to make Prime Minister. So they voted accordingly.

Voting Tory was still a big step, after all. I have an uncle from Burnley and I know first-hand the ancestral loathing which exists for the Conservatives across much of the country. For seats like Burnley to go blue thus needed the most unusual of unusual circumstances. Brexit and Corbyn certainly helped turn those voters away from Labour. But what meant that they bothered to vote Tory rather than just abstain was that they knew they were voting for a Conservative Party that also wasn’t the same party of their fathers and grandfathers. This was the party of Boris Johnson.  For those who loathe Boris, understanding his popularity and success must be something of an infuriating riddle. At best, he’s said to be an incompetent charlatan; at worst, he’s labelled a racist or a homophobe. Unsurprisingly, I vociferously disagree with all those charges, based as they so often are on old quotes taken out of context. They’re easily dismissed by his actual record. After all, how many homophobes vote against Section 28? A vote which Jeremy Corbyn was absent for, remember. Anyhow, debating that is for another day: more importantly, I think I know why so many like Boris. It’s encapsulated by what a topless, Stella-swigging man once shouted at him whilst he was campaigning to be London Mayor: “Boris, you’re a c*** but I still loves ya!” What I think most outrages Boris’ critics is his sheer audacity. He combines a versatile sense of humour with a brazen sense of mischief. Entitled, power-hungry, scruffy, but my God, what a change he is to the identikit techno-droids who’ve governed the country for at least the last thirty years. For those sick to their back teeth of politics as usual, this old Etonian scion of the Bullingdon Club and ex-President of the Union is far more of anti-establishment tribune than Corbyn and his unpatriotic Marxist ilk could ever be. Boris is not only brilliantly British, but brilliantly Boris, and one of the few Tories so many Labour voters could ever feel comfortable backing.

But it wasn’t only the messenger that was crucial to the Conservatives’ success, but his message. Boris fought this election on a remarkable new Tory platform. Not only did he pledge to get us out of the EU, but he promised more money for those areas that Tory focus groups identified as the public’s priorities: the NHS, schools and the police. The decision early in the campaign to scrap a planned corporation tax cut in favour of more money for the health service indicated an approach wildly different from those of this predecessor. It was a Tory pitch that laid to rest the ghosts of Thatcherism and austerity. Influenced by Dominic Cummings, it delivered exactly what traditional Labour voters wanted, from an Australian style points-system on immigration to tax cuts for the lowest paid. Coupled with Boris’ instinctive enthusiasm for big infrastructure projects and expanding research and development, the Tories were asking a mandate for the first term of Boris, not the fourth term of the Conservatives.  For those who had voted Labour all their lives and got little back, why not take a punt on an agenda tailored to their views? SW1 is tearing its hair out over an agenda mixing left and right in the way most voters do. Maybe that shows just how out-of-touch it is. The Tories can toast a policy programme that has the potential to change Britain as much as Thatcher and Attlee once did. Boris has four to five years to deliver on these pledges. If he does, I won’t be surprised to see the Tories win an even larger majority next time around.

That’s not to deny the challenges ahead. The results in Scotland and Northern Ireland are clearly concerning for Unionists like myself. With 48 seats, the SNP didn’t romp to the victory the exit poll predicted, nor repeated their success from 2015. But coming at the same time as an unprecedented number of nationalist MPs for Ulster, it does make one wonder about the implications of Brexit for our Union. Perhaps paradoxically, I’m confident Brexit will ultimately do more to stifle these separatists than aid them. I’ve written before how I think leaving the EU makes the SNP’s case much harder. If they can’t even win a majority of Scottish votes now, I very much doubt they would in any referendum in the near future. The Tories almost certainly won’t grant them one anyway. Nicola Sturgeon can grumble and moan all she likes but our 47-year old Union with the EU will split far sooner than the 312-year-old one between England and Scotland. The situation in Northern Ireland is trickier. Undoubtedly, concerns about Brexit and the implications of the Prime Minister’s deal played a part. That’s clearly seen in the surge of support for the non-sectarian Alliance Party. But striking a free trade deal with the EU as the government wants to do by the end of next year removes the need for the sort of checks and barriers that a majority in Northern Ireland fear. Whether that can be done in the timetable Boris hopes is debatable, yes, but as with restoring the Northern Ireland Assembly it’s an aspiration his government is committed to. If they’re achieved, expect to see a majority of Unionist MPs again at the next election – and some Tory gains in Scotland.

But that’s all for tomorrow. For now, Boris Johnson and the Conservatives are in a position of power not seen since Blair or Mrs T were in their pomp. They have a mission to radically change Britain. They want to deliver a new kind of Toryism for those voters who leant them their vote this time across the North, the Midlands and Wales. If they succeed they can look forward to a decade or more in power. If they fail, and Labour gets its act together, this heady victory will all be for nought. For some reason, however, I don’t think they will fail. The sincere commitment of those in Number 10 and of the tranche of new Tory MPs means this government will be rigorously focused on bringing this nation back together. Labour’s immediate response of squabbling about the result and blaming the media – or, in Ken Livingstone’s case, “Jewish voters” – suggests they won’t be threatening the Tories any time soon. In that case, the United Kingdom’s decade of political turbulence ends with a renewed government empowered to transform the country for the better by listening who’ve been isolated for too long from the political establishment. Hopefully, this won’t just change the Conservatives, Westminster and our place in the world, but the lives and opportunities of those who entrusted Boris Johnson to do more for them than voting Labour ever has. Ironically, considering how I started, I can’t help but feel a Labour Prime Minister summed it up best. A new dawn has broken, has it not?

Why The Lib Dems Failed

0

On 12 December 2019, I didn’t vote with pride. For me, putting a cross beside ‘Liberal Democrat’ gave me that same sensation as going to bed at 9pm on a Saturday or listening unironically to Taylor Swift: one of those unglamorous yet innocuous activities you pray your cooler acquaintances will never find out about.

Late on election night, as the exit polls rolled in and my peers hatched plans to launch a Marxist revolution from our university accommodation, I dreaded that my vote had provided a gateway to a Tory victory and forestalled any opportunity for radical change by splitting the opposition. The aftermath soon made things clear.  Swinson’s campaign had flopped and it seemed as though I and other Lib Dem supporters had sacrificed our votes to a gaggle of smug Tories. The question was: how had this prime opportunity gone so wrong for the Lib Dems?

Brexit, as ever, was the standout issue. The Lib Dems proposed several good and pragmatic policies, from raising £7 billion for the NHS via a penny increase in the income tax to setting concrete renewable energy targets for 2030. Yet those two big, unfriendly words on the front of their manifesto -“STOP BREXIT” – drowned out the rest of their campaign. The Lib Dems’ commitment to revoking Article 50 without another referendum was fatal to their chances: the move not only incensed swathes of Brexiteers but rendered the very title of ‘Democrats’ pitifully ironic in the minds of many Remainers as well. Somehow the party that marketed itself as the voice of reasonableness were bracketed by their target voters as extremists.

Predictably, in staunch pro-Leave regions the party made no gains. Yet even in London, where they’d bagged on new talent and cosmopolitan internationalism to win them seats, their campaign bore no fruit. Labour defectors, Chuka Umunna and Luciana Berger, and ex-Tory, Sam Gyimah, each failed to win seats in the capital (though, admittedly, in Umunna and Berger’s cases, by relatively small margins). And, of course, Swinson’s 149 vote defeat to the SNP in East Dunbartonshire was the icing on the cake of Lib Dem humiliation. The party’s vote share may have increased from 7.4% to 11.6% from 2017, but its leader’s loss in her own constituency demonstrated the fragility of the Lib Dems’ cachet as the pro-Remain party in an election fought on Brexit lines.

Indeed, Swinson’s leadership posed challenges for the Lib Dems from as soon as she took up the post in July. Practically unknown to the public before that point, she experienced all the downsides of her relative obscurity and none of the perks. Not only did Swinson lack a strong public image during the election, she was nonetheless haunted by her track record from the Cameron-Clegg coalition, under which she had voted in favour of the infamous rise in tuition fees and against certain public spending policies like raising welfare benefits.

Watching the Question Time leaders’ special in November, public indifference to Swinson was palpable. While there were Corbyn and Johnson fanatics on either side, the Lib Dem leader was hard-pressed to induce even a smattering of polite applause from the audience. Swinson had pushed for this election, but by mid-November, her earlier claims to be “a candidate to be prime minister” in a nation where “change is possible” already appeared hollow and embarrassing.

While I’m sure there must be some evangelical Lib Dem supporters out there, the party has failed to inspire faith, let alone fervour, in its voters since the days of Cleggmania. Instead, it serves as a safehouse for the disillusioned: a place for those who are horrified simultaneously by Johnson’s special brand of bigotry and lies, and Corbyn’s culpable inactivity, particularly on the issues of Brexit and anti-Semitism within the Labour party.

Lib Dem support in this election was therefore confined, in many cases, to tactical voting. Yet as we saw on the 12th, clumps of sheepish Lib Dem supporters in a disparate range of constituencies could never procure them landslide electoral gains within the first-past-the-post system. Though the Lib Dems won 11.6% of votes, they currently hold just 1.7% of seats, testament to their perennial position as the second or third choice in the vast majority of constituencies.

Unfortunately, in this election, the tactical vote played into the hands of the Johnson, splitting the anti-Tory vote between Labour and the Lib Dems. In the case of Sam Gymiah, Thursday’s results were particularly jarring: the Conservatives’ Felicity Buchan beat Labour’s Emma Dent Coad in Kensington by just 150 votes. Had Sam Gymiah not snatched up 9312 votes for the Lib Dems, Kensington would have stayed out of the hands of the Tories. Yet on the other side of the coin, the same argument can be made against Labour in the neighbouring constituency of Westminster, where Chuka Umunna came in second and Labour’s Gordon Nardell third. Either way, a lack of clear direction in such seats on which party would provide the best tactical voting opportunity against the Conservatives proved a winning formula in their victory.

When voting Lib Dem in the current climate, you likely do so on the basis of a lesser of two (or, in this case, three) evils approach, rather than with any expectation that the party will be able to their policies into practice. Paradoxically, the answer to both the Lib Dems’ small gains and their overall failure in this election was its status as the party for the ambivalent and uninspired. In the second general election of my life, I hope that I will be freed of this ambivalence; that next time around I will be able to step up to the ballot box and draw my cross besides a party in which I have real faith; that I will not settle once again for begrudging acceptance.

Layla Moran amongst favourites to lead Lib Dems

0

Layla Moran, newly re-elected MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, is one of the most likely candidates to replace Jo Swinson as leader of the Liberal Democrat party.

Betting agents have given Ms Moran odds of 7/4 (meaning a bet of £4 would return £7 in winnings), second only to veteran Liberal Democrat Ed Davey, whose odds stand at a marginally better 6/4.

Jo Swinson was forced to resign as leader of the party after losing her Dunbartonshire East seat to the Scottish National Party.

A number of MPs including Chuka Umunna and Luciana Berger, both of whom defected to the Liberal Democrats in June, had been tipped as possible replacements for Jo Swinson.

However, following a national campaign which saw the number of Liberal Democrat MPs almost halve, both Chuka and Luciana lost their seats to the Conservative Party. According to Liberal Democrat rules, the party leader must be a member of parliament.

Layla Moran ran one of the most successful Liberal Democrat campaigns of the 2019 general election, increasing her vote share by 9.5% to 53.3%. The result represents the first time a parliamentary candidate has won an outright majority in the Oxford West and Abingdon constituency since its creation in 1983.

Despite being elected for the first time in 2017, Ms Moran has climbed rapidly through the Liberal Democrat party. She is currently the party’s spokesperson for digital, culture, media and sport, and for education.

Ms Moran has also made history in her parliamentary career, becoming the first Member of Parliament of Palestinian descent, and the first female Liberal Democrat MP from a minority ethnic background.

In what will come as a boost to Layla Moran’s potential bid, Jo Swinson mentioned Layla’s name in her final speech as Lib Dem leader, calling her one of the party’s “fantastic, experienced women MPs”.

In the same speech, Ms Swinson hinted that she would approve of another woman being elected party leader. Layla Moran also benefits from not being tethered to policies of austerity enacted during the coalition years, policies for which Jo Swinson was forced to apologise repeatedly during the election campaign.

However, Ms Moran’s bid for leadership may be frustrated by revelations which emerged this year that she was arrested in 2013 for slapping her boyfriend.

Shortly after news of the arrest broke, Ms Moran dropped out of the 2019 Lib Dem leadership race, although at the time she denied the events were linked.

Moran told The Times earlier this year: “… when Vince decided that he was stepping down, I thought, ‘Can I? Could I?’ And the conclusion I came to was, actually, I could if I wanted to, but I didn’t.”

“It’s just not the right time, although I have not closed the door on it. Perhaps in the future.”

Sir Ed Davey, acting leader of the Liberal Democrats is likely to be the strongest challenger for the leadership. He has served as MP for twenty years and received 36% of votes in the leadership contest which saw Jo Swinson elected as party leader in 2019.

Another potential challenger is Alistair Carmichael, MP for the Orkney and Shetland Islands. Another long-standing MP in the House of Commons, Mr Carmichael is seen as a contender who could bolster support for the party in Scotland.

The leadership contest will take place in the new year.

The Fantasy of Film

0

Food is complex. It gives pleasure yet many have an unhealthy relationship with it; food is essential for survival, yet its production is destroying the planet; it encourages social connections and feelings of isolation; the food we eat can make ethical or religious statements and indicate class or ethnicity. Unsurprisingly, films utilise food for symbolic purposes and for plot and thematic development. Culturally, food is sexualised and weaponised – an apple signifies original sin – so if someone is chopping veg or chomping carbohydrates, it’s indicating cinematic significance. 

“Look at the boy, look how he eats spaghetti. Exactly the same way his father did.” When Barry Keoghan, in Yorgos Lanthimos’s The Killing of the Sacred Deer, discovered everyone eats spaghetti twirling it around a fork he was “more upset than when they told me he was dead.” Shovelling massive forkfuls, Keoghan chillingly explains to Nicole Kidman that death awaits her entire family unless her alcoholic surgeon husband, Colin Farrell (responsible for his father’s death) chooses one to die.  Previously the food of love, curtesy of Lady and the Tramp, hereafter spaghetti is sinister! Keoghan’s messy eating symbolises his serious psychological issues, parental loss and destroyed trust in humanity. 

Farrell and Kidman share more twisted food moments in Sofia Coppola’s The Beguiled. This time it’s murder by mushrooms. Set during the American Civil War, a pristine residential girls’ school in the South is turned upside down by the arrival of Farrell, a wounded Union soldier. Mounting sexual tension, jealousy between the women and simmering violence (including an amputation!) results in a vengeful Farrell keeping them hostage. Women, tied to the kitchen serving men, use the domestic tools available to them to gain control and freedom – he has a gun, but they’ve got mushrooms! 

Fungi are also employed in Daniel Day-Lewis’ final film, Phantom Thread, a sumptuous tale of perverse power games in 1950’s London couture. There’s an immediate power imbalance when the fashion designer meets Alma, a waitress serving him bacon, scones, cream, jam, sausages, and lapsang souchong tea which he insists she memorises; food is control and desire. In London, their affair wanes; cantankerous and controlling, he finds sounds of her buttering and eating toast torturous. To avoid being discarded, Alma adds poisoned mushrooms to his tea. Bedridden, she nurses him to recovery but as he re-asserts control Alma again turns to mushrooms; watching his omelette being prepared, he comprehends the previous and imminent poisoning, yet willingly eats. Alma says, “I want you flat on your back, helpless, tender, open.” A very British take on sadomasochism; mushrooms replace erotic bondage. 

A notoriously sexual film food scene is Timothée Chalamet masturbating into a de-stoned peach in Luca Guadagnino’s Call Me By Your Name. It’s a testament to the acting and direction that this scene, where his lover eats the peach – “Something that was mine was in his mouth, more his than mine now” – can be moving, rather than hilarious. 

Peter Greenaway’s masterpiece The Cook The Thief His Wife And Her Lover is the ultimate food film; an allegory of excessive capitalist greed in Thatcher’s consumerist Britain. Set in an upmarket London restaurant it displays gluttony, excess, savagery, lust and revenge. The set swims with food as the camera laterally pans between the kitchen and restaurant. Michael Gambon, The Thief – a vulgar, sadistic, nouveau-riche gangster – terrorises everyone, especially His Wife, Helen Mirren. Her passionate affair with an intellectual diner, with trysts in the kitchen store rooms and freezer, strongly associates food with lust. Their escape, naked in a van of rotting meat, symbolises wasteful capitalist consumption, corruption and imminent death. Her Lover’s murder (pages of a book are forced down his throat) is shocking; books are weapons, intellect is ridiculed. Revenge is exacted through cannibalism; persuading The Cook to roast the corpse, Mirren holds a gun to Gambon, forcing him to eat. 

Food – whether symbolising power, desire, loss, despair, love, murder or moral, social and political disorder – provides an extensive menu for films. It’s perhaps apt that whether it’s the content of Chalamet’s peach or the roasted Lover’s corpse, humans too are part of the food chain. 

Onyx Magazine launch celebrates Black voices

0

Onyx Magazine, which highlights the voices of Black creatives, with a particular emphasis on British Black students, held the launch of its second edition, ‘Stir,’ on Thursday.

Over 100 people attended the launch of the magazine, which is described as “A reaction to Dawn’s first light. The small unconscious twitch of a sleeping hand. The mixing of elements until they become unrecognisable. Maggi, hurricanes, afro-funk and mass migration.”

The Oxford-based magazine is headed by London-based Oxford graduate Theophina Gabriel, who has served as Editor-in-Chief since the magazine’s inception and launched the first edition while a student at the University.

Gabriel told Cherwell: “Last year when we announced the launch of our first edition I:DAWN we shared the front page with a Cherwell headline that read that suspensions in Oxford were up 68 percent – with BAME students being more likely to suspend.”

“This year as we launch our second edition II:STIR, Team Onyx 2019 continues to witness a climate of bias which lingers above Black students operating within academic spaces. Onyx’s aim has always been to cut through this climate by providing a platform which represents the affirmation and expression of Black students not just at Oxford but up and down the country.”

The magazine has been recognised by eight Oxford colleges who have provided over £4,000 in funding, and Gabriel says the colleges will receive free copies for their students.

She added: “I feel proud and excited to see the way in which Onyx has expanded into spaces that I didn’t think possible, and to see the response from our readers and supporters. It really shapes the meaning and direction of our ethos.”

“Seeing its growth only widens its importance in my eyes and it makes me feel grateful – to our readers, my team and the community which surrounds the publication. We hope that II:STIR reasserts the importance of Onyx as a body of work that helps break down barriers for Black students, from publication in the creative industry all the way to feelings of belonging in these academic circles.”

Gabriel said this year’s edition was different to the first edition,‘Dawn,’ because the team of five students had more control over the design, and that the work was more strongly centred around the theme of ‘Stir’.

Following the launch, the magazine will be stocked in Blackwell’s and distributed to universities across the country, as well as some independent bookshops.

Moran keeps majority in Oxford West

0

Layla Moran has been re-elected as MP for the marginal Oxford West and Abingdon.

Moran, an MP since the 2017 General Election, beat the Conservative PPC by almost 9,000 votes to maintain her seat.

Moran’s victory increases the gap between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party after James Frederickson gained only 38.1% of the vote.

In 2017, Moran won the seat by a mere 816 votes, ending Conservative Nicola Blackwood’s seven-year tenure.

Rosie Sourbut, the Labour PPC, received 4,258 votes, while the Brexit Party candidate, Allison Wild, received 829.

With a turnout of 76.4%, this election proved to be a highly contested event, centred heavily around Brexit.

The re-election of a Liberal Democrat in Oxford West and Abingdon echoes the wishes of the 70% of constituents voted to remain in the European Union in 2016.

Moran is one of 11 Liberal Democrats to be elected as MPs, but the Conservative Party will form a government after winning a majority.

Liberal Democrat leader, Jo Swinson, narrowly lost her seat of Dunbartonshire East to the SNP by 149 votes.

Labour stays strong in Oxford East

0

Anneliese Dodds has maintained her seat as Labour MP for Oxford East, winning 57% of the vote.

Dodds was first elected in the 2017 general election in which she gained over 35,000 votes. Gaining 28,135 votes, this election narrows her majority.

A Labour safe seat since 1987, Dodds gained more votes than the other seven candidates standing in Oxford East.

Turnout was down by 5.5% when compared with 2017, with 63.3% of constituents turning out to vote.

Conservative PCC, Louise Staite, gained 20.9% of the vote, whilst the Liberal Democrats’ Alistair Fernie gained 13.9%.

The Green Party’s PCC, David Williams, gained 4.8% and the Brexit Party gained 2.3%, while the three Independent candidates amassed 499 votes between them.

Despite Liberal Democrat and Labour successes in Oxford, the Conservative Party will form a government under Boris Johnson after winning a majority.

Dodds, an Oxford graduate, was an MEP for South East England from 2014 before her election as MP in 2017.

Vote swaps: the heart of tactical voting

0

As the UK goes to the polls in what is dubbed the “Brexit election,” some Remain voters are going the extra mile to make sure their vote has the maximum impact. Increasing numbers of people are choosing to swap their vote with someone from a different constituency, switching allegiances in order to unseat an undesirable candidate.

‘Vote swaps’ are particularly common in marginal constituencies, where only a small number of votes are required to swing the overall percentage in favour of a different party. Tactical voting – when voters pick a party or candidate other than their first choice in order to reduce the margin of the other most prominent candidate – is by no means uncommon, with a poll by BMG showing that one in four people plan to vote tactically. However, vote swaps are a newer phenomenon, and have been propelled into the limelight by an increasingly loud anti-Brexit discourse.

“This was a direct response to people on the street coming up to us and talking about the issue,” said Pamela Armstrong, a committee member for the collective ‘Cheltenham for Europe,’ who founded a Facebook group for vote swaps along with her friend Nikki Robson. “At first, we thought it would just be about linking our own [local] constituencies and we were a little surprised, when we went live, to get requests from all over the United Kingdom. I even had one from Antarctica which was a huge surprise to us.”

Robson and Armstrong set up the Facebook group in May 2019 with the aim of bringing together voters whose primary concern was remaining in the European Union, and initially it had 156 supporters. That number has now grown to more than 7,000 members, with up to 50,000 engagements per month and a month-by-month reach of two million. Whilst Robson handled the business end of the process, matching voters and supporting them through the swaps, Armstrong handled publicity, advertising the group on Twitter.

Armstrong, who swapped her vote for the first time in this election, said that for participants, votes “are so precious to them because it’s as if they hold them in their hands close to their hearts, and they will not let it go. I got the sense that it is a very great responsibility, and it does count. You’re switching your allegiance into a constituency where there is a very real chance that the Pro-remain candidate will be returned to parliament. And both vote swappers are doing that. It’s win-win.” 

Many people are hailing tactical voting as being especially important in the 2019 election, with approximately 50 marginal seats which the Conservatives could lose as a result of tactical voting. Despite the exit poll predicting that the Conservatives will win a working majority, with YouGov’s final poll predicting a gain of 50 seats for the party, in their biggest majority since 1987, there is a great deal of speculation that tactical voting could pull the rug from underneath their feet.

Tom de Grunwald, who runs the vote swapping website Swap My Vote since 2015, said vote swaps go a long way in hyper-marginal constituencies, citing the example of how the Conservatives won the Richmond Park constituency by just 45 votes in the 2017 election, with vote swappers providing 10 percent of the swing towards the Liberal Democrats.

“I think it has really affected the way people think about politics. The idea of voting is to vote for who you want, but we have such a bad electoral system that many people literally waste their vote. In 2017, 22 million votes were wasted. I think it [vote swapping] normalises tactical voting, it means that people understand the electoral system better.”

This year, de Grunwald says there have also been unexpected “unionist” vote swaps between the Labour and Conservative parties in marginal Scottish constituencies, in order to avoid Scottish National Party victories, as the latter is lobbying for Scottish independence. However, he says the “lion’s share” of vote swaps are still between progressive parties.

58-year-old retail assistant Caroline Donnelly was one of the many people who used Armstrong and Robson’s group to organise her own vote swap, as well as for three members of her family. Although a staunch Labour supporter, Donnelly voted Liberal Democrat in Cheltenham, as there were just 5,000 votes between the current Conservative MP and the Liberal Democrat candidate in the 2017 general election, whilst Labour trailed more than 20,000 votes behind. In exchange, her swap partner voted Labour in Warwick and Leamington, which is a marginal Labour-Conservative race, with just over 1,000 votes separating the two in the last election.

Anti-Conservative rhetoric is strong within the group, with Armstrong saying, “The Tories have systematically closed down democratic debate in parliament.” For Donnelly, however, the issue is about more than just Brexit, which she views as an elitist move to avoid paying tax. Having previously worked as a nurse for the NHS, she said it had been “devastated” by austerity, and that her own two sisters, who are both disabled, had “suffered severely with austerity cuts. The services they use have been removed and it’s really affected their health. So, I’ve seen the direct results of that.” 

Donnelly found out about the group through a social media link and said it was “a great idea. It’s really easy. Both my husband and daughter had queried, ‘How do you know they’re going to do it?’ And I said, ‘Well, it’s trust, you know.’ It’s kind of made me want to look more widely at other constituencies and how they do, usually I don’t think about Warwick but I’m going to be watching that one tonight. It’s sort of bringing people together to look beyond your own constituency.”

This sentiment is shared by Chair of the Liberal Democrats in the Isle of Wight, Anni Adams. Her party stood aside for the Green Party in her constituency and many others across the country, in a pact known as ‘Unite to Remain,’ in which parties stood aside for one another increase the possibility of pro-Remain candidates winning in certain constituencies. Adams swapped her vote with a Green voter in Cambridge, as she was unable to vote Liberal Democrat owing to the Isle of Wight candidate standing aside.

“It was the first thing that came into my head that I wanted to do, because of my position here, to be able to explain to people not being able to vote for a party I believe in,” Adams said. “It was a genuinely lovely moment this morning going to the polling station and texting my vote swap, taking a photo and saying, ‘You win mate, you’ve got my vote,’ and her saying the same to me.”

Adams, who vote swapped for the first time this election, added: “It’s nice to find a community that believes the things you do in a time that is so divisive and has split the country, and Westminster hasn’t done very much to create unity across the board. Things like Vote Swap, Unite to Remain have given the opportunity for people who are like-minded and want the same thing to put tribal party politics aside in the hope for a better future.”

Other voters have a history of swapping – 39-year-old marketing manager Paul Ahearne swapped votes for the first time in 2017, using the ‘Swap My Vote’ random voter matching programme, and voted Cheltenham Liberal Democrat in exchange for a Labour vote in Portsmouth. “I think it has an effect, but from what I read after 2017, swapping appeared to decide the margin of victory rather than which party won,” he said.

He believes that although some seats may have changed hands due to vote swaps, the number of changed seats is still not high enough to swing the overall victory in either direction. “Cheltenham will be a lot closer this time because of it. [It’s] hard to tell the effect of actual swaps versus those being pragmatic though… I think it gives the opportunity for those open to pragmatism to vote with a clear conscience.”

The UK adopted its current first-past-the-post voting system in 1950. Parties including the Green Party have lobbied for proportional representation to be used instead, but the 2011 Alternative Voting Referendum produced an overwhelming rejection of the idea. However, the current system continues to be criticised for ‘gerrymandering,’ or manipulation of electoral boundaries, and its implicit encouragement of tactical voting.

Tactical voting has had a tangible impact in previous elections, with widespread agreement that it ensured a greater majority for Tony Blair in the Labour Party’s 1997 election victory. Anti-Conservative voters deliberately switched to the Labour Party in order to avoid a Conservative victory, and Blair, alongside former Prime Minister John Major, has encouraged tactical voting in the 2019 election.

Ahearne said he is particularly concerned about gerrymandering and called the UK’s current electoral system “shoddy.” Adams agreed, saying “For example, taking the Green Party and how many people voted for Greens and how many MPs they have just doesn’t reflect at all what the nation is voting for. And same with the Liberal Democrats. This two-party system which obviously isn’t working, hasn’t been working, because you sit then in the hung parliament situation.”

Donnelly concurred, saying vote swapping was a less than ideal option. “I’d love to be able to vote Labour and [for it to] mean something, but the voting system we have doesn’t allow for that, unfortunately. So, a new system of proportional representation would be much more to my liking. I’ll do it [vote swapping] because it’s the lesser of the evils but my heart would be much happier if I was voting Labour directly with a direct impact.”

“The system is broken,” added de Grunwald. “We need proportional representation, we desperately need seats to match votes. We’d actually probably have better governments if we had coalitions. If voters can do that, which our vote swappers can, why can’t politicians find solutions that actually compromise in the interests of all people?”

Although de Grunwald adopts a non-partisan approach on his site, for the users of Robson and Armstrong’s group, this election is about holding back Brexit.

“I think we need to deconstruct the word win,” Armstrong said. “We’re on a high road to nothing if we think we’re going to win in the normal sense. Parliament has done what we Remainers needed it to do, which is simply holding the line. My hope is that with this election, we will simply hold the line again, and continue to hold the line. And holding the line is winning.”

However, it looks as if the UK is now on course to leave the European Union, with the Conservatives winning 47 more seats in the 2019 election. The vote swappers were unsuccessful in ensuring a victory for the Remainers, but they do seem to have had an impact – in Cheltenham, where many people swapped to vote Liberal Democrat, the Conservatives were re-elected with a much reduced majority, winning by just 981 votes, compared to 2,569 in the 2017 election. In the Isle of Wight, however, the Conservatives increased their majority.

“Tactical voting hasn’t worked in this election,” said de Grunwald. “[But] vote swapping did help make it more proportional – there were some seats whose margins were affected by our users. The voters who were swapping did affect the results where they were swapping.”

Adams and others in the group expressed horror at the unexpectedly bad performance of the more progressive parties, but they are hopeful tactical voting could have more of an impact in the future. “[As for] how much it will back an impact going forward, I’d like to think a lot,” said Adams.

One fact is clear – UK voters are changing the way they think about the electoral process. Although vote swapping is still a relatively new phenomenon, 6.5 million people voted tactically in the 2017 election, according to the Electoral Reform Society. That number is likely to have gone up in 2019, and going forward, it is likely that the British public will increasingly think twice about how best to use their vote.

No home, no vote, no option

0

“Same old, same old as far as I’m concerned,” said 46-year-old Shamen Hazzard, a rough sleeper in Oxford, dismissing the prospect of voting in this year’s general election.

It’s a sentiment expressed by many voters as the UK holds its third general election in five years, following trips to the polls in 2015 and 2017. For some, this year is a chance to have their say on Brexit – for others it’s the climate election, and for some it’s about austerity.

Yet there is one group of people routinely ignored by voters and politicians alike – rough sleepers. In Oxford, where homelessness is an increasingly visible issue, the city council’s November 2018 estimate suggested there were 94 people sleeping on the streets.

The homeless community has also been rocked by at least six deaths of homeless people in the last year, with five people dying in a three-month interval between December 2018 and February 2019, which prompted the council to ask for an independent investigation into their deaths. Rough sleepers are varied in their levels of political engagement, but there is a universal feeling that not enough is being done.

Hazzard, who has lived in Oxford most of her life, spends most of her time outside Sainsbury’s, trying to make enough money to get into a hostel for the night. She says she will not be voting this year, and that she never has. “Just because I don’t get it, you know. [I] don’t understand the ins and outs of the politics and after every election, it seems like everything they say they’re going to do, don’t happen [sic]. So there’s no point.”

All the major political parties have responded to the housing and homelessness crisis, with the Conservatives pledging to “end the blight of rough sleeping by the end of the next Parliament,” expanding initiatives such as Housing First.

Meanwhile, Labour also plans to “end rough sleeping within five years,” by making 8,000 additional homes available. The Liberal Democrats have the same target, and plan to also scrap the Vagrancy Act, an 1824 piece of legislation often used to criminalise rough sleepers.

However, Hazzard believes political parties don’t really care about homeless people.

“It’s all clouds in the sky,” she said of targets set to end rough sleeping. “They’re closing homeless places down and that, and taking funding away from sport and all that, so what do they expect to happen? It just gets worse.”

In a statement this year, the Council said: “Overarching national issues like welfare reform, precarious private renting and austerity-driven cuts to mental health and social care support services drive the shocking rise in street homelessness. In Oxfordshire these cuts include more than £2 million a year in countywide housing support for single people experiencing homelessness.”

Volunteer at the homelessness collective Oxford Open House, Lucy Warin, told Cherwell: “It’s dire. For me this year has been the first year where I’ve become one of those hundreds of thousands of people working in a job where I watch people die because of austerity. And it’s been very difficult. But on the flipside, I think that this election has seen all of the political parties talk about homelessness and its relationship to the housing crisis in a way that I’ve not seen before.”

Warin led a drive to ensure homeless people had the chance to vote in the election if they wanted to, going into homelessness services and helping people fill in the form they must complete if they have no fixed address. On polling day, she helped people get to the booths, especially those with mobility or health issues.

“There’s definitely a lot of people feeling disenfranchised,” she added. “We’ve seen lots of people who just feel pretty hopeless. I’ve not seen any of the political parties actually reach out and try to talk to people on the streets. I think Labour have got some great policies around housing and helping people on the streets.”

Although political opinions are divided among homeless people as in any other demographic, she said there was unanimous dislike of the Conservative Party, who many hold responsible for the rise in street homelessness, especially due to the roll-out of Universal Credit from 2016 onwards as a replacement to the old benefits system.

Warin said: “Everyone hates the Tories. A big factor is universal credit. Universal credit is widely hated and is quite often one of a number of factors in a situation where someone’s become homeless, so people really hate the Tories for that. There’s quite a spread, so I’d say most people are either Brexit Party or Labour.”

She added that the drive was not aimed at raising support for any of the parties, but rather making sure that those who wanted to vote had the means to do so. “We’re not explicitly partisan. We’re definitely explicitly anti-Tory as anyone with a brain working in housing and homelessness would be. These are people who’ve got much bigger things [than politics] going on in their lives. So, what we’re trying to do is make sure nobody doesn’t vote because they’re having an awful time with their housing.”

Warin is not alone in her mission to get homeless people on the electoral register – Paul Roberts, CEO of Aspire Oxford, a charity working to help homeless and disadvantaged people find employment, is also encouraging homeless voters. “We are hosting our ward’s ballot boxes in our premises and as an organisation we are encouraging all our project participants to vote,” he said.

Hazzard was not convinced by the voting registration drive: “They do try and get us to vote and that, I just don’t want to. Some people came when I was down the day services at the night shelter and tried to get me registered to vote, and I didn’t do it.”

However, the push for increased political engagement has resulted in some homeless people signing up to vote. 42-year-old Kevin Barber, who has been sleeping rough for seven months after losing his home when his parents died and splitting up with his partner. He said he’d voted for the Liberal Democrats, with Brexit being one of the key issues on his mind. Despite his housing situation, he says homelessness was not a defining factor in his decision.

“There are too many homeless people on the streets. It’s gone too far for building extra houses for homeless people because there’s thousands of us. It’s going to be a no-win situation as far as I’m concerned, anyway,” said Barber.

He added that he felt politicians were unaware of homeless people and thinks the reason homelessness is increasing is because of higher-level politics. As for the solution, it’s “building more hostels, really, and affordable rooms to rent. And it’s hard, it’s really hard.” He insisted he’s tried to get help, saying it has only resulted in “a dead end every time.”

Unlike Hazzard, he believes it’s important to vote and that homeless people be made aware that they can vote although “if they do or not is a different matter. They’re probably lost, or they haven’t bothered voting, it just goes straight over their heads.”

Warin agreed, saying: “I think what I’ve personally found is these people are so rarely asked for their opinion. They live in a world of service, delivery and playing the system, and for us to turn around and say, ‘What’s your opinion?’ is just something that happens so rarely. I’ve had some really wonderful chats this election, some particularly eye-opening conversations.

“I think the one thing I just really hope for… I’ve been doing loads of canvassing, and one thing I come across is indecision. And what I’ve been saying is if you don’t know who you want to vote for, think of the most vulnerable people, who probably won’t vote, and vote for what’s best for them.”

Statistics show that homelessness has increased by 165 percent since the Conservative government came into power in 2010, according to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. The figures, dated from January 2018, estimate that at least 4,677 people sleep rough on any one night in England.

Barber is unsurprised by these figures. “There’s hundreds here, in Oxford alone, let alone all over the country. It’s only going to get worse, as far as I can tell.” He believes rough sleeping would have increased under any political party, and this thought is echoed by Hazzard, who says it would have happened “even if one of the other parties were in power.

“Everything else gets seen to before homeless people.”