Saturday 18th April 2026
Blog Page 646

Billionaire’s Oxford donation sparks protest

0

Students, staff and councillors have raised concern with the University over its receipt of £150 million from Stephen Schwarzman, co-founder and chair of the controversial Blackstone Group.

Oxford plans to use the donation to build the ‘Stephen A. Schwarzman Centre for the Humanities’. The open letter, signed by a forty-two locals, students, staff, councillors and activist groups, academics and councillors, warns that the Centre will “be built with the proceeds of the exploitation and disenfranchisement of vulnerable people across the world.”

Schwarzman, who is estimated to be worth $12.5 billion, is a long-time supporter of Donald Trump. Blackstone, a private equity firm, has faced criticism for its unethical investments in a wide variety of areas. Senior executives at the firm earn millions of pounds per month.

An investigation by The Intercept recently revealed that Blackstone has played a role in the deforestation of the Amazon. Hidrovias, a company owned largely by Blackstone, is one of the chief beneficiaries of a controversial highway built through the heart of the Amazon rainforest to reach its shipping terminal at Miritituba. Blackstone denies allegations of complicity in the deforestation, pointing out that the road in question is owned and operated by the Brazilian government.

The UN’s special rapporteur on the right to adequate housing this year blamed Blackstone for exacerbating in America’s housing crisis. Blackstone’s full response to the allegations can be found here.

In the UK, Blackstone has attracted controversy for its role in privatised NHS services. One elderly care provider, Southern Cross, was bought by Blackstone in 2004, which earned huge profits by investing heavily in the housing market. Three years later, as the housing market bubble was about to burst, Blackstone sold its shares in Southern Cross. The company was left unable to repay its debts and eventually collapsed.

A spokesman for Blackstone told Cherwell: “Blackstone has not controlled Southern Cross since its IPO in July 2006. It was a full five years later that it ran into financial difficulties. During Blackstone’s ownership, the company experienced growth and profitability and was healthy at the time of its IPO, evidenced by the strong share price performance in the year after listing, and was viewed as one of the highest quality operators in the sector.”

Another NHS care provider acquired by Blackstone, Independent Clinical Services, was found to have used a loophole to avoid paying up to £3 million in tax in 2012 alone.

Blackstone told Cherwell that they act in full compliance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations, including proper disclosure to tax authorities. “The allegations that were put to us are false and unsupported by the facts,” a spokesman said in response to this article.

“It is through association with universities like MIT, Yale, and now Oxford, that Schwarzman seeks to legitimise these practices,” the open letter states. “Recent controversies surrounding donations by the Sackler Family and Jeffrey Epstein have shown how institutions that have ignored the concerns of their members have gone on, deservedly, to suffer significant damage to their reputations. We believe that Oxford is leaving itself open to such future damage.”

The signatories are demanding that the University release the details of its due-diligence tests for this particular donation, and how the decision was made to accept Schwarzman’s money.

A University spokesperson told Cherwell: “Mr Schwarzman has been approved by our rigorous due diligence procedures which consider ethical, legal, financial and reputational issues. You can find out more about the University’s Committee to Review Donations, which approved Mr Schwarzman, here. We have very clear policies when accepting gifts that they should not influence academic freedom or content and this gift is no exception.”

Common Ground, one of the petition’s signatories, told Cherwell that they want the University to reject the donation outright. “It is about time universities started showing due diligence regarding their funding,” they said. “The fact that it is considered so unthinkable by the Vice-Chancellor to turn down such a large sum of money demonstrates the extent to which ethical considerations and due diligence have been obscured by the number of zeros in Schwarzman’s donation.”

The spokesperson for Common Ground called on the University to consult students, staff and locals on a new framework for vetting donations: “The prestige afforded by institutions like Oxford give these figures a respectability that can’t be bought through their controversial business practices alone.

“Oxford has a close relationship with power in the UK. Association with Oxford is an association with power. Wafic Saïd, known for his use of bribery in brokering the al-Yamamah arms deal, is the subject of honorary dinners at Somerville College. This level of social acceptance can rarely be bought.”

The Stephen A. Schwarzman Centre for the Humanities will occupy the empty plot adjacent to the Radcliffe Observatory. The website for the Centre states: “The building, made possible by a landmark £150 million gift from philanthropist and businessman Stephen A. Schwarzman, demonstrates the essential role of the humanities in helping society confront and answer fundamental questions of the 21st century.”

Oxford has attracted controversy in the past for its receipt of donations earned through unethical business practices. Earlier this year, the Said Business School was gifted £15 million from billionaire arms dealer Wafic Saïd. Saïd has for decades played a key role in facilitating the arms trade between Britain and Saudi Arabia. The weapons sold through Saïd are currently being used to attack Yemen in what the UN has called the worst humanitarian crisis in the world.

In 2018, during the height of the opioid epidemic which has since killed over 70,000 Americans, Oxford decided not to reconsider its acceptance of regular donations from the Sackler family, who have been heavily implicated in fomenting the crisis. Donations only stopped in March of this year, at the initiative of the Sackler family.

A spokesperson for Blackstone told Cherwell: “At Blackstone, we invest on behalf of institutional investors around the world, including retirement systems which represent more than 31 million pensioners in the United States and millions more internationally. Responsible and sustainable investing is a central element of the firm’s culture and is reflected in the work that we do. From the day of our founding, Blackstone has dedicated itself to being a responsible corporate citizen. Our commitment to corporate responsibility is embedded into every investment decision we make.”

You can read the full text of the open letter here.

Inside an MP’s constituency surgery

0

When we consider the daily work of an MP, we tend typically to think of appearances in the House of Commons and other Westminster business: committee work, media events, and scrutinising legislation. This is especially the case at this febrile time in British politics, in which major votes in Parliament are taking place on a frequent basis and dominate the news cycle.

It is easy, then, to forget the other vital part of a politician’s job: the one based back in the constituency, meeting and acting on behalf of the people whom the MP represents. MPs hold regular constituency surgeries to talk with local people, hear their concerns, offer advice, and try to correct errors in the system which may have affected them.

So what exactly do these surgeries involve? I spent an afternoon with Anneliese Dodds, the Labour MP for Oxford East, to find out more.

**

We meet on a Friday afternoon, just off the Cowley Road in a local community centre. As constituents start arriving for their appointments, Anneliese manages to combine considerable concern for each story with a sympathetic but professional manner. Engaging and attentive, she offers each constituent her undivided attention, as a member of her team records the details of the case. She succeeds not only in offering sympathy but also in sharing the constituent’s frustration with the system. 

She remains realistic, however, about how much she is able to help in each individual case. Parliamentary notepaper can have some sway, and MPs can ensure their constituents’ cases are being handled properly by housing authorities, for example; but they are not able to intervene in individual cases or get particular constituents moved up priority lists. 

Constituents come to their MPs with a wide range of problems and have frequently run out of other options when they turn up at the doors of a surgery. Anneliese tells me of people who have come to her in desperation with bin bags full of letters from the council. In many cases the confused correspondence spans years and betrays a system which can be complicated, opaque, and profoundly difficult to navigate, especially for those who are not native speakers of English. 

Most of the cases which arrive in her surgery relate to immigration, housing, and, more recently, complications arising from Universal Credit. Since its roll-out, Anneliese tells me that her team has had ‘absolutely loads of cases. It’s just been a complete nightmare.’ The delayed payments that many faced during the early stages of Universal Credit have caused a particular problem in Oxford, with its high housing costs and tight labour market.

With great compassion, Anneliese describes the example of a single-parent family whose working mother showed up at a recent surgery. With children to feed and so much money going on rent, she had been struggling to make ends meet, and the delay to benefits due to Universal Credit left her simply unable to cope.

Over the course of the afternoon, Anneliese shows considerable understanding of all parts of her constituency. Although she was only elected MP for Oxford East in 2017 – having previously worked as an academic in King’s College London and Aston University – Anneliese is acquainted with details of the communities across the area she represents. 

Her time as a PPE student at St. Hilda’s in the late 1990s gave her one perspective on the city; and her work canvassing with the Oxford University Labour Club meant that, even before standing as an MP, she had already got to know many of the areas less visited by students. 

Anneliese is thus in a good position to understand the details of problems faced by constituents across the city. She is also well-informed about more positive aspects of Oxford life. Over the afternoon she reveals knowledge of matters ranging from the city’s various inter-faith groups to the community outreach projects put on by Holy Family Church in Blackbird Leys, for which she has great admiration.

Anneliese speaks with pride about cases in which she has made a real difference. She found it ‘hugely rewarding’ to have been able to help many local Windrush victims, for instance. A special surgery was put on to deal with that particular problem, in which she met ‘so many impressive and really interesting people’ and was glad to have been able to make a difference to their lives. 

Throughout the afternoon, the constituents show great appreciation towards Anneliese for the attention and advice she gives them. They appear grateful to have been listened to and taken seriously, in some cases after years of difficulties. Some turn up out of a sense of community spirit, having solved their problems already but anxious to explain them, seeing their MP as a means of improving the experience of others who find themselves in similar situations in future.

Does she have people coming in to talk about her work in Parliament, or to criticise particular votes she has made? ‘Yes, and often they have been really good discussions. The more hostile stuff tends to come from behind an email or a social media account.’ As with other topics that come up in surgeries, Anneliese sees real value in these face-to-face encounters with the people whom she represents. 

As we emerge back onto the Cowley Road into the early evening sunshine, Anneliese is spotted by a couple who are having a drink in a pub across the road. They erupt into a spontaneous chorus of ‘Stop Brexit!’. Anneliese breaks out into a smile and stops briefly to exchange a few remarks with them. As we say goodbye, I get a sense of her deep concern for the constituents who have just passed through her door, as well as the burden she feels of the upcoming battles in Parliament.

Oxford Citizens Assembly on Climate Change opened to members of public

0

The opportunity to observe the Oxford Citizens Assembly on Climate Change has been extended to members of the public.

Oxford City Council has opened registration to observe the Oxford Citizens Assembly on Climate Change on the weekends of 28-29 September and 19-20 October.

The citizens assembly, which will take place at Said Business School, is by invitation only and is not open to the public.

A small number of places have been made available for members of the public to attend the proceedings after high public interest in participation and in the name of transparency.

The assembly will meet in Oxford to consider new carbon targets and additional measures to reduce emissions after councillors unanimously declared a climate emergency in January.

Over the two weekends, participants will learn about climate change and explore different options to combat carbon emissions through presentations from experts and workshops.

The first of its kind in the UK, the assembly involves a randomly selected representative sample of Oxford residents.

An independent advisory group, comprised of councillors from all parties, will provide governance and oversight.

Members of the public who want to register to observe the assembly should email their name, postcode and the date they wish to attend to [email protected] with the subject line ‘Assembly observer’.

Oxford City Council will randomly select observers before 11:59pm on Friday 20th September.

All presentations will be filmed and broadcast through the council’s social media.

Turning the Pages ceremony takes place at Christ Church

0

The Turning the Pages ceremony took place at Christ Church Cathedral on Saturday to commemorate those who have lost their lives in conflict.

Veterans and relatives honoured fallen soldiers at the service arranged by the Oxfordshire Yeomanry and the Oxfordshire & Buckinghamshire Light Infantry.

The service, arranged every two months, has been held at the cathedral for years.

Started by Colonel Richard Hill, a former officer with the Royal Green Jackets, it was then passed to Colonel Mike Vince MBE.

Speaking at the ceremony in January, Major Terry Roper said: “The ceremony keeps alive the regiment and the sacrifices that these boys made.”

“We would not be here today, and we would not have the freedoms we have got today if it wasn’t for them.”

Now a regular ceremony, attendees include representatives from the British Legion and serving members of the Armed Forces.

The association now plans to expand the ceremony to commemorate Oxfordshire war veterans who lost their lives outside the two World Wars.

Solid gold toilet stolen from Blenheim Palace

0

An 18-carat gold toilet was stolen from Blenheim Palace in an overnight burglary.

The toilet entitled ‘America’, worth £1 million, was part of an exhibition by Italian conceptual artist Maurizio Cattelan.

Thieves broke into the palace in the early hours of Saturday morning, making off with the fully functioning toilet.

The burglary caused “significant damage and flooding” because the toilet was plumbed into the palace in Woodstock last week as part of the art installation.

Edward Spencer-Churchill, half-brother of the current Duke of Marlborough, said last month that he was relaxed about security for the artwork: “It’s not going to be the easiest thing to nick.”

Visitors to the exhibition were able to use the toilet, with a three-minute time limit to avoid queues.

Thames Valley Police have arrested a 66-year-old man in connection with the theft, but the artwork has not yet been found.

Blenheim Palace, the birthplace of Winston Churchill, is currently closed while investigations take place.

Detective inspector Jess Milne said: “The piece of art that has been stolen is a high value toilet made out of gold that was on display at the palace.”

“We believe a group of offenders used at least two vehicles during the offence.

“The artwork has not been recovered at this time, but we are conducting a thorough investigation to find it and bring those responsible to justice.

The toilet drew large crowds when it was exhibited at the Guggenheim Museum in New York and it was famously offered to President Trump in 2017.

Homelessness: An Undying Crisis of Invisibility

0

On a Tuesday afternoon on Bromley High Street, in London’s most south-eastern borough, It doesn’t come as a surprise to witness many of the homeless begging for the spare change of uncaring and often oblivious by-passers. Yet, this wasn’t the case just a few years ago: homelessness in Bromley is on the increase, in accordance with the trend seen across the majority of Greater London. Indeed, the rate of this increase across the capital is staggering; according to the Greater London Authority’s Chain report, 8,855 people were seen sleeping rough in the city during 2018-19, an increase of 1,371 from the previous year.

At the time Dawn became homeless, she was one of 8,096 people sleeping rough across the year in London. She’d been living in Hampshire and had just been refused the renewal of her lease because her landlady had alternative wishes for the property. With Dawn losing the custody of her son, and her daughter being given up for adoption, things all became too much. Dawn found herself dealing with a mental breakdown, following which she was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder.

“I’d come to London because I was really not well, mentally. I was scared of everything, scared of going out, scared of doing things. With that breakdown, it was the scariest place I’ve ever been in, in my life.”

With few options, Dawn asked the local council whether she would be entitled to the same accommodation options in London as she was in Hampshire. They replied that she would, but did not inform her that she would have to wait for the bailiffs to arrive before leaving in order to be classified as being “unintentionally homeless” when she then pursued accommodation options. 

“When I went to (the council in London), they said, ‘No, you’ve made yourself intentionally homeless (because you didn’t wait for the bailiffs in Hampshire)’. Then they wouldn’t help me. They stitched me up. I didn’t know what to do, I still don’t know what to do.”

Dawn was temporarily staying at an ex-boyfriend’s house as she attempted to deal with the tail-end of her mental breakdown but was forced onto the streets after falling out with him one day, which she said made her feel “terrified.” “I think the only thing that kept me from doing that [committing suicide] was my kids. Even though I ain’t got my children, they was the only thing I think that was keeping me a little bit sane. If it weren’t for them, I think I would have ended up killing myself, I really would have.”

However, Dawn has kept her homelessness a secret from her five children. Even her 15-year-old son, the only family member with whom she is in regular contact with, is not aware of her living situation. Dawn makes a special effort to speak to him at least once or twice a week, visiting the local library to contact him via the internet.

“He’d just worry. He suffers from depression and I don’t want to worry him. I don’t want them knowing. And I can’t even dry my hair. I ain’t got money or nowhere to do that.” 

The homelessness crisis isn’t entirely evident to all who pass by. 74-year-old Patricia, who has lived in the area all her life, argues that, whilst there are more homeless people now than there used to be, the government is doing enough to help.

“That girl there,” she says, pointing to Dawn. “She must have a family somewhere. Why don’t her family support her? Maybe she’s done something horrible they don’t agree with.”

For Dawn, family life before homelessness wasn’t simple either. As a child, Dawn was raised by her grandfather, a man she says was “everything” to her.

“I didn’t know what a mum was till I was about six. My mum, when she took us back, saw me as the black sheep. I wasn’t part of the family. I left home at 13 to live with my boyfriend. She pushed me out to move in with her man, when I was 13 and he was 21. That’s bad, isn’t it?”

Around the time her mum reappeared in her life, Dawn also began to be sexually abused by her cousin, from the ages of six to eleven.

“It’s hard to trust,” she says of the impact it has had on her other relationships, including with her son’s father, who she says physically and emotionally abused her. 

“But I thought that (physical abuse) messed something up in my life, and I wouldn’t let him ruin any more of it.”

Dawn is relatively new to the Bromley area, having come to the borough around Christmas 2018 to join her boyfriend, Kenneth, who is also homeless. She says she has to avoid certain accommodation options available due to a recent influx of alcoholics and drug addicts. She has previously suffered from addiction to heroin and Valium herself, as has Kenneth, who currently struggles with an addiction to the prescription drugs he has been using to treat his back problem.

Whenever they can get the money together, Dawn and Kenneth stay in a hostel, where they are able to change and shower – however this is difficult, as it depends on how much money they can make on the streets. Dawn says they don’t always beg, if they find somewhere to stay, like “a car that’s had its wheels taken off,” they’ll spend some time there for a bit of respite. 

“There’s so much of it that people switch off,” says Kenneth. “People get immune and they get numb to that ‘Can you spare any change?’ question. People get numb to it, if you hear it too much. And you become invisible, you know what I mean?”

However, Kenneth takes a slightly different approach – he doesn’t say anything to try and stop passers-by, but just thanks those who do stop to make a donation.

“People can see for themselves my situation and if they want to help, then I’m happy about that, but if they don’t, then I understand that too.”

He acknowledges that living on the streets has become a way of life for him, describing how he has become accustomed to it over time.

“I think the worst thing about it is that it gets easier. In the beginning it’s hard because you don’t really know what to do or where to go. When you try to find a place or find somewhere to live, you try everywhere you can and you get nothing back. You get really disillusioned with it. And you give up, basically.”

Before Kenneth became homeless, he was living in a room in Bromley, and was relying on Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), which Dawn also claimed.

“The benefits changed from ESA to Universal Credit and there was a long gap of maybe 2 months or something before they pay you. In that gap, I couldn’t pay my rent at all.”

After staying with friends for a few nights, he took to the streets after realising he couldn’t keep staying with them in the long-term.

“I stayed out the first night and it wasn’t too bad because it was kind of warm, and I’ve kind of been out here ever since.”

Like Dawn, Kenneth has also tried various avenues for help, and says he is unable to get out of his situation because he is not a priority. 

“Everywhere I go, I try to find accommodation or whatever. I don’t have much luck. They seem to think I’m not a priority, but I think I am a priority. I just feel like everywhere, they’re trying to push you onto someone else. You’re just ticking their boxes. It’s more about them than it is about me.”

Under previous UK legislation, priority groups such as pregnant women, people with dependent children and “vulnerable” individuals must be provided with emergency housing – something non-priority cases like Kenneth were not entitled to. This changed with the introduction of the Homelessness Reduction Act in 2018, which obliged councils to provide assistance to all the homeless. In addition to this, the government provided almost £73 million to help councils carry this out– although think tank the New Local Government Authority found that almost two-thirds of councils thought this was not enough.

Whilst such legislation provides an important step forward, there are still several root causes of homelessness which remain at play. The independent organisation Homeless Impact recently highlighted a number of these, such as the lack of social and affordable housing, and the freezing of the Local Housing Allowance until 2020, due to the fact that some areas do not have available properties which fall within the remit of the allowance provided. Austerity policies under the Conservative government, which cut council funding sharply and forced them to redistribute funds, have long been blamed by activists for the increase in homelessness. Even the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government James Brokenshire admitted in December 2018 that the government needed to ask itself “some very hard questions” about the policy, which had also led to numerous benefit cuts.

Although Kenneth has previously worked as a fitness trainer and plasterer, he is unable to get a job as he never knows where he is going to be from one day to the next, and also suffers from mental health problems in addition to his back issues. Following one particularly bad breakdown, he was sectioned for a few months but was then released, returning straight back onto the streets.

“They decided there was nothing wrong with me, but somebody must have decided there was in the beginning since they got me to go there. With me and my situation, and you haven’t got say family or support, nobody’s going to ask questions. You’re not going to be missed. That’s the scary part of it.”

However, despite the lack of support, he says he can “see the best in people” in Bromley. Just then, a woman stops him on her way to the gym to ask if he would like a cup of tea, and he nods, beamingly. Minutes later, she returns out of breath with a hot cup of tea.

“You get people like that, really good people. She’ll buy me food, or a drink, a good woman. And you get a lot of that here.”

Dawn agrees, fretting over whether she remembered to say thank you to a lady who stopped to give her some change a few minutes ago.

Kenneth says that, despite receiving kindness from many, he has often been on the receiving end of orchestrated attacks. “When I was sleeping I’ve been urinated on. Somebody set my tent on fire. It just went up like a bonfire. When I was in the tent, I could hear them and the next thing you know, I heard like a lighter and the corner of my tent went up. Obviously, I jumped out. And they found it funny. Four of them they were, and they found it funny.”

He says the reason he’s suffered such attacks is because being homeless makes you an easy target, as you are cut off from society and have nobody to turn to for help. 
“I find that really unacceptable. I’m already on the floor, I’m already in the gutter as it is. And I feel like anyone picking on me, it’s the lowest you can get, really.”

A few metres away from Dawn and Kenneth, in the doorway of Tesco, sits 46-year-old Jimmy Smith, who has been homeless for 4 years. His life on the streets began after a stint in prison for “bad things,” and he had nowhere to go when he came out.

“I’ve been a very violent man. I am what I look like. But I’m too old for all that now, so I just sit here and try and get my little bit of money together.”

Jimmy manages to get into hostel once or twice a week, just like Dawn and Kenneth.

“It was very difficult starting life on the streets. Trusting society is very difficult. I had to sit and beg. I’ve got to get at least a tenner tonight to get into a hostel. I’ve got about £9 to go, £9.20.”However, Jimmy thinks most people are not very forthcoming with donations at the moment. “Most people don’t even look at me,” he says, echoing Kenneth’s statement of invisibility on the streets. 

For 18-year-old student, Ovis Mahmood, who stops to give Dawn some spare change, the increase in the number of homeless people is shocking but not surprising, and he says he “never used to see [homeless people].”

 “[The increase] is probably happening in all the London boroughs,” he adds. 

He’s not entirely wrong. Bromley recorded the fourth-lowest number of rough sleepers for an outer London borough, with 47 people documented in the Chain report for 2018-19. This is a number that has remained fairly constant in recent years. Although there are many reasons for homelessness, such as relationship breakdowns and major health issues. After the rolling out of austerity in 2010, 5,678 rough sleepers were tracked by charity Crisis in 2011-12. Back then, Bromley had less than half its current number of rough sleepers, with only twenty-two. This staggering increase holds true for most outer London boroughs, with Barnet recording a 2018-19 figure more than four times its 2011-12 number.

“I don’t think I’m getting a fair deal,” says Kenneth. “It’s the government’s fault. Because no one should be homeless really, not when there’s so many places empty.”

Dawn agrees, saying that she “ain’t got a clue” why homelessness is increasing, but unequivocally affirms that the government is not doing enough.

“No, definitely not. I don’t think they ever have, really. They need to pull their finger out a bit more.”

However, she and Kenneth do their best to remain positive, with both affirming that they do see a future which does not involve rough sleeping. Kenneth says he is going to get in touch with Adult Welfare, as he has recently been given their contact number, and Dawn says that she will try to get an advocate to help her with her benefits claim. 

“I feel like I’m sitting here waiting for an opportunity to come,” says Kenneth. “And I think one will come. And if it does, obviously I’m going to take it.”

“I just want to get my old life back,” says Dawn, who is also a self-confessed foodie and says she would love to visit India again one day, having been there about ten years ago.

“I just want to go back to Hampshire and be with my son. If I get off the streets, I’ll have my life better than I ever had it before. It will happen.” 

Names have been changed in this article to protect the individuals’ identities.


Christ Church blasted by former minister

0

Jonathan Aitken, who was both an MP and Chief Secretary to the Treasury under John Major, has accused his former college Christ Church of misusing funds in a fight against their own dean, Martyn Percy. 

Aitken wrote a letter to the Charity Commission, in which it is claimed that the college had already spent £1.6 million on the case and it is “probable that the Governing Body will have to pay more than £2 million of its charitable funds”.

In the letter, Aitken wrote the following; “The scandal of wrongful charitable governance at Christ Church has grown, is continuing to grow and will soon become notorious as a result of media coverage, action by angry members of the wider Christ Church community, withdrawal of support by charitable donors and possible questions in Parliament.” 

“The question I and many other concerned observers of this scandal now want to know is: What is the Charity Commission doing about it?” 

Aitken was particularly critical of the attempt to have ‘large parts of the Tribunal’s report censored or redacted’, dubbing this ‘the worst part of the Christ Church scandal so far’.

Alongside his letter to the charity commission, Aitken gave Cherwell the following comment, “Like many members of the Christ Church Alumni Association, I regard it as a scandal of governance that the full Governing Body of the College has been refused sight of a full, unredacted copy of the Tribunal’s findings and reasons for clearing the Dean of all charges.”

“The notion that a small cabal of anti-Dean Dons can censor the Tribunal’s report is an attempt at self-serving protection for themselves because they are severely criticised in the Appendices of the report.”

“The wounds at Christ Church need to be healed, in the longer term, by a sustained effort by all parties towards truth and reconciliation. This remains impossible as long as the truth contained in the Tribunal’s findings is not allowed to be seen by the Governing Body. In my mind the big question is: ‘Can the Governing Body govern itself?”

A statement from the Charity commission in response to Aitken letter said that: “While the trustees in this case appear to have followed the charity’s rules, the large sums reportedly spent on the tribunal are of concern. We have therefore told the trustees to set out the actual costs involved and explain how they oversaw and controlled them.”

The charity commission added more recently that they “told the trustees of Christ Church to undertake a review of the charity’s governance. It is good practice for all charities to undertake such a review from time to time. We will not be involved in the review directly, but we expect the trustees to report to us on its outcome.”

When contacted for comment, a spokesperson for Christ Church said that, “As required by Christ Church’s Statutes, an internal tribunal was convened to consider a complaint raised against the Dean, which was subsequently dismissed. We are not yet in a position to confirm the total costs, but can confirm that the legal costs are being met out of Christ Church’s unrestricted funds and will not be directly funded by any donations.”

In a recent letter to undergraduates, Dean Martyn Percy said: “I am writing to thank you for your support of Christ Church over these past months. This has not been an easy year for the House, but I want to reassure you that we are committed to Christ Church and its flourishing. Like a family, even in the midst of difficult times, we retain our core purposes and identity.

“It will take time to reflect on the events of the past year, and we would ask you to allow us the space to do this. The House will need to carefully consider the tribunal process and, more generally, its governance arrangements. The latter will be reviewed through an independent review as has been recommended by the Charity Commission. I ask you to please bear with us whilst we undertake this important work. As you can appreciate, we will not be commenting further until the review has been concluded.”

A Very British Coup

0

In Mike Bartlett’s 2014 play, Charles III, the nation is plunged into constitutional crisis as the fictional king withholds royal assent from a bill which would limit the freedom of the press. Wrestling between his sense of public duty and his constitutional ability to pursue what he deems the moral choice, King Charles undermines a century of constitutional precedent and exploits the royal prerogative to stop the bill – and revolution breaks out. Whilst this is may be mere fiction, such treacherous politics does not currently sit too far from our reality; just last week, remainers in the Commons showed zealous support for a very similar plan.

Remainers were supposedly once the liberal moderates of British politics. With this status in mind, what could possibly have driven their hardcore wing to call on Her Majesty to defy a Prime Minister, in a scheme which sounded more like a bad Radio 4 drama than centrist politics? Only hours before this farce, Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s plan to prorogue Parliament, in a bid to inhibit MPs from preventing a no-deal Brexit, had been revealed. For one bizarre moment, the Queen appeared to be the only way out.

The first problem for the public was how to hashtag the event; a crisis we find ourselves in every time British politics switches on its pantomime mode. While politicians were falling over each other at the door of Balmoral, Twitter was struggling with its conjugations. Prerogue? Proroge? Prorogue. #prorogue? #prorogation? The Google Trend shot to peak interest rapidly. 

The second problem was that this was all, well, entirely legal.

The royal prerogative – long the concern of only constitutional scholars and the occasional politics A-Level student – is one of the more arcane peculiarities of the British constitution (or, rather, lack of). Yet, it is simultaneously the founding principle of executive government in our country. Defined broadly as the authority, privilege, and immunity of the monarch, its real practical significance is the monarch’s ability to refuse assent for a law passed by parliament. Political power is exercised by the Crown-in-Parliament, and the Queen governs on the advice of her ministers; this means that, in practice, she gives her assent to any law that Parliament passes. However, the Queen has one secret weapon: supreme political authority. When the new Prime Minister prorogued Parliament last week in order to lubricate the passage of a no-deal Brexit and by-pass the Tory infighting that has plagued the EU debate, the Queen’s overruling power was the sole weapon that Remainer Twitter hoped might be brought to use.

It doesn’t matter if the remainers were serious in their aspirations. It matters that the Queen was, for a moment, a viable way out. It’s a drama fit for the stage, not for Parliament, and it looks like something out of another century. Both opposing sides had put all their hopes in covert elements of our uncodified constitution: the Brexiteers in proroguing Parliament, and the Remainers in the possibility of the Queen saying ‘no’. 

Although surprising to most of us, proroguing Parliament is a weapon that Prime Ministers have used before. Though more associated with Charles I and the Civil War, it has been used as recently as 1997, when John Major used it to avoid the Cash for Questions scandal. This is, ironically, the very same John Major who last week joined Gina Miller, of Brexit legal-challenge fame, in challenging the prorogation in the courts. This was, undoubtedly, a noble aim, yet one which Major must surely have known was doomed to failure, as a consequence of his own hypocrisy. Yet just as the prospect of an unelected Prime Minister preventing the legislature from sitting to consider a bill which might undermine his legislative agenda is an insult to representative democracy, so is the prospect of either side using the Queen – an unelected, hereditary and typically ceremonial monarch – to block or encourage Brexit legislation. 

Parliament is now currently being prorogued for a whole month, thanks to an ancient constitutional procedure. The Commons tried to stop a no-deal Brexit, and Boris Johnson responded in the most cruelly logical way possible: by purging his own party. He soldiered, or perhaps snowballed on, with a majority of negative 43. Tories as blue-blooded as Nicholas Soames, the grandson of no other than Churchill, found themselves rejected by a party they no longer recognised – not unlike the Yvette Coopers of the opposite benches. The purge was self-perpetuating: Amber Rudd quit the government and the Tory Whip, either martyring herself or conveniently regenerating her reputation following the Windrush scandal. Johnson clamoured for an election: ignoring the absolute inevitability of a hung parliament, an election presented the opportunity to get the majority he needed to “get on with it”. But Parliament wouldn’t let him; Boris was left scuppered, again by the inconvenience of a majority having purged his own party. 

Although surrounded on all sides, the Prime Minister didn’t stop there. Far from offering more funding to schools, social care, state pensions or any other friendly institution which might distract from the Tories’ internal implosion, he chose to make a speech against a backdrop of police recruits. To say the least, the PR wasn’t positive. One recruit fainted, having waited in the sun for an hour for a Prime Minister who seems to treat public engagements like the editor’s desk of the Spectator. If a backdrop of the police forces wasn’t dystopian enough, Johnson’s failure to aid the fainting woman didn’t help. To top this all off, his speech was, well, shabby.

The blunders of the rest of the week are so many as to blur into one. First of all, the new PM proved that he’s still not quite outgrown Eton, labelling the leader of the opposition a “great big girl’s blouse”. Neither has he outgrown Oxford, as documents were published showing the PM to have described David Cameron, who famously beat him to a first, as a “girly swot”. ‘Stop the coup’ protests continued across the country. 

Johnson’s failures have not only humiliated his premiership, his right-hand man and his party, but have given Britain the most viable opposition its had in years. Whilst Jeremy Corbyn appeared, for the first time, as the most competent leader in PMQs, Jo Swinson raked in the new defections – the most in the Lib Dems’ history. 

Britain is left to its third Tory PM in as many years, with a majority-less Prime Minister who has more respect for the counsel of his Moriarty-wannabe right hand man, Dominic Cummings, than the grandees who he fired from his party. Chaos with Ed Miliband looks quite appealing after all. 

The peculiarities of the English constitution have made their way from theatre to the theatre of politics; the decisions which provoke revolution in Charles IIIare mild in comparison to the realities of the past two weeks. To steal the words of another political drama, it’s all a Very British Coup. 

Britain’s curious constitutional framework holds ultimate responsibility for the drama of the last week. We are very good at concentrating on the ceremonial role of the monarchy, their extravagant weddings and their private jet flights, rather than on the ultimate constitutional power which an activist monarch could exercise at any time. We typically assume that such a monarch would provoke revolution, as in Charles III. But during the month in which Parliament was prorogued, Philip Hammond was kicked out the Tory party and Jacob Rees-Mogg turned up at Balmoral, can we really be so sure?

The English constitution relies far too heavily on tradition, convention, and the Queen not stepping out of line to be an active player in politics. Such flexibility has traditionally been its strength: Britain banned handguns with a simple majority, whilst the American constitution all but prevents gun control. Critically, the guardians of the British constitution are MPs (though the role of the Supreme Court grows); the guardians of the US constitution are political appointees who serve for life. 

Such flexibility means that the fundamentals of the constitution have remained largely intact for the past 500 years. The constitutional reforms of New Labour introduced some rigidity with devolution and the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, but none struck the sanctity of the simple majority.

The simple majority has been Brexit’s greatest hurdle from the start: there was no majority for May’s deal or for no-deal – only for some sort of pipe-dream deal that doesn’t exist. This very hurdle is preventing Johnson from calling an election, even with his negative parliamentary majority. 

The ways in which different nations have sought to subvert this fundamental democratic principle are based inextricably within their political culture. Proroguing Parliament under the guise of a Queen’s speech reminds us that the procedures of the British constitution have hardly developed since the Civil War; indeed, they have hardly developed since the very founding of America. This says almost as much about our political culture as Jacob Rees-Mogg turning up to Balmoral in a double-breasted suit to lobby the Queen, then falling asleep later during a Parliamentary debate. For a PM with the tactics of a Union hack and the attitude of a columnist, a constitutional loophole to avoid a majority is an obvious tactic – and one which says more about our political culture than anything else. 

It’s tempting to visualise the way Brexit would play out if Britain had the constitution of America: constitutional amendments, two-thirds majorities and perhaps a major constitutional convention. There would be procedure, in a way which doesn’t exist in Britain. But to imagine this is to ignore the predestiny of the Brexit process: with a constitution like ours, there would never have been any other way. 

But perhaps no constitutional arrangement would be better. Perhaps we might be better off with constitution which tends towards conservatism, thanks to a Supreme Court bench whose simple majority is right-wing, such as in the US. Or maybe we require a political culture whose tradition of popular action means strikes prevent almost any meaningful change, as in France. Every democracy has its own methods of self-inhibition – isn’t it fitting that ancient procedure should be our methodology?

British politics is founded in a ceremony of traditional power which we would very much like to ignore. Yet, the past two weeks have forced us to acknowledge that we can no longer remain ignorant. We are compelled, now, to recognise the fragility of our political framework, and understand the inconvenient truth that the Queen, and words such as ‘proroguing’, are still as relevant as ever before.

Oxford University tops global rankings for fourth year running

0

The University of Oxford ranked first in the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings for the fourth year running.

According to the data provider, the classification is the result of a compilation of “13 carefully calibrated performance indicators” which include “teaching, research, knowledge transfer and international outlook.”

The 2020 list sees the University of Cambridge fall to third place, behind the California Institute of Technology in the United States, which is up three places from last year. The rest of the top ten is comprised entirely of American universities, including Harvard, Stanford and Yale – apart from Imperial College London, which falls one place from its 2019 ranking to stand in tenth place.

Despite improvements reported across Europe by the organisers, with Italian representation improving and Germany remaining strong. The German government’s Excellence Initiative, which gives additional funding to universities, is reported to have helped in this respect, sas have European Union research grants.

However, they warn “the UK faces declines” despite continuing to occupy two of the top three places. They note that the UK has 28 universities in the top 200, six fewer than in the 2016 rankings – and that 18 of the 28 have fallen in the rankings since last year.

China is the leading Asian contender, with Tsinghua University and Peking University at numbers 23 and 24 respectively, with several universities rising in the ranks since 2019.

Meanwhile, Brunei, Cuba, Malta, Montenegro, Puerto Rico and Vietnam were among the countries to be represented for the first time in this year’s rankings, which include almost 1,400 universities in more than 92 countries.

Review: Lover by Taylor Swift

0

‘I’ve been sleeping in a twenty-year night/now I see daylight.’ After the series of messy public spats that have characterized Swift’s public persona since 2016, her recent album seems like a new dawn. Her last album Reputation was a product that, for all its creative ingenuity, was a confusing mix of poignant love songs and petty callouts. Now, in Lover, Swift has created an album that captures the exhilaration of love – be it for boyfriend or best friend. Refreshingly there exists a lack of antagonists. Even her break-up songs focus on ‘saying good-bye’ (‘Death by a Thousand Cuts’) rather than a war cry. Whilst the album spans a few dud tracks (attempts to broaden her reach with conventional pop creates a forgettable mono-sound in ‘ME!’ and ‘You Need To Calm Down’), when Swift leans into her strengths, Lover brings us some of her best songs yet.

Her first song ‘I Forgot that You Existed’ is a pop-y, light-hearted nod to the ‘nightmare’ (Swift’s words) era of her life that produced Reputation. A clap-back song but barely with the punch of a long-held breath finally released, she establishes continuity with her last album while switching out light piano chords and finger snaps for trap, indifference for bitterness. It certainly would have been a much better first introduction to the album than the hemorrhage-inducing ‘ME!’ (its bridge – ‘Hey kids, spelling is fun!’ remains unforgivable, even if it has been quietly removed from most versions). If ‘I Forgot’ is the song you listen to when you’re in your happy place, then ‘ME’ is what you sing along to at a pre’s whilst pretending to be ‘fine’ before an inevitable nightclub meltdown.

It’s a relief to hear Swift spend more time where her strength lies in songs like ‘I Think He Knows’ and the pop-punk ‘Paper Rings’. I’d tentatively make this a trifecta with ‘London Boy’, although some Londoners made the point that, for those with the local knowledge, its rogue name-dropping stretches romanticism to the point of ridiculous. The giddiness of these songs are just so much fun. Reminiscent of ‘Dress’ and ‘Delicate’, they showcase a unique gift of Swift’s; she’s so invigorated by the concept of falling in love, it’s difficult not to get swept up in the excitement too. Her juxtaposition of personal detail and ubiquitous experience – ‘The moon is high like your friends were the night that we first met/Went home and tried to stalk you on the internet’ – is as winsome as ever. In her slower songs, pushing her signature synth-heavy style in new directions reaps reward, most interestingly in the St. Vincent co-written, straight up ethereal ‘Cruel Summer’. Elsewhere, ‘It’s Nice to Have a Friend’, completely stripped back, sounds like nothing she’s done before with a nostalgia that brings listeners right back to Fearless tracks like ‘The Best Day’.

In spite of the pastel theme then, this is a grown-up Taylor, more experienced, more introspective and, perhaps allowed by this self-assurance, more vulnerable. Confessing her uncertainty for the future of her mother’s battle with cancer, she sings ‘Holy orange bottles, each night I pray to you/Desperate people find faith so now I pray to Jesus too’.  It was always her naked emotion that allowed audiences to easily connect to her music, and she deploys this in half-sung, half-whispered with sledge-hammer effect in ‘Soon You’ll Get Better’. Starting most prominently with ‘You Need to Calm Down’, Swift has taken an overt public political stance for the first time in her career, prompting the US president to claim he now likes her music ‘25% less’. In ‘The Man’, Swift unequivocally claims that she, along with other high-profile women, face double standards in media representation, a claim with which this author agrees. In her most complex song, ‘Miss Americana and the Heartbreak Prince’, her decision to set her state-of-the-nation song in a Fearless-style Highschool allows it to be ‘meta’ as well as metaphorical. Showing America’s Sweetheart’s personal disillusionment with American nationalism, she sighs ‘Boys will be boys then, where are the wise men? Honey I’m scared.’ Us too Taylor, us too.

From pop to experimental to country and back, a careful structure pins the tracks together to allow the album to be eclectic without falling into complete incoherence. Colour exists as a thematic motif – bright christmas lights in ‘Lover’, indigo eyes in ‘I Think He Knows’, and it is in her final track that this is pulled together: ‘I once believed love would be black and white… believed love would be burning red. But it’s golden. Like daylight, like daylight’

Paying tribute to Reputation and Red, Swift is celebrating a new kind of maturity, allowing for both vulnerability and empathy. Because of this, it is in Lover that Swift has best distilled the spectrum that makes up music’s most celebrated emotion.