Oxford City Council approved the first draft of the Local Plan 2040 on 18 October, acknowledging that they can’t meet the housing demand of the next 17 years. The plan aims to tackle the climate crisis, build more affordable homes, and “make Oxford’s economy work for all residents”.
Following the Council’s approval, the Local Plan will go to public consultation between November and January, after which a final draft will be prepared for public inspection. The Local Plan could be adopted in the summer of 2025, making it the legal document that governs decision-making on all planning and development applications in Oxford, replacing the existing Oxford Local Plan 2036.
Investigations for the Plan identified a need for 26,400 homes in Oxford before 2040. However, the Plan only identifies 9,612 available sites for new homes within the city’s boundaries.
Oxford City Council has asked neighbouring districts to accommodate more than 2,500 of these homes, on top of the 14,300 homes that the districts have already agreed to.
The Local Plan includes new approaches to tackling housing issues in Oxford, including allowing homes to be built on all types of employment sites for the first time and continuing to limit student accommodation to the city centre, district centres (including Cowley Road, Summertown, and Headington) and land adjacent to existing University campuses.
This decision to ask neighbouring districts to take on thousands of extra homes has been criticised by local MPs including Layla Moran, who commented: “Oxford City Council repeatedly decides to use sites in the city for retail and employment rather than housing, and then claims that it can’t deliver the housing the city so desperately needs.”
This is not the first cross-council issue over housing that arose in the drafting stage. The Plan was initially expected to accompany the Oxfordshire Plan 2050 but councils across Oxfordshire were unable to agree on how many houses would be built and where in the county.
Additionally, the Local Plan 2040 only allocates 40% of developments over 10 properties as affordable housing, compared to the 50% it previously set in Local Plan 2036.
The City Council’s Website states that this is because “residential use now has a lower land value than offices and lab space … Therefore, without this change it is very likely that developers would choose not to use land for housebuilding and there would be fewer affordable homes built in the future.”
The Plan also hopes to balance these housing goals with the council’s climate goals including requiring all new homes and businesses to be Carbon Zero by 2030.
Local Plan 2040 is the result of years of investigations as well as input from the local community with 1,730 Oxford residents’ and organisations’ comments having been considered as part of this draft.
Image Credit: Keir Starmer/CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 via Flickr
Fifty-six years ago, in Hamilton, Winnie Ewing won the SNP its first Westminster seat, with 46 per cent of the vote. A landmark in Scottish politics, the 1967 by-election gave the Scottish question momentum. It welcomed the SNP to the political mainstream and forced Labour and the Conservatives to articulate their vision of Scotland in the UK.
Fast forward to 2023, and the momentum is with Labour, who are keen to frame as “seismic” their by-election victory over the SNP in Rutherglen and Hamilton West earlier this month. With 58.6 per cent of the vote, it was a remarkable win. Writing in the Times, Prof. John Curtice projected a similar swing could increase Labour’s Scottish MPs from 2 to 40 in a general election.
As the first by-election defeat the nationalists have suffered at Westminster, Rutherglen plays into a narrative of SNP decline. Amidst investigations into party finance and a lacklustre leadership in Nicola Sturgeon’s vacuum, the lack of enthusiasm amongst members debased Scotland’s governing party to outsource leafleting to a private firm. Having long mastered their role as a Janus-faced government of opposition, the SNP’s machine is running on empty.
At Labour’s conference, Keir Starmer was triumphant, emphatic that “Scotland can lead the way to a Labour government.” Which is just as well, because the route to Downing Street demands Labour gains north of the border. But with talk of 40 MPs, “seismic” change, and a Scotland “at the heart of a Britain built to last,” is Labour getting ahead of itself? Absent at conference was any articulation of Scotland’s constitutional future under a Labour government. This poses a problem, as despite the SNP’s political woes, support for Scottish independence remains high, hovering between 45 to 48 per cent.
Yet this stasis in the polls obfuscates a shift in nationalist thought. In 2014, there was a thin divide between nationalism and unionism. Both sides shared a vision of a strong welfare state, membership of the EU, and greater Scottish control of Scottish affairs. Stressing continuity, Alex Salmond located Scotland within six unions: political, monarchical, monetary, defence, European, and social. Independence was to sever the first of these, but to leave the others intact.
Just as the SNP has lurched left-ward in government with the Greens, however, so it has become more separatist. Not only the political union but now the monarchical, monetary, defence, and – thanks to Brexit – the European and social unions would alter. As the SNP move towards republicanism in Europe, requiring membership of Schengen and calling into question free movement within the British Isles, independence has less in common with unionism than ever before. In turn, the Scottish Tories have moved in a unitary direction to bypass Holyrood and interfere directly from Westminster in devolved matters. All the while, Scottish Labour are yet to articulate an answer to the Scottish Question beyond a vapid promise to “protect devolution and stand up for Scotland’s role in the UK.”
It has now been a year since Gordon Brown published his committee’s report on the UK’s future, imagining a “reunited kingdom.” Brown’s key recommendation, to abolish and replace the House of Lords with a democratically elected Assembly of the Nations and Regions, has yet to translate into Labour policy. Coupled with Brown’s recommendations on increased fiscal power for devolved administrations and “double devolution” from Westminster and Holyrood to local communities, this would be the seismic change Labour desperately needs.
It would give voice to a de-centralising unionism that makes permanent and enhances the devolution settlement, whilst building consensus in a polarised Scotland. For Brown’s recommendations bear striking similarity to Alex Salmond’s ‘Council of the Isles’ proposed during the 2014 independence referendum: bringing together the UK’s four nations to work collaboratively on issues that affect everyone. Such policy would reinvigorate Donald Dewar’s “independence within the UK,” and reclaim Labour’s place as champions of devolution. It would see a return to the spirit of 1707 unionism, which sought to safeguard Scottish nationhood and civil society, whilst joining with our larger neighbour to pool resources and work collaboratively on issues that affect us all. Labour’s history of progressive collaboration – on the welfare state, the NHS, social housing – make the unionist arguments most likely to sway Yes voters. James Callaghan’s argument for devolution in 1976 still stands, that “national identity and a United Kingdom are not competitors or rivals,” but rather “partners, each enriching the other”.
But without firm policy on devolution or “levelling up,” Labour risks peddling a unitary unionism that bursts at the border; riding the polls only whilst Scottish voters prioritise the cost of living above independence. This unitary unionism bears the spectre of Thatcherite misunderstanding in red, white, and blue; wary of difference, rendering devolution as “separation by degrees.” It risks returning to Labour’s pre-1970 scepticism of devolution as anathema to socialist solidarity: to a centrally planned economy, nationalised industries, and full employment.
Each of these strands of unitary unionism were evident in Keir Starmer’s keynote speech to conference. Standing in front of a huge Union Jack, with the slogan ‘Britain’s future’ on his podium, Starmer echoed Margaret Thatcher in 1984, with a patriotic rebranding designed to appeal to English Conservative swing voters. Likewise, the tricolour placards happily brandished at the by-election wins in Tamworth and Mid Bedfordshire enjoined “Let’s Get Britain’s Future Back.” By contrast, there were no Union Jacks (or Saltires) on the placards at Rutherglen, where Michael Shanks and Anas Sarwar campaigned for “the change Scotland needs.”
Starmer’s speech made no reference to the United Kingdom, or its constitutional future, but mentioned Britain forty-five times, working up to Labour’s central policy for “Great British Energy,” a publicly owned green energy company. The difference between the United Kingdom and Britain may seem semantic – the difference between four nations and one – but points to a fraction between Westminster and Holyrood in unionist thought and campaigning. A general election fought with UK Labour’s British branding may not resonate with Scottish voters or deliver the success of Rutherglen. The Union Jack may have been conceived to combine symbols for Scotland, Ireland, and England, but for many Scots it is now synonymous with ‘British’ identity, set against Scottishness.
If this really is “a changed Labour party,” as Starmer declares, it needs a better policy on Scotland’s future. A general election focused on the economy and the poor governance of the Tory party might just land Labour more seats north of the border. But to sustain a lead over the SNP and to win control of the Scottish Parliament in the 2026 elections, Labour needs an answer to the Scottish Question, and to deliver change for Scotland within the first term of a Labour government.
As far as there is a ‘settled will’ of the Scottish people, we are still split right down the middle. If Labour seeks not only to win power but to retain it, the party needs to articulate a deliverable vision for Scotland’s future within the UK – one that can reclaim the constitutional centre ground.
Image Credit: Keir Starmer/CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 via Flickr
Oxford tourism numbers are now surpassing pre-pandemic levels, after having been among the most reduced in the UK during COVID. Eight and a half million visited the city over the summer, according to the council’s data.
The city centre has defied the nation-wide trend, with a 14.6% increase in summer visitors compared to the UK’s average 0.3% decrease. The council has attributed these changes to the City Centre Action Plan, which was introduced last year in an attempt to strengthen the city centre.
The Covered Market has had consistently improved levels of activity. To meet and help fuel increased demand, the Market introduced longer opening hours which were warmly received in the 2022 consultation. The Council’s redevelopment plan also includes refurbishment to the structure and a potential pedestrianisation of Market Street which is set to be trialled next spring.
Compared to other cities, Oxford has a drastically lower vacancy rate of 5.6%. This is less than half of the southern average and nearly a fifth of the northern. While still above pre-pandemic levels, the numbers are going down rapidly, at 32 available units from 49 this time last year.
Councillor Susan Brown is optimistic about the future of the city centre, saying: “This summer’s rise in footfall shows Oxford city centre continues to be a thriving destination, despite national trends and despite the challenges of the Botley Road Bridge closure.
“It’s been wonderful to see the city’s streets and businesses busy over the summer and we have a lot of exciting projects planned – including the redevelopment of the Covered Market and the Clarendon Centre – that will help to keep the city centre vibrant.”
The City Centre Action Plan is set to be completed in 2030. Part of the plan includes diversifying activities available, making the city safer and, controversially, limiting congestion. The council has expressed its hope that Oxford will continue to grow as a tourist destination and a desirable place to live, with an aim to improve the local economy and retain talent.
An Oxford led team of scientists have recently revealed the results of a unique collaborative project which looked to explore the source of the greatest recorded seismic event on Mars.
The study indicated that the quake was a consequence of enormous tectonic forces within Mars’ crust and ruled out the possibility of a meteorite impact.
This seismic event (S1222a) was recorded by NASA’s InSight lander last year, on Wednesday 4th May 2022. NASA recorded the marsquake’s magnitude of 4.7 which caused the planet to vibrate for at least six hours.
While Mars is smaller than Earth, it still has comparable land surface area as it has no oceans. To survey this vast amount of ground, 144 million km2, Oxford’s project lead, Dr Benjamin Fernando from the Department of Physics, sought contributions from different space agencies around the world.
In an unprecedented fashion, it is believed that this is the first time that all missions in orbit around Mars have worked together on a single project. This included assistance from the European Space Agency, the Chinese National Space Agency, the Indian Space Research Organisation, and the United Arab Emirates Space Agency.
On Mars, InSight (co-designed by Oxford) recorded at least eight seismic events caused by meteoroid impacts, forming craters that reached up to 150m in diameter. Eventually, after several months, scientists concluded that S122a could not have been caused by a meteoroid, as no fresh or larger crater was found. Instead, it is thought to be from interior tectonic forces, which indicate the planet is much more seismically active than previously believed.
This study, drawing on global expertise, has highlighted the potential of collaborative work on scientific discovery and knowledge. Oxford’s Dr Benjamin Fernando said: “This project represents a huge international effort to help solve the mystery of S1222a, and I am incredibly grateful to all the missions who contributed. I hope this project serves as a template for productive international collaborations in deep space.”
The Oxford University Jewish Society (JSoc) released a statement condemning “anti-Semitic incitements to violence” used by students during recent protests. In particular, the student society condemned the refrain “From Oxford to Gaza / Long live the Intifada,” writing that “during the last Intifada, thousands of people were killed in random acts of terror.” While JSoc “hoped this call to violence was an aberration,” the statement said “it has now become clear that it is being used frequently at protests.”
The protests in question have been organised by several Oxford societies over the past three weeks. Other recurrent chants from protestors have included “From the River to the Sea / Palestine will be free” and “One, two, three, four / Occupation no more.” The next demonstration is expected to take place on 1 November and will consist of a march from Manzil Way to Bonn Square.
JSoc emphasised the importance of distinguishing between the state policy of Israel and the Jewish diaspora in such protests. It urged the Oxford Palestinian Society (PalSoc) and the Oxford Marxist Society to recognize this distinction, writing “we call on these groups to publicly acknowledge that Jews in the UK are not responsible for the conflict in the Middle East, and that any attempts to assert our responsibility are inherently anti-Semitic.”
JSoc also called on the two other student societies to “cease using the chant and unequivocally condemn anti-Semitism.”
According to the announcement, JSoc has reached out to these groups through private channels and asked them to publicly condemn anti-Semitism, but neither society has responded to the requests.
A previous social media announcement from JSoc was posted in response to an attack on an Oxford mosque and read as follows: “We are saddened and disturbed by the Islamophobic attack on a mosque in Oxford yesterday morning. The targeting of Muslims in the UK due to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East is unacceptable, and we stand with our Muslim neighbours during this difficult time.”
The Oxford Palestine Society has been approached for comment.
Image Credits: by Oxford Playhouse via. Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0
The drama scene at Oxford is vibrant and thriving – in fact, the Oxford University Dramatic Society (or OUDS as everyone calls it) is the biggest university drama society in the country. However, because of its size and the way it runs it can be a little tricky to navigate at first, so we’ve put together this easy to follow guide which explains how to put on a show in Oxford. If you came to our OUDS introduction event in fresher’s week this may sound a little familiar, but for those who couldn’t make it I hope it’s of some use!
How to get involved with OUDS:
Get onto the OUDS portal on Facebook! This is where all upcoming auditions and crew calls are posted by individual productions companies within the drama society. Along with these will always be a link to a Google Drive with all the information you will need to apply. For a crew position (ie anything other than acting!) this will usually just be filling in a google form with your personal details, any experience you have and why you want to join the show. Crew positions can be anything from lighting design to assistant stage managing, and there are lots of assistant roles available for which you don’t need any experience – just an interest in theatre and lots of enthusiasm! If you want to learn a particular skill or just how a show in Oxford works, you can also sign up for one of the shadowing opportunities also advertised on the facebook portal. These have no application process, you can simply sign up using the form on the facebook, and you will be able to attend rehearsal and production meetings to get a sense of how Oxford theatre works.
For auditions, there will also be extracts or monologues for you to have a look at. You will then either need to send a self tape or attend an in person audition slot. There should also be links to additional advice on preparing for an audition and filming a self tape.
How to put on a show:
If you’re keen to put on a show yourself as a director or producer, we’d recommend you join a show this term in an assistant or shadowing position first .
Once you’ve got an idea of how a show in Oxford works, you’ll want to find another person to start a production company with. Starting a production company means you’ll be able to put on a show in Oxford within the drama society. This involves setting up a bank account and registering on the OUDS website. If you have questions about this you can reach out to any of the OUDS committee members, or your college drama rep. You will then put out your first crew call on the facebook page for your core crew members. This includes: a marketing manager, a lighting, sound, and set designer, and a welfare rep.
Once you have your crew and have chosen a show (and secured the rights if it’s not out of copyright – reach out to the committee if you’re unsure on how to check this!), you then need to go through a process called ‘bidding’ for one of the venues in Oxford. For a first production, both the BT studio and the Pilch theatre are really good options as they aren’t too expensive or big to fill. Theatres will advertise their bid application dates later in term, usually around 4th or 5th week, and you will need to submit an application with a budget, created using the OUDS budget template, and include statements from heads of department. You will then have an interview with the venue, who will tell you whether or not you have secured a slot.
After that, it’s pretty self explanatory! You will need to hold auditions by putting a casting call on OUDS, and maybe another crew call if you need additional crew members like assistants. You will also need to secure funding for your production, which most shows get from OUDS and a variety of other funding bodies whose details you can find on the OUDS website. You will need to send them your budget and sometimes have an interview about what you’re going to do with the funding.
Some shows, especially if they are in the first half of term, will cast actors the term before, but lots of shows also leave it to the term of the performance. Once you have a cast, it’s simply a question of rehearsing, having production meetings to discuss design elements and practicalities, and marketing your show to sell tickets.
I realise this was a lot of information in one go, and I promise being part of OUDS isn’t all admin and Facebook posts! The main piece of advice I would give anyone wanting to get involved is to start somewhere – it doesn’t matter if it’s a role you’ve never done before or a show you’ve never heard of. Everyone in Oxford drama is incredibly friendly and we all share a love of (some might say obsession with…) theatre, so you’re sure to have something in common with everyone you meet. The OUDS committee will also be hosting socials for Halloween and Christmas so do come along to those if you want to meet some friendly faces before diving in to a show. I look forward to seeing you there!
Image credits: Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional de Chile via Wikimedia Commons
It’s been a good year for rugby, despite how much it hurts to admit it as an Irish rugby fan. Supporters have been absolutely spoiled. This isn’t just owing to the massive, heavyweight match-ups but also comes from a blurring (an exploding, in some cases) of that boundary of supposed ‘tier-one nations’ versus lesser-known ‘tier-two nations’. But of all the upsets (Portugal-Fiji) and matches going either way (France-Namibia), I think there was only one eighty-minute game which managed to steal my attention from start to finish. On the 30th of September, Nantes hosted the first ever South American derby in a world cup: Chile v Argentina.
Playing the South American derby, Chile’s first international test match was also against Argentina. In 1936, the result was the same: just as then, Argentina won a resounding victory. The Chileans, determined to prove their place on the international field, fought for every inch. Today, some players have quit their jobs, even sacrificed personal relationships to beat the world cup. A booming rendition of the Canción Nacional set the pitch for lung-busting carries, selfless tackles, heart-pounding breaks. It wasn’t enough.
I start with this game of rugby because I think it captures something about Chile and their fight for certain values. This includes the current nation, not just its rugby team. There is a similar self-critical but determined struggle underway in the country to challenge cynicism about its past and, despite impairments, strive for improvement.
This September, Chile marked the fiftieth anniversary of an infamous coup – arguably the acme of this struggle for values. Elected President by the Chilean Congress in 1970, Dr Salvador Allende was murdered, his administration and the democratic process were betrayed and dismantled by General Augusto Pinochet and his soldiers.
The shame of this episode cannot be borne exclusively by the domestic perpetrators, with the overthrow having been anticipated and even partially orchestrated by foreign powers. The kidnapping and subsequent murder of Chile’s General, René Schneider, who bravely resisted pressure to involve the military in politics, was criminally endorsed, consecrated by Henry Kissinger and the United States security apparatus. More than 40,000 people were to be executed, disappeared, interned, or tortured until democracy was restored in 1990. The Chilean people and their representatives were not permitted to choose their own future. Instead, their government was to become a ventriloquist for irrelevant Cold War politics and a laboratory for ‘neo-liberal’ Chicago Boys ideologues.
The process of unearthing sinister crimes continues to this day. Just this summer, new evidence arrived which finally demonstrates that Pablo Neruda – Chile’s second Nobel Prize winning poet, and confidant of Dr. Allende – was likely poisoned to death by the bacterium clostridium botulinum. Do not believe the apologists and reactionaries: Pinochet’s coup was not just about economics.
During a conflict about a decade after events in Chile, Mrs Thatcher made the curious claim that Pinochet’s regime was a key ally for Britain in fighting Galtieri’s Argentina. One regime of extrajudicial murder and thuggery required to defeat another regime of extrajudicial murder and thuggery. Apart from the ignorance of the claim itself (Chile, Pinochet or not, would always have been eager to agitate against Argentine expansion), the greater damage was an overwriting of a richer tradition of shared values between the UK and Chile. The official campaign in Britain for Chilean independence, the closeness between both countries’ maritime culture, Chile’s uniquely anglophile political tradition; these nuanced bonds – not to mention the small but courageous campaign for solidarity with Chile – became subordinate to an alliance with a jumped-up despot.
The British effort for solidarity with Chile is, in itself, an apt illustration, a sort of photographic negative, revealing an instance of brief resistance to the slow decline of internationalist values in Britain. Apart from a brief resignation by cabinet minister Eric Heffer over British military exports, it was largely through the individual efforts of MPs Judith Hart and Neil Kinnock that the anti-Pinochet campaign, including support for victims and exiles, was sustained in both Westminster and Brussels.
This era was also witness to some last vestiges of a radical, internationalist tradition in the British labour movement. Perhaps most famously, Scottish workers at the East Kilbride Rolls-Royce factory flatly refused to work on jet engines intended for export to the Chilean Air Force (the airmen of which bombed Santiago into submission in 1973).
Conciliatory though these acts were, the values of internationalism they espoused did not easily track vertically. In what could have extended the effort of solidarity from the factory floor to the highest courts, the UK arrested the elderly Pinochet in 1998 citing human rights violations brought forth by Spain’s highest criminal court. In response, Thatcher came up with another painful ironism. The investigations into Pinochet were “circumstances that would do credit to a police state”, she said while giving credit to a police state.The entire affair ended up setting major precedent not only for British law but general legal theory on state immunity and national-universal judicial boundaries. This was the first major arrest of a former head of state, in a foreign court, for international crimes.
Britain could have secured the best example since Nuremberg of a former despot tried on the basis of universal human dignity, rather than laws protecting a specific nation’s citizens. After three separate rulings, the Supreme Court finally ruled that Pinochet was not immune from state prosecution as accusations against him were so heinous. He nonetheless could not be tried for acts taking place before 1988.
In March of 2000, the Home Secretary set the ageing dictator free from house arrest. Upon his arrival at Santiago de Chile airport, having been released on the basis of ‘ill health’, Pinochet miraculously stood up from his wheelchair to the elation of his supporters.
The internal struggle going on in Chile, a struggle to unearth and overcome its history, can be interpreted as a fight to preserve certain values and oppose others. The events in Santiago were never outside the purview of the UK and its own values: this struggle extended internationally. The old and modern fight for certain values in Chile was never just spectated. It always reverberated through to Britain. That old metaphor of Donne’s applies similarly to values as it does to ‘men’: no value is an island, entire of itself – they always inform a larger conversation, a struggle which implicates us all.
The upshot of all this is an obligation of sorts. A participant in this history, there is so much the UK can both contribute to and learn from this anniversary of reflection. Chile reveals to us how the UK was changing as a country, what different people aspired for it to become, and now allows its inhabitants to reflect on how the country was in fact changed. Archives and collections about the UK’s response, such as those exhibited this year by the People’s History Museum and London School of Economics, are crucial in this process. By no means are the lessons purely theoretical; there is a practical, prescriptive bent to these matters. For example, I can picture how many activists campaigning for similarly abused and displaced peoples in modern conflicts may take inspiration from the example of the Chilean Solidarity Campaign, in particular from their independence and third-way persuasion against the influence of invasive political forces.
The path of Chile’s democratic reconstruction has come from the painful but thorough re-examination of its own recent history. There has been a refusal to bury past crimes, instead pursuing them on the basis of the values of democracy and free expression. Chile is a model for mature self-examination. We could all learn from Chile’s critical time of reflection and re-evaluation.
An investigation by Cherwell has found that the number of students accessing the University’s counselling service has been steadily increasing over the past decade, up by 7.4 percentage points since 2012. According to a Cherwell survey of 100 students, mental health care services are inadequate to treat the mounting mental health care issues they face. University Counselling Service data, however, suggests that students described their experiences and counsellors more positively.
Reports that mental health issues are on the rise in young people have become familiar headlines over the past several years. Between 2011 and 2022, the suicide rate has risen by 16%, with young people suffering at historically high rates. In a 2022 survey by the mental health charity Student Minds, 57% of respondents self-reported a mental health issue and 27% said they had a diagnosed mental health condition.
Oxford is not immune to the problem. Oxford’s Counselling Service Annual report stated that the percentage of students presenting with anxiety has increased from 16.7% in 2017/18 to 33.7% in 2021/22. One student responded to the Cherwell survey with: “Sometimes it feels like the Oxford system is intentionally designed to keep you stressed and under pressure – no reading week, compact terms, two essays a week, finals as eight exams over three weeks dictating your entire degree.”
Across colleges, a common narrative among students is that being at Oxford is hard on mental health – and that University mental health resources are lacking. In a Cherwell survey, nearly two thirds of respondents said that their mental health had significantly worsened or somewhat worsened since coming to Oxford. Over 95% of respondents said that the University itself played a very significant or significant role in this change.
While student mental health has recently worsened across all UK universities, Oxford and Cambridge in particular have been criticised in the media and by their student bodies for the effects of their intense academics and social lives on student mental health. 47% of Cherwell survey respondents across all colleges said either academic workload or exams was the foremost factor impacting their mental health.
Is student mental health the University’s responsibility?
While young people are experiencing rising cases of self-reported and diagnosed mental health issues, it is unclear what the role of the university is in managing students’ mental health.
Legally, the subject is largely untested. The UK Government has published that universities “have a duty of care” to their students. But in May 2022, a court case between the parents of a student at the University of Bristol who died by suicide determined that there was “no statute or precedent” concerning a duty of care owed by a university to its students to take reasonable steps to avoid causing injury.
According to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests sent by Cherwell, at least fifteen colleges and the central University employ in-house counsellors and nurses. However, Oxford’s mental health care resources are not designed to treat serious illness. If Oxford counsellors believe a student to require more serious medical care, they are encouraged to refer them to the University’s medical consultant, a psychiatrist, who may ultimately refer them to NHS secondary resources.
Oxford’s Counselling Service Annual Report stated: “It is not the role of our medical consultant to treat mental health problems of students, but to advise on the most appropriate course of action, i.e. to hold and work with the student within our service or to advise the student’s GP to make a psychiatric referral.”
The report further acknowledged that while this system used to work well, in recent years, many students face “very long waiting periods to access NHS psychiatric services” and the university psychiatrist has been under “pressure to ‘hold’ students over much more extended periods.” One student responded to the anonymous Cherwell survey with: “I have been waiting 1.5 years to speak with a counsellor at the uni service, so [I] have sought help elsewhere.”
Oxford’s mental health care system may be under-used
Colleges and the central University have invested significant resources into mental health care. According to the FOI requests, the highest spent on welfare in 2022/23 was £398,000 by Balliol college – the planned budget for 2023/24 is £425,000, an increase of 6.78%. Many colleges explained that they don’t have specific budgets for mental health or even welfare, with Corpus Christi adding: “If money is required for welfare it is made available to us.” St Annes further stated that their budget “is mainly staff costs.”
A University report has stated that the percentage of students accessing Counselling Services has grown steadily from 7.4% in the 2012/13 academic year to 13.8% in 2021/22. Based on the Cherwell survey of 100 students, 41% stated that they had accessed college mental health support in their time at Oxford and that 30% had used university-level services; however, there may be a self-selection process.
There are also significant discrepancies in the demographics making use of services, indicating that some may be under-utilising them. In 2021/22, 65.6% of students using University counselling services were female and just 34.3% male, in spite of equal rates of anxiety for each gender and far higher rates of male suicide. While ethnic makeup of students using University mental health services was largely proportionate to their representation in the general student population, Chinese students were far under-represented.
The issue, then, may lie in students accessing the resources available to them. The majority of students receiving College and University support have gained it through self-referral, though parents, peers, and College welfare representatives (elected, trained peers) can also refer College members to services, too.
Students report being generally aware of the services available to them. 41% of students surveyed by Cherwell reported being very aware of the services available to them within the university, while another 54% were somewhat aware.
University, college, and other resources
The Cherwell FOI requests to Oxford colleges also revealed that most colleges currently employ, at a minimum, a nurse as well as at least one position partly dedicated to student welfare. At some colleges, including Christ Church, the chief welfare staff member is “employed 50 per cent as College Chaplain and 50 percent as Welfare Coordinator” – a set-up one student said should be changed so as to “not be linked in any way to the Church.”
University services, though less accessed by students, are generally well-received according to reports from the University. Once students are referred to University services, wait-times before receiving care averaged at 9.4 days in 2021/22, with 42% of students seen in less than five working days. The majority of students described their wait as “manageable.”
Once care is received, student reports are also largely positive. The 2021/22 Counselling Service Annual states that 96% of students who accessed the Service described their counsellor as good or very good at listening, understanding, and making helpful contributions. Empirically, Counselling sessions resulted in significantly lowered emotional difficulty for students.
The University said: “Prior to counselling 38% of students described their level of emotional difficulty as ‘severe’, and 1% as mild. Following counselling this was reversed, with 1% of students describing their level of emotional difficulty as ‘severe’, and 41% as ‘mild’.”
Private mental health resources targeted at Oxford students can fill demand that university resources by nature cannot. A student comment said that Oxford Nightline, a phone listening service run by students in Oxford, made them feel heard “without any risk of repercussions from the university or tutors.” A spokesperson from Oxford Nightline said that they offer a platform where students can express themselves “without fear of judgement or unwanted advice” and are open during hours when other support is not available.
Speaking at the Union tonight, Ben Shapiro discussed and debated Israel’s right to retaliate in Gaza, abortion, and the upcoming 2024 American election. While the top chamber was left empty for safety, the rest was full, with the queue reaching out of the Union gates to St Peters. Roughly 20 people also protested outside of the event.
Ben Shapiro, an American Conservative commentator, is is notably known as a former journalist for the right-wing online publication BreitbartNews. He is also the founder and editor of the online news website and company The Daily Wire and host of the Ben Shapiro Show. He is renowned for his conservative views regarding abortion and the LGBTQ+ community, ‘Judeo-Christian values’, and interventionist foreign policy.
Shapiro’s presence led to a protest outside of the Union, organised by the October Club along with nine other Oxfordshire-based groups, including the Oxford Socialist Worker Student Society and the Oxford Anti-Fascists. An Instagram post announcing the protest called Ben Shapiro “a racist, Islamophobic, climate-change denying, transphobic, homophobic, anti-Palestinian bigot.”
Protesters carried Palestinian flags and signs that read: “No racist hate speakers at the Union.” They further chanted “Ben Shapiro we know you, you’re a racist through and through” and “Oxford Union you can’t hide, you’re supporting genocide.”
Inside the event, Union President Disha Hegde began by asking Ben Shapiro what he thought about the protest outside. Shapiro responded to this by saying “I say things that I think are true, some people find these things controversial,” adding that he was grateful to live in a Western country which guaranteed freedom of speech.
Shapiro further criticised the chant “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” which he called a “genocidal comment.”
He also drew the attention of the entire chamber by pulling out photos of atrocities from the 7 October attacks on Israel to demonstrate the “evil of Hamas.” He followed this by saying that “anyone who draws a moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas is a Jew-Hater.”
When asked whether there was a contradiction in his belief that “no one should be fired for their tweets” and his calls for certain journalists to be fired for their “anti-Israel” coverage, he eventually replied “sure,” eliciting applause from the crowd.
Hegde further questioned whether Shapiro wanted to “condemn the deaths of innocent Palestinians by the IDF.” He firmly replied “absolutely not,“ saying that “it is not the same evil when Hamas kills a baby, as when the IDF bombs a terrorist who is hiding behind a baby.”
The tension in the room took a backseat for a minute, as Hegde inquired about Shapiro’s coverage of “pop culture” topics. When asked why he decided to publish a “43 minute rant about the Barbie movie,” Shapiro simply responded “because it’s funny.”
After this, members were invited to debate Shapiro at the dispatch box. The dominant topic was the Israel-Palestine conflict, with debate ranging from finer points of the conflicts history to allegations that Shapiro had published an AI generated image of Hamas attacks – which he strongly denied.
When confronted on the thousands of civilians killed by Israeli strikes in Gaza, Shapiro drew an analogy between the Allied bombing of Nazi Germany and Israel’s bombing of Gaza and stated that “civilian casualties are a cost of war.” When the opposing speaker said that the British had not engaged in civilian bombing, the audience loudly disagreed.
Further debate was held over the role of Jordan in the conflict. One member, who began by saying “Ben it’s an absolute displeasure to see you”, criticised Shapiro for his statements on Jordan, stating that “Jordan has never been part or considered part of Palestine.” Shapiro contested the member’s account, saying “I listened to your whole bullshit history for five minutes.” This was followed by a heated dispute between the two.
Former Union President, Charlie Mackintosh, also asked a question on whether the West can stand up for its values. In response, Shapiro claimed that the current consequence of what is occurring in the West is “the dissolution of the West” and that a “morally relativistic state cannot stand up for itself.”
Regarding the American political climate, Shapiro said that the current race seems to be an “inevitable consequence of the two-party trend” and that the “usual nature of politics is negative in orientation.” He stated that the “first party of irrationality is likely to win” and endorsed Ron DeSantis in the Republican primaries.
Following a question on his refusal to support Biden over Trump, Shapiro said that “Trump seems to be a serious threat to American Democracy” given his comments on the “suspension of the American constitution.” He added that Biden represents a less obvious and subtle threat to American democracy and that the “transformation of the United States political system comes in a wide variety of forms.” To this, the member responded: “I think that position is absolutely untenable.”
When asked by a member how he could justify unsafe abortions, Shapiro retorted that he is “not interested” in women dying if they violate the law, as his “number one priority is to protect the baby inside of her.” Regarding Black Lives Matter, he stated that “he doesn’t agree with the fundamental premise” of the movement.
The Union had a Welfare Officer and a welfare room prepared for the event.
Kevin Spacey received a standing ovation at the Sheldonian Theatre after performing a brief scene of Shakespeare as part of a lecture about cancel culture. It was his first performance since being cleared of sexual assault.
The Oscar-winning actor performed a five-minute scene from Timon of Athens, Shakespeare’s satire of wealth, greed and betrayal, during a lecture at the Sheldonian. It was held in memory of the late traditionalist conservative philosopher Roger Scruton in a lecture titled The Life and Legacy of Sir Roger Scruton.
The play, written in the early 1600s, tells the story of a rich citizen of Athens who spends his wealth on parasitic writers and artists. After losing his wealth, all his former friends abandon him. On the surface of it, the performance was a means for Spacey to discuss his own metaphorical exile from the film industry in the wake of the sexual assault allegations.
Douglas Murray, a neo-conservative columnist, invited Spacey to perform in Oxford to deliver the lecture. He told The Times that Timon of Athens was about what “happens when a society drops a person for no reason.”
This performance comes only days after the West End cinema The Prince Charles cancelled its offer to host the premiers of the film Control, after the venue’s managers found out it starred Spacey. Within the film, he doesn’t appear in person but rather voices the vengeful villain who has taken control of a car.
Devolution and Unionism: Labour’s Achilles Heel?
Fifty-six years ago, in Hamilton, Winnie Ewing won the SNP its first Westminster seat, with 46 per cent of the vote. A landmark in Scottish politics, the 1967 by-election gave the Scottish question momentum. It welcomed the SNP to the political mainstream and forced Labour and the Conservatives to articulate their vision of Scotland in the UK.
Fast forward to 2023, and the momentum is with Labour, who are keen to frame as “seismic” their by-election victory over the SNP in Rutherglen and Hamilton West earlier this month. With 58.6 per cent of the vote, it was a remarkable win. Writing in the Times, Prof. John Curtice projected a similar swing could increase Labour’s Scottish MPs from 2 to 40 in a general election.
As the first by-election defeat the nationalists have suffered at Westminster, Rutherglen plays into a narrative of SNP decline. Amidst investigations into party finance and a lacklustre leadership in Nicola Sturgeon’s vacuum, the lack of enthusiasm amongst members debased Scotland’s governing party to outsource leafleting to a private firm. Having long mastered their role as a Janus-faced government of opposition, the SNP’s machine is running on empty.
At Labour’s conference, Keir Starmer was triumphant, emphatic that “Scotland can lead the way to a Labour government.” Which is just as well, because the route to Downing Street demands Labour gains north of the border. But with talk of 40 MPs, “seismic” change, and a Scotland “at the heart of a Britain built to last,” is Labour getting ahead of itself? Absent at conference was any articulation of Scotland’s constitutional future under a Labour government. This poses a problem, as despite the SNP’s political woes, support for Scottish independence remains high, hovering between 45 to 48 per cent.
Yet this stasis in the polls obfuscates a shift in nationalist thought. In 2014, there was a thin divide between nationalism and unionism. Both sides shared a vision of a strong welfare state, membership of the EU, and greater Scottish control of Scottish affairs. Stressing continuity, Alex Salmond located Scotland within six unions: political, monarchical, monetary, defence, European, and social. Independence was to sever the first of these, but to leave the others intact.
Just as the SNP has lurched left-ward in government with the Greens, however, so it has become more separatist. Not only the political union but now the monarchical, monetary, defence, and – thanks to Brexit – the European and social unions would alter. As the SNP move towards republicanism in Europe, requiring membership of Schengen and calling into question free movement within the British Isles, independence has less in common with unionism than ever before. In turn, the Scottish Tories have moved in a unitary direction to bypass Holyrood and interfere directly from Westminster in devolved matters. All the while, Scottish Labour are yet to articulate an answer to the Scottish Question beyond a vapid promise to “protect devolution and stand up for Scotland’s role in the UK.”
It has now been a year since Gordon Brown published his committee’s report on the UK’s future, imagining a “reunited kingdom.” Brown’s key recommendation, to abolish and replace the House of Lords with a democratically elected Assembly of the Nations and Regions, has yet to translate into Labour policy. Coupled with Brown’s recommendations on increased fiscal power for devolved administrations and “double devolution” from Westminster and Holyrood to local communities, this would be the seismic change Labour desperately needs.
It would give voice to a de-centralising unionism that makes permanent and enhances the devolution settlement, whilst building consensus in a polarised Scotland. For Brown’s recommendations bear striking similarity to Alex Salmond’s ‘Council of the Isles’ proposed during the 2014 independence referendum: bringing together the UK’s four nations to work collaboratively on issues that affect everyone. Such policy would reinvigorate Donald Dewar’s “independence within the UK,” and reclaim Labour’s place as champions of devolution. It would see a return to the spirit of 1707 unionism, which sought to safeguard Scottish nationhood and civil society, whilst joining with our larger neighbour to pool resources and work collaboratively on issues that affect us all. Labour’s history of progressive collaboration – on the welfare state, the NHS, social housing – make the unionist arguments most likely to sway Yes voters. James Callaghan’s argument for devolution in 1976 still stands, that “national identity and a United Kingdom are not competitors or rivals,” but rather “partners, each enriching the other”.
But without firm policy on devolution or “levelling up,” Labour risks peddling a unitary unionism that bursts at the border; riding the polls only whilst Scottish voters prioritise the cost of living above independence. This unitary unionism bears the spectre of Thatcherite misunderstanding in red, white, and blue; wary of difference, rendering devolution as “separation by degrees.” It risks returning to Labour’s pre-1970 scepticism of devolution as anathema to socialist solidarity: to a centrally planned economy, nationalised industries, and full employment.
Each of these strands of unitary unionism were evident in Keir Starmer’s keynote speech to conference. Standing in front of a huge Union Jack, with the slogan ‘Britain’s future’ on his podium, Starmer echoed Margaret Thatcher in 1984, with a patriotic rebranding designed to appeal to English Conservative swing voters. Likewise, the tricolour placards happily brandished at the by-election wins in Tamworth and Mid Bedfordshire enjoined “Let’s Get Britain’s Future Back.” By contrast, there were no Union Jacks (or Saltires) on the placards at Rutherglen, where Michael Shanks and Anas Sarwar campaigned for “the change Scotland needs.”
Starmer’s speech made no reference to the United Kingdom, or its constitutional future, but mentioned Britain forty-five times, working up to Labour’s central policy for “Great British Energy,” a publicly owned green energy company. The difference between the United Kingdom and Britain may seem semantic – the difference between four nations and one – but points to a fraction between Westminster and Holyrood in unionist thought and campaigning. A general election fought with UK Labour’s British branding may not resonate with Scottish voters or deliver the success of Rutherglen. The Union Jack may have been conceived to combine symbols for Scotland, Ireland, and England, but for many Scots it is now synonymous with ‘British’ identity, set against Scottishness.
If this really is “a changed Labour party,” as Starmer declares, it needs a better policy on Scotland’s future. A general election focused on the economy and the poor governance of the Tory party might just land Labour more seats north of the border. But to sustain a lead over the SNP and to win control of the Scottish Parliament in the 2026 elections, Labour needs an answer to the Scottish Question, and to deliver change for Scotland within the first term of a Labour government.
As far as there is a ‘settled will’ of the Scottish people, we are still split right down the middle. If Labour seeks not only to win power but to retain it, the party needs to articulate a deliverable vision for Scotland’s future within the UK – one that can reclaim the constitutional centre ground.
Image Credit: Keir Starmer/CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 via Flickr