Wednesday 25th June 2025
Blog Page 550

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

Miles Pressland and Joe Davies
-
0
Opinion – With its most catastrophic defeat since 1935, Corbyn’s Labour has failed us

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

Miles Pressland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joe Davies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charlotte Hall
-
0
Stubbly Saints: Hilda’s raises over £8000 for Movember

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overcoming Vacation Limbo

Paul Sapper
-
0
Overcoming Vacation Limbo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Council makes £19 Million Climate Commitment

Charlotte Hall
-
0
Council makes £19 Million Climate Commitment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oxford Students Protest India’s Citizenship Amendment Act

Felix O'Mahony
-
0
Oxford Students Protest India’s Citizenship Amendment Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sam Jones
-
0
St Anne’s attempts ethical investment, joining Responsible Investment Network

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opinion – For the Many, Not the Few

William Atkinson
-
0
Opinion – For the Many, Not the Few

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why The Lib Dems Failed

Cora Wilson
-
0
Why The Lib Dems Failed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Layla Moran amongst favourites to lead Lib Dems

Felix O'Mahony
-
0
Layla Moran amongst favourites to lead Lib Dems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The leadership contest will take place in the new year.

The Fantasy of Film

Imogen Harter-Jones
-
0
The Fantasy of Film

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1...549550551...2,514Page 550 of 2,514

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by James Ashley