Wednesday 25th June 2025
Blog Page 549

Punch and BoJo

0

‘What’s the point in fiction if it’s not somehow different from reality?’ Armando Iannucci writes in The Washington Post.

‘Ha’, scoff first-year English undergrads country-wide. The man clearly hasn’t heard of George Eliot. But Iannucci has a point. His particular brand of cutting, on-trend political satire is becoming almost redundant in an age when the President of the United States is embroiled in an adultery scandal with a pornstar, and our own Prime Minister has— amongst other, worse things— a history of buffoonery following him that includes knocking over Japanese children.

During The Thick of It’s run, the political world seemed to be a case of life imitating art, with Iannucci and his writers often coming up with inane policies that the coalition government would wheel out months later. I unashamedly followed our most recent general election largely through a Thick quote group on Facebook, amazed by the universal application Malcolm Tucker’s rants seem to have. Today, having moved from a leader with the charisma of a three-day-old box of chips to one whose Wikipedia page states he has ‘At least five’ children, we may long for a Nicola Murray or a Peter Mannion, whose crimes were at least limited to incessant buzz-wording and excessive Twix consumption.

In many ways, the political farce of today seems far too ridiculous to be true, and Iannucci himself laments that ‘any attempt to present a fictional version of today’s events would never be as crazy as the real thing’. Dominic Cumming’s masterstroke of sending Boris out to regale the public with his apparent love for modelling buses out of wine boxes is right out of the top drawer, trumping anything that the likes of ‘quiet batpeople’ might throw at it. Of course, this was only an attempt to muddy search engine results, distracting from the £350 million pound lie emblazoned on BoJo’s Brexit bus, but oh well.

The only way to make sense of these ridiculous goings-on, I think, is to treat them like the jokes they really are. Instead of seeing Boris as a man, I suggest that we might see him as a performance art piece actually operating at the forefront of satire— the Old Etonian spearheading a ‘People’s Government’, an oven-ready Jonathan Swift for the Meme Age. As soon as the Conservatives launched ‘lo-fi boriswave beats to relax/get brexit done to’, it became clear that our timeline had somehow transcended political reality. Our world treads so closely to the land of fiction that we might as well treat it as such.

In fact, I’d say that Boris Johnson’s casting as the primary pro/antagonist of season three of The Tories is nothing short of genius. To compete with Love Island, we all knew a change was in order. The show had been struggling in the post-Cameron era, losing much of its edge and wit as Theresa May gave something of a lackluster performance, free from the razor-sharp satire that David so aptly delivered. We can all remember season one’s highlights. Cameron and his team of writers were unrelenting in their pursuit of the “posh toff” caricature, expertly working in details such as Cameron’s Bullingdon Club membership, and the allegations of pig-f*****g that ensued. Cameron perfectly skewered the OE political class with his carefully contrived combination of cronyism (inviting previously more minor characters such as George Osbourne to share something of the limelight) and the easy repartee he shared with fellow ex-public-schoolboy Nick Clegg. The season was near-perfect, dropping in the Panama Papers scandal at just the right time, before climaxing in the pig’s ear that was the Brexit referendum.

It was only right that the showrunners deemed a change of personnel was in order. Cameron’s elitist figure had done all it could to skewer the old-fashioned political class, and it was time for a breath of fresh air. Season two, however, was a disaster. Theresa May’s performance as protagonist was akin to that of a 59-year-old vicar’s daughter trying to revive a dead horse. In fact, that’s exactly what it was… May lacked entertainment value, and viewer figures dropped off as anti-scandal after anti-scandal emerged. One can’t help but blame poor writing as well— the whole ‘fields of wheat’ storyline did nothing for positive character development, and exposed May to amateur online ridicule rather than the full-blown press meltdowns that previous protagonists craved. Season two was something of a non-event.

Now that we’re a few episodes into season three, I’m a mixture of delighted and disappointed. It’s something of a let-down that after having pushed the boat out with a female, non-public-school PM, the writers have immediately fallen back on such a Cameronesque character to lead their show forward. However, I must say that as a vehicle for satire Johnson does superbly. He manages to poke fun in the face of racists, with his ‘postbox’ comments highlighting the ignorance and downright negligence with which previous politicians have operated, whilst casting a light on the sexist operations of British magazines through the accusations of sexual harassment that peppered his stint as Spectator editor. His perpetual misquoting of the classics goes beyond the polish of Cameron’s posh stereotype, with these inane attempts at intellectualism revealing the exterior bluster that the men Boris seeks to satirise have relied on for so long. All in all, this season of Tories is shaping up to be one of the most ground-breaking yet.

… Is the review that many would love to write, were the governments of recent years some of Iannucci’s inventions. Satire, I would say, is not dead. Instead, it has moved on from drawn out and well-developed politically based TV shows, and onto sketch formats and internet memes. As politics gets more ridiculous, so will the way in which we mock it until someday even student journalists feel free to chance their arms.

Vintage Actually

0

Holiday dressing with a new old approach

We love the holiday season because dazzling decorations adorn our neighborhoods as we revel in the joy of reunions with family and friends. One of the most favored holiday films, Love Actually, captures this sentiment in the quote, “If you look for it, I’ve got a sneaky feeling that you’ll find that love actually is all around.” Yet, with this cheer comes the double-edged sword of holiday dressing. It can be both exciting and overwhelming to shop for festive clothing. Reconnecting with people that we may not have seen for an entire year can lead to the self-imposed pressure of presenting ourselves at our best, and that prompts a mad dash to find outfits that are both unique and affordable. Though fast-fashion retailers like Zara and Topshop appear the obvious option for the wardrobe dash, the purchase of a suit or dress from these chains often prompts recognition from others because they too have made the jaunt to the stores or frequented websites and considered the same items. On top of that, the news website, Vox, reports that “Zara alone churns out roughly 840 million garments every year” and that “apparel and footwear production currently accounts for 8.1 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.” So, what environmentally conscious option can we turn to for special and stylish pieces? Vintage dressing. And like love in Love Actually, you can find it all around.

Vintage is undoubtably making a come-back. With photos in the Daily Mail of Kendall Jenner leaving the popular luxury vintage store, What Comes Around Goes Around, and the partnership between Burberry and The RealReal (77.4 metric tons of carbon emissions have been offset by consignments of women’s Burberry clothing items on the site) the interest for sustainable and distinctive clothing alternatives is prevalent. It’s not just that making decisions in favor of sustainability never goes out of style, but the idea of owning a piece that has its own history adds a new meaning to Yves Saint Laurent’s adage, “Fashions fade, style is eternal.” Your choice of a sumptuous second-hand blouse or tie proves that great pieces transcend space and time (and season). The added benefit of vintage clothing is that it can often be better made: a second-hand piece that you come across from the 50s necessarily required more thoughtful production than a current comparably priced fast-fashion garment. As opposed to advertising for a mass-market retailer, your vintage picks highlight your own style and creativity.

Although shopping for vintage items does require a similar appetite for discovery to that of adventurers mining during the Goldrush, it’s never been easier to do. Websites such as The RealReal, Vestiare Collective, and 1st Dibs provide designer fashion with a more attractive price tag, and it’s only a click away. (A particularly festive Proenza Schouler sequin sleeveless top is £15.45 on The RealReal as I write.) Nevertheless, those outlets can still be costly. Because the popularity of online vintage shopping has established a baseline price for desirable second-hand items, it can prove slightly more challenging to unearth the great deals once associated with second-hand gems. However, there are independent shops that are easily accessible and provide excellent vintage pieces. In London, a stroll down Portobello Road reveals a number of second-hand boutiques that sell items spanning across decades and high-low fashion designation. Closer to home in Oxford, shops on Cowley Road provide interesting pieces perfect to wow the guests at any holiday party. So, this holiday season, when your aunt or best friend asks you where you got your killer (insert your item of choice), revel in this response: “It’s vintage actually.” 

Opinion – Hypocrisy in our Democracy: Why We Must Hold the Tories to Account

0

Ironically, the one thing we can all agree on is that the United Kingdom is currently divided. Deep inequalities of wealth, opportunity, and a proliferation of echo chambers have alienated a majority from Westminster. They provided the conditions for voting to Leave for so many people across so many regions.  Considering such great division, we should all try to build bridges. But we should be wary in hoping for the government to bring us together: it is the Conservatives who have benefited the most from the monumental divisions in our society.

Whether someone voted for the Conservatives or not, the pledges in the Tory election manifesto will impact their lives. The MPs that have stuck with the Conservative party through its recent changes will be held accountable to these pledges by their leadership as well as the voters who gave them a mandate to carry them out.

Rather than sitting back and luxuriating in its new majority our government should be held accountable by the public it serves. This is not only on its central promise to “get Brexit done” by January 31st but to uphold the values of democracy, free speech, and tolerance that we all share. However, I’d argue that some of the government’s policies – dwarfed by Brexit during the election campaign – pose a threat to the very values we look to our government to protect.

Page 48 of the manifesto tells us, “We will get rid of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act – it has led to paralysis at a time the country needed decisive action.” There is no pledged constitutional reform to follow, since there is no mention of what the Act will be replaced with, so this is a pledge we need to follow. For context, the Septennial Act was amended in 1911 to reduce the maximum term of any Parliament from 7 years to 5 years. The Liberal Party’s Walter Runciman stated, “Our only object in limiting the period of the duration of Parliament is that the House of Commons shall not get out of touch with the opinion of the electorate.”

Nick Clegg introduced the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011, repealing the Septennial Act and its amendments, which set in legislation a default fixed general election date before the end of this 5 year period. The absence of a fixed date was deemed to unfairly advantage the incumbent prime minister who could advise the monarch as to when to hold the election. The two ways in which the FTPA allows an early election require some consensus in the House of Commons, either through a Vote of No Confidence in an existing government alongside an inability to replace it, or a two-thirds majority in favour of an election. Even the method of a one-line bill, used to get around the act this year, still required a parliamentary majority.

Continuing on page 48, “We will protect the integrity of our democracy, by introducing identification to vote at polling stations, stopping postal vote harvesting and measures to prevent any foreign interference in elections.” Allowing the Party the benefit of the doubt for leaving out a much needed Oxford comma, there is still a question of whether the Conservatives can be trusted to protect the integrity of our democracy, despite their claims to be delivering on the largest democratic vote in our history.

Reports on foreign interference, such as from Parliament’s cross-party Intelligence and Security Committee, have not yet been released by No 10. An investigation by Open Democracy has found that the Conservatives received over £3.5 million from Russian funders since 2010. This includes over £1.3 million from former leading Russian Defence Ministry figure and oil magnate Alexander Temerko, who calls Boris Johnson a “friend” and has reportedly admitted being involved in a Eurosceptic plot to oust Theresa May. Admittedly, however, we should be wary of classing all acts by Russians as some sort of Kremlin-sponsored interference: Mr Temerko is a long-standing critic of Putin who has called for Parliament’s report on Russian interference to be published without delay.

Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue Parliament in August 2019 was ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court. It is therefore speculated that the majority Conservative government will use their powers to reduce the powers of the judiciary. Indeed, page 48 continues “After Brexit we also need to look at the broader aspects of our constitution: the relationship between the Government, Parliament and the courts”. The government’s solution is to set up a Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission in its first year. However, history tells us to be wary of government boards that are cleverly named after the rights of the people, and some might say Johnson’s claim to be leading a “People’s Government” is eerily similar to tyrants as diverse as Kim Jong-Un and Nicholas Maduro. I hope such a commission is truly independent and is not simply an attempt by the government to ram through changes under a cloak of official impartiality.

Integral to the modern democratic government is the provision of checks and balances, provided by a separation of powers. The role of opposition parties in Parliament is to keep the elected Government accountable to the people. However, the influence of the latter is undermined by the extent of the government’s current majority; Labour’s failings have helped give the Conservatives a relatively free hand. This was highlighted by the smooth passage of their Brexit bill through Parliament on Friday. Furthermore, holding the government to account is made harder by an increasing tendency towards groupthink within the mainstream print, broadcast, and digital media. Freedom of association and collective action have been purposefully made more difficult with David Cameron’s Trade Union Act 2016. The precedent for repressing organised protest has been set by the ban on Extinction Rebellion’s protests across London in October 2019, deemed “an abuse of power” by High Court judges.

As opposed to upholding British values of respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs, the Conservatives have been criticized over the past few days for dropping the inquiry into Islamophobia in the party. The accusations include that the proposed inquiry has been watered down so it no longer focuses on Islamophobia. The Muslim Council of Britain has expressed suspicion that the broadening of the issue was designed to bury the real problem and Baroness Warsi has raised concern over the suitability of the academic chosen to lead the inquiry.

This follows the investigations called by the Tories over anti-Semitism from Tory candidates Sally-Ann Hart, Lee Anderson, and Richard Short, the former two now elected as MPs. While Labour candidates, such as Safia Ali and Kate Ramsden, accused of anti-Semitism have been sacked, the Conservatives have allowed two candidates to serve as MPs and have suspended rather than removed Ryan Houghton and Amjad Bashir. With reports of anti-Semitism in the Labour party in recent years a source of rightful outrage, it is more appropriate than ever for the government to ensure that it leads by example and has its house in order.

In the ‘Promote our values’ section of the Conservative manifesto, the (apparently) laudable pledge is made to “maintain our commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of GNI on development and do more to help countries receiving aid become self-sufficient.” However, on page 20 in discussion of limiting immigration, the Party pledge to continue “Actively recruiting leaders in their field to come to the UK.” This depletion of educated leaders in other countries by the UK and other world-leading countries is known to repress rather than support progress around the world in a way that financial hand-outs cannot repair. Arguably, there is no point in ending Freedom of Movement if the government continues to take the best and brightest from around the world, something that has caused tension over the last couple of decades, especially with countries in Eastern Europe. Oxford students wouldn’t stand for a replacement of their lectures, tutorials, and classes with money to buy textbooks, so why should other countries?

The government’s apparent determination to encourage immigration from high skilled individuals is contrasted by pledges such as “Migrants will contribute to the NHS – and pay in before they can receive benefits.” It could be argued that this policy lacks a basis in fact as, according to Oxford Economics, “The average European migrant arriving in the UK in 2016 will contribute £78,000 more than they take out … and the average non-European migrant will make a positive net contribution of £28,000 while living here. By comparison, the average UK citizen’s net lifetime contribution in this scenario is zero.”

What I would argue that all this adds up to is an attempt by the government to run away from its record to avoid the reality of its job in upholding our fundamental values. I find it tragic if the government benefits from attacking the EU, mass migration or the Labour Party whilst committing the very mistakes or iniquities of which it is accusing them. It is galling if the government can get away with winning a landslide whilst swerving the reality of its pledges and actions. For however long this government is in power, we must hold it to account. With a weakened opposition, it is now all the more our duty to do so.

Tis the Season to be Sustainable

0

I’m dreaming of a Green Christmas, so let’s make this the Last Christmas we produce 30% more waste than usual, otherwise Baby, It’ll Be Way Too Hot Outside. Rock Around The Reusable Christmas Tree and don’t let your festive food (Jingle Bell) Rot with these 12 Tips of Christmas!

Food

  • According to the waste management company Biffa, 2 million turkeys, 74 million mince pies and 17.2 million sprouts are binned each Christmas. Reduce food waste by only cooking what you need and freezing the rest as leftovers.
  • Donating extra food to a local food bank or soup kitchen is also a great way to reduce food waste and help with poverty in the local community.
  • Buy as locally as is possible and economically-viable to reduce the carbon footprint of the food and maybe reduce that second meat portion for an extra plate of carrots and potatoes. After all, the Soil Association argues ‘food is the single most important, everyday way for people to reduce their own environmental impact’.

Crackers

  • Instead of Christmas crackers which you will likely throw out, buy tissue paper hats (you can get these on Amazon) and make up or research jokes for each other. They might even be funny! If you miss the excitement of pulling the cracker make your own. There are plenty of videos on YouTube showing how to make them out of card from an old cereal box and cracker snaps (also available cheaply on Amazon).

Trees

  • In the UK, fresh trees are usually the more eco-friendly choice, if they are grown from a sustainable source. Look for the FSC certification logo or Soil Association organic certification and buy as locally as possible.
  • Some organisations are offering tree rental now, such as garden centres, which would mean the trees would not be thrown out after use!
  • If these aren’t accessible, go for a reusable tree (if you don’t have one already), made locally if possible, that is small enough to be stored and used for as many years as possible; most plastic trees need to be used for at least nine years to be as environmental as natural trees. Local charity shops may be reselling ones you could buy or donate to if you cannot store your own.

Decoration

  • LED lights are the most energy-saving so will save power lighting up your Christmas tree. Another way to save energy is to just be mindful of when and for how long your lights are on for. While light decorations can be warming during the long nights, maybe you could savour the spectacle for Christmas eve or Christmas day.
  • Obviously, reuse decorations and if some are broken or lost you could even make some out of recyclables.

Transport

  • As much as possible, celebrate locally to reduce air travel. You could share shopping trips with friends and family to make car travel greener and cheaper or use public transport. Shop online together with family members on the same websites (without peeking at their shopping basket!) to get bulk deliveries.

Presents

  • We’re all guilty of buying random gifts last minute that we probably know the person won’t use. According to the UK Gift Card and Voucher Association, an estimated 20% of gifts head to in landfill on Boxing Day. Be thoughtful about what you’re buying and if you’re not sure what to buy (what on earth do you give your dad?) buy them a voucher for a shop they like or donate to a charity for them. I bought all my presents second-hand this year, making them much cheaper too!
  • Don’t use wrapping paper! Old newspapers or magazines can be used to wrap presents so attractively and can even be used to personalise the gift. Go one step further and tie the presents with string or ribbon instead of using tape to make your wrapping completely plastic-free.

Photo credit: Susanne Nilsson

In Defense of Escapist Art

0

In our current political climate escapism is a dirty word. Moreover, it is a risky form of mental engagement in a culture that calls on individuals to be relentlessly woke, or else risk cancellation. Public figures ranging from Obama to Lizzo have already set to work taking cancel culture to task in recent months, but another victim of our societal obsession with hyper-awareness still needs recuperating. Escapist art– that is, art with no overt social function– has been unproductively vilified in the quest to be vigilant.  

Take the La La Land Moonlight debate. The controversy wasn’t just centered on the Oscars ceremony debacle, wherein a mix-up with the awards envelopes lead to the wrong name being read out for the best picture category, but on the nature of the films themselves. Barry Jenkins’ Moonlight is a vibrantly colored, brutally realist apprehension of the lived reality of gay black man growing up in the Liberty City area of Miami. Damien Chazelle’s La La Land is a spectacular modern-day movie musical, which suspends, for a time, the disbelief we often experience when confronted with the audacity of big dreams.

Both films are worthy of the critical attention they received, however, in response to the rivalry contrived by the first post-Trump Oscars race, people questioned the validity of a film like La La Land because its only social function seemed to be to inspire hope. Meanwhile, Moonlight was doing the heavy lifting, exposing the public to the plight of those with marginalized identities and giving a subject matter, which historically would have been filmed in a docu-realist style, the cinematic treatment– ecstatic color and all. The forced comparison of these two films became representative of larger debate about what the purpose of art should be in the Trump era. Under the weight of the call to be politically salient, La La Land came out looking trivial and un-worthwhile: an escapist indulgence. It would not be the last casualty of its kind.

Emma Stone in La La Land

Meanwhile, politically relevant films, like Moonlight, are regularly deemed “important,” and they are often very well celebrated for the way they speak to our time. However, importance should never function as an isolated criterion for value apart from a discussion about whether or not the film has been well made. (Luckily, Moonlight is both important and well made!) Nevertheless, there is still a danger with exclusively valuing art that centers ethically and politically pertinent questions. Because films that depict disturbing political realities are often harrowing, individuals can leave the cinema with a false, or at least unproductive, sense that they’ve already done the work to properly engage with the “important” subject. 

For example, despite a clear attempt to address the rise of white nationalism in the US in the wake of Trump’s election, Spike Lee’s BlacKkKlansmen allowed white audience members to at once feel that they had truly engaged in issues of race and also be satisfied that they were on the right side of history. By depicting such cartoonish, overtly racist white supremacists on screen, white audience members could comfortably disengage from an interrogation of their own white privilege and biases, for the obvious reason that the sort of people who go to see a Spike Lee film very probably don’t resemble imbecilic members of the Klan. Of course, racism typically functions in more insidious ways.  On the whole, BlacKkKlansmen is a masterful film, but the movie’s byproducts, including this unearned reassurance for its white audience, demonstrate a need for caution in immediately granting esteem to films that seem to have a direct social function. Just because a film addresses a topical issue, doesn’t mean that it does so productively.

Still, audiences who attend screenings of political films have done some work: the emotional labor required to bear adequate witness to, and empathize with, whatever trauma is being unfolded on screen, is real work. But it’s a jumping off point many of us don’t have the energy to take advantage of because we’ve deprioritized our needs for beauty and leisure, in favor of the need to muster up proper outrage. It’s understandable why this has happened. It seems neglectful, like sticking your head in the sand, to make or experience art that doesn’t hold a mirror up to society and offer grim feedback, or at least a blanket condemnation of the state of our affairs. In recent years, many of us have turned to books, cinema, documentaries, or podcasts to be vindicated in our appraisal of the world, or, perhaps more simply, to find an outlet for our anger. Art can, and ought to, serve these purposes. But it’s not the only way art should be allowed to be meaningful: art that suspends, rather than apprehends, reality is also valuable.  

Escapist art that takes us out of our world, or unabashedly encourages the contemplation of good and beautiful things, grants us a restorative distance from the particularities of our time, which gnaw away at us through news cycles and our everyday routines. Pop-philosopher Alain de Botton’s lecture titled “Art as Therapy” draws out some nuances of this way of thinking. He speaks very seriously on the subject of “prettiness,” and the tendency of some art critics to lambast both the artists who create pretty things, and the public who celebrates them. He notes that the best-selling post card at The National Gallery in London is Monet’s Waterlilies and, in an oversimplification of certain art critics’ worries, begs the question: what if we forget the darkness? Surely those who create or venerate these merely beautiful works of art are either hiding away from life’s troubles or idiots?

Claude Monet, 1840 – 1926 The Water-Lily Pond 1899 Oil on canvas, 88.3 x 93.1 cm Bought, 1927 NG4240 https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/NG4240

However, it is de Botton’s firm conviction (one that I share) that we run a much greater risk of being overwhelmed by darkness than we do of forgetting it altogether. The 19th century painter Henri Fantin-Latour, de Botton notes, was plagued by syphilis, money troubles, and problems with his parents, and yet, he chose to devote his time to painting bouquet after bouquet after bouquet of lovingly arranged flowers. Was he a fool? Or was he perhaps alive to the power of beautiful, escapist art to console and recuperate? Because it is the more generous interpretation, and because it offers a way forward, I would argue that Fantin-Latour’s flowers were not born of an ignorance to suffering, but of a dedication to curating and preserving the small moments of beauty that surfaced in his life, even while it was touched by pain. Most of us could stand to learn something from his efforts to self-soothe. 

We need, perhaps now more than ever, art that apprehends our present situation. But we also need art that suspends reality, granting us a mental haven in which to recharge our exhausted levels of empathy and intellectual fortitude. When we take pleasure seriously art becomes therapy, leisure becomes rest, and rest begets new energy with which to tackle the problems of our time. As readers, observers, and audience members, we should be careful and unashamed that our art consumptive practices oscillate between ethical challenge and therapeutic respite, not only because great art is being made in both realist and escapist traditions, but because our need to feel hope is as unrelenting as our duty to feel outrage. 

To ski or not to ski: is the Varsity Trip worth it?

0

On the final Friday of Michaelmas term every year, Broad Street becomes quite a sight to behold – picture hundreds of exhausted, rather dishevelled students lugging their belongings (or at least the belongings that wouldn’t fit into vac store) onto dozens of awaiting coaches. After all, what better way to unwind and decompress after 8 hectic weeks of deadlines, than 24 hours on a dimly lit, moving vehicle?

Several Netflix series, a bumpy ferry ride and a questionably small amount of service stops later, these students are then deposited in the French Alps. They will be here for a week of skiing, partying and excessive alcohol consumption at high altitude: the coveted annual Oxbridge Varsity Trip has begun.

Ever since the first one was organised in 1922, the ski trip has grown to attract over 3,000 students, ranging from the absolute beginner to the seasoned professional. Given how heavily it is advertised, it comes as no surprise that it is the largest trip of its kind. When I first arrived as a fresher, the Varsity Trip was sold to me as a “complete must” for the Oxford experience, a rite of passage even more important than matriculation. 

And so, despite my only experience with snow sports being an alarming familiarity with the movie “Chalet Girl”, I decided to take the plunge and spend a sizeable chunk of my student loan to join my friends in Val Thorens. 

Swapping the dreaming spires of Oxford for the glistening snowy landscape of the mountains was a welcome change after an incredibly busy term. The accommodation we were allotted genuinely resembled the picturesque chalets you see on Instagram travel pages and in the movies – as I watched the sun set on the first evening with a glass of wine in hand, the stresses of vac work and internship applications couldn’t have felt further away.

However, those stresses were soon replaced with new ones: the first being my hideously mismatched rental ski gear. As someone who is partial to the occasional OOTD snap, my navy-blue trousers, green boots and red jacket made me feel like quite the ugly duckling when surrounded by countless designer logos on the slopes. Safe to say, I know exactly what will be on my Christmas list this year.

This brings me onto my next problem: the slopes themselves. One thing I’ve observed about Oxbridge students is that they aren’t very good at being ‘bad’ at things, an observation that rang painfully true on the first day of ski lessons. There is quite frankly no worse feeling than watching your friends (all of whom were practically born with skis on their feet) zip past you, as you struggle to move without falling flat on your face. 

I will admit that much of the first day was spent crying on the side of slopes and wishing that I’d stayed in Oxford to help with interviews. However, as I was lugging all my equipment up the beginners’ slope with a red, puffy face, a passing snowboarder slowed down and shouted over to me “Don’t worry – the first day is always the worst!”. Looking back, I cannot stress just how right he was. 

By the end of the week, I’d gone from struggling to stand up on the flat, to racing down blue slopes with ease. That’s not to say that there weren’t some rather large mishaps along the way – my favourite of which being my crashing into a family’s skis and sending them flying across the slope, as they sat laughing at me on their deck chairs. However, by the final day, I was already looking at flights out to the Alps for the next vac. I still cannot put my finger on it, but there is something so exhilarating and addicting about gliding down the side of a mountain in the snow…

Even for those who didn’t take to skiing quite as much as I did, there was no shortage of things to do. From leaping to collect the free stash that rained down from the balconies at Après, to spending hours playing drinking games with our lovely flatmates from Cambridge, I never once felt at a loose end. 

The programme also boasted what appeared to be an immense array of nights out, although these were a bit hit and miss. As much as I love Sigala, there is no pain quite like forking out 5 euros for a tiny glass of wine, only to have it spilt all over you by a mosh pit. And to add insult to injury, the familiar cheesy tunes of Friday Fever that I treasure so dearly were, sadly, nowhere to be seen – in fact, I think I only heard one ABBA song the entire time I was there. But despite making me realise that I have the music taste of a middle-aged woman, those nights out were definitely up there with some of the most memorable of my life – even if the walk back from the club to the chalet proves to be rather difficult when intoxicated!

By the time we boarded the coach on the final day, I was completely and utterly exhausted: it turns out that 5 days of exercise and heavy drinking is not the best thing for your body after 9 weeks at University. However, I can wholeheartedly say that this trip was one of highlights of my time at Oxford so far. It was organised almost seamlessly, everything you needed was accessible on a well-designed app, and the incredibly friendly and hardworking reps made sure that any issues were quickly resolved. And, above all, there was nothing better than being able to spend a week with my friends away from the stress-filled bubble that is Oxford – I am already excited to hit the slopes next year (albeit in slightly more fashionable apparel)!

Review: Fine Line – Harry Styles

0

Two years since his solo debut, Harry Styles is back with his second album, Fine Line. Styles’ self-titled album in 2017 had to fight to establish an artist now separate from his previous boy band brand. Seemingly as a consequence of newfound artistic freedom, this album was good in part, but failed to be completely cohesive owing to a singer-songwriter at the centre of it who hadn’t quite found his new solo identity.

But with Fine Line, Styles now has a coherent and confident sound, carried all the way through by his sensitive and touching lyrics, most poignant in the tracks talking about break-ups. ‘Cherry’, with the lines “I, I just miss/ I just miss your accent and your friends,’ feels honest and palpable, whilst ‘Falling’ presents the singer as reflective and alone, heart-wrenching in the pain it explores. It is a song that doesn’t shy away from self-awareness, with the lyric, ‘you said you care, and you missed me too/ And I’m well aware I write too many songs about you’. This touches back to the album’s theme of missing somebody, the internality and mental strain of which Styles captures well with his words.

‘To Be So Lonely’ is wonderfully self-depreciating, with the confession ‘I’m just an arrogant son of a bitch/ Who can’t admit when he’s sorry’. It’s surprising to picture the affluent Harry Styles as lonely, desolate even, but when he sings ‘it’s hard for me to go home’, it’s all right there. Lines like this give the album a refreshingly human feeling, tactile in its emotional richness.

It’s not all doom and gloom either. ‘Watermelon Sugar’ speaks of that ‘summer feeling’, and delivers it, whilst the six-minute ‘She’ layers rich guitar instrumentals with seductive vocals, once again producing Styles’ characteristically sexy modern rock vibe.

‘Adore You’ is arguably the catchiest track of the album, pairing upbeat lyrics with a pulsing synth backdrop. Fine Line also showcases the experimental, with the chilled beats of ‘Sunflower, Vol. 6’, as well as range, featuring the Beach Boys-like sound of the cheerful ‘Canyon Moon’, and the buoyant anthem of ‘Treat People With Kindness’.

As any good album should, Fine Line manages to feel like it has an emotional narrative, with its sad middle tracks, upbeat conclusion and mellow outro. In this sense, it’s got it all: the songs to cry along to, and the tunes to pick you back up again afterwards.

I can’t claim that I have long been a Harry Styles devotee, but listening to this album, I now find myself moved by an artist that I’ve recognised but never truly appreciated. It feels somewhat cathartic that Styles, who has been on the music scene for so long as a cookie cutter boy band figure, has now emerged with a solid, well-crafted album, and it’s safe to say that I’m a fan.

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

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

Miles Pressland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joe Davies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0

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

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

Impress XR enthusiasts with your vegetable knowledge: Covered market perusing

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

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

0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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