Condensation dribbles down the windows, noses drip, and morale is low. This dismal weather, punctuated only by brief spells of chilly sunshine, is what makes us long for home cooking, and the term ‘comfort food’ suddenly become ubiquitous. To me, comfort food means old staples to fall back on: dishes which aren’t invented, but remembered.
It’s often said that food memories are created in childhood, and whilst this claim may have some truth in it, I think that dishes can accumulate emotional significance much more rapidly than it suggests. I’ve only been making this lentil bolognese for a couple of years, but it has come to signify that small window of weekdays spent with family or friends. This time was a rarely acknowledged source of relief on evenings of early darkness after a long day, when, rather thanargue over what to cook (a perennial issue in a family containing both an enthusiastic vegetarian and a fussy, meat-loving younger brother), we would turn to this dish – hopefully having some of it already stashed in the freezer. The gentle sizzling of the softening vegetables (or sofrito, the only part of this which bears a resemblance to an authentic bolognese recipe – Italians look away) as they cook, and the almost instantly rich and meaty flavours of the tomatoes and brown lentils make this a warming, hearty,no-nonsense hug of a dish. Another factor which establishes its position firmly in the category of comfort food: the near impossibility of taking anything but enormous mouthfuls once you have loaded your fork with a nest of spaghetti, ragu, and – if you’re still unable to picture comfort food which doesn’t involve some sort of cheese – a blanket of parmesan.
It might be true that lentils have too many overtly nutritious connotations to be as instantly associated with comfort as, say, hot chocolate, or a hefty pie – but as winter steals in, lentils are a modestly brilliant, quietly reliable ingredient. Their satisfying texture and their mild nuttiness provide substance and warmth to any number of dishes. If not cooking them in a bolognese like this, they are wonderful slowly stirred into a dal until they fuse with the toasty spices; or, classically, as the basis for a generous soup.
I’m still lamenting my lack of kitchen access since moving to university (although it’s probably a good thing for the completion of my work…). This dish – one of those I miss most – has therefore become even more closely connected with home in my mind. But for those that do have the ability to cook for themselves, it’s perfectly accessible to the most meagre of student budgets and cooking abilities – whilst taking just long enough to make for some fairly good procrastination. It also freezes easily, and is excellent reheated and served with crusty bread the next day.
A useful dish for when energy (and money!) is spent.
(Credit for the recipe should go to Rose Elliot, from one of whose vegetarian cook- books I have pilfered it, as far as my memory allows).
LENTIL BOLOGNESE Serves 6 2 cloves garlic, crushed 2 onions, diced 2 carrots, diced 2 sticks celery, diced 1 tin chopped tomatoes 1 tbsp tomato puree 1 tin or pouch puy or other brown lentils Spaghetti, to serve (does anyone ever know how much spaghetti to cook?)
Method:
1. Heat about a tablespoon of olive oil in a shallow saucepan over a low heat, then add the carrots, celery, and onions. (This is the sofrito which will form the basis of the sauce and generate a surprising amount of flavour). Cook gently for about ten minutes, adding the garlic after five, until the vegetables have softened and the onions are translucent and, maybe, just beginning to brown.
2. Add the tomato puree and the chopped tomatoes, stir, and season. Cook for another five minutes or so, stirring occasionally, until slightly reduced and beginning to come together as a thick sauce.
3. Meanwhile, bring as large a pan as possible of salted water to a rolling boil (the more the pasta can move around in the pan, the better), add the spaghetti, and simmer for approx. ten minutes until cooked but still slightly al dente (refer to packet instructions for different kinds of pasta).
4. Add the lentils, loosening with some water or vegetable stock if it seems necessary, then cook for another five minutes or so. Serve the spaghetti on plates, topped with a generous dollop of the ragu, and parmesan or fresh basil or thyme if you have them.
The Oxford Climate Justice Campaign (OCJC) has launched a petition demanding Oxford University and affiliates such as The Careers Service end the “hosting and promoting of recruitment events and job opportunities for fossil fuel companies”.
The petition, which has amassed over 150 signatures, accuses the University of “lending legitimacy to the notion that these climate-destroying corporations have any place in a sustainable and just future.’’
The Campaign claims the presence of fossil fuel companies at careers and freshers’ fairs, networking events and panel talks are examples of the University ignoring both its responsibility as an “institution of knowledge” to act on scientific evidence and its commitment to students.
The Climate Justice Campaign is a part of the Fossil Free movement, a global campaign that operates within multiple communities to “build a future free from the injustice of climate change, and free from the profiteering fossil fuel industry that drives it.”
Divestment from fossil fuels is central to the OCJC’s project.
While pushing for increased transparency, they call for the University’s fossil fuel investments to go through a “negative screening process” and encourage investment into “fossil free” alternatives.
OCJC recently disrupted a Glencore recruitment event, branding the Swiss mining company “climate criminals”, and continues to target divestment within specific JCRs, passing nine motions last Hilary Term.
OCJC coordinator Pascale Gourdeau told Cherwell: “Fossil fuel companies such as BP are directly responsible for the suffering and destruction caused by climate change, particularly in vulnerable communities across the global South.
“Their attempts to recruit young minds are a flagrant refusal to acknowledge their own unsus- tainable role in our society. Their tactic to silently cancel recruitment events should not go unnoticed. This is why we are calling on the university to officially exclude fossil fuel companies from recruitment events and careers fairs. These companies are not serious about the climate crisis, and don’t deserve a place on campus.”
The University defends its current stance on divestment, pointing to its informative body, the Oxford Energy Network which works to “tackle the social, economic and political challenges of sustainable energy for all”, and to its Environmental Sustainability Policy which has diminished the university’s carbon footprint since 2008.
Yet, the Climate Justice Campaign has called their attempts to divest “watered-down”.
A representative from the Oxford Careers Service told the Cherwell: “The Careers Service offers an impartial service which allows students to make informed choices about their futures through access to employers and professional networks. We are actively exploring ways to help students make more informed decisions about organisations’ approaches to sustainability. For example, we are currently working with experts at the Smith School, the Said Business School, and the Oxford Martin School, as well as with the Oxford SU, to develop a tool that would allow students to access recruiters’ sustainability credentials at Careers Fairs and other events – helping them to make more informed choices.
“We also encourage employ- ers to demonstrate other ethical credentials such as membership of Stonewall, B-Corp, Living Wage Foundation, Mindful Employer, and ECU Race Charter; and do not promote unpaid internships or paid-for internships. The University is currently developing an ambitious Sustainability Policy, which will shape the activities of the Careers Service and the wider University in the longer term.”
OCJC is a student-led campaign founded on the conviction that Oxford University should use its enormous financial and cultural influence for environmental justice in a changing climate.
The OCJC website says: “We are part of the fast-growing, international Fossil Free movement, which works to cut support of the fossil fuel industry in major institutions.”
Oxford University has launched an inquiry into an alleged incidence of racism committed by a porter at St John’s College. When visiting the college, a black alumnus was asked if he used to “rob” the college during his time as a student.
Returning to the College on 5th November, the graduate had attempted to tour his former place of study before encountering the porter.
Tweeting a day after the incident took place, he wrote: “Ey I went to my old college in Oxford yesterday to look round again. At the door I explained to the porter that I used to go there & he replied ‘What did you do, clean the windows? Rob it?’”
Following this, he filed a complaint with the college, prompting the opening of an investigation by the university.
In a statement released in response to these events on 7th November, the college said: “St John’s College is committed to ensuring the welfare and wellbeing of a diverse college community where there is no place for discrimination of any kind.
“We are aware of a Twitter post about discriminatory language reportedly used by a member of staff towards a visitor. We are investigating this incident as a matter of urgency and will take action as appropriate.” The result of the investigation is as yet unknown.
The tweet has been shared multiple times, with considerable support being shown for the graduate in response to the porter’s comments.
Allegations of racism committed by porters in Oxford have not been rare over the last few years, with an investigation by Cherwell in 2018 uncovering at least 14 testimonies from students of colour which suggested they had been unfairly targeted by porters, being asked for identity or to justify the purpose of their visit, whilst white students were not submitted to the same process.
Increasing and disproportionate complaints of black students being questioned upon entering college grounds prompted the Students’ Union last year to express the view that all porters should be given unconscious bias training in order to prevent potentially discriminatory behaviour.
Bans of “unacceptable behaviours” by the Oxford City Council in February 2016, which garnered controversy for their ‘demonisation’ of homeless people, have not been renewed.
A public consultation has been launched instead, which will gather opinion about behaviours people consider to be unacceptable in the city centre. This will create a new set of rules to be released in 2020.
The City Centre Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) from 2016 aimed to deter anti-social behaviour. It outlawed eight activities in public spaces, including “aggressive begging”, “inappropriate use of public toilets”, and drinking alcohol.
Opponents told the Oxford Mail that the PSPO could “criminalise” and “demonise” rough sleepers. This controversy led to Oxford City Council releasing a statement that defended the PSPO, saying that there were no “homeless fines”.
This is in the context of widespread backlash against PSPOs in 60 local authorities. A landmark high court case is currently determining whether fines for begging from PSPOs unfairly target home- less people.
Over three years, the PSPO was used by the council to give almost 1000 warnings. However, only five £100 fixed penalty notices were given out, four of which were to people selling goods without permission. “Advice” was given to people begging 96 times, but no one was fined or prosecuted.
A spokesperson for the council said: “The impact of the Order is still being felt and many of the anti-social behaviours have not returned.
“There is, for example, a reduction in people aggressively beg- ging, Oxford no longer gets large numbers of street peddlers during St Giles’ Fun Fair, and busking is largely self-regulating through the current voluntary Code of Conduct, which is to be reviewed in 2020.”
The new consultation is a part of the City Centre Vision for 2020. The consultation will run until January. It is an online quiz which asks residents and visitors about problems such as dog control, littering, begging, graffiti, and threatening behaviour.
The Oxford City Council has already held focus groups of residents, business owners, and people accessing homeless services, which informed the questions on the quiz.
A spokesperson for the City Council said: “The resident group raised concerns about pickpocketing, bicycle thefts, drunk and rowdy behaviour in Park End Street and George Street, and tourist coaches sitting with their engines running; the business group raised concerns about rogue tour guides, pick pocketing, drunk and rowdy behaviour in George Street, and noisy street entertainers.
“The main concern of people accessing homelessness services in the city was safety. They said that they did not perceive the city centre streets to be a safe place to sleep, and felt particularly threatened by those leaving the pubs under the influence of alcohol who can abuse them, damage their property or physically assault them.”
Councillor Mary Clarkson, Cabinet Member for Culture and City Centre said: “Over the coming months we will be consulting residents on the future of every aspect of the city centre, but we are starting with the behaviours that people think are acceptable and unacceptable. So whether you are a local resident, a city centre business owner, or just a visitor to our beautiful city centre, please take part in the consultation.”
This is a welcome change for Councillor Shaista Aziz, co-founder of the Labour Homelessness Campaign, who told Cherwell: “As more councils consult on the PSPOs, with the intention of gaining the power to criminalise behaviour that is not normally criminal, many on the streets believe these powers penalise them further for being homeless. I welcome the fact that PSPOs won’t be renewed in the city centre and I’m very pleased that the council is acknowledging the intense vulnerability people rough sleeping in Oxford face to being victims of abuse and violence.”
Arron Banks, the co-founder of Leave.EU, spoke at the Oxford Union on Tuesday.
Previously one of the biggest contributors to the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), Banks was influential in the unofficial Leave campaign leading up to the 2016 Brexit Referendum.
Before calling one student a “sanctimonious prick” during the Q&A, Banks spoke about the success of the two-pronged Leave campaign.
Banks maintained that the key to success was in strongly focusing conversation on unregulated im- migration. In this environment, he said, “Brexit was a cultural war as much as it was an economic war.”
Banks protested the controversial stories and the press coverage of the Leave campaign, maintaining his belief in the rise of fake news with regards to Brexit.
He claimed that journalists have become activists, and that the controversy surrounding Russian involvement was fuelled by a few journalists “who have a bee in their bonnet” about the outcome of the Brexit vote.
Among other topics, questions were directed towards Banks’ provocative media presence and con- troversial tweets on Greta Thunberg and anti-Semitism.
When asked about the current swing in the Conservative Party, Banks argued that UKIP and the 2016 vote had helped the Party to return to its roots, having drifted “so far left.”
Three years since the campaign, Banks believes that, although a second referendum is off the table, the upcoming general election is binary over Brexit.
Admitting a degree of naivety over the manner in which the UK would leave the EU, he said that Boris was “left with a hospital pass” on his ascension to PM.
Asked how he would have dealt with Brexit negotiations; Banks criticised the attempt to negotiate Brexit as a two-part deal and for the lack of leverage used against the EU.
To sum up his views on the past three years, Banks said: “We have displayed nothing but jelly.”
Prince Charles has been elected a Fellow of Kellogg College, it was announced this week.
The Prince of Wales will be the Bynum Tudor Fellow for the 2019- 2020 academic year, during which the college will celebrate its 30th anniversary.
Established in 2004, past fellows include Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Executive Director of the UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women Phyumzile Mllambo-Ngcuka.
The fellowship was set up to engage with influential thinkers and experienced practitioners in business, policy making, and culture.
The Prince of Wales, when ac- cepting the award, said: “It gives me great pride and pleasure to accept the Bynum Tudor Fellowship this year, and I would like to express my particular gratitude to Kellogg College in presenting me with this significant honour.”
Kellogg College, a graduate college and the first to accept part-time students, has over 1,200 students from around 90 countries.
Prince Charles graduated from the University of Cambridge with a BA in 1970 and an MA in 1975. Among his 16 honorary degrees, he received an honorary Doctor of Laws from Oxford University in 1983.
Professor Jonathan Michie, President of the College said: “Following his visit to the College, I am delighted that His Royal Highness has accepted this invitation to be our Bynum Tudor Fellow.
“His commitment to learning – through all stages of life, his passion for the quality of our built and natural environments, and his enthusiasm for innovative thinking and practice across disciplines, are mirrored in much of what we do here at Kellogg. I am pleased to welcome him into our Fellowship during our 30th year.”
Layla Moran, incumbent MP for the marginal seat of Oxford West and Abingdon, began her campaign this week with a pledge to double spending on youth services in Oxfordshire.
The Liberal Democrats announced they would increase spending to almost £8 million to help tackle levels of crime and anti-social behaviour among young people.
The measure is part of a £500 million fund allocated to Local Authorities across England for spending on youth services, thus steering young people away from crime.
A Liberal Democrat press release said: “council spending on youth services has been cut by £300 million – or 40 per cent – since 2015.
“Knife crime has risen by 80% over the same period, with a record high of 47,500 offences recorded in the year to June 2019.”
Committing to a public health approach to tackling youth violence, the Lib Dems aim to focus on identifying risk factors early on, with close cooperation between youth workers, police, teachers, health professionals and social services.
Layla Moran said: “Across the country, there are thousands of youth centres offering invaluable services and support to young people in their localities.”
“Within my own constituency, Wolvercote Young People’s Club has been providing services for the com- munity in North Oxford for nearly 80 years.”
“Local Liberal Democrat councillors alongside myself have been working with youth centres across the local area, but due to Government and Oxfordshire County Council funding cuts and increases in rent, many youth centres’ trustees, volunteers, parents and communities are looking to fundraise tens of thousands of pounds to keep their services running.”
“Liberal Democrats will build a brighter future for young people by doubling spending on youth services to £7,769,119 a year in Oxfordshire.
“With a Liberal Democrat government, young people will have the support and opportunities they deserve, our local communities will be stronger and people here will feel safer.”
Moran has also condemned the Tories for leaving UK-based EU citizens in limbo, after official figures revealed that thousands of EU citizens living in Oxfordshire have not been offered permanent residency.
The figures show that of the 24,930 EU nationals across Oxfordshire who have applied for permanent residency, fewer than half have been offered settled status.
Moran said: “EU nationals con- tribute hugely to the success of our community in Oxfordshire, and we should be celebrating that contribution.”
“Instead, the Conservative government are placing these citizens in legal limbo by not offering thousands of residents official residency in the UK.”
“If the Conservative government wanted to celebrate the fantastic contribution these EU nationals make to our county and our country,
they would stop the uncertainty of Brexit and grant them permanent residency. Instead the Conservative government are making them live under a cloud of uncertainty.
“The Liberal Democrats recognise the contribution EU citizens have made to this country, and will end the uncertainty by stopping Brexit, protecting the rights of EU citizens and building a brighter future for everyone in Britain.”
With a majority of 816 votes, Moran faces a tightly contested election, against both Labour and Conservatives.
Kate Robbinson, Chair of Oxfordshire Green Party, said: “We have an out of date and unfair voting system that favours the largest party, so even though over half a million people voted Green across the country in the 2017 General Election, we won just one seat.
“By cooperating with other parties in this way we are more likely to get more MPs that would reflect the support the party has.
“In Oxford West & Abingdon we helped a progressive Liberal Democrat candidate, Layla Moran, take the seat from the Conservatives in 2017. She has been supportive of the work Caroline Lucas does in Parliament and we would be happy to see her re-elected.”
The decision by the Green Party to stand aside for Ms Moran forms part of a broader push across the country for Remain supporting parties to support one another.
The Green Party’s decision to step aside for the Liberal Democrats last week and pledge their support for the party came as part of the Unite to Remain campaign.
Unite to Remain, a campaign involving three parties that support remaining in the European Union, aims to avoid the “spoiler effect” and maximise the elected number of Brexit-opposed MPs.
In an election which is centred on Brexit, the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party and Plaid Cymru have agreed that only one party will stand in 60 marginal constituencies in England and Wales.
Heidi Allen, founder of the Unite to Remain campaign, told The Guardian in October, “With a single remain candidate in 60 seats we will return a greater number of remain MPs to parliament. This is our opportunity to tip the balance of power away from the two largest parties and into a progressive remain alliance.”
The Pitt Rivers Museum will stage a launch event for LGBT+ History Month on Friday (November 15), to kick off celebrations for the month itself which will be celebrated in February 2020.
The free event, ‘Museum Late Night: Diversity’ will include a series of talks, tours of the museum, poetry, stalls and activities, as well as a diversity-themed light and sound show projected onto the Pitt Rivers and Museum of Natural History buildings.
The launch will be preceded by ‘Story Time with LGBT History Month: Stonewall,’ in which Stephen Boyce, the Chair of Trustees of the education charity Schools Out UK and LGBT+ History Month, will read an account of the 1969 Stonewall uprising for schoolchildren, narrated from the viewpoint of the building itself.
Boyce said: “Each year we find prestigious venues such as the Pitt Rivers Museum want to host the launch event, and each year more and more members of the general public want to be involved and included. Society is changing for the better; let’s keep up the fight for liberation, for all!”
Other speakers will include Dean Atta, author of ‘The Black Flamingo,’ which describes the coming-of-age story of a mixed-race gay teen who takes up drag at university, Caroline Paige, who served as the first openly transgender officer in the UK armed forces, Zayna Ratty, the chair of Oxford Pride, and Sue Sanders, founder of LGBT+ History Month.
Sanders, who initiated the first UK LGBT+ History Month as part of a Schools Out project in February 2005, told Cherwell: “We have been invisible for so long, and we came up with the idea for LGBT+ His- tory Month just after Section 28 died, and it was also at the time when the Labour government was talking about a single equality act, so we thought it was the per- fect time to launch a month that would celebrate LGBT.”
She said this year’s launch is different because “we’re teamed up with the Pitt Rivers Museum, and we’re very pleased to be a part of an institution’s celebration of the LGBTQ+ community.”
Ratty said she was “so proud to be included in such esteemed company” as the first person of colour to serve as chair of Oxford Pride, and added: “As we move forward through time, getting by pure effort similar rights to those who don’t identity [as LGBTQ+], we should remember those who came before us. In hosting this event the Pitt Rivers is publicly showing its commitment to diversity, learning and unlearning past narratives.
“I have had to silence myself at times to avoid being subject to multiple layers of discrimination from both inside and outside of the community and knowing that we all have a part in its future is why we do what we do.
“I know, if the graphics work, when I see the Pride branding projected onto the side of the building, I will have tears in my eyes.”
Numerous organisations will also form part of the event, including Blackwell’s, who will run an LGBTQ+ bookstall, and Pink Times and OX & Fyne Times are expected to among stallholders. Musical performers will include indie rock group Junk Whale, and Aphra Taylor, a folk and grunge artist, as well as Drag Syndrome, a drag troupe made up of performers with Down’s Syndrome.
Since 2005, museums have often been the sites of November launch events, with the British Library’s launch event in London taking place on November 14.
When forming initial impressions, Dominic Grieve QC does not outwardly present as a rebel. Yet, Grieve, former Attorney General and former Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, finds himself in a tricky position. Having lost the Conservative Party Whip he is now campaigning as an independent to overturn his own previous Conservative majority in Beaconsfield.
Invited to speak at the Oxford PPE Society, Dominic Grieve arrives in a tweed suit, with slightly muddy shoes after a day of campaigning in Marlow. He sits down, red socks visible, which fall loosely in line with his ginger tie and poppy pin. Perhaps the colour choice is a reflection of his break from his erstwhile blueness.
He freely admits that he finds himself in a strange situation. Having won a 24,000 majority over Labour in the last General Election, he is now working to overturn that as an independent candidate. He explains that whilst he will be standing as an independent candidate, he does not lose his Conservative party membership until he nominates. Still a Conservative party member, Dominic Grieve laments the exodus of moderate, one-nation Tories from Parliament. Nicholas Soames, grandson of Winston Churchill, is standing down, without having the whip restored. So is Kenneth Clarke, grandfather of the House of Commons. Amber Rudd, a lead- ing voice for one-nation Tory-ism, finds no place for herself in the current Parliament. He seems to be under no illusion, that as an independent MP, his ability to affect changes through Parliament will be much reduced. Dominic Grieve fully ap- preciates the power of the pack in politics.
Yet, Dominic is fighting to stay on.
He concedes that he is not the most natural candidate for a rebel. Before Brexit, ‘establishment’ was more readily associated with him. Indeed, Grieve was educated at Westminster School and then Magdalen College, Oxford, where he was even President of Oxford University Conservative Association. Dominic went on to become a barrister at the Middle Temple; he couldn’t be much more conventional if he tried. He cut his political teeth as a councillor in London before being elected to the safe Tory seat of Beaconsfield.
Throughout his political career, he has been a passionate, small ‘c’ conservative, as much as one can be passionate as a small ‘c’ conservative. A self-described ‘liberal conservative’ with both a small ‘l’ and a small ‘c’, Dominic Grieve believes his views are very much within the conservative tradition, stating “I don’t think I can possibly market myself as anything different.”
He explains, “conservatism tends to centre around the belief that you’ve got an acquired series of benefits that you have inherited from your forebearers that you need to look after and develop, but not churn up unless there is absolutely an over- whelming reason for doing it. Which is why I would say Brexit is such an un-conservative act, because it is a total upheaval.”
I ask how much Grieve’s strand of conservatism as a concept is appreciated by today’s body of public opinion, and whether party politics takes precedence over conceptual considerations in the minds of voters.
Grieve maintains that “people do appreciate conservatism with a small “c”. And [he] thinks historically, one of the reasons for which the Conservative party has been so successful is actually in marketing conservatism with a small “c” to the public and it’s tended to have a very powerful resonance. The sense of security and well-being it gives to people has been one of the greatest selling points of the Conservative party.”
He concedes “it is true that in the 2016 referendum, a large number of people decided to support Brexit, interestingly, in many cases, in the name of “restoring conservatism”, going back to something which existed previously which they felt they’d lost.”
The slogan ‘Take Back Control’ for the Leave campaign immediately springs to mind for both of us. Dominic explains his disagreement, “yet, I don’t think that we’ve ever lost control or any more had control than we had in the EU.
“Truth is, if you’re not an economically powerful country, you will be bullied by other economically more powerful countries. And the history of Britain in the 60s and 70s was that we were being pushed around, so our sovereignty was purely nominal. And I think there is an absolute failure to explain this in the referendum campaign. The referendum campaign was, in my mind, pursued by a series of promises which were unfulfillable but clearly had resonance with the public; hence my comments that the political class had failed to explain what the EU was about and its advantages to us. We simply seem to have been incapable of doing it. And to that extent, that is a collective failure by the political class in that the political class itself couldn’t understand those benefits and seemed to have been unable to, and actually, even try to, persuade people of the advantages it was giving us.”
I draw his attention to the incompatibility between small ‘c’ conservatism and populism, which is riding high around the world at the moment. He concurs. “It’s undoubtedly that populism will destroy conservatism in the long run. There’s always been a bit of Conservative Party populism, but I think it’s not readily compatible.
“My view is that Boris may want to reset the politics of the country – let’s get Brexit done and then we can return to more tra- ditional forms of conservatism, claiming to be an ‘one-nation exponent’. But I think in practice, he is going to have great dif- ficulty doing it. I can’t say it’s impossible; as a very skilled politician, perhaps he will find a way in which he can deliver that. But I’m not persuaded that he will find it easy because it’s like if you go into the china shop and you smash up the china, and then you superglue it all back together, but it never looks quite the same as it did before.
“What does worry me is that the logic of Brexit is if Brexit is made to work, the economic model under which the United Kingdom operates thereafter probably needs to be totally changed.
“That’s one of the difficulties that Boris Johnson is going to have to grap- ple with at the end of this process – that if he tries to take his project forward post-Brexit, he’s going to find that the public don’t want what he’s offering and what he needs to try and do meets with very strong level of opposition.”
“What attracts Boris Johnson is I think the idea that we can be a small, buccaneering country delivering huge amounts of wealth creation. But to do that you’ve got to dismantle the existing economic structure of the UK. This is more revolution and all revolutions have their victims. You can’t make the omelette without breaking the eggs.”
The palpable pessimism is penetrating. I ask if he thinks that we will be in great political turmoil for the foreseeable future.
He argues, “if we don’t rescind or stop Brexit, then yes, I cannot see how we are not going to avoid another 4-5 years of very difficult public spending decisions. Politicians try to avoid making predictions, but actually our whole business is about predicting the future and trying to adjust to it as best as we can. “Something says to me that we’re going to have a tumultuous time re-adjusting, through a new series of partnerships, is going to be a painful process. I wish we weren’t doing it. “The tragedy is that I don’t think the public, outside a tiny minority, really want it. They wanted continuity and ‘taking back control’.”
“All other policy-making agendas have been subordinated by legislations to get Brexit through. It’s almost inevitable that most of them are about expenditure and money, how we best structure our society and provide public services. We ought to be having a lively debate about that and try to make some progress for some reform changes; which is just not happening. I do regret that very much. The longer it goes on, the longer the sense of frustration the public will have. Because even though, to be fair, the government does try to pay some attention to this, it gets absolutely no resonance or publicity whatsoever.”
I ask Dominic Grieve about the domestic issues he wishes to draw attention to.
“There are a number of key domestic is- sues that we need to address. We realise that there is a youth crime problem. I know its gone in cyclical patterns but it’s curious that 10 years ago, there was a sense that people were dealing with it adequately. But why it is that now people are dealing with it in a way, particularly with knife crime, which is highly localised, but which is something that is causing particular disquiet. That might be to do with the state of society but more work ought to be done on that.
“I think our education system is not actually bad. It’s in a much better condition than it was thirty years ago. But there is still an awful lot of work to be done. And schools may vary and I think this is very much about leadership, more than money. And therefore still, I believe this is a great challenge.
“Our health service provision is more strained. I am not sure of simply pumping money into the NHS is the solution; but equally, the attempt to restructure and reform it to free up 20bn pounds in 2010-13 was not a great success. It was not intentional, but we need to do more work on that.
“And finally I happen to think that National Defence is grossly underfunded.”
I direct his attention to a recent opinion piece by Lord Waldegrave for The Sunday Times, in which he asserts that Britain has a national identity crisis. The rhetoric of winning WWII or having a Commonwealth or a special relationship with the EU seems to be no longer adequate.
He concurs that that these are indeed difficult times but insists on being an optimist. “Ultimately, the UK is a very resilient country and this is a long established tradition. There are many aspects of our national life that are hugely positive. Our capacity to get out of these problems is quite good as well.’
“The narrative at the moment is jiggering. There is a general malaise of the Western world. A loss of a sense of identity, of security, a loss of a sense of generational interaction and anxiety about the future. One of Britain’s greatest advantages is that as a country, we have been a historic entity for a long time, and has grown organically, except in the Irish context, without violence, in terms of the unity coming together.
“It’s been able to deliver a profound narrative of inclusion, tolerance, fairness; the underpinnings of the ways in which society operates. People have lost consonance, and that worries me much more. They’re looking for alternative solutions such as narrow nationalism.
“I was shocked to hear that a Tory candidate selected in North Midlands recently said that as far as they were concerned, Northern Ireland and Scotland can just take a running jar, what mattered to this person was just Brexit. We’re still the Conservative and Unionist Party!”
Dominic Grieve is rushed to go to a dinner, so we part ways. Whatever one may think of Brexit or the roles indi- vidual politicians play in its deliverance, one leaves with a sense that Dominic Grieve is a small ‘c’ conservative states- man fashioning himself after Burke, and toil he will for his lifelong beliefs.
Oxford University Africa Society have condemned the Union President for his actions regarding the treatment of a blind man who was expelled from the Union chamber during a debate last month.
The society have called for Brendan McGrath’s resignation in a statement that condemns the “violent, unjust, inhumane, and shameful treatment of [their] member.”
The Oxford University Africa Society (AfriSoc), a society which seeks to set the agenda for the future of the African Continent by providing a platform for African students, plan to protest at the Oxford Union this Friday.
This statement follows the announcement that Helen Mountfield, Principal of Mansfield College and QC barrister, will take Ebenezer Azamati’s case against the Oxford Union.
Specialising in human rights and equality law, Mountfield will take the case after a disciplinary committee banned him from the Union for two terms, having found him to have caused disruption.
The panel, which included ex-President Stephen Horvath and ex-returning officers Henry Samuels and Alastair Graham, found Mr Azamati guilty of violating Union rules against “violent conduct”.
Ebenezer Azamati, a postgraduate International Relations student at St John’s College, has a BA in Political Science from the University of Ghana and an MSc in International Politics from SOAS.
AfriSoc said: “Our understanding is that Mr. Azamati, who is visually impaired, was forcibly and violently prevented from re-entering the Union to resume his seat, and subsequently, forced to leave the debate Chamber after simply exiting and re-entering when the program had not even begun. Even if he had re-entered when the debate had started, such poor treatment through violent means remains unjustifiable.”
The society sent a letter to the Oxford Union earlier this month, demanding the following: a public apology from the Union and its President Brendan McGrath, the recantation of Mr Azamati’s ban, and adequate punishment of the security personnel who assaulted him.
The statement continued to say: “That the Oxford Union neither acknowledged receipt of our letter nor reacted to its contents is not represents the wanting manner in which this case has been handled from the start, and the irresponsible leadership which characterises the Oxford Union today.
“What is more disturbing is that, after the terrible treatment meted out to Mr. Azamati, Brendan McGrath, the President of the Union, who was absent at the scene of the incident personally lodged a complaint against Mr. Azamati for violent behaviour. This is a shocking response given that he was not, in fact, the perpetrator of violence but a victim.
“The manner in which Brendan McGrath and the Union have handled this matter is inhumane, not least given the dignity of an individual at stake. AfriSoc is deeply concerned by the physical, emotional and psychological trauma Mr. Azamati has had to endure in the past few weeks due to reckless leadership on display at the Oxford Union.
“That the Union failed in this basic responsibility is sufficient grounds to demand for the resignation of the Union President, Mr. Brendan McGrath. AfriSoc thus calls on the President of the Union to consider his position given that he his conduct on this matter renders him unfit to assume the position of responsibility.”
“In addition, AfriSoc will proceed to protest against the Oxford Union until our demands are fully met.
“AfriSoc holds this case as not only a grave injustice to Mr Azamati but to all African students, students with disability needs and all students at the University of Oxford with the heart and mind to appreciate the unfair and undignified treatment of Mr. Azamati.”
Mr Azamati could neither confirm nor deny the matter.
Helen Mountfield said: “Mr Azamati is seeking a sensible resolution of this matter within the Union in the first instance and will not be making further comment at this time.”
