Tuesday 7th April 2026
Blog Page 609

“Bikram”- Review: The fad variant assumes corpse pose

0

As a die-hard yogi since the age of eleven, I was quick to judge the idea of the new Netflix documentary Bikram as being unfair. I was concerned that it would unjustifiably taint the name of yoga; an activity which, in my eyes, is capable of positively transforming the world. However, Bikram yoga is a breed of the sport that I had heard a lot about and never tried, having only dabbled with the traditional variation of Iyengar yoga and then devoting myself to the more rigid practice of Ashtanga. I was vaguely aware that Bikram was a type of eponymous yoga that involved a fixed sequence and heat to achieve powerful results, however I had no understanding about the man himself or his impact on the practice. In spite of this, yoga is something which I view as being a healthy and beneficial practice, therefore I was optimistic in deciding to watch Netflix’s most recent expository offering, but it opened my eyes up to the other side of yoga, the side of yoga which should not exist, let alone be tried.

The documentary explores the creator of Bikram yoga, a man named Bikram Choudhary, now 75 years old, who brought the series to the Western world in 1971. The yoga consists of a 26-posture sequence in a room of 41°c, intended to replicate the climate of yoga’s origin, India. The practice lasts 90 minutes and encompasses two kinds of breathing exercises. Everyone featured in the documentary sings the practice’s praises, saying that it made them want to share the gift which had given them so much.

This power, however, was not just solely down to the effective structure of the series, but more so, perhaps, down to its teacher. Bikram was, as former studio owner, Patrice Simon notes “like a lion […] a force”. Another yoga teacher, Val Sklar Robinson, goes further to say that “he saw potential in you that you might not see [yourself]”. Throughout the documentary, his effective teaching style and series is highlighted and praised, even when his darker side is explored. The consistency of this praise made a part of me eager to try out his practice and see if it appealed to me in the same way that it had appealed to so many others. But this was only fleeting.  

It is apparent straight away that Bikram is a strange and abrasive character. The clips exhibit him parading around his classes scantily clad in no more than a black pair of speedos, coupled with his firm voice dictating the class “welcome to Bikram’s torture chamber, where you’ll kill yourself for the next 90 minutes” which speaks to the sheer difficulty of the practice. Another of his former students, Jakob Schanzer, underlines Bikram’s forthright nature, noting how he told him to suck in his stomach as he did not like “to see the jiggle jiggle”. From the outside, these examples deter me from wanting to experience his teaching, yet also intrigue me as to why these people continued to exalt him at this point in the documentary; these ‘quirks’ appear to be part of the reason as to why America was so taken by him. 

In this vein, Bikram yoga is described as ‘McYoga’; an all-American practice which went very much against the grain. There was no chanting and, although originating in India, it blossomed in Beverly Hills where its traditional roots were disregarded for the physical benefits which could be gleaned. He wholeheartedly approved of this name, having already become incredibly wealthy, boasting a collection of ostentatious cars and pairing a Rolex with his characteristic speedos during class. This yogi was one the world had never seen before.  

It transpires that Bikram was and potentially still is a sexual predator, having been accused of raping several of the women he taught. One of the main difficulties for these women was that they were forced to continue with the practice in order to become yoga teachers, as the only way to become a teacher of Bikram is to go through its creator directly, leaving them trapped within his system. Sarah Baughn, a former student who suffered at his hand in this way, says he asked her to be in a relationship with him while already married and assaulted her later on when she resisted his predatory advances. Another, Larissa Anderson, was raped by him at his family home while his wife and children were upstairs. She did not feel able to tell anyone or do anything about it due to it being her life’s mission to become a teacher and having already made many sacrifices along the way. This deterred me even more from the practice, I wondered why anyone would want to be part of it if it belonged to an avaricious predator who was unsafe to be around.  

Another noteworthy moment that Bikram recognises is his relationship with his former legal counsel, Micki Jafa-Bodden. When she got wind of the sexual allegations made against him and suggested to his wife that he step down, she was forced to resign and had her visa and car taken from her; Bikram ruined her life. Micki decided to go to court against him. Although she eventually won the case, she has still not received any remuneration as he fled the country instead of facing the legal consequences and has still not been charged criminally. 

The documentary ends with recent images of him teaching in Spain 2019. For some reason, he is still teaching yoga after many testimonies against him and after this court case exposing his immorality. Yet this is where the true conflict lies, he brought the western world an ostensibly very effective type of yoga and an equally effective, albeit abrasive teaching method which has caused many to overlook his significant flaws. This is revealed at the end when Patrice Simon expresses her desire for him to make a “comeback” as his yoga is “magical”. Interestingly, the documentary demonstrates how this is not actually his own yoga, but rather a form of yoga invented by his guru in India. Mukul Dutta testifies to this, having shared this guru in the past. Dutta appears to be deeply offended by Bikram’s theft of the practice and use of it in his own name rather than the name of its true creator. This was the straw that broke the camel’s back for me and inhibits me from trying the practice myself; even if it is valuable, there is nothing I can see that is moral in its origins. 

If Bikram yoga calls to you, whether that be because you want to see if you can push yourself to your limit with the powerful sequence, or whether you want to understand why so many continue to revere the practice in spite of the claims against it, I urge you not to. Bikram yoga was founded on greed and lies. Its legal owner is someone who is fraudulent, dogmatic and predatory which, for me, corrupts the practice and outweighs any physical benefits which could be reaped. I think I will stick to Ashtanga yoga, and I feel angry that this man has tarnished yoga’s name. 

Moran calls for City Council to “step up”

0

Layla Moran has called for Oxford City Council to “step up” after an investigation revealed that almost 47,000 homes have been left vacant nationwide, including 27 in Oxford.

The Liberal Democrat investigation revealed that the homes had been left vacant for over five years.

The figures collated from over 300 local authorities across the country reveal there are 12,889 homes that have been empty for ten years or more, according to the Liberal Democrats.

Freedom of Information requests also uncovered that a further 313,792 houses had been empty for 6 months.

Results of this investigation come after the new government revealed that 127,000 children faced being homeless at New Year.

The investigation revealed that Oxford City Council has six homes empty for ten years or more and 27 empty for five years or more. 545 are currently considered to be “long-term” empty, defined as over six months.

As part of the Liberal Democrat commitment to alleviate the housing crisis, they are calling for legislation to allow authorities to increase council tax by up to 500% where properties are being left empty long-term.

Revenues from this tax would be used to build new homes for the community or to invest in local services.

Layla Moran, MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, said: “Communities up and down the country, including our own, are being torn apart because affluent owners are treating these properties as financial assets.

“Instead, these homes could be turned into affordable places to live for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. We are in the midst of a housing crisis here in Oxfordshire, and the city council needs to step up to play its part in fixing it.

“People deserve better. That’s why Liberal Democrats are demanding councils are given the powers and resources we set out in our manifesto to bring empty homes back into use.”

1000s attended ‘Uncomfortable Oxford’ history events in 2019

0

‘Uncomfortable Oxford’, a project encouraging awareness of Oxford’s ‘legacies of inequality and imperialism’, has experienced rapid growth since its creation in 2018.

Almost 3000 people attended events over the past year, according to their 2019 Impact Report. These include tours, lectures, and workshops.

The organisation has run over 159 walking tours, reaching people from over 31 different countries. These tours are led by students and “encourage analysis and discussion about uncomfortable subjects within the city”.

The most popular event has been ‘The Original Uncomfortable Tour’, with 1260 people attending in 2019. Further walking tours include the ‘Uncomfortable Literature Tour’, the ‘Oxford and Empire Tour’, and the ‘Follow the Money Tour’.

These figures are reflected in the large quantity of positive feedback, with the walking tours averaging 5 stars on TripAdvisor. Visitors commend the knowledge of guides, the global outlook, and the barriers broken down to spark discussion.

The Impact Record also records how awareness has increased through collaborations, events, and publications. Co-directors Olivia and Paula published ‘The Maps We Inhabit: Storytelling, Memory and Uncomfortable Oxford’ in online journal Living Maps Review and were interviewed on the ‘Naked Humanities’ and ‘For Art’s Sake’ podcasts.

‘Uncomfortable Oxford’ started a series of talks about the British Empire, the PUBlic lectures. They also attended the Being Human festival, co-hosting a ‘Death Café’ style-event to encourage reflection on how “stories of historical deaths are used socially and politically”, and ran an Activism Café at the East Oxford Community Centre.

Two DPhil students in the Department of History, Olivia Durand and Paula Larsson, founded the project in 2018. It aims to “‘raise awareness and create discourse’ about the ’uncomfortable’ legacies of inequality and imperialism in the city and the university’”. The 2019 newsletter describes how this involves colonisation and imperialism, race and racism, gender and women’s history, LGBTQ+ history, slavery, violence, and wealth and financial ethics.

2020 will see a continuation of the PUBlic Lecture Series, the creation of ‘The Uncomfortable Oxford Podcast’, and collaboration with ‘The Whip’, a new play by the Royal Shakespeare Company.

Star People: unearthing Miles Davis’ jazz-rock family tree

0

By the mid-60s, jazz was floundering. The preceding decade saw bebop – the most radical post-war interpretation of the breed – birth several pioneering sub-genres. This reinforced the forward-looking credentials of the artform whilst rendering it increasingly mainstream behind the idyllic picket fences of White America. But the noble experiment had faltered badly.

Kind of Blue, the best-selling jazz album to date, emerged just before Ornette Coleman released The Shape of Jazz to Come, shaking the foundations of the genre. The resulting free jazz ascendancy disregarded convention and favoured the avant-garde, alienating numerous listeners while catalysing the acceptance of rock ‘n’ roll as the foremost contemporary US musical genre. Many appreciate free jazz, but British audiophilesm, for whom accessible, homegrown straight-ahead jazz was increasingly popular, would not know how to describe the characteristic cacophony of the new sub-genre until The Clangers premiered ten years later.

With jazz no longer at the cutting edge, the art form succumbed to stagnation and short-lived fads. The distinctive Austin Powers theme, ‘Soul Bossa Nova’, a foot-tapping 1962 Quincy Jones instrumental, represented ephemeral trendiness as opposed to timeless cool. Rather than assimilating Brazilian music to advance their genre, jazz labels released successive samba-infused albums to exploit fashions and distract casual listeners from the avant-garde barrage. Of the three main jazz schools – hot, cool and “is this just tuning, or has it actually started?”, the latter camp was winning. Something had to change.

Enter, shrouded in mystery and cigarette smoke, genius trumpeter Miles Davis: original Prince of Darkness, tireless innovator, and celebrated Kind of Blue architect. Between 1968 and 1972, Davis recorded a seminal tetralogy which returned jazz to the forefront of musical innovation. He birthed the crossover jazz-rock genre and assembled players who later formed five of the most important but underappreciated 1970s bands of all time.

Fittingly released only six days after the Apollo Lunar Module finally landed, the ethereally beautiful In a Silent Way would probably be considered space-age music by listeners of Dave Brubeck or Bill Evans. The album became a significant influence on the genre, punctuated by an exquisite Joe Zawinul melody, and even an accidentally-toppled beer bottle. Twice.

However, the real shock was Bitches Brew. Every aspect of the double LP (including the bold title and surrealistic gatefold sleeve), suggested a thoroughbred musical statement. Abrasive trumpet blasts, aggressive tape edits, and a dense rhythmic backdrop jointly created a difficult but rewarding listening experience. With this album, Davis completely eschewed established musical forms while moving far beyond free jazz.

The next major release, Jack Johnson, fused the desire to create the greatest rock band in existence with a tribute to the famous pugilist and an exploration of African-American identity. Yorkshire-born guitarist John McLaughlin battled Davis for prominence across the first part of the album, before more melancholy and meditative atmospheres take hold. Boxing seems to permeate the LP, influencing the subject matter and confrontational musical delivery.

Then came one of the most controversial jazz statements ever. On The Corner aimed to return the genre to Black America, drawing on the infectious funk of James Brown and even the stark experimentalism of Karlheinz Stockhausen. Ultimately, the mixture of visceral groove and constricted improvisation baffled critics; upon release, the album sold poorly. However, its reputation has improved dramatically, and the work is now cited as a major influence on jungle and hip-hop music.

After On The Corner faded into obscurity, Davis focused increasingly on live performance before commencing five years of sex and drugs, yet remarkably little rock ‘n’ roll. Though he would return in 1981, later collaborating with multi-instrumentalist Marcus Miller for Tutu, arguably the foremost 1980s jazz album, he ceased to be regarded as an important innovator. However, young drummer Tony Williams had formed fusion-group Lifetime after the 1969 In a Silent Way sessions. It became the first of five major jazz-rock acts founded by Davis alumni, particularly the Bitches Brew team, which would define the sub-genre in the 1970s.

Another Davis drummer, Billy Cobham, formed The Mahavishnu Orchestra with John McLaughlin in 1971. The hard-edged international group drew on Indian classical music and progressive rock, releasing some of the heaviest canonical jazz albums. Following his Scientology conversion, keyboardist Chick Corea collaborated with Lenny White in Return to Forever, an accessible Latin-infused band with a widely varied output. Herbie Hancock, another esteemed keyboardist, released two albums with The Headhunters, using the fundamentals of On the Corner to create a more approachable brand of jazz-infused funk. Davis even opened for Hancock, which doubtless irritated the experienced trumpeter, yet was the first evidence of the baton being passed on.

Perhaps the greatest of all these groups was Weather Report. Core members Wayne Shorter and Joe Zawinul recorded fifteen albums from 1971 to 1986, forming the backbone of 1970s jazz-rock. From the tentative experimentation of the promising debut to the raw power of Mysterious Traveller and sheer joy of Heavy Weather, the ensemble blazed a trail of unmatched virtuosity and innovation. The notion of a well-known jazz act filling arenas, headlining Glastonbury and releasing a double LP of greatest hits appears strange, but Weather Report were no ordinary band.

Similar to the closely-related progressive rock, jazz-rock ‘fusion’ capitulated to punk and changing tastes as the 1970s ended. Yet, fusion was also a victim of its own success: aiming to reach the widest audience, record producers began infusing the sub-genre with vocals and disco beats, ultimately gaining few appreciators. Furthermore, the warm ambience of jazz label CTI later inspired smooth jazz which, though not without initial artistic value, eventually swamped countless radio stations with unashamed cheesiness. But the underappreciated jazz-rock vein remains ripe for musical exploration.

Fusion might leave rock fans bemoaning the presence of a saxophone line and jazz enthusiasts horrified by prominent guitar solos. However, music should not be placed into such boxes and judged according to its degree of conformity to genre conventions. The 1970s jazz-rock explosion arguably produced some of the most forward-thinking albums of all time, many of which stemmed from the likes of Bitches Brew. Also notable is British fusion – involving great bands including Nucleus, Brand X and Earthworks – and the partial revival of the sub-genre under GRP Records. But new listeners wanting to explore this rich history are advised to take the long road, following the knotty branch connecting In a Silent Way to Heavy Weather, undoubtedly discovering hidden gems along the way.

A Decade to Forget

0

For a man who once helped his friend try to beat up a journalist, calling a December election was in retrospect a rare act of kindness from Boris Johnson. Normally Christmas is a time for violently falling out with extended family, but anecdotally, it seems everyone was too shattered to do the ‘politics conversation’ this year.

And no wonder. Whether you were traumatised or elated by Johnson’s victory, we are all united in our political fatigue. Whilst we might like to think that the defining photo of 2019 was Greta’s beaming cherub face on her zero-emissions sailboat, a more accurate representation would be a desiccated Prince Phillip leaving hospital. For the first time in 98 years of trying, His Royal Highness perfectly captured the mood of his nation – one exhausted by a decade of political shithousery.

In the distant future, historians who want to know how people were feeling at the end of 2019 need only look at this photo. If you look very closely at Phillip’s sunken eyes you’d be forgiven for thinking you were looking in a mirror; putting your ear up to the screen, you’d hear a whole nation craving the sweet release of their own state funerals.

The election was in a sense a fitting end to the 2010s, the shattering full stop which the decade truly deserved. If you woke up on December 13th with a nasty case of déjà-Bullingdon, perhaps a reminder is needed that Boris Johnson, David Cameron and George Osborne were all Buller men during their time at Oxford. Whilst the dining club may currently be going through a bit of an image crisis, former members presided over the country for six and a half of the last available ten years.

In fact, this truly was the decade in which Oxford saw the worst of its chickens come home to roost. As a university, we currently seem to be on the sharp end of a particularly vicious phase of karmic retribution, making you wonder what really went on in Oxford during the late 1980s.

Did the Vice Chancellor host tea parties for notorious sex criminals? Offer fellowships to neo-Nazis? Whatever went down, it must have been truly horrific for the universe to decide that PMs Cameron and Johnson would be Oxford’s most significant contribution of the 2010s. Karma really is a bitch.

The current university powers that be must be hoping for an abrupt career change from Greta, crossing their fingers that she wakes up one day realising that Politics, Philosophy and Economics at Christchurch is her real calling, rather than saving us all from death by forest fire. The alumni posters need a serious facelift, and Johnson’s gormless grin clearly isn’t going to cut it.

His chief adviser however, has clearly got the memo that Oxford doesn’t always know best when it comes to politics. Earlier this week, anyone who has ever based elements of their personality around On the Road felt their ears burning when Dominic Cummings called for more “weirdos and misfits” to apply for jobs in Number 10.

In just 3000 words, Cummings made it clear that when it came to his new personal assistant, he didn’t want “more Oxbridge English graduates who chat about [French psychoanalyst Jacques] Lacan at dinner parties”. Why he felt the need to single me out in public is unclear.

Cummings’ rambling word soup of a blog post essentially describes Effy Stonem from Skins. If you cast your mind back to when we thought Nick Clegg (the manic pixie dream girl of the 2010 Election) might be our salvation, you really begin to see how far we’ve come in just ten short years.

Sadly, the successful applicant may not be around long enough to save us from the most terrifying political prospect of 2020: more of Cummings’ blogs. Sounding a lot like Oxford’s own admissions guidelines, he writes: “I’ll bin you within weeks if you don’t fit — don’t complain later because I made it clear now.”

It is easy to make fun of Cummings and his kaleidoscope prose, but he and his team hold the keys to Downing Street once again. The toxic whirlwind of political life since the EU referendum in 2016 has swept his self-righteous brand of politics to power.

It is important though to put our recent period of political what-the-fuckery in a wider context. This is the decade that gave us Donald Trump, Jair Bolsonaro, Rodrigo Duterte. Everywhere you look populist Poundland despots are springing up, like a nightmarish version of whack-a-mole if the moles had nuclear weapons.

I suppose we should be grateful that, ever the shrinking violet, we as a nation did our societal collapse a little more quietly than some. Half-heartedly voting to leave an international bloc looks rather tame as a national crisis when set against some of the other examples we see around the world.

Still, we go into the 2020s a more frightened and angry country than we were at the start of the decade. What Johnson and Cummings have planned for us next is anyone’s bet. Based on the photo, my guess is that Prince Phillip won’t be around to see much of it, fortunately, or unfortunately, based on your disposition. I have a sinking feeling many would like to join him in that.

The Rise of Scruffy Politics

0

On the night of the 2016 US Presidential election, a group of my friends gathered to watch the event. At our little party, the men were dressed variedly – you could find everything from jeans to suits. But for the women, a clear trend stood out: nearly every single one of them wore a pantsuit.

As it happens, the vast majority of my friends were Hillary Clinton supporters. Throughout Clinton’s political career, she made a point of wearing black pantsuits with colourful shirts. She called it her ‘uniform’. During her bid for the presidency, the pantsuit became a symbol of her campaign: you could find cartoon pantsuit graphics on everything from lapel pins to bumper stickers.

All of this points to a somewhat obvious truth: how you look matters. It affects how people perceive you, and it affects whether people will vote for you. In her 2017 memoir What Happened, Clinton explains why she chose the pantsuit. The world has become accustomed to every male politician looking the same, she argues. Politicians tend to opt less for ‘fashionable’ and more for ‘consistent’, their choice of tie the only opportunity for individuality. The pantsuit helped Clinton fit into this predominantly male ecosystem, substituting a colourful tie for a colourful inner shell. In other words, Clinton chose the pantsuit because it was boring.

And indeed, it was meant to be boring. When politicians stand out for their outfits, it is rarely to their benefit; recall George Osborne’s ‘trendy’ haircut in 2013 or Theresa May’s Frida Kahlo bracelet. Politicians aren’t often admired for their fashion sense. Instead, they are expected to dress and act professionally. In the leadup to the 2016 Presidential election, this is what I thought about Clinton.

But then Hilary Clinton lost the election. She lost to Donald Trump, an orange buffoon with a bad comb-over and an unkempt suit. She lost to someone whose rhetoric consisted of crude jokes and slurs, whose wife never wears the sleeves of her jackets because she never needs to use her hands, whose whole campaign verged on the satirical.

Until recently, I thought it was a fluke. Americans are crazy, I thought. Being one myself, I should know. But then came the 2019 general election, and Boris Johnson and the Conservatives recorded a landslide win, making the UK the second country to hand power to a leader whose hair had fanfiction.

So how, I wondered, did Boris Johnson win with such a lack of professional style? But then I realised: Johnson didn’t win in spite of his scruffy appearance. He won because of it.

Take Johnson’s opponent, Jeremy Corbyn. Famous for his old polo-necked sweaters and black paperboy hat, Corbyn has long used his clothes as part of his brand, and though opponents criticise his ‘scruffy’ appearance, Labour voters love him for his authenticity. Contrast this with Andy Burnham, who, as you may recall from the twitter uproar, has been known to wear Armani suits. Corbyn’s dress emanates consistency and dependability.

Though he would probably deny it, Jeremy Corbyn is famous for his fashion. He once said of Parliament: “It’s not a fashion parade.” It is rather ironic, then, that in a sea of normalcy he has been one of very few politicians to connect to voters through his image – a down-to-earth, anti-fashion everyman wearing mismatched suits and jumpers his mum made.

But in the most recent general election, Corbyn took a turn. Through his years as a career politician, his jumpers and polos have been replaced by navy suits and red ties. He even donned a bespoke, one-of-a-kind suit whose pinstripes had stitched into them his motto: “for the many, not the few”. The irony was clearly lost on him.

Johnson, in contrast, is a perpetual state. His jacket hangs open, his tie is rarely done up, and his hair is always a mess. Yet none of this works to his detriment. Much like Trump, Johnson’s attire makes him relatable. Rather than coming across as a contemptuous political elite, Johnson acts and dresses like us.

We live in the age of scruffy politics, where being relatable is more important than being professional. Now that the put-together look of the pantsuit has given way to the poorly done tie, how our politicians dress is more important than ever.

Oxford’s Layla Moran becomes first publicly pansexual MP

0

Layla Moran, the Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament for Oxford West and Abingdon, has revealed she identifies as pansexual, announcing she is in a “really committed, loving, supportive, relationship” with another woman.

Explaining her decision, Moran told PinkNews: “…as an MP I spend a lot of my time defending our community and talking about our community. I want people to know I am part of our community as well.”

Moran had previously only dated men, but during 2019 came to the realisation that she was pansexual, meaning that she is attracted to people irrespective of their sex or gender identity.

Moran’s announcement makes her the first MP to openly identify as pansexual. She has acknowledged that “the reason I’m speaking out is because I want to prove it’s not a detriment. It’s a great thing.”

Though, according to Moran, Parliament is a “weird, backwards place,” she has looked to other female LGBT+ politicians, such as Ruth Davidson and Justine Greening, as role models.

The reaction to her announcement has been broadly positive within the House of Commons, though there has been a lack of understanding of pansexuality on the part of some politicians. Moran said, “When I’ve spoken to people about it, the first thing they ask is, ‘So you’re gay then?’ ‘Well, I don’t know if that’s how I identify…’”

“The way I would have said it to people is, ‘Actually I’m probably bi,’ because that’s a term they understand. But when I’ve looked at the definitions of what I’m comfortable with – pan is more about the person, and less the gender. That, if I was going to force myself to have a label, that would be how I would identify.”

Moran met her girlfriend, Rosy Cobb, through their shared activities within the Liberal Democrats. Cobb was the Party’s Head of Press, before being suspended during the general election campaign for forging an email. Moran decided to make the relationship public following an approach by journalists.

Moran becomes not only the first openly pansexual MP, but the sole openly LGBT+ Liberal Democrat MP in the new parliament.

In December’s election, excluding Moran, 45 openly LGBT+ MPs were elected nationwide, the same result as in 2017. Of these 45, 20 were elected for the Conservatives, 15 for Labour, and 10 for the Scottish National Party.

The SNP has the highest proportion of LGBT+ representation of any party in the new parliament, standing at 21% of all their MPs, next to the Tories’ 5.5% and Labour’s 7.4%.

Moran’s announcement comes after she significantly increased her majority in the election to 8,943, up from 816 in 2017. Speculation is mounting that Moran will launch a bid for leader of the Liberal Democrats, after Jo Swinson, the previous leader, lost her seat last month.

Opinion – Is This What Democracy Looks Like?

0

Getting Brexit done is now the irrefutable, irresistible, unarguable decision of the British people. These are the triumphant words of our Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, hours after his resounding win in December’s general election. Yet even a cursory glance at the popular vote casts doubt on this supposedly unequivocal mandate. Compared with their disappointing 2017 performance, the Conservatives only rose 1.2% to 43.6% of the overall number of votes cast. Yet faced with a divided opposition, they gained 48 seats and a remarkable parliamentary majority that leaves them free to implement to govern as they see fit for the next five years. Many of their opponents will feel hard done by, and with good reason. The question is, why is this system so broken? And can we – should we – rectify it?

British general elections are based on a system known as First Past the Post (FPTP). This means each of the United Kingdom’s 650 constituencies, whichever candidate wins more votes than all others, the plurality, represents that area in the House of Commons. Though simple to understand and carry out, this system is inherently flawed and unrepresentative. On one hand, voters in so-called ‘safe seats’ such as Jeremy Corbyn’s Islington North, whomever they may support, are discouraged from voting by their inability to have any effect on the result.

In more marginal areas, MPs can be voted into power despite commanding nothing near an actual majority. The constituency of Kensington is a prime example of this, where Liberal Democrat convert Sam Gyimah received over 9000 votes. This allowed his Tory rival to win with 38.3% of the vote, defeating the Labour incumbent by just 150 votes, a deficit she would have likely overcome had the Liberal Democrats not split the vote for Remainers. This is known as the spoiler effect. Smaller parties risk damaging their own interests by stealing votes from larger parties they agree with somewhat and handing victory to those with whom they disagree far more virulently. As a result, a reluctant electorate finds itself forced to vote tactically and compromise on its political convictions.

One possible solution to this problem is a system known as Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMPR). Under this model, also used in elections for the devolved Scottish Parliament and the London Assembly, candidates would be divided into two groups: local and national. Local representatives are the winners of their constituency’s vote, while national representatives are then assigned so as to ensure the governing body is a proportional reflection of the preferences of the whole population. Using MMPR, the SNP would not, as they did this year, have over four times more Westminster seats than the Liberal Democrats, despite winning barely a third of the votes. What’s more, every vote counts, so a Green vote in their Brighton Pavilion stronghold is as important as a Green vote anywhere else.

That said, MMPR is not without its flaws. Its complicated processes can be difficult to understand and impractical to carry out on a broader scale, explaining why only a select number of countries, such as New Zealand, use it in nationwide elections. Proportional systems can also lead to the growth of parties on the extremes of the political spectrum, such as the BNP, which, though a technically more democratic outcome, may not be a particularly desirable one. Perhaps the most significant problem, however, is legislative stagnation. Outright popular majorities in countries with diverse, multi-party systems are very uncommon. This makes broad coalitions necessary and serious reform grindingly slow.

FPTP certainly does not share these drawbacks, diminishing the power of widespread minority groups and favouring comfortable, or at least workable, majorities for parties with a widespread base of support. But there will always be a trade-off between a system that faithfully represents the many shades of popular opinion and one that is actually able to pass legislation and address key issues.

Perhaps the most effective and feasible compromise between these two goals is the Alternative Vote (AV). In this type of election, voters are allowed to rank their options from most to least favourite. If there is no single party with an outright majority, the votes of the smallest party’s supporters are redistributed to its voters’ next preferred choices. This process is repeated until one candidate achieves a majority, and they are elected as that constituency’s Member of Parliament. This system was roundly rejected in the 2011 referendum on the subject with over two thirds of voters opposing it. Indeed, AV is far from perfect. It doesn’t eliminate safe seats, could increase the likelihood of a hung parliament and can seem confusing and opaque to the general public.

Nevertheless, AV is better than FPTP in one key respect: there is no spoiler effect, meaning the incentive to vote tactically is vastly reduced. Take Hartlepool, for instance, where Labour held on with just 38% of the vote to the Tories’ 29. In an AV election, most of the 26% of votes cast for Brexit Party chairman Richard Tice would likely have been transferred to the Conservatives, giving them the victory in an area that voted overwhelmingly to leave the European Union in 2016. AV favours compromise candidates that most constituents can live with, even if they aren’t their absolute favourite. Though by no means revolutionary, this system would help to restore the faith in politics of a disillusioned populace whilst also allowing for functioning governments that most people can support.

It should come as no surprise that the Conservative Party was vehemently opposed to the Alternative Vote in 2011. After all, it was the FPTP system that put them into government and has kept them there for the past decade (though ironically, had the 2015 election been held under AV, it is thought the Conservatives would have won a larger number of seats). Genuine electoral reform of any description is always difficult because those with the ability to institute change rarely want to bite the hand that feeds them. In 1997, New Labour were elected on a promise to reform the voting system. But having won a huge majority under FPTP, they were understandably unwilling to change it. However, if we honestly value the principle of a true representative democracy, it is crucial that we don’t just settle for a system as problematic and unsatisfactory as First Past the Post. Though Proportional Representation may be an idealistic and impractical alternative, AV could serve as a sensible ‘Goldilocks’ option between these two extremes. A future without the need to second-guess other people’s decisions in the voting booth is undoubtedly a positive one. We should not let a blind aversion to change deter us from the possibility of meaningful progress. It is only ironic that the best way to improve Britain’s democracy might be to introduce a reform rejected at the ballot box only a few short years ago.

Jazz Society launch record label

0

Oxford University Jazz Society have welcomed in the new year with the announcement of the launch of their new independent record label, JazzSoc Records.

Describing the project as an “offshoot of JazzSoc proper”, president Liam Gesoff sees the purpose of the label to be a celebration of the wealth of talent within the Oxford Jazz scene.

A completely student-driven initiative, the label’s aim is to promote the interests of the existing club’s constitution; stating that “the support, development, improvement and promotion of both the performance and appreciation of jazz music in the University of Oxford” are its core objectives. As an often overlooked genre in the wider student body, the label stands as a service to the thriving student jazz community, both in listenership and musicianship.

3rd January 2020 marks the label’s first official release: All In, a three-track EP of ‘groovy post-bop jazz’ from band SNARP.

The self-produced EP introduces the talents of students Huw Cheston, Josh Cottell, Joe Zacaroli, Tom O’Connor and Leonard Maassen, featuring Mikey Ahearn and Jonny Danciger, with artistic direction by Sophie Nathan-King. Gesoff told Cherwell that “the album really is a first-class exposition of the true potential that Oxford has to offer jazz music.”

As well as the promise of more “exciting and raw” musical releases throughout the year, the label is also affiliated with Tuesday’s live music nights at Mad Hatter. The line-up for Hilary term is confirmed and is due to be released through JazzSoc imminently.

To find out more about the label, its artists, and what they have in store for 2020, information can be found at jazzsocrecords.studio. All In, and all future releases will be available to purchase on the website and to stream on all major digital streaming platforms.

To get in touch with the label for further information or if you have an interest in getting involved, you can find them on Facebook at www.facebook.com/jazzsocrecords, or via email at [email protected].

Queering Sport

0

There are all of these sports that I never knew existed before I came to the UK. Apparently there’s a version of hockey that people play underwater, while holding their breath. Personally, I am a fan of oxygen, so I decided to give “Octopush” a pass.  But when I heard about the sport “netball,” I was excited to try it out.

It has a similar setup as basketball, which I had enjoyed when I was a kid. So I signed up to play in a casual weekend match with my college team. And I was hoping that, maybe, I would be good at it too, what with all my prior “hooping” experience.

As it turns out, my talent at netball is comparable to Sean Spicer’s at dancing. I found myself struggling to keep up with the ultra-fast pace of the game, and apologizing to my teammates for the various blunders that I made. And when crunch time came, I subbed myself out. The rest of my team wanted to win, and I didn’t want to stand in the way.

Elite sport (that is, high-performance youth sport, or sport played at the inter-university or professional level) is often criticized – for being too dangerous, too time-consuming, too costly, and causing too much stress.

I would like raise a new critique, one that I aim not at elite sport, but at “casual sport” – like the netball game I played in, which was commitment-free and open to anyone.  My thesis is this: Casual sport is, very often, played more competitively than would be prudentially optimal for participants (or would-be participants). This is a natural consequence of the way that sports are set up. In order to better promote everyone’s interests, we should make deliberate changes to the way that we play.

In many sports, a highly competitive, physically strenuous style of play emerges by default – even when no stakes are attached to the outcome of a match, and even when it is billed as ‘friendly’ and ‘open to all.’ Part of the reason for this is self-selection; those who sign up to play an intramural sport at university, for instance, are often people who played that sport on the ‘first team’ at school.

So not only are they highly skilled and physically fit, but they come with a competitive mindset – ingrained from years of coached, “all-out” play. And part of the reason is how games are structured – with two teams pitted against each other, and someone keeping score.

I think that the high intensity of casual sport can be a problem, for two reasons. First, for many of us, a more relaxed style of play is prudentially optimal; we’ll have more fun (and will be less likely to get injured, too).  Second, the less competitive a sport is, the more inclusive it is; those with less athleticism or experience can comfortably play – and not feel like their presence is a burden to the team.

If high-intensity is sport’s default setting, we need to take deliberate measures if we want to dial it down.

One proposal could be to have clubs where people would play a rotation of different sports, rather than choosing a specific one; this would overcome the self-selection problem, ensuring that a significant fraction of players would be inexperienced at each sport that was played.  So you wouldn’t need to be able to keep up with varsity-level athletes, in order to take part in a casual game.

Another solution would be to remove the competitive element from games entirely.  Next time you decide to play basketball with your friends, you could try just casually “shooting around.”

But suppose that you want to play a specific sport, and don’t want to remove the element of competition. Is high-intensity play an inevitability?  I don’t think it needs to be.

I suggest that we look to queer and social justice-oriented spaces – and their norms around inclusion and access – for the solution. In these spaces, there is a strong ethos of making them as accessible and welcoming as reasonably possible.

This event description of an upcoming queer club night – which specifies that the venue is wheelchair accessible, no strobe lights will be used, earplugs will be available, and to get in touch with further accessibility requests – is illustrative of the sort of deliberate efforts that are made, in these spaces, to make sure that everyone is included.

(More precisely, deliberate efforts are made to ensure that no one is unjustly excluded; those who violate zero-tolerance policies against discrimination and harassment are justly excluded, and some events are intended for only queer people, or another identity group, and their guests.)

And while this ethos is prevalent in almost every type of event in queer and social justice spaces – from parties, to film screenings, to academic talks – there is one activity it hasn’t fully permeated: sports.

Queer sports clubs do exist – and serve as very needed safe spaces from the homophobia, transphobia, and toxic masculinity that too often afflict other sports clubs.  But competitive play is still the norm – leaving out the less physically fit or able (and the able-bodied but bumbling athlete like me).

Perhaps this is by design. Under some conceptions of sport, it is not supposed to accommodate everyone. To the contrary, philosopher Michael Sandel has argued that sport is supposed to test and reward those with the greatest ‘natural gifts.’

Maybe this is a defensible view of elite sport (though I have argued elsewhere against it).  But for intramural netball, or post-work pickup basketball, or Philosophy Faculty football, I think that our guiding considerations should be: (1) Is this event as accessible as possible to those who are interested?, and (2) Are participants benefiting as much as possible from the experience?

In some cases, these considerations will still favour a highly competitive style of play.  For example, a group of friends might decide to play pick-up, and they all might have the preference for it to be intense.

But very often, I think that these considerations will weigh in the direction of making sport less competitive.

What would “less-competitive sport” look like in practice?  The best model that I have come across is Queer Kickabout East, a London-based football group.  In their description on Facebook, they actively discourage competitive play: “If you’re great at football, give others space to play too. Step back and try not to dominate.”; “We don’t take ourselves too seriously”; Minimal running”; Run as much as you feel”; “No apologising! No need to say sorry for missing a ball etc.”

I haven’t made it out yet to one of their weekly games at Victoria Park.  And now that the weather is getting cold, I think I am unlikely to summon up the motivation to anytime soon.  But next spring, I will be there. I may not be a netball star, but I hope to be a happy kickabout-er.