Friday 7th November 2025
Blog Page 7

Margaret Hodge on legacy, fighting the BNP, and hope for the political future

0

Above the Churchill War Rooms, Dame Margaret Hodge sits with the easy confidence of someone who’s been in the fight for too long to be rattled by it. The day of our interview happens to coincide with Donald Trump’s visit to Britain – a neat bit of symbolism for a woman who has spent decades pushing back against populism and division. When I ask how she’s managed to survive in politics for so long she laughs: “I tried to give it up once, but politics is a drug.” 

But if one phrase defines her career, it’s the advice she was given in the 1970s, at the height of the housing crisis, “Fight it Margaret”. Half a century later, that’s still what she’s doing – whether against the BNP in Barking in the early noughties, or corruption in Westminster now. Hers is not a story of quiet politics but rather continual resistance. In the days following the Unite the Kingdom march across London, that ethos feels almost radical.

One of the first things I learn about Hodge is how deeply her early life and two decades spent in local government shape her politics today. Born in Alexandria, Egypt in 1944 to Jewish parents who fled Nazi Germany, she describes how she knows what it means to be an ‘outsider’ – an experience that has shaped everything from the way she talks about immigration to her belief in the importance of communities.

Her route into public life, like much of her career, was accidental yet defiant. She never set out to be a politician. It was only in the weeks following the birth of her first child that she recalls calling her sister in floods of tears saying she couldn’t bear the monotony of changing nappies anymore, seeing little point in even getting dressed. She hurries to clarify that she, of course, loves all four of her children, but that they just were never quite enough for her. It was a friend in the local Labour Party in Islington – the daughter of Harold Wilson’s economic adviser Nicholas Kaldor – who offered the advice that would change everything: “Margaret go on the council, it’ll keep you sane while you’re changing nappies.”

First elected in a 1973 council by-election to represent the Barnsbury ward, Hodge went on to serve as Leader of Islington Council for a decade and later as Chair of the Association of London Authorities. Though she has since held several ministerial posts following her election to Parliament in 1994, it is this period in local government that she seems to recall with the greatest pride. When I ask what one thing she wants to be remembered for, her first reaction is a laugh – “bloody hell” – before she immediately turns to social housing. 

Her eyes light up as she describes, in remarkable detail, how she transformed Islington’s housing programme in the late 1970s. Her predecessor as Chair of the Housing Committee had bought 12,000 homes but was converting only a dozen each year into council housing; Hodge expanded that to 1,000 annually, ultimately creating 16,000 new homes in the midst of a housing crisis. She smiles as she remembers the results: “my perfect vision of social democracy in practice” as she calls it – where city banker and council tenant lived side by side, indistinguishable except for the identical letterboxes bought in bulk for the converted homes. 

It was, like many things in Hodge’s career, a battle hard won. When the 1976 financial crash wiped out local capital funding, she was told there was nothing to be done but refused to take no for an answer. Within three days, she had mobilised thousands of residents at the town hall and brought the Housing Minister down to see the conditions for himself – homes still running on gas power alone, with no indoor toilets. The funding was restored, and the project completed. It’s a story told with the satisfaction of someone who still believes can fix things, as long as you’re brave enough to give it a go.

She follows her answer about housing by asking if she can possibly stretch to two things to be remembered for – and, of course, I give in. The second: her fight against the British National Party (BNP) as the MP for Barking. By the mid-2000s, the far right had taken root in her constituency, becoming the second largest party in the council following the 2006 local elections. She describes how the biggest change she saw, however, was that people weren’t ashamed of voting BNP anymore. When she knocked on doors and spoke to voters, eight in ten would tell her they were thinking of voting BNP.

It became possibly the biggest fight of her career and she took it on, head-first. Refusing to retreat to Westminster, she stopped attending ribbon cuttings or making speeches in Parliament, instead staying in Barking listening to her constituents. She wrote personally to thousands of constituents, inviting them for tea (and, as she insists, chocolate biscuits and custard creams). “It was about rebuilding trust” she explains – listening to people’s anger over housing, jobs, and immigration and then turning these conversations into action.

As our conversation turns to the modern rise of Reform and right-wing populism – our interview taking place just days after the ‘Unite the Kingdom’ marches – Hodge draws a direct line back to those years. The same anger, the same insecurity – just on a national stage. She’s insistent that voters aren’t apathetic but angry, they feel politics has stopped listening. And as she recognises, immigration is central to that conversation – a subject she describes as being too often avoided,“so I started talking”. Having arrived in Britain as an immigrant herself, she describes how she knows how it feels to be an “outsider” but also the importance of creating communities. She never promised to cut numbers, but instead talked about how migration could work fairly, and bring value to the community. 

Then, she pauses and asks if I’ve time for another story. It’s from one of her coffee mornings in Barking. One in particular stands out, a woman stood up to accuse asylum seekers of ruining the borough and being “benefit scroungers”. Before Hodge could respond, a white man interrupted to say he’d been on benefits for 25 years and didn’t want to be called a scrounger. A Jamaican father then spoke, explained that his children had grown up in Barking and gone to university, and he was proud to call himself British. The atmosphere was tense but by the end the same woman who had sparked the row crossed the room to apologise to both men. 

It’s a morning that’s stayed with Hodge. One she describes as “deeply emotional” and clearly still drives her approach to politics and belief that it can still achieve as long as people are willing to listen and engage. It also highlights her beliefs that all politics starts from the local, and “politics is a marathon not a sprint”. For Hodge, it’s about the long process of communicating, listening, acting and reporting back – the steady rhythm of local work that builds trust over time. It’s a principle she’s carried from her years in Islington to Westminster, and one that still defines how she sees the purpose of politics today. 

That patience explains her weariness with politics today – she describes herself as “deeply depressed” by politics at the moment. She describes how we’ve lost the center in the midst of extreme polarisation, recounting how during the Corbyn years and her fight against anti-semitism, the far-left levied the same critiques as the BNP had 15 years earlier. She talks of the loss of values in Labour politics; the erosion of the balance between economic growth and social justice that she believes should define it. She praises Brown and Blair for allowing economic growth and prosperity, and social justice and inclusion to not be seen as opposing ambitions, but ones that are interlinked. For Hodge, it was this balance that could deliver for communities like Islington and Barking and could work effectively against the disillusionment which fueled the far-right.

Yet she knows the world has changed and accepts that we now live in a world of social media – this fast pace of online politics undeniably leaves little room for patience or genuine dialogue. The kind of politics she believes in, feels increasingly rare. Still she refuses to give up on the idea of rebuilding trust: “transparency; tough regulation; even tougher enforcement; and proper accountability,” she recites, ticking them off as she goes along. Her ongoing fight, as the government’s anti-corruption champion, is part of this – the same belief in fairness and accountability that once drove her to fight for housing and equality at a local level.

Throughout our conversation, Hodge is brilliantly frank, disarmingly honest and utterly relaxed – her language, peppered with expletives, quickly followed by “don’t include that”. She jokes how she never made Cabinet due to running her mouth too much, and it’s easy to laugh along with her. Her candour and refusal to self-censor is what makes her such an enjoyable person to chat to

As our interview draws to a close as she rushes off to a meeting with a minister, there’s one thing she says in particular that stays with me: “in every job I’ve done, there’s something I did which lasted”. For a woman who has spent over fifty years in public service, this isn’t self-congratulation but a measure of impact. From the housing estates of Islington to the streets of Barking to the red benches of the House of Lords, the thread running through Hodge’s story is undeniably one of endurance – and fight.

As a young woman looking to enter politics there’s something quietly encouraging and oddly comforting about that outlook. At a time when public faith in politics feels fragile, Hodge’s career seems to offer proof that persistence and local action can add up to real, lasting change. After an hour with Margaret Hodge, it’s hard not to believe her when she says “we can change, there is hope”. It’s the sort of conversation that gives you conviction in what you do again – the most beautiful and brilliant sort of conversation in what seems to be an increasingly cynical political world. As I leave the building I’m simply left hoping that I can do such a conversation justice on the page.

‘A team of criers’: Behind the scenes of ‘Uncle Vanya’

0

Nothing makes me more excited about a theatre production than hearing a director talk passionately and intelligently about their chosen text. In a conversation with Cherwell, director Joshua Robey’s understanding of Uncle Vanya and his belief both in his team and vision for the show shone through. 

First produced in 1898, Uncle Vanya is one of Anton Chekhov’s most loved plays. Set in the Russian countryside, the text focuses on the visit of an old professor, Alexander, and his younger wife, Elena, to the rural estate left to him by his first wife. John (Vanya), the brother of the professor’s first wife, and the local doctor, Michael, both become enamoured by Elena, while Sonya – the professor’s daughter – develops unrequited feelings for the doctor. The play has had several high-profile stage adaptations in the recent past, including most famously the 2023 production starring Andrew Scott. 

So putting on Uncle Vanya comes with baggage: it is a canonical text constantly being performed and reimagined. Naturally one of my first questions then was why, as a student theatre company, they should choose to perform it now. I was curious as to what Fennec Fox Productions thought they could bring to the table that was new or interesting. On one hand, Robey is very interested in character; he says about his attraction to the play: “Chekhov sort of inaugurates […] a new kind of style that’s very heightenedly real – in the sense that these characters are treated as people and not as symbols. They don’t really have a symbolic function in the play. They are people who are sort of achingly miscommunicating and trying to connect to each other [sic].”

This concern with character translates to the team’s rehearsals. Walking into a small, crowded room in Worcester College during an emotional scene, I was immediately struck by how focused and grounded in each other’s performances the actors were. The sudden presence of a stranger observing them seemed to have no effect at all. I even felt bad for punctuating their taut silences with my typing. The scene was a demanding one, with the actress playing Sonya having to crescendo into a sob, and yet both the performers and the director felt comfortable repeating this excerpt again and again. The rehearsal had been going on for several hours at that point, but this wasn’t felt at all. 

Crucially, a high level of perfectionism was demanded by everyone involved. It was not just Robey interrupting to break down sections of the text, but the actors themselves constantly trying to get to the root of their characters’ psychology, questioning their motivations and intentions. Speaking to the Assistant Directors, Alys Young and Ivana Clapperton, about the cast, this was made very clear. Young told Cherwell: “Now, they are asking the minutiae of how they would react in this specific situation and it’s a testament to how deep the actors think about their craft; that they’re asking questions and just trying to learn as much as they can about these people.” 

However, there was also an obvious feeling of camaraderie and fun about the rehearsal. The actors constantly applauded each other, obviously supportive of one another’s performances. After one particularly successful take on the scene, there was a moment of silence before the crew and cast alike broke into happy discussion of how well they thought it had gone, the highlight of which was Robey’s comment: “I love it when scenes upset me. This is a team of criers, who are very good at crying.” 

This attention to detail was not reserved for actors and characters. Speaking about the relevance of the play, Robey said: “It is one of the first plays that really engages with the relation between humanity and the environment. Not just that humans are potentially destroying the environment, but that that destruction then has an effect back on the humans and their psychology. And you see these characters who are all profoundly upset and depressed and they don’t quite know why and it’s seemingly to do with what they’ve done to nature.” 

In line with this emphasis on the text’s contemporary relevance, the team have chosen to use Robert Icke’s translation – paying for rights when they otherwise might not have had to. Robey explained this choice: “It has this wonderful clarity to it that you don’t feel like you’re watching a classic play, you don’t feel like you are watching something through that layer of otherness. It doesn’t feel distant, it feels very immediate.”

Environment, atmosphere, and intimacy being clearly key concerns of the production, I was curious to understand why Fennec Fox Productions had gone for such an ambitious venue. The Keble O’Reilly, where it is being performed, is a large space and most student theatre productions don’t have the budget for overly elaborate sets. Robey justified the choice by explaining that although intimacy is key, other venues like the Burton Taylor Studio would have simply been too small: “It felt like we needed that space above people’s heads. The O’Reilly had that space where it felt like people were in this enclosure, but then not hemmed in. It feels like they are in this sort of mini biome.” 

When discussing the set itself, Robey acknowledged that many Chekhov productions lean into building richly furnished rooms but that also means that many end up having just one built space. Fennec Fox Productions has decided to go the opposite way, which Robey describes: “The set is a non-literal space. This is theatre taking place, we don’t necessarily need to see everything that would be in the space and instead this is about character and people interacting, so it’s actually quite unadorned.” He reveals that the set will include a Cornelia Parker inspired installation piece, in which lighting will also play a key role. The lighting team, sometimes leaning into the non-naturalistic, Robey explains, will be important in evoking the idea of humanity’s relation to the forest: “You’ll have to see it to see what that means!”

You can watch Uncle Vanya at the Keble O’Reilly Theatre from the 29th October to 2nd November, 7:30pm (W3). 

The Greens must revive Oxford’s leftist scene

0

Whilst in Germany I decided to leave the Green Party of England and Wales. Not out of disgust, mind, but a recognition that she and I had merely drifted apart. Much like a hopeless Professor Farnsworth declaring that he doesn’t “want to live on this planet anymore” when facing the despair of anti-evolution cranks in an episode of Futurama, I glanced over the options on the leadership ballot, concluded that neither were viable, and took my exit. 

I was wrong: my scepticism of London Assembly member Zack Polanski’s ability to lead a parliamentary party of nearly as many MPs and councillors as Reform was clearly misguided. He was elected with 83% of cast ballots (this trans woman thanks God, given the other candidates’ comparatively less forthcoming support of trans rights). He has proven himself capable of doing what leftists really need to do, in the UK at large and in Oxford: engaging ordinary people in progressive politics. He has talked to Farage voters, and declared out loud his support for trans rights and immigration. He’s unafraid to defend his beliefs, without talking down to those who disagree. All of this has certainly caught people’s eye, with the Greens membership skyrocketing to 100,000 and counting. 

It’s certainly a shame, then, that the Oxford Student Greens are almost nowhere to be seen, having been on hiatus for the past year. With a lacklustre social media presence and no in person events to offer insofar, they are missing a crucial opportunity to capture this moment and challenge Oxford Labour Club’s top spot in left-wing student politics at this University.

Historically, Oxford Labour Club (OLC) has been the default home for lefties in Oxford. Many of the big OLC names would eventually be preceded by ‘the right honourable’ as they file into the ranks of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP). Now, though, the PLP is hemorrhaging progressive clout for its insistence on reducing trans people’s lives to their genitalia, its inaction on Israel’s assault on Gaza, and its rhetoric around migration. Even if they do not reach such lofty heights, anybody on the OLC committee must also be a member of the Labour Party itself. So, it begs the question, why do progressives bother with OLC? 

One answer lies with the fact that the alternatives to OLC are often just a bit dry. Events and societies designed for egalitarian, grassroots democratic engagement, such as the orderly discussions at Rum & Revolution (the October Club’s boozy debating event), suffer from this. When I was a regular attendee, the appeal of Beer & Bickering (OLC’s flagship social event) was the fact it was fun. Whilst the good vibes have taken a nose dive since Labour became the party of government, it has historically been a left(ish) space where progressives snipe and centrists jeer, but we all keep the red flag flying here. Life’s too serious to take seriously; I yearn for the theatre of being flayed by the sharp tongue of a Wadhamite, or called a “shitlib” for suggesting, three vodkas down, that the UK ought to return to pre-decimal currency.

Of course, another reason OLC is the dominant left leaning society in Oxford is because of the brand name: Labour. In a two-party system, this makes sense; if you’re left of the Liberal Democrats, vote Labour. But, in a town where the student population elected Greens to the City and county council, this no longer makes sense. Instead, the student Greens seem the obvious choice for Oxford progressives. This holds true especially in the light of the conflict between Zarah Sultana and Jeremy Corbyn over the Your Party membership portal.

What the Labour Club offers left-leaning students is a fun, lively place to be neither a Tory nor a Lib Dem. What it cannot offer, and what a lot of left-leaning people want, is a grouping out of the clutches of the Labour Party. This must be the unique selling point of the Your Party or Green society – if they can avoid the aforementioned trap of being too earnest to be fun. The Your Party society is leaving its events and setup in the hands of interested students, and excuse my cynicism, but the first taste of a possible new leftist society may therefore be tinged with death by committee. The Greens, having the party armoury at its disposal, can do away with such drudgery and start on a high note, but start they must.

The inevitable debating events will also have to find the path between being fun and facilitating dull yet insightful discussion. To appropriate a quote from Kim Campbell, possibly Canada’s answer to Liz Truss: “an election is no time to discuss serious issues”. Although she was mocked for saying this, it hits on a slight truth: what drives people to engage in politics is as often a desire for camaraderie as it is the policies. Progressives have to excite and entertain like our new folk hero, Zack Polanski. What Oxford needs is a Green event, an answer to OLC’s Beer and Bickering. As for a name – let me see – Sozzled Socialism? Ecology and Ethanol? Some workshopping may be needed.

Inside Oxford’s new Life and Mind Building

0

The new Life and Mind Building, which houses the Departments of Experimental Psychology and Biology, opened last week following the closure of the previous faculty buildings in 2016. 

Situated on St Cross Road, the building covers an area of 81,991 sq. metres. It encompasses teaching spaces, laboratories, offices, and research facilities which will accommodate researchers, academics, support staff, and students – both undergraduate and postgraduate – when it is fully functional at the end of this year.

An official opening ceremony will take place in November with the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University.

Cherwell was invited to tour the building with Professors Martin Maiden and Matthew Rushworth, the respective Heads of Department for Biology and Experimental Psychology. They told Cherwell: “For Oxford this is a massive teaching facility. We can simultaneously teach well over 1000 people at one time if we fill all the lecture theatres, labs, and computer rooms.”

David Hays for Cherwell

Explaining the philosophy of the building, Professor Maiden told Cherwell: “Life is one of the big mysteries, and of course our consciousness about life all comes from our mind. Together, life and mind comprise two of the biggest mysteries of human existence.” He added that “with the new building, the combination of our departments, we can study them under the same roof”.

The Ineos Oxford Institute for Antimicrobial Research (IOI) is also housed in the new building. It’s hoped that this shared space will allow researchers to investigate the fundamental issues of our age, addressing the climate crisis, mental health, and what it means to be human. 

Vice-Chancellor Irene Tracey said: “The Life and Mind Building isn’t just a world-class facility – it’s a place designed to bring people together.” New research facilities will allow biologists and psychologists to work on bold new interdisciplinary projects in facilities such as sleep labs, rooftop glasshouses, and a new home for the University’s herbarium, including around one million plant specimens. Cherwell understands that it will take approximately six months to transport all of these specimens to the new facility.

David Hays for Cherwell

The original department buildings closed nine years ago following the discovery of asbestos, with research and teaching facilities spread across Oxford in the intervening period until the opening of the new building.

Although the building does not house a departmental library, Professor Maiden told Cherwell that, for science, library space “doesn’t necessarily mean having books. It means having these kinds of flexible workspaces” which are “the kind of thing that the modern undergraduate wants”. Open desks are situated throughout the building, including the basement and ground floor, which are accessible to all undergraduate students, regardless of faculty.

Professor Maiden went on to say that the “design of the building” means that students can “move through the building as their career progresses, and they can use the different types of spaces” – the open desks, laboratories and the research facilities – as they “continue their studies”. He also boasted that the building has “both the best and second-best view in Oxford,” 

David Hays for Cherwell

Construction of the Life and Mind building cost £200 million and began in November 2021 after planning permission was granted in January that year. The building was delivered by Oxford University Development – a £4 billion joint venture between the University and Legal and General (L&G), a financial service group and major global investor. 

The building was designed by NBBJ, an internationally-renowned architecture practice. Ingo Braun, Design Principal, said: “We set out to create an open, flexible, light-filled environment that fosters collaboration, wellbeing, and discovery and it’s exciting to see that vision come to life.”

Cherwell understands that the site adjacent to the Life and Mind building on St Cross Road, which was used by contractors during the building’s construction, will be reconditioned, providing the University with an additional football field and other sporting facilities.

David Hays for Cherwell

What’s in a name? The donors written on Oxford’s streets

0

Walking down Broad Street can sometimes resemble a school register. It would, admittedly, be a strange class that comprised Thomas Bodley, the Weston family, the first Earl of Clarendon, and Gilbert Sheldon. But Oxford’s avenues are littered with the names of its donors, on libraries, museums, and faculties. Such a privilege is anything but cheap. Julian Blackwell’s £5 million donation to the Weston Library gave him a hall. For naming rights to a whole building, you’d be looking at something closer to the Weston family’s donation of £25 million.

Carving your name into the fabric of Oxford is undoubtedly a tempting idea. Initials can be found carved into stone, into pews, into walls, by students responding to just this. It’s catnip to donors. Universities are not cheap to run, and expansion is even more expensive. Combining the two ideas, using the allure of naming rights to secure funding for the University’s future, is inevitable. 

A donor is inextricably linked to Oxford when a building is given their name, with their involvement discernible just from looking at a map of the city. It associates the donor with education and philanthropy – noble aims that can be exploited into ‘reputation laundering’. Furthermore, it represents trust in the family in question, not just at the time of the donation, but for as long as the building stands. This might be centuries. As a result, named buildings pose huge potential liabilities to the credibility of the University by cementing a legacy on the security of little more than money.

These risks are not theoretical. It took me two years to actually work out where the Art, Archaeology, and Ancient World Library was. Everyone I spoke to going in that direction still called it the Sackler.

In the wake of the Sackler support scandal, Oxford has not resiled from naming buildings after the biggest contributors. The Schwarzman Centre, opened earlier this month, was the result of the largest donation received by the University since the Renaissance. High-level donors receive other tangible benefits, including regular communications with the Vice Chancellor, and contact with the Chancellor and other senior levels of the University. Allowing them to stamp their names onto the city with no more than a bank statement connecting them to Oxford risks rendering the city a playground for the vanity of the rich. Are the benefits of this money worth it? 

Bodley and Sheldon

The Old Bodleian Library, the oldest named University building in Oxford, actually bucks this trend. It is named after Thomas Bodley, who was instrumental in reviving the library after the Reformation. Previously, Oxford’s only library had been housed in Divinity Schools. This collection of religious tracts did not fare well in the 16th century – the Dean of Christ Church removed all of its “superstitious books and images” in 1550. Bodley, a fellow of Merton College, devoted his retirement to refurbishing the building and donating some of the 2,500 books contained on its 1602 reopening. He also took the first steps towards making the Bodleian a legal deposit library, striking an agreement with the Stationers’ Hall that they would send the Bodleian a copy of every book registered to their hall. Operationally, the Bodleian would not exist in the form we currently see without Bodley. He also contributed financially, largely with the money received from marriage to a wealthy widow.

Gilbert Sheldon, who paid the full cost of Sheldonian construction, was also Warden of All Souls, Chancellor of the University, and had to be physically ejected from All Souls by Parliamentarians during the English Civil War. While his involvement was more financial than operational, he was closely connected to Oxford. The Sheldonian marks both his money and his effort, and provides a connection to Oxford’s history. The building is richer for its association with Sheldon – more closely integrated into the heritage of the city. 

Keep it in the family

John Radcliffe, who provided £40,000 for the construction of the Radcliffe Camera in 1714, gave the money in his will on the condition that construction would not begin until he and his sisters had all died. Clearly, he had an eye for a legacy, but this was a legacy he did not wish to realise during his life. In fact, he appeared to want no part of his generation to see his library. When the Radcliffe Library (as it was then known) was built, it therefore appeared less a personal project, and more a donation to the future of science. A board of trustees still manage Radcliffe’s testament today.

However, giving your name to a building puts a more metaphorical trust in every subsequent generation of the family. In 1884, Augustus Pitt Rivers gave over 20,000 archaeological artefacts to the University, which became the founding collection of the Pitt Rivers Museum. By all accounts, he was devoted to the subject, with a focus on scientific archaeology, and on cataloguing everything, not just aesthetically-pleasing pieces, which changed the way museums and excavations were viewed.   Fifty-six years later, Pitt Rivers and Oxford were linked once more. This occurred when Augustus’ grandson, George Pitt Rivers, requested in 1940 that, if he had to be interned for his support of Oswald Mosley, he would prefer for it to be at Worcester College. It was this Pitt Rivers who gave the skull-cup used by the Worcester SCR until 2015, which had itself come from his grandfather’s private collection.

This unfortunate connection did not impact the Pitt Rivers Museum at the time, but the more recent revelations risk undermining the work that it has done to move away from its colonial legacy. It’s worth noting that the Pitt Rivers family, while always linked to ethnography, has approached it in very different ways depending on the generation. Julian Pitt Rivers, George’s son, was a vocal supporter of cultural diversity, in sharp contrast to his eugenicist father. The problem is that, by tying the building and the work of the museum to a single family, its work is forever linked to their lives and their interests. When attempting to move away from some aspects of ethnography and archaeology, particularly concerning human remains, it is difficult to remain named after a man who collected so many of them.

The Art, Archaeological, and Ancient History Library (neé Sackler)

One of Thomas Bodley’s innovations had been a Register of Donors, allowing names of donors to be publicly displayed. A successor to this, the Clarendon Arch, carries on this legacy, bearing the names of the most significant benefactors of the University. This arch is one of the only places where the Sackler family are still present in Oxford. In a statement released in 2023, the University removed the pharmaceutical dynasty’s name from a gallery, a fellowship, and a library. This was four years after the first institutions had started to ‘de-Sackler’ their buildings, and a year after Purdue Pharma settled their suit from US states alleging that they fuelled the opioid crisis.

Treatment of donors is increasingly systematised and incentivised. The Development Office’s page highlights the perks of giving. The very first option is “naming opportunities”. Then, the Vice-Chancellor’s Circle provides “regular communications from the Vice-Chancellor” as well as an annual members’ event. The Vice Chancellor’s Guild gives you this, as well as an annual dinner in Oxford. The highest circle is the Chancellor’s Court of Benefactors, meeting twice a year in Oxford and London. The description highlights the “chance to engage with the Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, and other senior leaders within the collegiate University” to help develop “a greater understanding of the life and work of the University and the colleges”.

The approach taken appears to move away from naming opportunities as recognition for work done within the University. Instead, it encourages specifically external figures, dangling the chance of networking with senior figures in exchange for donations. The more you give, the more access you receive. A month after the Purdue Pharma settlement, Theresa Sackler (a member of the Chancellor’s Court) was invited to a private screening of the Boat Race on board the Erasmus, an event attended by both the Vice Chancellor and the Chancellor.

A close relationship to donors makes their support more likely. However, it also becomes more difficult to sever ties. With the level of personal connection given to modern donors, there may be reluctance to completely cut off those who have gone awry. While disgraced donors can use the University’s name for a semblance of credibility, the University is pulled into the scandal, and suffers reputational damage as a result. Providing access to the extent that the Chancellor’s Court does, and tying the University to its largest donors, relies on the donors themselves being truly benevolent. The Sacklers are a key example of the naivety of such a belief.

The future of donations

But running a university is only becoming more expensive. With lower levels of government support, and capped tuition fees for domestic students, universities have to find some way of funding expansions. Advances in technology, increasing student numbers, and environmental priorities all point towards building more. If putting a donor’s name on a wall ensures that their £185 billion can help make study of the humanities more accessible, then what’s wrong with that?

The recently-opened Schwarzman Centre is an example of this continued practice. Stephen Schwarzman did not attend Oxford. The co-founder of Blackstone, Schwarzman has donated to institutions including the New York Public Library, the Tsinghua University, and MIT. His asset management firm, the largest commercial landlord in history, has been accused by a United Nations adviser of helping to fuel the global housing crisis. The firm denies these allegations, and say that they are based on “factual errors and inaccurate conclusions”.

The Schwarzmann Centre for the Humanities is certainly a boon for the University. It helps bring Oxford closer to its sustainability goals, and puts seven faculties under one roof, promoting interdisciplinary cooperation. Its concert spaces are accessible and support the arts at a time when government funding is extremely limited. Its AI Institute could help analyse and solve the problems faced by the emerging technology. But something does ring hollow about using money raised in sky-high rents and gentrification to investigate the problems of the future. It helps the University, and it helps humanity. But it does very little for those suffering right now.  

It all comes down to priorities. Is it more important that the centre of Oxford feels linked to the University’s rich history, and celebrates the people who worked hard to make it the place it is, or is it more important that it continues to expand and adapt quickly, even if this means appending names that have little business inside the city outside dinner galas? This is certainly not to discourage charitable giving. Still, there is a certain vanity in philanthropy that does not consider the positive results of their gift a sufficient reward. When naming a building entails trusting that the family name never falls into disrepute, and that the University will be able to handle it if it does, perhaps it would be better not to use billionaires who made their money from pharmaceuticals or private equity as namesakes. 

(A call to) Action: Oxford’s clash of real and reel

0

Hogwarts students run up the Christ Church stairs. Saltburn’s stars roll cigarettes on a Brasenose College quad. And My Oxford Year’s Anna and Jamie wander up to Duke Humphrey’s Library. 

Walking through Oxford, you’d be forgiven for thinking there are two levels of reality. First, the actual, which involves hungover tutorials, looming deadlines, and endless crowds on Cornmarket. Sometimes more prominent is the artificial: an Oxford that is romantic, fantastical, and immaculately lit.

There are two main ways the city is shown on screen: sometimes as a fantasy backdrop for an unrelated story, and sometimes as itself, in a tale recreating the minutiae of the University. Such presentations raise Oxford’s profile, draw visitors to the city, and cut off streets for film crews. When the endeavour disrupts learning and risks misrepresenting Oxford, the question arises – is all this filming a good thing?

A magical city

Oxford’s turn in the Harry Potter franchise has proved one of its most profitable modern features. Hogwarts fans swarm well-known filming sites across colleges, while, on GetYourGuide Harry Potter walks are the main filter option for the city, out-ranking Tolkien, Morse, and the University itself. It’s a strong example of Oxford when filmed in the fantasy genre – sweeping staircases and vaulted ceilings create an arcane, mysterious environment, so alluring it takes on its own character.

Tourists drawn to this version of Oxford appear to view it as their own theme park, replete with backdrops for social media. A Christ Church student told Cherwell that they see “more adults than children” on the College’s busy staircase. Along with Cornmarket Street’s dense concentration of shops selling swords, wands, and University hoodies, they speak to a nostalgic desire to be physically transported to another world.

Other fantastical media, inspired by Oxford but not filmed there, fails to capture the public in the same way. Alice in Wonderland was written by a former Christ Church student, Lewis Carroll, partly influenced by Oxford’s locations, people, and history. It, too, takes place in an otherworldly, exaggerated dreamland, and is, like Harry Potter, a staple of children’s literature. Yet, in the city that helped create the story, tourists don Hogwarts robes, rather than Cheshire Cat ears.

Both franchises draw their popularity from escaping the modern world, but only one provides photo opportunities. A tour guide can point out long-necked brass andirons that may have inspired part of Carroll’s story, but there are no parts of the novel that a tourist can ‘enter’. The ‘real’ Hogwarts, however, is endlessly accessible. While this may explain the sea of dark academia edits set to Lana Del Rey’s ‘Say Yes to Heaven’, this is not the reality of life in Oxford. Fantasy may sell, but it misrepresents the mundane staples of most actual students: Tesco Express, bad signal, and Bridge Thursday.

Oxford as usual?

Other films are set in the ‘actual’ Oxford, but include just as much fiction as fantasy does. Netflix’s My Oxford Year (2025) was a particular target for students for inaccuracies. Based on the novel by Julia Whelan, the film portrays a student enamoured by ‘The Oxford Aesthetic’, until reality takes over. The film’s prominence has caused a surge of Oxford students posting on TikTok about their experiences watching it. Creators participate in “tak[ing] a drink every time they get something wrong about our uni challenge”, and “trying to watch without complaining at every single inaccuracy”.

Cherwell spoke to the author about these inconsistencies. Whelan, who herself studied at Lincoln College in 2006, was initially “inclined to see the negative” of Oxford’s portrayal in films.

“Books seem to get [capturing Oxford] more right, more often, than film, I think. It’s what I attempted to do in writing My Oxford Year. A very gratifying outcome has been the outreach of many Oxonians who read the book and then let me know it captured the essence of the place, that they felt an authentic melancholic nostalgia while reading. This response was such an unexpected boon, because my initial goal was to make people who hadn’t gone to Oxford feel welcome.”  

Since her time at Oxford, she’s changed her perspective on its on-screen portrayals: “The thing I’ve come to accept about media is that it meets people where they are, and you can’t control where that is. Some will only connect on one level (it was so funny/so sad/so romantic!) and others will find complexity and depth where you maybe never even intended it. I don’t think one should set out to “romanticize” (or put another way, flatten it into one dimensionality), but I would push back a little at any implication that all stories must grapple with all sides of a certain thing lest people get the wrong idea about that thing.”

Despite this consideration, Oxford on film seems firmly situated in past incarnations of the University, particularly in Emerald Fennell’s Saltburn (2023). Fennell depicts an anglophilic Oxford defined by aristocratically chic students, high-class debauchery, and costume parties featuring Sophie Ellis-Bextor. The story is set in the early 2000s, but the classism from the characters is positively Victorian – poorer students are intimidated into buying rounds of drinks, and regional accents are relentlessly mocked. Filmed in Brasenose, a college with almost 80% state school students and a strong tradition of outreach to Yorkshire, the representation of Oxford in Saltburn risks preserving stereotypes and undermining the work done by the University to improve access and outreach.  

It should be said that while these stereotypes are considered inaccurate and antiquated by many, there is some truth to these cinematic versions. Students remain attached to Oxford’s mysticisms –  a 2015 referendum voted to keep sub fusc for exams, over 6,400 wishing to continue the tradition. As for the reality of Oxford’s diversity, not only did 2024 see the lowest intake of state school students since 2019, but applications from international students to UK universities have also decreased by 6.75% between 2022 and 2024 – the first and biggest fall since 2012/13.  

Cameras on the quad… and in the library

Conflict between Oxford on screen and Oxford in reality can also be more literal, when filming encroaches on everyday college life. Tensions between students and film crews arose recently after Brasenose College closed its library to accommodate shooting for the forthcoming sequel to My Fault: London. Two quads and the dining hall were overrun by cameras and extras. Disruption clashed with exam season (taking place over 9th week, Trinity term), and prompted questions surrounding the priorities of the College. The Bursar told Cherwell they had “underestimated the impact of filming” in their impact assessment, and apologised to the students affected. 

Colleges commit to accommodating students, academics, and film crews. And camera crews are certainly not absorbing the downsides of this arrangement. Lex Donovan, location manager for Netflix’s My Oxford Year, described working at Magdalen as “very smooth. We shot during the holidays, so fewer students were around”. 

Even after the camera crews have left, disruption continues, as fans flock to filming locations. A Christ Church student told Cherwell: “I was nearly late for my Dean’s Collections because I hadn’t factored in weaving through the tourists”, and that, once, a tourist berated his friend “for walking in front of his photo” while on the way to a class. 

So, what makes colleges open their doors to film crews?

The undoubted publicity of a blockbuster filmed on your front lawn is enticing. Oxford’s 2024 UK admissions statistics somewhat reflect this. Magdalen, where My Oxford Year and much of Saltburn was filmed, received 2,503 applicants, more than double the number received by St Hilda’s, who have not appeared in any recent, well-known media. New College, Brasenose, and Christ Church also dominated domestic applications.

Yet Worcester College was on top with 2,623 domestic applications, despite lacking specific media fame. Balliol also made the top five, despite their relative cinematic insignificance. 

Regardless of whether franchises call them home, the most popular colleges all fit into the idea of the Oxford experience perpetuated by so much of the media filmed in the city. The expectation of palatial gardens and towering spires diminishes the ‘Oxford-ness’ of smaller, more modern colleges like St Peter’s and St Anne’s, which were much lower in the application rankings. The presentation of Oxford onscreen as 100% yellow brick risks narrowing horizons of prospective applicants, and reifying the city as fantastical yet inaccessible.

Beyond cultural capital, the University’s financial motivation for such attention is still unknown. A Freedom of Information Request from Cherwell to Brasenose revealed an annual filming income of £6,170 for 2024, and £43,827 for 2023 (the College declined to share data for the financial year ending in 2025, citing commercial interests). In terms of income, endowments (£644,000), tuition & research (£3.3m), and residential (£4.5m) provided far more to the College in 2024. The tuition fees of just one domestic undergraduate student are 1.5 times the profits from all filming at Brasenose in the same year. 

According to Oxford City Council, the city receives around seven million visitors annually, which generates approximately £780 million per year. Planning for an Oxford ‘tourist tax’ of £2 for overnight visitors seems to be a less-disruptive, passive profit method, as does the £5 congestion charge recently authorised by Oxford City Council, placing a toll on every vehicle passing through certain zones of the city. Still, it is unclear if this income and subsequent cultural relevance outweigh the disruption media production causes to daily student life. Is this side hustle really worth the hassle?

“Trapped in amber”

Oxford has been immortalised from a hundred different angles, yet, as a student, watching the city onscreen provokes a disconnect. Part of this is simply time. Whelan, whose year at Lincoln was 2006, felt that she would be ill-equipped to write about Oxford in 2025, worrying My Oxford Year “will feel trapped in amber sooner rather than later… I thought I’d have a bit more time before someone would look at my character’s Oxford experience the way I looked at Sebastian Flyte’s, but here we are. The future comes for even the most timeless of cities.”

It takes years for someone’s experience of Oxford to make it to the screen, and by that time, the city has moved on. The film-inspired underlay will lag a few years behind, while the enchantment that current students find is ever-changing. These stories try to capture the real magic of the city, whether in the robes of Harry Potter imitating sub fusc, or the streetlamp in Narnia reflecting Radcliffe Square. But they are echoes of actual experiences, animated by other students – walking to Exam Schools with the rest of your subject for prelims, stumbling back from clubs down centuries-old streets, wearing a ballgown on the same quad over which you carry your laundry. They’re the kind of things that can’t be found on a walking tour. 

What remains certain is Oxford’s duality, as a city of both students and screenings. Its popularity is built on nearly 1000 years of stories, fantastical and otherwise, from the people within Oxford and the University. Using the city as set dressing raises funds and college profiles, but also disrupts actual student life, and risks reducing Oxford to a set of stereotypes. Perhaps it is no surprise that the foundation of Oxford, its students, now wish to be the ones calling “CUT!”. 

Image Credit: Daniel Norton CC BY-SA 4.0 via
Wikimedia Commons.

Half the world away: How regional transport issues impact far-flung friendships

0

Travelling cross-country has never been easy, but UK transport is, predictably, delayed in its arrival to the 21st century. Long journey times and sky-high train fares make travelling difficult, frustrating, and expensive.

With friends spread across the country, students feel this acutely, but not always equally, as regional differences in transport infrastructure inevitably rear their ugly heads. This might be north versus south, or urban versus rural, but the ramifications for friendships, social lives, and wallets remain burdensome. 

The poor state of rail travel in the UK is well-known. However, it remains a key method of transport for students. Flights have limited luggage, burdensome security measures, and an outsized impact on the day. Coaches involve excessively long travel times, at almost double that of  trains. Driving requires a car and a licence, and right now the waiting time for driving tests is prohibitively high. With all these hurdles, it seems that the railways are the only option that works for everyone. But just how and why is it so difficult to get around? How exactly does this impact students? And is this impact equally shared? 

For this article, I conducted a survey on rail travel, asking students about their experiences and thoughts. 20 students responded, with details of the regions they travelled from, and how issues with trains had impacted their university and social lives. I also asked them how they would suggest improving this. 

Higher fees, longer waits 

The most striking concerns were the cost of journeys and the unpredictability of travel times. Firstly: the cost. 80% of respondents to the survey reported having been deterred from making a rail journey due to its price. Railcards do little to make journeys more affordable, with train fares in the UK at nearly four times the equivalent flight price. British commuters spend five times as much of their salary on rail fares as their European counterparts. Privatisation of the railways was supposed to bring greater competition and efficiency, but instead, average fares have increased by nearly 25% since the 1990s. A complex mess of many different profit-seeking companies are left charging different amounts at different times for different tickets. Fares are significantly cheaper if booked well in advance, but student plans are anything but organised, and opportunities are often last-minute. Outrageous fares charged for bookings within a month or fortnight present a serious limitation. 

A second key area of concern is journey times and accessibility, which more than 50% of respondents reported as a deterrent to rail travel. A train from Edinburgh to London can take up to six hours (or longer, if delayed). The journey between Paris and Marseille is 100km longer, but at least three hours shorter. According to the Office of Rail and Roads, between April and June 2025, 31% of train services were delayed, creating unnecessary headaches when trying to get anywhere. Additionally, there was a sharp difference between different regional operators for punctuality. Avanti West Coast and TransPenine Express were the least punctual, with 42% and 30% of their services running late, respectively. The most punctual, with 93% of services running on time, were C2C (which serves East London and Essex) and Greater Anglia (which connects the East of England to London). 

The UK also lags behind in investment into high-speed rail and other rail infrastructure . The UK has only one rail line with an operating speed of more than 125mph: HS1. Attempts to expand this were an unmitigated disaster in HS2. The project intended to create a high-speed link between London and the North. Instead, £81bn later, both the Leeds and Manchester sections have been dropped from the project. Now reaching only Birmingham, there is no clear indication on when it will be completed.

After 14 years, travel from the North to the South has not improved in any meaningful way. The north of England is left without the same transport links that connect London to Birmingham, the capital to the continent, and that criss-cross many other European countries. With the axing of key North-South services, it is now quicker to get from London to Brussels than to Hull. 

This lack of investment and the regional divides it has exacerbated have very real effects on student life, both social and economic, during the vacations and term time. This was reflected in the results of the survey, where students were asked about which region of the UK they lived in, and how they rated the overall performance of the railways. 

Regional vs London experiences: A tale of two trainlines 

On the whole, students rated rail travel poorly, but there was a clear connection between the score given and the student’s home region. On a ten-point scale, students in London and the South-East rated the railways around two points higher on average than their peers elsewhere. Most respondents outside these regions gave scores around 3, while those in London and the South-East hovered around 5. The disparity in connectivity and reliability was borne out in this increased dissatisfaction. Still, travelling is easy for almost nobody – 85% of respondents considered the state of the railways to have negatively impacted their ability to meet up with people and access opportunities. 

The over-representation of the South-East in Oxford admissions exacerbates regional divides in connectivity. According to the 2021 census, the population of London and the South-East made up 30% of the total population of England and Wales. However, students from both regions make up 50% of domestic students at Oxford. As a result, a majority of students are concentrated in a better-connected region. The gravitational pull to the South becomes social, as well as economic and cultural. London becomes the natural destination for meetups. However, the price and difficulty of the journey is not equally shared.  

This was not just a north v south divide – those in rural areas struggled with poor connection, no matter where they were in the country. One respondent, from Devon, found it impossible to visit their friends in Norfolk. The price of the train rendered it impossible, and there was no coach alternative. 

For survey respondents outside London, the concentration of Oxford students around the city was a large concern. Students described the expense and the unreliability of getting to the capital. This unreliability contributed to many also having to purchase accommodation, adding to the cost of train tickets that regularly stretch past £100. Few could manage to get there more than a few times over the vacation, with loneliness following. One respondent from the West Midlands struggled with “being a four hour train away to the function”, particularly when most of the people they knew lived in London. Over 40% of those who considered the railways to have negatively impacted their social lives mentioned London and the difficulty of getting there as a key impediment to seeing friends. 

Those in the South-East and London lamented being deterred from visiting friends, especially those who lived in the North, because of the cost of trains. Journeys closer to them were cheaper, leaving fellow southerners the more natural choice for visits. However, due to the distribution of Oxford students across the UK, and the issues with rail connections outside of London, this was not an option open to many students outside the South-East. The 35 miles from central London to Sevenoaks can be covered in 23 minutes on the train, while the 40 miles between Middlesbrough and Newcastle takes an hour. 

Meeting with an eye on the departures board

Fleeting meetings during the vac can also prove more stressful than during term. One respondent wrote of their difficulty in making “casual meetups happen”. With the amount of planning required, impromptu coffees, walks, or pub trips vanish. The stress of a trip is compounded by the knowledge that this may be the only time you see your friend for six weeks. Sudden delays can ruin meetups which have been long planned and anticipated, causing heartbreak and forcing students to try to find workarounds. During vacations, these feelings are the exact opposite of what students want after an already-exhausting term.

Friendship weren’t the only relationships strained and frustrated by poor connectivity. Romantic relationships and seeing family were also raised as areas of difficulty in the survey, both in vacations and termtime. One student wrote that it’s “too difficult to see my partner” during the vacation, and another in a long distance relationship highlighted how train delays further narrowed their already-limited time together. 

Cost and difficulties in transport meant students missed out on seeing family during term. For those in the North, rural South-West, and other regions of the UK, journeys to Oxford can run above five hours, whether driving or using the train. An overnight stay is often required. The expense spirals, resulting in trips home or visits from family being rationed. Students spoke of missing birthdays and family support, while others could go home every weekend. 

The fast-paced nature of term-time life clashed with the delays of the transport system. The closer to the time a booking is made, the more expensive the ticket, with drastic hikes in the week or fortnight before the journey. As a result, students could not enjoy unexpected opportunities with the support of their family. One respondent spoke of finding out the day before that they would be playing the lead role in a production, but the cost of transport and impossibility of finding a hotel meant none of their family could see them.  

Solutions 

Considering improvements, the survey responses followed two main paths. Namely, nationalisation or an increase in student ticket concessions. “Nationalisation”, “subsidisation”, and “public ownership” were terms that came up often. One response argued that nationalisation would lead to a joined-up system across the network, while another advocated for “total nationalisation” to, in their words, “undo Mrs Thatcher’s crap”. Nationalisation would bring UK rail in line with European countries like Italy, Spain, and Germany. According to a study by Action for Rail, commuters in these counties paid at least five times less for their rail fares. 

The current government seems to agree that nationalisation is the path forward, promising the implementation of a public ownership programme under the umbrella of ‘Great British Railways’. This may be a longer-term solution that shifts the status quo. As it is, the legislation for public ownership has not passed, the transition will be slow, and any future investment into projects like HS2 will have to wait for years until nationalisation is completed. Considering the unpopularity and failures of the current system, a complete rehaul through nationalisation could offer a path to improvement. If properly implemented, it may be a worthwhile effort from the government. How long students will have to wait for such improvement to materialise, however, is impossible to know.

On a more incremental scale, there were proposals for increased ticket concessions, such as a “student specific railcard”. This would be far less invasive and difficult to organise, but how effective it would be is questionable. Railcards for 16-25 year olds already exist. If these aren’t student railcards, then what are? 

Similarly, suggestions for a form of off-peak tickets for students with discounts at the beginning or end of term could work in reducing cost, in addition to having “more student concessions” generally. However, with so much variation in vacations across universities, such a solution seems impractical, and would not deal with isolation during vacations. Scotland has scrapped higher fares for peak travel times, an example which the rest of the UK could then follow. “Free bus travel” was also proposed, whcih would be useful at boosting local connectivity but doesn’t tackle the main structural issue.

Overall, the poor and unequal state of public transport across the country doesn’t just make friendships more difficult and costly during vacations. It also makes travelling home and participating in opportunities more difficult for those who live far from London. Even with the much-vaunted future implementation of the Great British Railways scheme, past precedent doesn’t inspire much hope. A government short on cash, and the cancellation of HS2’s northern section, make it unlikely that the demand for rail travel amongst younger generations will be met. Structural improvements tackling the higher fares and long journey times are therefore essential. But for now, it seems that poor connectivity will continue harming student friendships, relationships and opportunities, disrupting the inclusivity the student community strives for. 

Image Credit: Uncle Alf, CC BY-SA 3.0, via
Wikimedia Commons

Oxford, gone decaf

0

When I was having lunch with a friend, I ordered my usual, a double espresso, and – horror of horrors – it was decaf.

“Can I bully you a little bit?”

“For?”

“Drinking a decaf double espresso. People usually drink it for a hit of energy, you know? What’s the point?” 

The reasoning, dear reader, is simple: I have an anxiety disorder. If I drink caffeine these days, I begin to resemble Eeyore with a nasty coke habit, which isn’t a great look. The longer answer is that, during my year abroad, I discovered the staff room coffee machine at the school where I was teaching, and became eager to pick up a cup of coffee at every opportunity. At the same time, I was driven towards attempting Lent in earnest for the first time in my life, giving up caffeinated coffee and trying to cut my reliance on caffeine to wake me up in time to teach at 8am. I realised after Lent that I had a lot more energy throughout the day, whereas before, I would crash in the afternoon, and awaken myself with another dose. I had become one of those mythical creatures who could just summon energy from within themselves, rather than from a mere stimulant. 

Back in Oxford, this has proven particularly helpful. Caffeine, you see, has some undesirable knock-on effects: it has a half-life of six hours and disrupts the sleep-wake cycle through blocking certain neurotransmitters. Without it, I sleep full nights, and write essays fuelled by water and tea, rather than oscillating between writing and lethargy. I was worried that it would mean saying goodbye to the rich, deep, full-bodied flavour of regular coffee – a tragedy, really, having already lost the regular jolts of energy. It doesn’t have to be this way, though.

So, in order to direct the decaf-curious to the best spots, I have donned my food critic cap and tried out my usual order at several Oxford establishments:

Taylor’s

Taylor’s came in at £3, which set high hopes for its quality. However, although my grandmother considered Illy-brand coffee up the gold standard, this espresso fell short of expectations. Whilst it had a sweet-ish scent and a delightful rounded and warming flavour, I could tell that the usual vigorous hit of a double espresso had been lost in the decaffeination process. Not worth the £3, I’m afraid.

The Schwarzman Centre

A fellow member of Magdalen MCR recommended the coffee at the new Humanities Centre to me, so here are my thoughts. The price is not extortionate: £2.75, it’s not bad value for money. The espresso had an inoffensive flavour profile which lacked intrigue, though with a fullness to it which the espresso from Taylor’s did not. The acidity was gentle rather than overpowering. A slight gust of wheatiness could be detected in its scent. All in all, not a bad shout if you’re looking for a coffee break between pomodoro shifts in the library above. 

ItaliAmo

When I used to live on Longwall Street, I would march out of my room, furious at a botched essay, and take to ItaliAmo for a double espresso. On certain days, they offer a student discount, so you may be able to get a double espresso for as little as £1.98 (usually it stands at £2.20). ItaliAmo’s decaf coffee was warm and nonthreatening, with a slight scent of cinnamon. However, its downfall is in its weakness. This was the coffee which I felt was most detectably decaffeinated. Very much worth the price, but pay a few pence more elsewhere and a slightly better experience may await you.

Jericho Coffee Traders

Jericho Coffee Traders also hits the £3 mark for an espresso. But since they’re an independent cafe, and that use of a reusable cup gives you 20p off, I will cut them some slack on the price. The espresso here was akin to that at the Schwarzman, sharing its boldness and slight wheatiness, but with JCT’s coffee, the crema was thick and not much flavour seemed to have been lost in the decaffeination process. A strong contender.

Chickpea

More of a lunch spot, but one could easily pop in for a cake and a coffee. At £2.40, the double espresso was impressive value for money. On first whiff, I detected a gentle nuttiness, and a subtle hint of cherry in the first few sips. The flavour was bold and, yes, acidic, but without being coarse or insufferable – in fact, it went down smoothly. I was also impressed by the thickness of the crema. Go! Now! 

So, although you might be judged by those around you for making the (arguably necessary) switch to decaf, now you can go and pick up your fake espresso in the comfortable knowledge that you’re not compromising on flavour or experience – which are some of the main joys of drinking coffee, anyway.

In Conversation with Matt Williams

0

Matt Williams is an Access Fellow at Jesus College. You may recognise him from your Instagram reels or YouTube suggestions. His work with Oxford’s outreach has gained hundreds of thousands of views – helping students across the world in understanding the Oxford application process. Matt’s content is insightful, detailed and covers a wide ground of questions and aspects of what can be a very difficult application process. In person, he is extremely warm and always open for a friendly chat. Cherwell spoke to him to find out more specifically about his work in access and how his successful social media and internet presence first came about.

Cherwell: First, I wanted to ask you: could you describe Oxford in three words?

Williams: Oh! I always ask people this but have never thought about it myself. So, I think it is friendly, which I’ve always found slightly surprising. It can be a bit scary, however, so that’s my second word, and just exciting! So friendly, scary and exciting. Few juxtapositions there, but in the best possible way.

Cherwell: Okay! Could you introduce yourself to our readers, what do you teach and how long have you been at Oxford, and when did you first get involved with outreach?

Williams: So, I came to Oxford in 2006 for my Master’s and DPhil. I teach politics, specifically British Politics and Comparative Government. I got involved in access when I was doing my DPhil at Wadham College – Wadham has always been really interested in access, and as a grad student, I was able to work with visiting schools and just really enjoyed it. I noticed that it was that side of sort of helping people get into university that I was beginning to find as interesting as my academic work. And so I was lucky that this post at Jesus College came up, which literally combined the two, so it couldn’t have been a better fit! I was very lucky, and I’ve been at Jesus for nine years now.

Cherwell: Well, my next question was going to be how you came to be the face of Oxford outreach. I assume there was already some outreach presence on social media, like YouTube for instance. But how did you start posting videos on Jesus’s channel, and when did they start going viral?

Williams: So, the Jesus College YouTube account predated me, but there wasn’t a huge amount of content being uploaded. What changed was the pandemic. We had organized lots of access events where schools were going to come visit us or we were going over to them, and that suddenly had to stop. Specifically, we had to shift our Welsh Jesus College Summer School fully online. I knew that some people wouldn’t be able to make all the sessions, so I just recorded them and posted them to YouTube, thinking it would just be an easy way to distribute those videos, but I didn’t think anyone else would be interested. One particular video on Personal Statements ended up getting hundreds of thousands of views, which I was really shocked by. But then I thought – okay, well, there’s obviously demand for this sort of stuff. It’s clearly quite an efficient way of helping people who might not otherwise be able to access the same information. So, I sort of doubled down on that then. But I wouldn’t say I was the face of Oxford at all – and that wasn’t my ambition either! All I really care about is making Oxford representative of Britain, so that we take the best students. So it’s not about me getting my face out there – I promise (said whilst humbly smiling.)

Cherwell: You mentioned that one specific video did really well – would you say there’s been a lot of growth between then and now?

Williams: Yeah, and in particular in the last year, because we recently hired an amazing digital access officer called Iman Ali – she’s only been working here for just over a year. She put us onto TikTok and Instagram so this past year we’ve had 10 million views across all platforms, which is much more than we’ve had historically. So, yes, there’s been quite a lot of growth.

Cherwell: Of course, the content you produce can help anybody who needs some extra support, or is a bit curious, but how would you say you’ve measured the tangible impact that your work has had on students who may not have had opportunities previously to have this kind of support, for instance, at school?

Williams: That’s the million dollar question in access – how do we actually prove impact and then have an evidence-based approach to policy? It’s markedly difficult! With any intervention we have, whether it’s our summer schools or working with individual schools on a sustained basis, it’s very hard to prove causation and conclude that, because we did something, someone ended up in some destination. And it’s just as hard, if not even harder, with something like YouTube, because the audience is slightly self-selecting their content: the algorithm has identified them as already adjacent to that sort of stuff, or they’ll have sought our content out deliberately. So to say that we somehow changed their perspective is very difficult. The best we can do is not quantitative analysis, but to more qualitatively say that there have been people who’ve told us it’s made a difference to them. And that’s good to know!

Cherwell: Yes, absolutely… Speaking of challenges in access work, are there any other kinds of challenges that we, as viewers, might not notice?

Williams: We don’t know what is going to have the greatest impact necessarily. So it’s again, just based on – for want of a better word – guesswork. Applications are fairly seasonal, so we try to have more interview content before interviews, for example. But otherwise, there are other bits of content we’re not sure about. One thing I really like to lean into is the psychology around applying. I applied to Cambridge when I was a teenager and didn’t get in. And I think it’s useful to share that just so that people understand that it doesn’t matter. If you try to stretch yourself and you don’t “succeed”, no one ought to think any less of you and you should take a lot out of that experience. I think there’s quite a lot of painful emotions that some, not all, people have around applying to universities like Oxford, and it can put them off applying in the first place. It’s why being vulnerable and open is important and, I don’t see many other Oxford or Cambridge YouTube channels doing something similar to that. In terms of difficulties you may not see, I’m half blind so I can’t see the camera I’m looking at, which means that I’m often not looking at it! I’ve got a pronounced squint, so my eyes are going in all sorts of directions, (which commenters will point out in pretty much every video). Those are some technical challenges. But again, that’s where having Iman has really helped me – in the past, it was literally just me turning on a camera and vaguely looking in its direction.

Cherwell: You did sort of touch on this, but I suppose you do have quite unique content in all the different things that you talk about: some of the interview questions that you explore, you might not find elsewhere. How is it that you come up with these ideas?

Williams: So I want to centre everything around the concept of vulnerability. That’s my guiding content creation concept. I think that the university can be scary and it needs to, in a sort of almost anamorphic sense, open itself up and be more vulnerable: be more willing to accept that it’s not perfect. And show  that the individuals within it are also, slightly, a collection of broken toys in the sense that we are all occasionally capable of imposter syndrome, self-doubt and low self-esteem. I think before I came to Oxford, I thought that this was a place where everyone had their proverbial together and they were just sort of strutting around where they knew everything. But I think that the content always needs to sort of foreground that idea that it’s okay, we can all be scared. And that it’s hard! Writing a Personal Statement is difficult, and you do have to be personal about it, but if you’re struggling with it, that’s not because there’s anything deficient in you as a person. And it’s been nice to really notice how much more of the university thinks in a similar way to that. It is not full of people who are completely self-assured. There is much more vulnerability out there. In the SCR and amongst the fellowship, it is absolutely the same. I think arrogance is perhaps the word that I’m used to associate with Oxford but it’s just not really there.

Cherwell: And do you get a lot of content requests from individuals as well?

Williams: Yes, a fair amount. And, usually, it’s very niche. Incredibly niche. Sometimes, it’ll be about something that I just wouldn’t really feel qualified to talk about. Nor would I necessarily know the person who could help me talk about it. So it might be about a particular scholarship that’s only for a very small number of people, or about the module in the Music course that you do in third year! I think I’ve got to weigh up how I can respond to those without perhaps alienating the rest of the audience. I think it’s good to do stuff that is not just for everybody and that can be really specific, but there’s a balancing act with all of these things. I suppose it’s worth noting that we’re not just going for clicks and views and likes, so if we have a video that’s only viewed a few times, but it has a massive impact on those people that do view it, then great! I suppose it is nice to get lots of views for videos that we think should have broader publicability just because then it gives us some sense of it being useful. But yeah, we’re not sort of slavishly working the algorithm, if you like.

Cherwell: That’s good to know. And, on a more personal level, how does it feel having people come up to you and thanking you for your work?

Williams: It’s very flattering and I get sort of slightly bashful about it because I don’t think it’s anything to do with me. I might have provided some information and I might have nudged, but that’s it. I’ve not made them the committed, hardworking, intelligent person that they are. So it’s very flattering and very nice. I do really like it, but I also get sort of slightly blushing and not really sure what to say or do.

Cherwell: Since you are at Jesus College, Oxford’s Welsh College, I’m interested to know what are the specific Welsh outreach initiatives you manage?

Williams: So we have responsibility for the whole of Wales in our outreach, but also the London boroughs of Lambeth and Wandsworth – just like all colleges we have different bits of the countries we focus on. We have a big summer school that we run with the Seren Network, which is the Welsh government initiative. We also have an online summer school for anyone in Seren throughout the whole of Wales. More generally, we have school groups coming to us from Wales quite regularly and we go to Wales to visit schools. We host webinars for Welsh schools  but do much of the same stuff for London schools as well. So there’s not just Welsh outreach, although, yes, it is predominantly for Wales. There’s lots of initiatives that people can get involved with which start at primary level and finish with mature students. So it’s not just year 12s and 13s, it’s a bit wider than that. But there’s a lot going on!

Cherwell: I’d like to end by asking you: if you had to give some final words of advice to people applying, what would it be?

Williams: I would say try and have as much fun as possible! There’s enough scary stuff going on in year 13 that, if you try and just enjoy the ride a bit more, you might even do better. I think people see the whole thing as a test of their value and something where failure cannot be tolerated. It just becomes a chore that is deeply unpleasant! I think, if they can try and see it as an opportunity to develop their skills through the process, they’re going to have greater passion for their subjects. If they get more into the details and the weeds, they’ll come out a bit stronger. If they see it that way, then regardless of whether they get in or not they should feel good about it. And also just even having the guts to go for it is worthy of praise. Just basically having fun and being nice to yourself!

Cherwell: And what about for pupils who are already here?

Williams: Well, it’s kind of similar. I think the word that tends to be used most regularly in Oxford is ‘work’. And I mean, I’ve made this point several times, but I find that word problematic because work is typically alienating for the person working, because they’re working for someone else’s benefit. It feels like you’re doing it to stop your tutor from annoying you, or to make sure that you don’t have a principal’s collection: it’s very other-regarding. Whereas if we thought about it as studying, learning, growing, or something maybe a bit more cheesy, it’s more about you and what you could take out of it. And I think a few more students could do with just stepping back and like really reflecting on what it is they’re doing, because I guarantee by the time you’re my age when you’re in your 40s, you will look back at your education as the most incredible time of your life because you developed so many opportunities, skills and experiences that will be transformative.

President-Elect George Abaraonye loses no-confidence vote, results contested

The motion of no confidence in President-Elect George Abaraonye was passed by members of the Oxford Union Society. Of the 1746 ballots, 1288 members expressed no confidence in the President-Elect.

Abaraonye brought the motion of no confidence against himself after the international backlash he faced in September following his comments concerning the shooting of Charlie Kirk. 

The motion required a two-thirds majority to pass, and has sparked international media attention with reporting from Sky News and Turning Point UK, a conservative non-profit organisation founded by Charlie Kirk. Prominent political figures, including former Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, descended upon Oxford in order to vote.

Abaraonye has contested the results. His spokesperson told Cherwell: “This poll was compromised from the moment Moosa Harraj and his majority on the Standing Committee brought compromised and untested Poll Regulations.” They cited issues in collecting proxy votes and believe that “we do not know if or how many proxy votes have been tampered with”.

Replying to Abaraonye’s reaction, a spokesperson from the Oxford Union told Cherwell: “The claim that the poll was ‘compromised’ is baseless. The ERO [Electoral Returning Officer] and his team followed established verification procedures, ensuring every proxy vote was validated against membership records, and ID checks.

“At no stage were proxy emails or votes left unsupervised, nor was there any opportunity for tampering. The email system used was secure, access was controlled, and every communication and proxy submission is fully documented and archived.”

The results of the vote were delayed. Although they were originally expected to be announced on Sunday morning, the count was suspended early on Monday, with the Extraordinary Returning Officer (ERO) in charge of the process publicly blaming “obstruction, intimidation, and unwarranted hostility”.

In response, Abaraonye’s spokesperson told Cherwell: “We equivocally deny that any representative appointed by George engaged in intimidating or disruptive behaviour.”

Cherwell understands that Abaraonye has submitted a complaint to the Union regarding the results. The spokesperson stated: “George Abaraonye is and remains the President-Elect.”

The Union’s spokesperson commented: “It is ironic at best, and despotic at worst, that Mr Abaraonye only contests democracy when it doesn’t give him his desired result.”

In an Instagram post, Abaraonye earlier explained that calling the vote of no confidence on himself was “about reclaiming true accountability and reaffirming that the Oxford Union must remain a place where students can make mistakes, apologise sincerely, and learn from them”.

The Union’s standing committee ruled that all members were allowed to vote for the no-confidence motion by proxy, meaning Union members unable to attend the vote could nominate another member to vote on their behalf. Cherwell understands that voting by proxy is normally only permitted under the Equality Act, for reasons such as disability or ill health.

A former member of the Union’s standing committee told Cherwell: “The only time proxy or online voting has been used in the 200-year history of the society was during the pandemic. To suddenly introduce such a rule is at best convenient and at worst evidence of a desire to rig the outcome.”

In response, a Union spokesperson told Cherwell: “Many members had expressed strong interest in the vote but were unable to attend in person due to the short notice period, travel, or accessibility constraints. In such circumstances, allowing proxy voting was not only a matter of fairness but also an equality concern, grounded in the principle that all members should have an equal opportunity to participate in Union democracy.”

The Union’s spokesperson added: “The Governing Body was also mindful of security concerns arising from the widespread controversy surrounding the motion, which had led to heightened tensions, misinformation online, and even threats to the society. Allowing members to cast their votes through proxies provided a safe and orderly mechanism for participation, minimising the risk of confrontation or disruption on the day of polling.”

This week’s Union debate saw disruption as members expressed frustration about the use of proxy votes, with members shouting “let her speak” in the chamber as they demanded the Union’s President, Moosa Harraj, make way for Arwa Elrayess, a member of standing committee, to speak on a motion in favour of removing proxy voting.

On the debate disruption, one Union committee member told Cherwell: “It was a coordinated attempt to subvert democracy and save their friend. It was disgraceful and entirely beneath the standards of this society.”

Abaraonye’s comments about Kirk led some to rescind their offer to speak at the Oxford Union, such as StopAntisemitism Executive Director and co-founder of VC firm Lux Capital Josh Wolfe. James Price, former Conservative Party Chief of Staff, resigned as the honorary secretary of the Oxford Literary Debating & Union Trust (OLDUT) in protest following Abaraonye’s comments. OLDUT is a financial trust that owns the Union buildings and licenses the society’s operations on the premises.

Responding to the backlash in September, Abaraonye told Cherwell: “Last night I received the shocking news about a shooting at Charlie Kirk’s event. In that moment of shock, I reacted impulsively and made comments prior to Charlie being pronounced dead that I quickly deleted upon learning of his passing. Those words did not reflect my values.”

The Oxford Union posted a statement against the threats and racial abuse that the President-Elect faced online. Oxford’s African Caribbean Society also posted a statement condemning “anti-black and anti-migrant rhetoric” towards Abaraonye with Oxford Feminist Society reposting in solidarity.

Another vote of no confidence will take place this week, asking whether the Oxford Union has confidence in President Moosa Harraj. The 150 signatures which are required to trigger a confidence vote were achieved over the weekend. Cherwell understands that the confidence vote in Harraj will take place on Thursday.