Saturday 19th July 2025
Blog Page 65

61% of Oxford tutorials done via short term contracts with ‘poverty pay’, UCU finds

0

61% of Oxford University tutorials are taught by non-permanent academics, with 20% done by hourly-paid tutors, according to Freedom of Information requests from the University and College Union based on responses from 24 colleges. The data reveals difficult pay and working conditions for Oxford academic staff criticised as “Deliveroo-style” by UCU general secretary Jo Grady, who told the Observer that “academics are exploited into working on poverty pay”.

These findings follow a 2023 UCU report that finds hourly-paid college tutors had a real wage between £8.42 to £12.63 when preparation time for tutorials is considered in addition to the actual contact hours. Further, only 36% of casualised workers’ wages were above the Oxford Living Wage. The trade union described the situation as an “acute crisis” that “demands immediate action”.

Academic staff at colleges and the Oxford University Department for Continuing Education can be employed on fixed-term or hourly contracts, which offer more flexibility and reduce long-term financial commitments. The UCU argues that this limits job security, career progression, and access to benefits. 

The UCU is currently running a campaign to reduce the level of casualisation which has seen an increase in short-term contracts for Oxford academics. Over 500 students and staff signed an UCU open letter calling for measures to restrict casualisation at the University in April 2024.

Such contracts further create a “diversity deficit” among Oxford academics because it is harder for people from disadvantaged backgrounds to financially support themselves in such a role, a 2023 Cherwell investigation found. Notably, 74% of women were on fixed-term contracts compared to 61% of men, while 83% of BME staff were on fixed-term contracts compared to 61% of white staff.

A tutor told Cherwell that the quality of teaching is also affected: “I know from experience that it’s much easier to do that work well when you don’t have to split your attention between the present, the impending end of your contract, and the level of your bank account.” 

Oxford’s Pro-Vice Chancellor for Education Professor William Martin told Cherwell: “The academic quality of an Oxford education is extremely high, with the University rated first for teaching in the most recent UK National Student Survey results. We recognise that this is based on our committed academics and staff at all levels. We are determined that they are all rewarded and supported appropriately.

“The far-reaching recommendations of our Pay & Conditions review are already being implemented, including the introduction of an Oxford weighting payment, with our initial focus on areas of greatest need and impact, particularly for our lowest paid staff. We will continue to engage with our colleges regarding teaching positions that are college-only appointments.”

Rent in Oxford becomes more affordable despite cost of living crisis

0

Private rent in Oxford became more affordable last year than before despite the increase in cost of living. The recent report from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) measures affordability by rent as a percentage of household income, so while those living on rising wages are better off, students who do not have increased income are not.

By measuring affordability as the proportion of household income being spent on rent, the ONS data shows that rents became more affordable last year: In 2023, households were spending 38.9% of their income on rent, as opposed to 42.5% in 2022.

The average monthly rent in Oxford rose from £1,500 in 2021 to £1,612 in 2023, in line with rent increases across the country. Meanwhile, average salaries have risen too. Nationwide, there was a 6.2% increase in weekly earnings from 2022 to 2023. 

This comes in the midst of a cost of living crisis, which saw an increase in day-to-day living costs, notably a spike in food prices in 2023 in contrast with the preceding years. Energy tariffs, another day-to-day necessity, rose sharply too. 

Oxford students, however, have only experienced the rise in rent and not the rise in wages. A student who rents privately told Cherwell that he did not find Oxford rents to be affordable. He continued to outline the problems he faced: “The house wasn’t cleaned at all upon moving in. The agency charged the previous student tenants £500 from their deposit to get the place cleaned, but it didn’t happen.”

Nonetheless, he said that he preferred privately renting to staying in college accommodation as it worked out to the same price due to “the additional costs that college accommodation has such as meal deposits and Vacation Residence,” especially considering “the lack of a proper kitchen”.

Despite this data, Oxford remains one of the most expensive places to live in the UK. The city faces a serious homelessness problem, regularly appearing as one of the top 5 areas in the UK for the proportion of the population rough-sleeping. The homelessness charity Oxford Gatehouse cites high rents as one of the reasons for this. The local council plans to build over 10,000 homes in the next 15 years to deal with the problem.

Largest ever UK study identifies social, ethnic discrepancies in lung cancer diagnosis

0

Oxford scientists conducted the largest ever UK study on lung cancer diagnoses that has revealed severe social and ethnic disparities, marking a significant step towards improving healthcare inequalities.  

The study found that people from the most deprived areas were twice as likely to develop lung cancer than those from the most affluent areas. Furthermore, people from deprived areas had a 35% higher risk of being diagnosed with more aggressive forms of the disease. 

Conducted by Oxford’s Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Science, it included over 17.5 million people and more than 84,000 cases, making it the most comprehensive study into lung cancer in the UK.  

Research leader Daniel Chen explained to Cherwell the reasons for this pattern: “This is likely due to a combination of factors: Higher smoking prevalence in these [deprived] communities, greater barriers to healthcare access, and increased exposure to environmental risks (poor air quality, exposure to secondhand smoke, etc).” 

Ethnic disparities were also identified, such as Bangladeshi men showing the highest lung cancer rates. A correlation between type of diagnosis and ethnicity was also discovered: Women were more likely to be diagnosed, as well as those identifying as BAME were twice as likely to be diagnosed with adenocarcinoma than those identifying as white. The researchers believe this highlights the role of genetic predisposition in lung cancer.

The study was published as the NHS releases its Targeted Lung Health Check Programme, which aims to detect cancer earlier, when it is more treatable, by focusing screening on areas of social deprivation.  

The new research also highlights the need to consider other aspects of identity, the report stating: “[Taken] together, our results have implications not only for targeting smoking prevention and cessation interventions in an accessible way, but also ensuring equitable delivery of the new lung cancer screening programme especially for women, those from ethnic minority groups and deprived areas to avoid exacerbating health inequalities.” 

Chen told Cherwell: “There has been a research gap in understanding the role of ethnicity in cancer, not specifically within the NHS but more generally. This is largely due to the under-representation of ethnic minority groups in research, often resulting in small sample sizes and limited data for assessing impacts across these populations.” 

He explained that, while previous research has considered ethnicity as a factor, it has nonetheless been insufficient due to regional focus and limited samples. In this Oxford study, however, researchers used QResearch data from over 1,000 practices and more than 10 million patients, enabling a “comprehensive, nationwide view” of these disparities.

Medicine applications decrease, more mature and international students apply

0

The number of 18-year-olds applying for early deadline courses, including Oxford, Cambridge, and medicine has fallen, new UCAS data reveals. Despite this, there has been a 1.3% increase in overall applications, with the number of mature applicants (over 21 years old) rising by 3% and international applications rising by 4.7%.

Applications to medicine courses have fallen by 3.3% – the lowest number since 2020. The peak demand for studying undergraduate medicine was during the COVID-19 pandemic, and this figure has slowly declined since. For Oxford University, medicine has one of the highest number of applicants per place at Oxford; it is also the only course subject to a government restriction on the number of international students admitted for fees purposes.

Of international students, China remains the largest demographic applying to early deadline courses, and has seen a 14% increase from last year’s statistics. UCAS Chief Executive Dr Jo Saxton said: “It’s welcome news to see that global confidence in the UK’s higher education sector remains strong, with an increase in international undergraduate applicants to UK universities and colleges for early deadline courses.”

The number of applications from 18-year-old students of disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds (in the POLAR 4, Quintile 1 classification) has remained the same. UCAS has also introduced a new free school meals waiver, allowing students who received free school meals within the past six years to skip the £28.50 application fee.

Saxton said: “As the rising cost-of-living continues to present challenges to everyone, particularly those suffering financial hardship, I am keen to ensure that at UCAS, we do everything we can to support students in taking their next step.”

In Oxford’s 2023 -2024 admissions cycle, 21.2% of UK undergraduates came from the “least advantaged backgrounds”, with 7.6% of these being eligible for free school meals.Recently, the Labour Government’s Education Secretary announced that tuition fees will go up to £9,535 – or 3.1% – for home students in England starting from next year, marking the first increase in eight years.

University’s ethical investments review opens up to student input

0

The Ethical Investment Representations Review Subcommittee (EIRRS) is conducting a review of the University’s current policy prohibiting direct investment into companies that manufacture illegal arms, according to the University newsletter Gazette. Students are invited to provide input in the upcoming weeks through webinars and a form, and the report will be published in Hilary Term 2025.

The decision to form this report was made in June following months of protests and two encampments by Oxford Action for Palestine (OA4P). At the time, OA4P stated that the decision was “a direct response to the mass movement of students, faculty, and staff across the University calling for disclosure and divestment”.

The current strategy was put in place in 2010 by the now defunct Socially Responsible Investment Review Committee (SRIRC) in light of escalating world conflict. SCRIC had faced student pressure to maintain the University’s ethical standards by prohibiting investments into companies which invest into illegal arms. They proposed that the University follow the guidelines set by the Munitions (Prohibition) Act 2010 and the Landmines Act 1998.

In response, the SRIRC produced a report declaring the University’s intention not to invest directly in companies that manufacture weapons or munitions prohibited under Arms Control Treaties, to which the UK is a signatory. Following a committee meeting in 2011, the terms of the report were tightened to ban investments into companies whose actions were illegal under UK law, even if they were legal in the place of the weapons’ manufacture.

The new report by the EIRRS, which has since replaced the SRIRC involves opportunities for student engagement, involving an form offering questions such as ‘‘What should be considered a ‘controversial weapon’ beyond those already banned under UK law?” and “Do you think the UK government should expand the type of weapons that are illegal?”. The suggestion is that the University may expand its list of companies to refuse investment from beyond those that directly contravene existing arms treaties. Students can submit comments until the end of the Michaelmas term.

Additionally webinars this week allow students to ask questions of Oxford’s investment approach, aiming to contextualise the review and help students formulate ideas for submissions.

Ashmolean Museum raises £4.48m to keep Fra Angelico painting

0

Oxford’s Ashmolean Museum has raised £4.48 million to prevent Renaissance painting The Crucifixion by Fra Angelico from being sold to an overseas buyer, narrowly meeting its 29th October deadline.

The Ashmolean had nine months to meet the deadline after the then-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport placed an export licence deferral on the work in January, delaying its leaving the country.

The artwork has been owned by a private British collection for the last 200 years. Director of the Ashmolean Xa Sturgis said the Italian work “essentially belongs to the [UK]”.

The Ashmolean bought the painting in a private treaty sale. The sum was raised owing to the museum’s Chairman Lord Lupton CBE, grants from the National Heritage Memorial Fund, the Art Fund, the Headley Trust, and various other donations.

Sturgis called the acquisition of the painting a “really exciting moment” for the museum, which already displays drawings by the Italian Renaissance artists Raphael and Michelangelo.

Angelico’s Crucifixion will be on public display in the Ashmolean from December. The painting is intended to be used as a teaching resource for those studying Art, History of Art, and Theology at Oxford University. It will also be freely accessible to the public and will belong in the collection shown to around 40,000 schoolchildren every year.

Fully titled The Crucifixion with the Virgin, Saint John the Evangelist and the Magdalen, the painting was created in the 1420s, and is believed to be Angelico’s earliest surviving work. Angelico, known in Italy as the “Blessed Angelic One”, remains among the most celebrated painters in the Italian Renaissance.

Sturgis said that the sixteenth-century art historian Giorgio Vasari “famously wrote that Fra Angelico couldn’t paint the crucifixion without tears streaming down his cheeks… He was very much concerned with the emotional response to a picture.” Head of the Ashmolean’s Department of Western Art Jennifer Sliwka concurred that the piece will be the “showstopper” of the gallery. 

Oxford lab sends human tissue into space in world first

0

Samples of human tissue have been launched to the International Space Station, prepared by Oxford University’s Space Innovation Lab (SIL). The research, undertaken by Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, plans to study the effects of space’s low gravity environment on the human ageing process and cell regenerativity. 

The samples were placed within a sealed cube containing a miniature camera and microscope, which will be provided with power and data upon arrival at the ISS. Scientists at the SIL will use this to control and monitor the sample for a month, before the cube will return to earth, whereupon they will measure the expression of proteins associated with ageing compared to a control sample.

This experiment constitutes part of a study on the effects of the low gravity environment of space, known as microgravity, on the human ageing process and cell regenerativity. The SIL is investigating the hypothesis that some of these processes operate faster in microgravity, based on astronauts’ anecdotal experiences of ageing-associated conditions upon returning to Earth.

SIL founder Dr Ghada Alsaleh described the experiment as “a ground-breaking project that could help people live healthier lives, both on Earth and in space”, as conclusions will be used to inform research into age-related diseases by understanding the ageing process at a cellular level, as well as understand more about the impacts of space travel on the human body.

Oxford’s Christmas celebrations highlight connectivity, diversity

0

The 2024 Oxford Christmas Light Festival took place from 15th to 17th November, while the Victorian Christmas Market on Broad Street has opened.

This year’s festival featured the theme “The Art of Connectivity”, celebrating the “diversity and creativity” of the community through partnerships with various cultural organisations. Among the highlights were the Lantern Parades, including “Diwali Glow” by OVADA, a local art gallery, and the West Oxford Light Festival, hosted in collaboration with the West Oxford Pantomime Association. 

The Victorian market features a live DJ, a roaming Victorian stilt man, and traders selling mulled wine, Baileys hot chocolate, chestnuts, and other Christmas classics.

Diwali Glow began with a parade led by dhol drummers from Westgate City Center to the OVADA warehouse, followed by activities, decorations, and food to mark the celebration of Diwali. The West Oxford Light Festival also offered a lantern procession around Botley Park.

The City Council published an interactive map of all events. Festival-goers could explore extended reality experiences such as “Fantasy Future” and “Guardians of Oxford” by TORCH, as well as attend the Winter Lights Family Event, Oxford Lights Crafternoon at the Weston Library, and Breakfast with Santa at the Covered Market, where children had the chance to write letters to Santa. Reuben College also presented an interactive light display called the “Periodic Table of Emotions”, and musical performances took place at a dance stage in Gloucester Green.

The City Council-funded festival traces its origins to Oxford University’s medieval tradition of organising communal Christmas celebrations in the City Centre, designed to bring together students and townsfolk.

In addition to the festival, many colleges will celebrate Christmas with free Christmas Carol Choir performances and The Oxford Playhouse will also perform a pantomime of Sleeping Beauty, beginning 22nd November.

Interrupting Oxford time: Can we defend the clocks falling back?

0

Mid-October crawls around, and the annual scenes of complaint begin to seep into walks back to college: we turn to our peers to express shock and disappointment that it’s “getting dark so early”, plagued by amnesia of the same solar plight that has haunted us for every autumn of our lives.

The controversy of the clocks going back is a debate whose flame is extinguished almost as quickly as it is ignited, making headlines the weekend itself and then not being spoken of until it returns in March. Of course, the ‘spring forward’ is received far more favourably by the public, even if it does mean an hour of sleep is lost that night. In the autumn, however, as the short-lived (but glorious) extra hour of sleep wears off and the early darkness comes in full force, we are left with the common question of why we bother turning the clocks back at all.

The time change has certainly been controversial throughout its century of existence. Debates in the national news tend to centre around the impact on health due to circadian rhythm disruption, economic benefits and shortcomings of extra daylight (so we can spend time spending), and even analysing crime rates. However, as students, our understanding of time and the difference light and dark can make to our routines has a much different focus.

The 24-hour day at Oxford, compared to the vac, can feel like trying to organise your time in an alternate universe where each hour feels so much shorter and more valuable. The concept of a daily routine, even before you bring in time changes, is haunted by the problem that there is more available to do in a day with academics and extracurriculars than there are hours to do it.

The anti-‘fall-back’ crowd raises points about the early darkness making it harder to continue with work if you look out of the window and feel that your day is over at 4pm. Beyond scholastics, sport and socialising can also be negatively affected by the shortened afternoons. The medics and psychologists among us can then bring in the impact of less sunlight on mood, combined with week five blues, making a convincing argument for how the clocks going back can negatively affect all facets of student life.

On the other side, there are the people (myself included) who get far more work done when it’s dark outside, and those who simply enjoy the longer, cosy autumn evenings. Moreover, the early morning running and/or rowing community (admittedly not myself) benefit from not being in complete darkness, as would be the case if clocks didn’t go back for winter. As entertaining as it is to join in the national sarcastic bitterness over the earlier sunsets, I for one can’t bring myself to truly loathe the time change.

Unfortunately, no manmade time zone changes can outmanoeuvre the relentless march of the solstice, forcing our sunlight to be shorter in the winter even before the time change: it becomes more of a question of whether you prefer an earlier morning or a later night. Walking around in the darkness at 5pm is no more dismal than a dark wander to a 10am lecture had clocks not turned back. The pendulum swings both ways, and those who despise the darkness are rewarded with longer hours of daylight when the clocks go forward. In March, the ‘spring-forward’ half of the system allows for more time to enjoy the daylight when people are more likely to be utilising it for socialising than in the cold winters.

To defend the clock change might be a bold opinion and perhaps it simply boils down to whether you are the type of person who thrives in the summertime or prefers the snug winter months. I’m a proud lover of autumn, and the change in time is part and parcel of this season. Within the media frenzy that is stirred up every year, it can be easy to forget that the clocks going back not only have some benefits to speak of but also tend to be inflated into a more drastic upheaval than it really is.

 Nonetheless, the clock change appears destined to remain controversial. Whilst having drawbacks, it can benefit night owls whose productivity spikes at dusk, or early risers who appreciate waking up to natural light seeping through their window when the cold makes leaving bed that much harder. So, on behalf of the few who don’t mind falling back, perhaps we are giving daylight savings time just a little more hatred than it deserves. 

Rory Stewart on populism, podcasting, and why he left the Bullingdon Club

0

Rory Stewart has been an academic, podcaster, writer, diplomat and politician. He read PPE at Balliol. While an undergraduate, he tutored Princes William and Harry, and attended a meeting of the Bullingdon Club. He has written several acclaimed books, including Occupational Hazards, an account of his time as a governor in Iraq; and Politics on the Edge, a memoir of his parliamentary career spanning 2010-2019. In government he served in various positions, including Prisons Minister, and in 2019 was a frontrunner for the Conservative leadership contest won by Boris Johnson, of whom Stewart remains a critic. He has also written travel books, The Marches and The Places in Between. Since 2022 he has co-hosted, with Alastair Campbell, the immensely successful podcast “The Rest is Politics”. Cherwell sat down with him to discuss his opinions on the US election, populism, the Starmer government, the prison system, and his personal goals for the future

Cherwell: Was there anything in your early life which foreshadowed your later career? 

Stewart: I was very interested in travelling when I was young. A lot of my strongest memories are of spending time, for example, in Borneo when I was eleven, and again in Malaysia when I was eight, and Thailand when I was fifteen, and in Xinjiang, China when I was sixteen or seventeen. They had a deep impact on me. I have boys who are seven and ten and we’ve just been travelling in Afghanistan together, and I’ve been very struck there by getting a sense of what they notice and what they do and don’t notice. One thing that’s very striking is how attractive jungles and rainforests are. Watching my seven-year-old walk along the paths and watch the birds, tress, flowers and nuts, reminded me a lot of being that age. 

Cherwell: When you were nineteen you came up to Balliol. Do you have a memorable tutorial moment from your undergraduate years? 

Stewart: I had a tutor called Martin Conway who was a History tutor at Balliol. I remember very strongly doing the Spanish Civil War with him, and realising that the story of why Franco won the war was almost a village-by-village, town-by-town story. It was almost a question of a million tiny events, almost unpredictable flips, 51-49, in tiny communities that won it. We often forget that looking back at history. We imagine there are big single causes driving things. It struck me how often these are often close-run things, how they are very contingent, and how the great causes are things that we read back into them. I feel that way about the US election at the moment. It’s very tempting to say, This result is because of two or three main things, but what strikes me is that it’s 70 million people and individual minds in each ballot, with a wide variety of knowledge and beliefs. The process of simplification in history is misleading. It’s one of the things that made me change from History to Philosophy at Oxford. I became very confused by what it really meant to as a question like “What were the causes of the First World War?” It seemed to me that almost every event which preceded the First World War was a cause of it. 

Cherwell: What did you think of the Oxford Union? 

Stewart: I didn’t like the Oxford Union, not my kind of thing, no. 

Cherwell: Did you read Cherwell? 

Stewart: I did, I enjoyed reading Cherwell, yes. 

Cherwell: You’ve mentioned that you attended a Bullingdon Club event once. How was that? 

Stewart: I didn’t like it, I didn’t like the tone of it. I don’t know what it’s like now but, then, the feeling seemed aggressive towards other people. It seemed as though the club members were setting themselves out to shout at people who weren’t at the club. That wasn’t something that made me comfortable or want to continue to remain a member. 

Cherwell: Since graduating, which has been your favourite of the careers you’ve pursued, and why? 

Stewart: Certainly running Turquoise Mountain in Afghanistan. It was something which had an intimiacy, a scale, a concreteness, a practicality which I’ve never really found elsewhere? 

Cherwell: On your time governing in Iraq, which you detail in Occupational Hazards, and your support for intervention in Afghanistan: What’s your response to the argument that Britain and the West really don’t have a place interfering with and occupying these countries? 

Stewart: My response is that we need to get a balance. Iraq and Afghanistan were humiliating messes. They were examples of extreme overintervention, hubris, and totally unrealistic attempts at nation-building. But I felt in my earlier career in Bosnia and Kosova, that it was possible for the West to intervene, to prevent wars, and to create more peaceful and secure situations for people. A world in which the West overintervenes is a bad world; a world in which the West does nothing is an even worse world. The fantasies of people who thought that Trump isolationism or Biden withdrawal from Afghanistan would lead to a more peaceful or prosperous world have been misplaced, as we can see in Ukraine, the Middle East, and Sudan. 

Cherwell: After your time abroad, you were in Parliament between 2010-19, years of which you give a very vivid description in Politics on the Edge. What was your aim with the book, why did you decide to write it after leaving Parliament? 

Stewart: I felt that one of the ways to understand Boris Johnson and Donald Trump and the rise of populism was to understand the nature of politics, to make people feel what it’s like as a day-to-day life. The kinds of things that get people promoted, the priorities of politicians, the way they talk to the public, the lifestyle that they live. If you want to understand why a police, you take people into the squadron and make people see the detective sitting at their desk. If you see want to see how politics goes wrong, you’ve got to take them into the tearoom. 

Cherwell: On populism, you mention in your theory of it in the preface to the book. What do you think is the nature, significance, and threat of populism in the UK and across the world? 

Stewart: It’s got three elements. One is individual policy. In Trump’s case, a policy could be mass deportation of illegal immigrants, 11 million people rounded up by SWAT teams and pushed across the border. The second thing is a worldview. In his case, a worldview about authoritarianism, isolation, and protectionism. The third thing is a tone of politics, an attitude towards your opponents, a way of speaking. You can imagine having a firm view on immigration without using the kinds of demonising, aggressive, scatological references that populists often employ. You can see this following Trump’s election. There’s no sense of a graceful victory, only a sense of people who, having won, now wish to trample on their opponents. 

Cherwell: On what grounds did you clash with the government over COVID policy in 2020? 

Stewart: I believe the government should have locked down earlier and lifted the restrictions earlier. Boris Johnson was very slow to react to events in Italy, very slow to embrace masks. He allowed things like the Cheltenham races to go ahead. I found myself in a difficult position where I was attacked by younger ministers when I pointed out the necessity for taking precautions and acting quickly. 

Cherwell: After Parliament you’ve become known for the Rest is Politics podcast. Is that the kind of thing you’ve always wanted to do and how did it come about? 

Stewart: It came about by accident. Alastair Campbell did an Instagram live looking for someone to do a podcast with him. This process generated my name. We did it as an experiment, imagining that we would record half-a-dozen shows, and people would listen as they might listen to half-a-dozen radio shows. We certainly didn’t imagine that this thing would become almost the dominant theme in our lives. We’re now better known as podcasters than anything else, and probably half my week is spent engaged in this act of podcasting. It began as something I thought I could do for an hour a week for six weeks while writing my book. 

Cherwell: Another process which generated your name was the Oxford Chancellorship election. You would have had a good chance of winning, so why didn’t you run? 

Stewart: It’s a question of getting a sense of what stage you are in your life, what sort of role it is, how much good you can do in it, how suited you are to it. It’s not an executive position, you’re more like a non-executive chair of a board of government. I think that can be frustrating particularly if, like me, you’re at a stage in your life when you quite like getting your hands dirty. The risk for me was that I’d get excited about trying to change things, then find out that wasn’t what the role was about. 

Cherwell: Would you run in the future? 

Stewart: I don’t know. We’ll see.  

Cherwell: Are you backing a candidate? 

Stewart: Not at the moment. I’m friends with William Hague and Dominic Grieve but I haven’t thrown my weight behind them. 

Cherwell: What have you made of Keir Starmer’s term in office so far? Highlights? Lows? 

Stewart: The highlight is that they pulled off a budget which, for better or worse, had content. It was bold and big – a lot of borrowing, taxation, spending – and consistent with their essential criticism of the Conservatives which is that they hadn’t spend enough, in other words austerity. That is the centrepoint, the highlight. The question is, Are there enough ideas behind their vision of growth? The growth projected from that budget is pretty pathetic. I would like to see them being bolder around AI, tech, investment, planning and infrastructure development. It still feels a bit defeatist. 

Cherwell: This summer the government was forced to release prisoners early. As a former Prisons Minister, do you think this was necessary, could it have been averted, and what could be done to prevent a repeat of it? 

Stewart: It was inevitable given that the Conservative government and the Labour opposition had conspired to keep increasing sentence length and introducing new offences and new sentences. Britain already has more people in prison per head than most European countries – fewer than the US – and that’s because we lock people up for longer periods. The reason prisons get full is about long sentence lengths. In effect, by increasing somebody’s sentence from two to four years, you’re effectively doubling the number of prison places being taken. I would suggest that we are approaching it in the wrong way. We need much better community sentences. Generally, putting people in prison isn’t good for the prisoner or for society. Prison should be reserved for extreme crimes where it’s necessary to put someone in prison to protect the public. When I was Prisons Minister we still had people in prison for not paying their TV licence or council tax. It’s ridiculous. 

Cherwell: Turning to the US, I know that you were very confident that Kamala Harris would win. Firstly, how much did you bet on her winning? Secondly, why do you think that she lost? 

Stewart: I bet more than I want to admit on her winning. As for why she lost, I don’t think any of us can know exactly why somebody wins or loses because it is 70 million people in a secret ballot. There are 70 million reasons she lost. What really matters  is that there are 300,000 reasons why she lost, which is the key margin in Pensylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. 90% of Trump’s vote is, straightforwardly, Republican voters voting Republican. The question is, What are the additional numbers which increased Trump’s vote from last time and led to the Democratic vote’s collapse? There, I think that the mystery is not that Kamala Harris lost, but that someone like Trump – who is so manifestly unsuited to be President – should win, and should win a second time. You can imagine people make the mistake once. But to do it again after the January 6th insurrection, after he’s been convicted of felonies, after all that he has revealed about his character, suggests that a certain portion of the population has so completely lost faith in the old liberal-democratic processes, the old models of leadership, the open global system, in markets and economics, that they’ve resorted to a hand-grenade to throw against the world. That brings you to the nature of social media, the 2008 financial crisis, the messes in Iraq and Afghanistan, the rise of China – these are the reasons for the emergence of this new mood. It’s startling. You can explain it away as much as you want, but it doesn’t make it any less shocking or world-changing. 

Cherwell: What contemporary or historical figure do you find yourself most in sympathy with in politics? 

Stewart: [long pause] I’m intrigued by people like Pete Buttigieg in the US. I’m very interested in the strengths and weaknesses of Emmanuel Macron, why that experiment didn’t quite work. I’m intrigued by the ways Rishi Sunak got things wrong; he’s obviously a bright, hard-working, diligent person who somehow was lacking something. We live in an odd political moment where it’s difficult to match character and ability for a role. The media and the voters seem to want figures who seem to be quite unsuitable, creating an atmosphere that favours the Boris Johnsons, the Trumps, the Farages, in rather odd ways. 

Cherwell: Final question: What are your plans for the future? A political comeback? More books? 

Stewart: In the short-term another book. I’ve been experimenting with a novel, set in the 1940s. I’ve thought of writing about geopolitics or about ideas of heroes through time.