Thursday, May 15, 2025
Blog Page 60

James O’Brien on Brexit, Boris Johnson, and making radio go viral

0

Journalist, broadcaster and bestselling author of three books, James O’Brien has been leading Britain’s conversation for 20 years. His signature qualities – clarity, wit, intellectual honesty and a masterly style of interrogation – have earned him 1.4 million weekly listeners and the title of “conscience of liberal Britain.” I spoke to him at the studio at LBC:

Cherwell: We’ll start with a few quick getting-to-know-you questions. Three favourite meals?

O’Brien: So, fish and chips with mushy peas. A really good souvlaki, in Greece, the full-on pita Kalamaki wrap. And then probably a Sunday roast.  

Cherwell: Three favourite novels? 

O’Brien: The Catcher in the Rye by JD Salinger, Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen, and… any of the CJ Sansom books about Matthew Shardlake.  

Cherwell: Three favourite films? 

O’Brien: If, the Lindsay Anderson Film. The Wizard of Oz. And Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back. 

Cherwell: Looking at your early life, what stands out to you in light of your later career? 

O’Brien: The fact that my father was a newspaper journalist is probably the most significant element. Our relationship with the news was almost constant. We’d always have the radio on in the car, it would always be the news, on the drive to school it was the Today programme was on with Brian Redhead. On television, in the days when we only had one screen in the house, the nine o’clock or ten o’clock news was always on. Before the internet my dad would only establish the next day’s task by watching that day’s task.  

Cherwell: When did you know that that was what you wanted to do?  

O’Brien: Looking back, I think I just wanted to be like my dad, as all sons who are lucky enough to have amazing dads do. I wanted to be either an actor, a journalist or a politician, pretty much as long as I can remember. It was only when I got onto Fleet Street that I discovered I wasn’t cut out for being the kind of tireless news reporter my dad was. He was fearless in the pursuit of a story whereas I was crippled with anxiety in the pursuit of almost anything.  

Cherwell: Did journalism appeal to you even in your schooldays? 

O’Brien: Yes. At prep school, aged 7 to 13, I set up my first newspaper which was called The Winterfell Times, which indicates how early these ambitions set in. At public school I set up a magazine called The Grapevine – with Bill Cash’s son, actually, so it was a broad political spectrum. It was all about newspapers for me until later I accidentally fell into broadcasting. I was serious about acting by the time I got to LSE. I wanted to go to drama school but part of the deal I struck with my mum – because I got expelled from school, unfortunately, and my parents had spent all this money on my education – was that I’d get an LSE degree, and if I still wanted to be an actor they’d help me through drama school. But halfway through the LSE I saw Michael Sheen in a play called When She Danced, opposite Vanessa Redgrave, and I think he’d been plucked from his final year of drama school to play that part. I remember saying to my girlfriend at the time, ‘There’s no way I’m going to be an actor’, because I watched his performance and thought, if he’s top of the premier league, I’m going to be tenth division if I’m lucky. I’ll never be that good in a billion years, I thought, he’s got something magical. I wanted to find something I could be really, really good at. And getting expelled from school was not the best preparation for a career in politics, although I’d never have been one of those kids who go straight from university to the party, in a research role and then a safe seat. I was detached as a student, all my mates were in London, and I stepped back a bit from the student life. If I’d been immersed in student life at somewhere like Oxford, I think I’d have ended up even more unbearable, I’d have got heavily involved in the Union. 

Cherwell: Yeah, you don’t want to go near there. So, when journalism was the only option left, what was your first break? 

O’Brien: It didn’t happen for me. My father was made redundant by the Telegraph in my final year of school, and it was five years later that I was trying to enter the field, so he didn’t really have any contacts left. I hadn’t had any experience, I’d been too busy acting, doing things like the Edinburgh Festival. But in my final year at LSE, Charles Moore, then editor of the Sunday Telegraph visited the university. And he used to shadow my dad in Birmingham. I buttonholed him, reminded him of his association with my father, and asked for some work experience – very naively and arrogantly thinking that that would be it, I’d get some experience at the Telegraph and never leave. But at the end of the two weeks it was thank you very much and goodbye. So my student job became my job job, and I was selling suits in Regent Street. I actually loved it: working in retail is 80% colleagues. I worked with a great bunch of lads, and we also had some prominent customers.  

Cherwell: You mentioned a story about a Lady once on the radio.  

O’Brien: Yeah, that was grim. She brought her son’s pyjamas back to exchange them and let’s just say when I took them out of the bag it was very clear they’d been worn very enthusiastically… One day, I got sent Downing Street because John Major wanted to buy a suit. He was very charming and he bought three suits, one white. Now, John Major was portrayed in the UK media as grey – in Spitting Image his skin was grey – so the idea he bought a white suit, I knew that was a story. The Daily Express offered me some money for the story. I said, Can I have two shifts instead? And they said Yes. And that was my foot in the door. It was a nightmare in some ways, some bits of the job I was appalling at. But from there I got onto the Evening Standard and the Daily Telegraph and after 18 months, I was able to live on journalism. 

Cherwell: How did you get into LBC? 

O’Brien: I became a roving showbiz reporter and would get invited onto TV programmes to comment on showbiz stories. It was exciting, more than working on newspapers. I might not know much about the topic that week but – spoiler alert – nobody does. These days you watch some of these weird new TV channels and it’s as if they’ve just found someone in the canteen and called them a ‘political commentator’. I became Showbiz Editor at the Express – the money was extraordinarily good compared to what your generation can expect, and invitations to all the good parties – and started talking about other topics as well. I started getting positions on TV shows. One day I was in the ITN building on Grays Inn Road and there was an emergency replacement for the other panelist, a woman called Sandy Warr who presented a show on this radio station called LBC. She told me her holiday cover had just cancelled and that I should phone the programme controller. I said I’d never done anything like that in my life. She said all I had to do was talk when the light came on. So I did. And I haven’t left yet. 

Cherwell: When did you get your own show? 

O’Brien: I got a slot at 10PM Sunday nights. I did that for six months, listening figures came in and they gave me a breakfast show. I did that for six months, listening figures came in and they gave me a weekday show. 

Cherwell: The format of your show was different then to what it is now, though? 

O’Brien: Was it? How do you know? You weren’t born! 

Cherwell: That’s what I’ve heard.  

O’Brien: The format was more traditional but what I loved most was talking to the microphone as if it were one person. If I’m in the bath or the car or the bed with you, there is one person I’m talking to, in the office, in your ear – after I realised that everything fell into place. It was my job to get people to ring in or keep listening. I realised I shouldn’t be booking guests to do that, I should be able to do that myself. The more people I spoke to, the more political I got. 

Cherwell: And it was a big political guest in 2014 who made the show go viral. 

O’Brien: This is Nigel Farage [pronounced Farridge]. That was very weird. Until then, if I did something brilliant on the radio, you’d never know unless you listened to it; the notion of the viral clip was utterly alien. Quite a convoluted story about how Farage ended up in the studio, but he thought he was coming in to have his tummy tickled or to somehow get the better of this bloke on the radio. It didn’t work out like that. He completely soiled himself in the studio. I helped him, obviously, but I couldn’t have done it without him. That was the first time a clip went on YouTube and got halfway round the world. 

Cherwell: I’d definitely recommend everyone reading this to give that clip a watch. What happened next?

O’Brien: The Newsnight Deputy Editor rang the producer thinking that the producer had been in my ear giving me the lines. They had a meeting and established that it was me they were interested in, and I went to see them, and occasionally presented Newsnight for a while. Meanwhile LBC was going from strength to strength and when the choice came, I chose radio over TV, and carried on building what I’d spent the previous 10 years building. 

Cherwell: 2016 with Brexit was when the show really took off, wasn’t it? 

O’Brien: Yes, there were so few places in the British media where reality Remained – to use a pun. People would ring me and repeat the lines Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage or David Davis had said, I’d ask one or two questions, and they’d fall apart. It went truly bonkers. It wasn’t happening anywhere else. Almost every paper had encouraged its readers to vote for this insanity. The slim chance of damage control disappeared the minute Nick Timothy told Theresa May to appease the racists by abolishing free movement, which meant the end of the single market and the customs union. I still don’t know how much of it they understood, and with every year you realise how little genuine intelligence there was in most of these rooms. It became a rare place in the UK media, and my show was the only place where you had to back up rhetoric with facts. If you told me we had to leave the EU to make our own laws, I’d ask what laws you wanted to make or don’t like having to obey at the moment. It went mad to the point where the New York Times ran a piece on the man who made radio go viral. There used to be snobbery attached to this format. People would say ‘Oh, it’s just some thicko from Dagenham who can’t string a sentence together, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel’, but that’s offensive and deeply patronising, because the Jacob Rees-Moggs and Nigel Farages of this world have no more answers. 

Cherwell: What’s your technique and aim with these callers? 

O’Brien: I used to be a bruiser, I’d like a fight and that worked for a while. Subsequently, partly because I had therapy and stopped living life with my fists up, I just asked people calmly to explain themselves. We lived during this period of extraordinarily strong opinions built on nothing, as if the louder you shouted, or the more robustly you accused someone of being a traitor to the country, the less scrutiny there was of what you were actually saying. The customers of the snake-oil salesmen would turn up, I’d ask them to prove their points, and they couldn’t. And I just wouldn’t let up, I’d keep them on the phone for 20 minutes at times. You rarely hear that absurd inflated confidence being properly deflated, because usually they’ll move on or change the subject. I don’t like doing that. These people have robbed my children of freedom of movement, they’ve robbed my countrypeople of economic stability – and they’ve done it on a stupid poster or a racist lie. 

Cherwell: Have you considered the value of the show as social documents? It gives a better picture of society after 2016 than a lot of other outlets. 

O’Brien: I hadn’t thought of that. I hope it’s not conceited to say that, now you’ve pointed it out, I acknowledge and am quite proud of that. I came to write a book that is essentially a document of that period, very much drawing on what I’ve learnt from conducting phone-ins. If you want to know how we ended up with Boris Johnson or Liz Truss as prime minister, you couldn’t have had a better job for twenty years than speaking to the people who believed their nonsense. The archive, to use a pompous word, will provide insights into how people ended up defending such epic corruption. 

Cherwell: I’m glad you brought up your books as well. It’s three books – How to Be Right, How Not to be Wrong, How They Broke Britain. Did you feel a drive to write rather than speak? 

O’Brien: I mean, they’re very different books. The first is a digest of my radio hits. The second was written after I’d had therapy to deal with a family crisis, and I learnt so much about being wrong, holding and arguing toxic opinions; it was so revelatory I wanted to write about it. The latest one was murderously difficult to write. It was like being at college, proper hard work, loads of references and research. But I wanted to prove these ten people were culpable and I had to dig very deep. It was hugely enjoyable and at moments it was like flying a kite, but at other times I couldn’t get up on Sunday mornings to write. That killed any temptation to shift towards writing as a career path. 

Cherwell: Any other potential book ideas? 

O’Brien: I’ve got a novel set in a boarding-school that’s been bubbling away in the back of my brain for a very long time. But I don’t know if I’ve got the talent or levels of application for it. I don’t have more plans for non-fiction, unless I have an idea as appealing to me as How They Britain. If I do write more, then I have to sit down at the desk again for six hours. 

Cherwell: Who is your biggest influence as a journalist? 

O’Brien: Ooh… I don’t have one. The journalists and presenters I admire the most are Michelle Hussein, Emily Maitlis, Victoria Derbyshire, Eddie Mair. The journalists who do what I try to do: tell stories in a way that people find illuminating and engaging. Eddie had that ability to connect with somebody. Jonathan Ross, we used to plan car journeys according to when he was on air. That’s what I aspire to, to have that communication with the listener which is so personal. 

Cherwell: Final question: looking to the future, any other things to tick on the bucket list?  

O’Brien: I mentioned a novel. A tiny bit of unfinished business: I’d take the right TV project if it came along, because I had to leave Newsnight when I didn’t really want to. But I’ve never felt at home on telly as I do on the radio. So, I know it sounds weird for a 52-year-old, but not really anything more on the bucket list. When I was 42, I’d have told you resentfully about all the things I wanted to do which hadn’t happened, but oddly, since 2016, they pretty much have. 

James O’Brien’s latest book, How They Broke Britain, is out now in paperback. You can find my review of it here.

JSoc and ISoc host antisemitism, Islamophobia trainings across college Freshers’ Weeks

0

Jewish Society (JSoc) and Islamic Society (ISoc) will organise antisemitism and Islamophobia training sessions at over a dozen colleges this Freshers’ Week. Several colleges accepted one society’s offer but not the other’s.

Over summer, JSoc reached out to all JCRs and MCRs over summer, offering to send a representative to deliver a presentation “on the Jewish community, the history of antisemitism, how to identify it, and how to report it,” according to the society’s email.

JSoc president Kai Ogden told Cherwell that to date, twelve common rooms have shown interest, with most of them confirmed. Most colleges that declined cite timetabling issues, so JSoc is also working on ways to support these colleges to make them a safe and inclusive space for Jewish students.

Similarly, ISoc contacted 30 colleges, 16 of which have arranged workshops with their freshers. While the remaining colleges are still considering, some JCRs have been unresponsive or declined the workshops, according to ISoc president Aman Sultan.

At least four colleges only accepted one society’s workshop but not the other. It is unclear which colleges and why.

Oriel College, who declined the workshops, told Cherwell that “it is customary to only include induction events organised by Oriel College or its JCR”. Oriel did not comment on whether alternative inclusivity training would take place. Corpus Christi College also declined, while Christ Church College did not respond, according to ISoc.

ISoc is working with Oxford University’s EDI (equality, diversity, inclusion) team to receive support for its workshops “designed to educate students on recognising and addressing bias within Oxford, unpacking the negative media and political perceptions, and discussing specific challenges faced by Muslim students in this environment,” Sultan told Cherwell.

The society is also providing information to the EDI team for a University staff briefing. This comes amid the University’s calls to “make Oxford a welcoming and inclusive place” in an email to all students.

Sultan continued: “Islamophobia has indeed become a more pressing concern within the University over the past year. We believe that a lack of education on the topic for both staff and students has allowed the issue to persist. Many Muslim students have personally faced Islamaphobic comments, discrimination, and even harassment within the university and city, which highlights the need for proactive measures to address this growing concern.”

The Vice-Chancellor in review

This article is an updated version of a piece in the W0 print.

Irene Tracey is used to doing uncontroversial good. She has dedicated her remarkable career in anaesthetic neuroscience to understanding and preventing pain. She’s a fierce advocate for women in STEM, involved in several mentoring programmes. In January 2023, she became the first state-educated and second female Vice-Chancellor in the University’s history. Initiatives like the Colloquium and development of the Schwarzmann Centre speak to her administrative abilities. But mere administration is not governance and reviewing her tenure thus far paints a mixed picture: she hasn’t fully managed to diffuse challenging political situations or solve structural issues concerning pay and college disparities, though some progress has been made.

The Vice-Chancellor is the face of the University. This means responding to controversy, and Tracey has faced some unenviable issues in her tenure since January 2023. When ‘gender-critical’ feminist Kathleen Stock’s planned address to the Oxford Union in June 2023 stirred a maelstrom of transphobic rhetoric, calls to cancel, and protests, Tracey responded by defending free speech and Stock’s “right to come and speak”. Months later, she expressed regret at the University’s handling of the situation, saying they “should have done more” to support the trans community. In trying to tread a middle ground, Tracey struggled to clearly advocate on behalf of either side. 

In some ways, it is a peculiarity to install academics into governance positions. Academia, particularly science, involves specialisation, engaging in careful inquiry for months, and refusing to conclude without a high degree of confidence. By contrast, an executive like a Vice-Chancellor must generalise, act quickly in the face of scandal, and weigh unclear trade-offs. Uncontroversial good is hard to come by. Acting decisively can come at the expense of the necessary precautions, whilst vacillation can prolong problems.

In the wake of strong pro-Palestine protests, when 17 members of Oxford Action for Palestine (OA4P) were arrested, Tracey took a harder line than some university vice-chancellors, condemning the action as “violent and criminal”. It’s not clear whether this was in fact the case, but the tact did deter much more protest, as well as provoking consternation. The University waited a month after the establishment of the OA4P encampment to meet with students from the group (though the University has said it met individual affiliated students before then in an unofficial capacity),  and agreed to regular meetings on the final day of Trinity term. The University’s efforts have not been negligible: they have implemented a crisis graduate scholarship scheme for Palestinian students and an expansion of the Bodleian’s online service to students in Palestinian universities. But engagement with calls for divestment and review of investments, top demands among student protesters, which some universities have committed to assess, has been underwhelming. Tepid plans for an “accelerated” review of investments into companies manufacturing arms that are illegal under UK law were hardly ambitious. 

Tracey calls herself the “ultimate insider”, and this is no exaggeration: postdoctoral stint at Harvard aside, Irene Tracey has been living, learning, or teaching in Oxford for her entire life. Maybe this limits the extent to which she can look outside the institution and see different ways of doing things. Oxford has been criticised by its University and College Union (UCU) branch for low pay and prevalence of insecure zero hours, hourly paid, or fixed-term contracts, even over decades of work. A UCU report last year found that 66% of academics were on fixed-term contracts, double the national average. Tracey named pay and conditions a “priority” for her and commissioned an independent analysis on the matter, which resulted this June in some pay increases, extension of benefits, and a promise to “change the culture” around contracts. How substantial this culture change is remains to be seen; the report’s requirement is that departmental heads review contract status annually – after four consecutive years of work under fixed-term contracts. At the same time, the University continued ill-fated litigation against two academics fighting to be recognised as full employees after 15 years of teaching. The tribunal ruled the pair should have been classed as employees in a case that attracted significant media attention for the University. 

Financial disparities between colleges, another hot-button issue within the University, was recently highlighted by a report by the Student Union showing vast differences in wealth translate into disparities in the price of accommodation, student bursaries, and even academic results. Tracey’s steps have been incremental – introducing university-level mental health provisions, thereby standardising support across colleges – but she has largely refrained from addressing the problem head-on. College autonomy is certainly structurally and socially established, and is what allows Oxford to offer such a distinct experience, but serious problems with the design are unlikely to be solved by college-led action. Active support by the Vice-Chancellor of the new energy injected by the SU’s campaign would be welcome. Vice-Chancellors ought to tackle such fundamental ‘big picture’ issues, not shy away from them. Coordination across the University isn’t out of reach: just take the Vice-Chancellor’s Colloquium, Tracey’s initiative and a praiseworthy programme designed to bring together the disparate academic branches of Oxford using her convening power. A similarly unitary approach could be directed at more contentious issues. 

Tracey has not held the post of Vice-Chancellor for long, and perhaps some of these teething problems are the result; a good leader takes time to survey the landscape and command authority. But Tracey is past the stage in which she could be called new. Her instincts as an academic – to observe at length, to look for uncontroversial good, to reject partial solutions – may restrict her willingness to seize the moment. We need only look to America’s Ivy League, where four out of eight university presidents resigned amidst campus demonstrations, to conclude it’s a difficult time to lead. And Oxford’s structure is both idiosyncratic and difficult to change. In a less troubled time, Tracey would doubtless excel at Oxford’s helm; but now, real movement forward may require bolder strokes.

One of this piece’s three authors has publicly supported an open letter by OA4P. 

The original version of this article, found in the W0 print, falsely implied the Pay and Conditions outcome and recommendation report had not yet been released. The report was in fact published in June.

We need boldness on Brexit

0

Each time I hear that Labour has dismissed yet another offer from EU states to establish reciprocal freedom of movement deals for young people, I despair.

How can the leaders of an outward-looking, pragmatic, centre-left party – which never backed Brexit – be so unforgiving in restoring rights to our generation that they themselves once enjoyed?

Over the past year, I’ve spent months stressing over visas, standing in endless queues for residency permits, and surrendering my passport countless times. This is our post-Brexit reality.

If I were part of Keir Starmer’s political generation, I wouldn’t want to reopen Pandora’s box either: reigniting the Brexit debate after almost a decade of pernicious, populist wrangling that brought down governments, maimed the economy, and tore society apart? No thanks.

But I am not. I belong to the generation that didn’t get a vote in the Brexit referendum but lost our rights to live and work abroad.

I understand Starmer’s strategy: don’t rock the boat, make subtle tweaks to the withdrawal agreement. A veterinary certificate deal here, a reassessment of visa policies for touring musicians there. It’s better than nothing, but we deserve more than timidity.

I’m not suggesting Labour should seek to rejoin the EU. That kind of change must come from a new political generation. But while we languish in limbo, it’s up to young people to break this unholy consensus of silence.

Brexit has left the UK facing a 4% long-term decline in productivity and a 15% drop in trade. Meanwhile, new trade agreements with non-EU countries have delivered negligible gains.

Given the dire state of the economy, the UK needs deeper integration with Europe, not to champion economic renewal while ignoring the obvious – that the Brexit deal must be fundamentally reworked. Until then, supplementary Irish passports will serve as a new currency, sparing fortunate dual nationals from this post-Brexit nightmare.

Freedom of movement isn’t some far-fetched compromise – we have similar deals with 13 other countries. This is about political will – and whether young people are truly a priority for the new government.

The relativity of joy in the US election

0

If there’s one word that Tim Walz emphasised on his first day as Kamala Harris’ running mate, it was “joy”. Since his selection, support for Walz has coalesced instantaneously among Democrats. From progressives like Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez to moderates like Joe Manchin, Walz has an uncanny ability to satisfy all aspects of the caucus. The party seems happy again, regaining a sense of optimism that had previously evaporated.

There’s little reticence concerning Walz. By all accounts, he’s a friendly and normal guy. In stark contrast to Donald Trump’s running mate, Walz looks completely at ease when delivering his stump speech. Watch JD Vance attempt the same, and you’ll see how his sloppy delivery of low-grade jokes fails to garner substantial laughter. Struggling to land punchlines, Vance becomes one himself, ridiculed and laughed at during Democrat rallies – much to the joy of party attendees.  

The role of laughter seems more pronounced in this election than in previous ones. Whether it’s Harris’ cackle landing favour with Gen Z or Barack Obama’s penis-size joke at the DNC, there has been a definite shift in campaigning strategy. Michelle Obama famously said in 2016 that “when they go low, we go high” yet arguably, the Democrats have been beating the Republicans at their own game here. In part, this is a response to the dirtier and more insulting politics which Donald Trump popularised – yet there’s a fine line between the jokes deployed by Democrats as part of a campaigning offensive and those uttered by Trump which just are offensive. 

Not everyone appreciates this distinction. When Democrats communicated the insensitivity of Trump’s remarks during the 2016 campaign, it seemed to fall on deaf ears. Many voters liked how he was a “straight talker” who “said it like it is”. They were attracted to his belittling of politicians because that’s how they felt about politicians too. Trump positioned himself as a spokesman for the people, someone who spoke their language and understood their concerns. He was down-to-earth and relatable, grounding his campaign in a motif of simplicity. If the Democrats are to win in 2024, then they need to battle the Republicans on these same terms.

This is why Harris’ pick of Walz is so astute. He can appeal to these voters. Even before his nomination, Walz had been criticising the political climate fostered by Donald Trump. In an interview on Morning Joe, Walz lamented how Americans now dread attending Thanksgiving dinner due to the inevitable political debates which emerge at the dinner table. These aren’t mere disputes anymore; Thanksgiving quarrels now serve as battlegrounds of morality. Being Team Red or Team Blue is no longer about your approach toward fiscal policy or political philosophy – it’s seen as a measure of your patriotism. Many Americans are sick of these culture wars and wedge issues, and Walz highlights how Trump continues to fuel them.

Bringing up a shared experience like Thanksgiving lethargy may seem like a relatively simple tactic, but simplicity resonates in election campaigns. It’s the currency of success with which Donald Trump won the presidency. Whereas Hillary Clinton proposed complex policy positions to the public, Trump latched onto headline-grabbing slogans such as “drain the swamp” and “make America great again”. Arenas full of people would chant them – smiles on their faces, joy in their hearts.

However, the joy found in Trump’s 2016 campaign wasn’t the hopeful and optimistic kind espoused by Desmond Tutu; it was joy at the expense of others. Joy at the expense of pollsters; joy at the expense of Clinton; and joy at the expense of sexual assault victims. In a sick perversion of the slogan, “#MeToo” went from a statement of solidarity to a swagger of success. For every woman whose “Me Too” meant that they, too, were victims, there was a man in the White House for whom it meant that he, too, got away with it. Pollsters, Clinton, and social movements all became part of an “elite” that had, for generations, let Middle America down. Feeding into feverish excitement, joy among Republicans only grew as polling day neared. Yet this was a joy that couldn’t exist in a vacuum since it was only alive by virtue of schismogenesis and division. Thus in 2016, the Republicans weren’t happy because they won – they were happy because the Democrats lost. 

To some extent, this relativity of joy is present in the Harris/Walz campaign. Yes, there is genuine optimism for the ticket across the broad spectrum of the party but fundamentally, the Democrats fear what a second Trump Presidency would bring. The joy in their poll lead is exacerbated given that it’s Trump they’re defeating. Harris taps into this when she whips up the crowd into chanting, “we are not going back”. Although Clinton’s warnings about Trump in 2016 may have been prescient, they only fed into his argument that political elites were out to discredit him. Now, in a post-January 6th world, the terms of debate have shifted, with Harris’ message speaking to tangible concerns. The American people know what a Trump presidency looks like. They know how desperate he is to regain power. They know how little he cares about the country. This isn’t speculation anymore – it’s fact. It isn’t a message built from fear so much as one inherited from recent history. 

How the Democrats tackle this fear is through joy. Not joy at the expense of others, but joy in the hope of a better tomorrow. Both Democrats and Republicans use the relativity of joy, but their foundations differ from being rooted in distinct policy platforms. With the Democrats offering social security and gun reform, the smiles at Harris/Walz rallies stem from the joy of providing. With the Republicans supporting a ban on abortions and restrictions on IVF, their cheers represent the joy of depriving. A clear faultline therefore emerges, with both campaigns fighting to win the monopoly for joy. At the minute, though, polling momentum points in just one direction – and it’s generosity which is on Kamala Harris’ side.

Shifting gears on affirmative action

0

Affirmative action in America is gone, but the change in data so far doesn’t show clear racial balancing. Unlike Oxford, the American admissions system requires personal essays, extracurricular activities, and a range of demographic qualifiers. College progressives may be offsetting explicit racial quotas with a new emphasis on these categories. 

The left’s answer has long been in favour of affirmative action as an obstacle-remover for future generations – adjustments today make them unnecessary tomorrow. But their university-level proposals are now irrelevant and unconstitutional. The solution, for now, must be upriver.

Every year, the US government releases the ‘national report card’, which tracks literacy rates, tested in third grade (ages 8-9), across different demographics. In 2023, Black students had a literacy rate of 18% and Latinos had 21%, compared to White rates of 42% and Asian rates of 58%. 

Aggressive and efficient resourcing of struggling racial minorities at the elementary-school level is a must given these numbers, and is now the only consequential option left to affirmative action proponents. Progressives should devote the bulk of their educational funding to reach marginalised groups before adulthood is even close. Conservatives will be satisfied that university-level qualifications are not bent to fit ethnic rationing.

And whether or not one believes elementary school is the right place to prioritise, it doesn’t matter. The Roberts court leaves no other choice at the higher levels.

A glass-half-full perspective on alcohol

0

The sun rises in the east, all men are mortal, and students drink. Such is life, and Oxford is no exception. University life is soaked through with alcohol whether you’re at a bop or a ball, pres or afters, pub or club, a sports crewdate or a ‘blank and booze’ society. It’s the Oxford Experience – from freshers’ week to Finals’ trashing, alcohol is everywhere. 

This might be changing. More young people are completely sober. Culture has shifted, and where once any indomitable wills asking for a plain Coke would be lairily interrogated, most people now just appreciate the cheaper round. But while you might not drink, your life will by no means be alcohol-free. If you participate in much of social life, learn to love sober clubbing and being surrounded by drunk people. Abstinence will never not be a tradeoff; this is a university, and a British one at that. 

But while Oxford may never be sober, slowly, between physical and financial burdens, it’s drying. People are drinking less. After the umpteenth hungover ‘never again’ pledge, perhaps they stop only order singles or alternate with soft drinks. But still, they keep the buzzing pres, the shameless dancing, the warmth and easy laughter on late-night walks home through a beautiful city with friends. A happy medium is possible, and Oxford is on its way to finding it.
Keep an eye out for the Cherwell Intoxtigation, the biggest alcohol attitudes survey in Oxford’s history, coming later this Michaelmas.

The BBC: historic failures and future irrelevance

0

The BBC is no stranger to scandal. From its MI5-assisted vetting of political ‘subversives’ to its contentious relationship with the Thatcher government, the broadcaster’s reputation has rarely been without controversy. While this is hardly rare for news outlets, the implications are particularly worrying for the BBC due to just how strong its influence is, with 68% of UK adults consuming some format of BBC journalism. In this context, the BBC’s tarnished history raises concerns about its contemporary dominance and future prospects, especially due to its standing as a public broadcaster with claims of independence and impartiality. Sadly, even these key qualities are constantly neglected.

Since 1927, a series of royal charters have outlined the BBC’s governance, including a guarantee of its editorial independence. However, recent events have provoked much criticism of government ties, such as the financial favours occurring between the BBC chairman and then Prime Minister Boris Johnson, or the suspension of Gary Lineker upon alleged ‘government pressure’. Last year, leaked messages revealed that BBC journalists had received pressure from Downing Street to criticise the Labour Party more harshly, and to avoid using the word ‘lockdown’ to describe 2020 pandemic measures, which they did. Clearly, these actions are highly unfitting for an independent broadcaster intended to serve the public interest.

While it’s easy to condemn the government for interfering with public broadcasting, the BBC is no innocent pawn. There is a key distinction between receiving government instructions and actually implementing them. And yet, the BBC has consistently yielded to partisan instruction, contradicting its claims of editorial independence and jeopardising its public reliability. With the BBC being the most frequently used source of UK election news, this string of journalistic failures sets a dangerous precedent for electoral authenticity.

Concerns over bias show no signs of slowing down. Despite its apparent commitment to impartiality, the BBC has an extensive history of bias allegations, consistently facing both left-wing and right-wing assertions. This generally works to the BBC’s advantage, as the common perception is that these allegations – often equal in number – tend to neutralise one another, serving as a token of the institution’s impartiality. However, this impression of neutrality is a somewhat shallow one, simplifying the matter of institutional bias into an overly dualistic argument.

But an often overlooked aspect of the impartiality debate is the BBC’s disappointing approach to bias accusations. Only 25 complaints of bias were upheld over a recent five-year period, out of approximately over 600,000. Note that the BBC – unlike any other UK broadcaster – has the unique ability to investigate its own complaints, preventing Ofcom from handling matters independently. While there will inevitably be complaints that are unjustifiable, such a staggering statistic makes it hard to imagine that the BBC’s internal watchdog is entirely committed to protecting good journalism, rather than the corporation’s own reputation.

Naturally, many will recall that the BBC has a history of concealing information for the sake of its reputation. In 2011, BBC executives opted to suppress a report into the late broadcaster Jimmy Savile, fearing that the publicising of his many crimes may harm his image, as well as that of the broadcasting giant itself. It was not until a year later that his abhorrent offences were revealed (by ITV), leading to much criticism of the BBC’s accountability.

The ongoing debacle surrounding Huw Edwards has obvious parallels to the Savile scandal, and demonstrates how the BBC has changed its approach in dealing with major controversies. No longer does the institution bury its failures so emphatically: Savile was posthumously honoured with tributes, whereas Edwards was suspended and publicly arrested. Despite the fact that the latter was still paid during his suspension – earning a total of £200,000, all publicly funded – this certainly marks a step, albeit a slow one, towards responsibility.

With more people getting their news from online sources than anywhere else, we can expect the BBC to depend more significantly upon younger audiences in future years, due to it being publically funded. Irrelevance is a common fate for legacy media, and the BBC shall be in an unenviable position if it fails to win the attention of future generations. For consumers aged 18-24, social media is the most commonly used platform for news. In all likelihood, this means that soon the BBC shall be yet another account fighting for prominence in your feed, eager to attract a youthful viewership.

Social media is generally deemed less trustworthy than traditional outlets as a platform for news, and rightfully so. It is therefore our responsibility to rigorously scrutinise the facts we are presented with, and to always, always demand high-quality journalism. The BBC is no exception: whether online or offline, there is never an excuse for the facts to be corrupted by individual biases or institutional failures. As the young audience that the BBC craves, it will be our engagement, or lack thereof, that will dictate the organisation’s future.

The oldest and largest public broadcaster should be an icon to be proud of, not some murky corporation perpetually mired in controversy. To stay afloat in a rapidly-evolving media landscape, more needs to be done to assure this country that the BBC serves the public interest first, and its executives second. For much of its lifespan, the BBC has been an inspiration to public broadcasters worldwide – unless improvements are made soon, it is only a matter of time until this legacy is lost.

7 October: Oxford community holds vigil for peace in the Middle East

0

A year after the 7 October attack, around two hundred Oxford residents attended “Vigil for Peace, Remembrance and Unity” yesterday, organised by civic, community, and faith leaders at New Road Baptist Church.

Led by Bishop of Oxford the Right Reverend Dr Steven Croft, Imam Monawar Hussain, and Vice President of Oxford Jewish Congregation Louise Gordon, the vigil brought together a diverse group of religious leaders. Each held a prayer in their faith and spoke of the death and tragedy in Israel, Palestine, and Lebanon.

Attendees, embracing and chatting with each other, wore Jewish, Muslim, Christian and other religious symbols. An assortment of political symbols were also displayed, including yellow ribbons honouring the Israeli hostages and Free Palestine pins.

Bishop Croft said in his speech: “Events in the Middle East placed an immense strain on community relationships across the United Kingdom. We wanted to have an opportunity to come together and declare our intent to build peaceful communities in a diverse city and county, to celebrate the friendships that we have together, to grieve and lament together for all that is happening and the way that affects so many here as well as in those countries.” 

Oxford University Vice-Chancellor Irene Tracey and Oxford Brookes University Vice-Chancellor Alistair Fitt both attended the vigil.

Tracey said in her speech: “There is a lot of kindness in Oxfordshire reflected here tonight. Many in our respected communities are struggling to make sense of the ongoing conflicts and desperately want to do something to help those who are suffering. Let us guide their empathy into action for good. Let us build on that kindness and trust between all of our communities as we encourage respectful conversations and a deepening of our relations.”

Political leaders including Vice Lord-Lieutenant of Oxfordshire Lynda Atkins, Oxford City Councillor Susan Brown, and Oxford East MP Anneliese Dodds were also present.

MP Dodds told Cherwell: “I was very pleased that this vigil could still go ahead, the third such vigil to have taken place in Oxford since the 7th of October. I am very grateful to the Baptist Church for enabling it to happen and, more important than ever, that Oxford communities and people of all faiths and none were able to come together to support each other.”

At the end, attendees held a moment of silence with candles and flashlights. They also sang along to the anti-war song “Where Have All the Flowers Gone?” with lyrics such as “Where have all the graveyards gone?/ Covered with flowers every one/ When will we ever learn?”

A year ago, Hamas militants killed about 1,200 people and took 251 hostages from Israel, 97 of whom remain unaccounted for. Since then, Israel’s war in Gaza has killed over 41,000 people according to Gaza’s health ministry. In recent weeks, after months of cross-border fighting, violence escalated in Lebanon, where Israeli strikes intended to target Hezbollah members have killed over 2000 people. Hezbollah and Iran have launched missiles at Israel in retaliation.

Serious life lessons from silly Oxford mistakes

0

It was my last set of collections before Prelims, and I was writing an essay on dopamine. (You’ll be intimately familiar with this neuromodulator even if you don’t study experimental psychology, provided you’ve consumed and incurred sufficient online ‘brainrot’ over the summer.) In citing the paper which pioneered our understanding of the crowd-favourite chemical, I thought it would be nice to name its now-infamous author in full. So I did, chronicling in my very first sentence the “discovery of the reward signal by Howard Schultz”. There was only one problem: Howard Schultz did not discover how dopamine works. Howard Schultz, rather, is the former CEO who created modern-day Starbucks; clearly, his name had infiltrated my mind that day – perhaps due to my morning beverage. And my tutor, as a friend, close colleague, and former postdoc (for eight years!) of Dr. Wolfram Schultz, knew the difference, believe it or not. The introduction of my collection essay thus contained just one simple – yet stinging – comment: “Please get it right.” Oh, and one more thing: my tutor told Wolfram of the embarrassing mix-up. Ouch.

In three or four years of tutorials, classes, and exams, you will make mistakes. Now, unless in your previous life you were a politician trading on the stock market, I recognise that this concept won’t be new to you. Studying at Oxford, however, you are stereotypically likely to be called out on these mistakes – even the small, seemingly inconsequential ones. Of course, my mix-up of the Schultzes was more funny than anything else, but it’s not uncommon that feedback is far harsher, and sometimes even personal, so it can be easy to take such ‘destructive criticism’ to heart. (This is especially true for those who’ve been accustomed to a steady stream of academic and extracurricular praise for the majority of their formative years.) Thus, I want to share three simple steps I’ve begun to learn from two years of mistakes in Oxford, both big and small.

(1) Acknowledge. If the mistake affects others, apologise too, genuinely and succinctly. Even if you don’t think the mistake is Earth-shattering, acknowledging your error assures your fellow human(s) that you care, and haven’t dismissed what they clearly felt – whether rightly or not – was important enough to point out. (2) Learn. Mistakes are, quite literally, how we learn. In fact, it was Wolfram Schultz’s work which uncovered that our dopamine neurons encode a learning signal based on the difference between expectation and reality, which then helps update our memory and optimise future behaviour. When you make a mistake, use the resulting emotions to help prevent you from repeating said mistake. In the countless essays on the topic of dopamine and reward since my first year, I’m sure you won’t be surprised to hear that I have never again forgotten Wolfram Schultz’s name. (3) Laugh. We’re not on Earth for a very long time – enjoy the ride! Laugh at yourself. Laugh at the situation. About a year after my collection mix-up, I would find myself in contact with Wolfram, and I revealed to him my identity as the undergraduate who mistook him for the mastermind behind Starbucks. Wolfram’s reaction? He too simply laughed: “Yes, I am not Howard Schultz, as far as I remember…”

Laughing also helps you be kind to yourself, a final lesson which will remain invaluable as you overcome mistakes not only in the academic realm at Oxford, but in career and personal pursuits far beyond the ring road. Whether you’re a medical student who’s just been told by their lab instructor they’re “bound for general practice” (a real story I heard last year), you’ve just fumbled your final McKinsey interview, or you’ve dropped the ball with the love of your life, always treat yourself compassionately as you get back on your feet. You’re not alone, and to make one mistake – or even a hundred – doesn’t doom you to eternal failure; to make mistakes is an inevitable fact of the human condition. Even Albert Einstein, whose face populates any image search for ‘genius’, made his lion’s share of mistakes! Take one example: the woman with whom he first visited Oxford, in 1919, was his second wife Elsa, on whom he was not only cheating with his secretary, but who was also his first cousin (born an Einstein) and a mistress from his first marriage. On mistakes, the ‘genius’ had this to say: show me a man who has never made a mistake, and I will show you one who has never tried anything. Happy Michaelmas, friends.