Wednesday 8th October 2025
Blog Page 804

Peter Preston Obituary: A journalist who believed in action

0

Peter Preston, a former Editor of Cherwell and the Guardian, died last week. He was 79 years old.

I did not know Preston and whilst the various obituaries published this week give some sense of this journalistic giant, it was the editions of Cherwell published when he was Editor that gave a true insight into his character.

For Preston, it was impossible to isolate journalism as merely his profession – it coloured his whole identity. He was certainly not anti- political, as Cherwell’s original slogan professes it to be, but his politics were by no means straightforward. He believed in action, organisation, and progress but applied this to varying and confusing cases. He wrote delicately, but with an anger about the laziness and the ‘good enough’ attitude of many of his subjects.

When he edited Cherwell in Hilary Term 1960, it was a very different beast to the one that publishes today. The paper was far shorter and published twice a week.

But Preston brought something to Cherwell that continues today: an expectation that all can do better. A universal assumption that all should strive for progress and that no one should become complacent or satisfied. In his first editorial, he wrote: “The days when we were all ‘young gentlemen’ are dead and gone. Every individual is to some extent concerned with what happens outside college walls.”

He said to people that there was no excuse for inaction. Preston unveiled the Oxford issues of his time, and was unsparing in his criticism. In one editorial he turned his attack on the religious community in Oxford saying: “Instead of counting the money in the collection bags Oxford Christians should start counting the number of starving in the world, and start acting…together.”

In another he criticised Union elections writing: “Rusty college block-vote machines have been galvanised into action. Old pals do deals to avoid unnecessary clashes. There is the smell of corruption in the air.” Perhaps some things really haven’t changed since his day.

Preston was frustrated with his time at Cherwell. In his last editorial for the paper, he writes about the many things that he did not have time to talk about. He repeats the phrase “too late” throughout the column. This sense continued throughout his life. He expected the same thing of himself as he expected of the people and institutions that he covered. He was never satisfied and always wanted to fill another column, cover another story or hold another group to account.

Cherwell was just the start for Preston’s career. He went on to edit the Guardian, exposing the cash-for-questions scandal. He later ran the Scott Trust, managing the Guardian and the Observer. He also wrote two books, including 51st State in 1998, which had an eerily accurate prediction of the Brexit result.

Only six days before his death, Preston wrote his last article. Here, he turned his critical eye against his own profession saying that although journalism was certainly under threat it also had a responsibility to improve in order to regain the trust of its readers. Journalism was “a business that means treating readers in a jam like human beings, identifying distress, becoming a functioning part of society rather than commentators at its edges.”

This may have been his last comment on the world of journalism, but it was one of his first that summed up Preston’s theory about the industry he dedicated his life to. In his final editorial for Cherwell he wrote: “We would like to thank all of those who have given us help or encouragement during the term. And to those whose toes have been heavily trodden on. Tough. Your feet are too damn big anyway.”

No one escaped Preston; no one was without the need to improve; no one’s feet were small enough to deserve universal praise.

Peter Preston leaves behind his wife, Jean, four children, and eight grandchildren.

The exile of rough sleepers in Windsor reminds us of our own prejudice

In December, the Home Office’s policy to deport rough sleepers from countries within the European Economic Area was ruled unlawful by the High Court. The news will have struck particularly close to home for those of us privileged enough to call Oxford our home.

Most reading this will be the University’s students, who overwhelmingly can align ourselves amongst the privileged of the world: we have gowns steeped in ceremony and history; we have access to some of the best libraries in the world; we have food served to us in Hall each day, often whilst wearing aforementioned gowns; and most of all, we have homes. As well as students of the institution that Oxford is famous for, we are also inhabitants of the city, and so every day we are faced with the reality of those who live with so little.

These are the people that we pass on George Street on the weekly journeys to Park End and Bridge, who in even the mildest fogs of alcohol we wilfully disregard. These are the men and women that in the cold light of day (and often it is very cold indeed), we encounter sitting outside St. Giles Church pleading for money, and we, somewhat guiltily and yet usually without hesitation, gloss over. We are rushing to a lecture, or meeting a friend for coffee, or heading to football practice – but of course if we had more time, we’d stop, and pause, and give.

But the reality is that what we are doing almost without exception is turning a blind eye, a deaf ear, and often a dispassionate heart, to the people that are as much inhabitants of the city as the rest of us, and in the biting frost of 8th week felt the chill more keenly than we can imagine.

Homelessness is a tragedy practically as old as time, and the issue is as pervasive as ever. It’s been brought to the fore most recently by the headlines announcing that the leader of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead has sought police permission to use legal powers to clear Windsor of those rough sleeping there, in anticipation of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s wedding in May. Windsor is of course globally recognisable as home of Eton College, the elite independent school, and a visible parallel can therefore be drawn between that and Oxford.

Simon Dudley, leader of Windsor’s Conservative council, had made reference in tweets over the Christmas period to “an epidemic of rough sleeping and vagrancy in Windsor” – and this unambiguous descriptor might seem fitting to the crisis that we see in Oxford. An official Oxford City Council count of the city’s street sleepers in the autumn of 2016 confirmed the number of homeless people in Oxford to be anywhere between 33 and 47 on any given night, a shockingly high number given the city’s population is a mere 150,000.

Efforts to counter this crisis have ranged from the practical: working with charities and voluntary groups to house rough sleepers in homeless hostels throughout Oxford, to the desperate: threatening fines of £2,500 to those who put possessions (or, presumably, themselves) in shop doorways.

Yet, it is clear from the appalling death of homeless man, known only as Christopher, on the floor of a London ‘Crisis at Christmas’ shelter on Christmas Eve that the malady of homelessness stretches its cancerous consequences far beyond mere antisocial behaviour, or presenting “a beautiful town in an unfavourable light”, as declared by Simon Dudley.

Councils must work in closer contact with the public – which in Oxford consists of almost 50,000 students – to tackle the sad reality of homelessness. The sad truth is that we, as the distinctly privileged, must face up to our own prejudices in order to offer real help to those who so desperately require it.

Five Minutes with Harry Househam

0

Could you quickly explain what improvised comedy is and why you love it so much?

Improvised comedy is a genre of live comedy performance in which the show is created based on audience suggestions. Yes, we have formats and games we’ve prepared but using audience suggestions we create and make it all up then and there. If you want to see whole worlds burst from one or two words or to see flawless freestyle rap then improv is for you. With cool west end shows like Austentatious: An Improvised Jane Austen Novel and Showstoppers! An Improvised Musical, Improvised shows are on the rise!

How did you first get into improvised comedy?

In my second year at Oxford I auditioned and got into a group, local legends ‘The Oxford Imps’, and that opened up a world of possibilities. From sell out shows every Monday of term to worldwide tours to France, Holland, The Edinburgh Fringe, the USA and South Africa. The Imps are a great place for people who have never improvised, as I hadn’t, to cut their teeth and to learn the craft of creating songs, characters, stories and jokes up on the fly.

Who is your comedy hero?

Personally I’m a big Dave Gorman fan, I’ve followed his career since I was 14 reading his books watching all of his shows, and it’s great to see him getting into the big leagues thanks to his hit show ‘Modern Life is Goodish’. You can tell he’s so passionate about every project that he undertakes, and throws himself into them all at full thrust.

What is the premise of this new show, ‘Mock Trial: An Improvised Court Case’?

You’re heard of court drama, well this is court comedy. Oxford’s finest barristers and the right honourable Judge Ofthat have gathered to lock away the worst criminals in Oxfordshire, except, the only trouble is one of the legal interns has accidentally shredded and destroyed all of the evidence… Replacing the destroyed evidence with audience suggestions of strange and surreal crimes, and placing random household items into evidence bags these lawyers must see that justice is done. Using these odd crimes and objects we present the cases with witness testimony and flashbacks to the events of the crime. We’ve seen livestock loose in Tesco, a charge of public trampolining, corrupt barristers debarred and Tory lords banned from the use of their shoes.

How did you come up with this idea?

I’ve seen a lot of ‘site-specific’ drama, theatre performed in an interesting space, but this largely takes the form of Shakespeare being done in a posh garden. I thought it would be a cool idea to do a more immersive comedy show in an interesting venue, and I fell in love with the Town Hall Court House. I just thought it felt like a room meant for a show. It’s the same exact room that they used to film the court in ‘A Fish Called Wanda’ with Jamie Lee Curtis and John Cleese. I thought wouldn’t it be nice if you could be in a court room but you aren’t on Jury service and it isn’t stressful or scary because no crimes have been committed? Wouldn’t it be fun to just pretend you’re in a TV crime drama but it’s live and instead of deadly serious and boring it’s good fun and hilarious?

Oxford Town Hall is a very unique venue. Where’s the weirdest place you have performed?

I’ve gigged in the back of a van, and in the middle of a family’s living room, I’ve even done stand-up in Hogwarts (Well the cloisters of New college that are in the Harry Potter films). I’ve got upcoming shows planned on a boat and in a book shop, and perhaps even in the ruins of an old monastery. I think it’s fun to break the mould and to perform in some strange venues once in a while. Watch this space!

Do you have any advice for those looking to get involved with comedy in Oxford?

Write 5 minutes of comedy and perform as much as you can, gig, gig and then gig some more. Nothing makes a comic better like experience. Start with what you find funny, and then see what lies in the middle of the Venn diagram of what both you and audiences find funny. But at all costs gig as often as you can and test stuff, stage craft comes with time but you can always work on material. More practically there’s an open mic that has been running for over a year at the James Street Tavern in Cowley every Thursday. Try it, and if it sticks then stick with it

Are you working on any future projects?

I most certainly am. Our main show is Jericho Comedy on Saturdays at the Jericho Cafe and we’ve also got the Oxfordshire Mind Comedy Gala with James Acaster on Feb 17th. I’m lucky enough to be producing the very talented drag double act Christian Adore and Eton Messe a.k.a. ‘The Dragprov Revue’ who have shows on 4th March and 9th June, and I’m working on ‘The Show that must not be named’ an Improvised Harry Potter book that will be at the Story Museum on Feb 4th – but all the details can be found at www.tightfive.org

 

The Greatest Showman falls on its face

0

The Greatest Showman is a textbook example of Hollywood revisionism – taking a seedy historical story and drowning the cinematic retelling in enough saccharine feel-good gloss that it ceases to appear as problematic a story as it once did.

It tells the story of P.T. Barnum, a charlatan who created an enormously profitable business by parading a circus of unusual people before the masses, and turns it into a one-man showcase for Hugh Jackman to win himself a Golden Globe. Jackman is predictably fantastic, and well-supported by Zendaya, Zac Efron and newcomer Keala Settle. That should be all there is to say, right?

Unfortunately not. The Greatest Showman isn’t just glossy – it’s actively pointing its spotlights into the audience so they’re blinded to the hollow centre of this subversively cynical venture. Michael Gracey is the film’s first-time director, but he made his name directing commercials, and it really shows. The film is able to hold your attention in 30 second bursts, but even while it does that, you can feel the charade of what it’s trying to sell you crumbling under its own artificiality.

The narrative the film is desperately trying to peddle is that Barnum was an uplifter of the downtrodden, a champion of diversity, providing opportunities to people who society had given up on.

While such a fairy story is patently untrue, completely rewriting the exploitative and harmful acts that the real-life Barnum made his fortune from, the worst thing the film does is absolutely fail to celebrate diversity even on its own hopelessly artificial terms. The supporting “oddities” in Barnum’s circus are never fleshed out as individual characters, and even as a group are frequently sidelined in favour of Jackman’s well-worn song and dance routines.

While the film likes to pretend that it’s an equal-opportunities affair, it’s telling that Gracey and Jackman’s virtue-signalling ultimately serves to exploit the marginalised as Barnum did, using them when it suits the film’s purposes and then sidelining the very people who were marginalised in real life.

Even ignoring the film’s hollow virtue-signalling, its presentation is just shoddy. Forgettable music numbers are hampered by woefully incoherent editing, continuity errors pile on top of implausible leaps in logic, and the visual effects are as poor as the ugly and uninspired production design.

The film should be the cinematic equivalent of Chicago’s “Razzle Dazzle”: “Give ‘em an act with lots of flash in it/And the reaction will be passionate […] How can they see with sequins in their eyes?” But in the case of this unfortunate critic, it was less Razzle Dazzle and more Hopeless Pocus.

Academic exodus continues

1

The number of resignations from Oxford European academics has increased once again since the EU referendum.

230 European academics have resigned from Oxford University in the past year, compared to just 171 in 2014-15.

The ongoing uncertainty surrounding negotiations with the EU has been suggested as the reason for the high turnover of staff.

Dame Averil Cameron, a former Warden of Keble College, said that the revelation was “very serious for Oxford.”

Oxford currently employs 20% of EU academics working in the UK.

However, a spokesperson for the University told Cherwell: “It is impossible to draw any firm conclusions about the impact of Brexit on staffing at the moment.

Overall EU academic numbers are virtually unchanged from 1,714 to 1,702 this year.”

The spokesperson continued: “The status of colleagues from other parts of the EU has been a major concern for the University and we have called for clear commitments on this issue to reassure staff and students who are already here or hoping to join us.

The University will continue to call for a free flow of academic talent to and from the EU in the final Brexit settlement.”

James Partridge, a Fellow at University College of Czech told Cherwell: “I’m absolutely certain that a significant loss of EU academics would be disastrous for UK higher education.

“It would be bound to affect the quality of teaching and research across the sector if it happened, and I don’t really see how anyone can sensibly dispute that.

“In my view that would be as true for Oxford as for any other university, but clearly if Oxford continues to be able to recruit new staff from the EU successfully then those effects would be mitigated somewhat.”

Layla Moran, Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, said: “These valued members of our communities find themselves uncertain about the future and unconvinced by the too little too late wooing by an incompetent Prime Minister.

While they were frozen out of the referendum, they are now voting with their feet.”

The Phase I report issued by the EU and UK governments in December stated EU citizens would be able to claim permanent residency status in the UK. It also said that the UK will be able to stay involved in EU programs up to 2020, including Horizon 2020 and Erasmus.

Nevetheless the government’s reluctance to say whether it will continue to engage in Free Movement or remain in the ECJ, which is often a prerequisite for receiving funding from programs within Horizon 2020, means that prospects for academic research are still
uncertain.

A bombastic celebration of Europe, sexual freedom, and gelato

0

Rarely is a band or artist’s sixth record similar in style and message to their early works; Phoenix’s Ti Amo is certainly no exception. This is not a bad thing per se: they have produced an album which reflects their experience and skill, leaving something that is difficult to dislike.

The band themselves admit their work to be unashamedly optimistic in reaction to growing concerns about Europe. Terrorism, the refugee crisis and the rise of far-right nationalism have been flashpoints which have made Europeans question the stability of liberal cosmopolitan values. This hatred and violence makes the romantic synth-heavy world evoked in the album seem like a faraway comforting escape. Granted, this is also a ‘mythological Europe’ cantered on an Italy with endless supplies of gelato, unreciprocated lust/ love, sunshine, Battiato and Lucio. But this fantasy of unity is potent enough for us all to celebrate. Italian culture is drawn on for its disco and vintage dance floors which are everyone’s guilty pleasure.

The album’s title track ‘Ti Amo’ is best appreciated when looking at the music video which depicts the band members having an enviable ‘Roman Holiday’ full of popcorn, pasta and prosecco. It is a bombastic celebration of sexual freedom – there’s no subtlety whatsoever in lines such as “we’re meant to get it on” heard in ‘Fior di Latte’, also a popular gelato flavour. Motifs such as these create a cohesive feel which was lacking in previous albums. ‘Tutti Frutti’ is certainly more familiar to the band’s roots with a rebellious Strokes-like streak in chanting lines like “wreck the spectacle you live in”. French, their native language is liberally used in this album.

Smatterings of Italian and Spanish are also thrown in through voiceovers, a further reminder that this album is trying, and succeeding, in being ‘quintessentially European’. Phoenix are clearly aware of the clichés they are evoking through the eighteen-minute ‘Ti Amo Speciale’, an eighteen-minute warm parody of 70s Italian variety TV shows which graced Saturday night televisions. It’s quirky and adds to this album’s is crafted in a deliberate, self-aware manner. In the ‘Ti Amo Speciale’, performances are punctuated with light-hearted banter with the hosts who playfully quarrel about whether the band should drink wine when playing and very obviously reading French from cue cards latter muddled.

It is all there – canned laughter, sunglasses worn indoors and harmless flirting. Indeed, questions about which band member is the most romantic and shy feature. Unlike previous albums with apparent ‘standout songs’ like ‘Listzomania’, this album glides through at a more or less even pace. Special mentions have to be given to ‘J-Boy’ which opens the album energetically setting the tone and ‘Telefono’ which closes it and makes the most of chanting “vivere”, reminding us that this has been a sunny experience. Although, this unabashed optimism may dissuade listeners who are more used to the nonchalant and cool melodies of previous albums, Phoenix are still cool just in a different way.

Should we reject the new no-platforming fines?

Julia Alsop: Yes

The role of no-platforming policies is to allow clearer, considered, collaborative debate, free of intimidation. Filtering hateful views offers diverse – and at times, still controversial – views to emerge.
This is not a ‘snowflake’ generation shying from discussion. We are educated on difficult social issues. ‘Resilience’ is a word constantly thrown around by Jo Johnson and his colleagues when defending their proposed no platforming fines.

Sure – in educational settings it is important to talk about identity, or controversial opinions, and uncomfortable topics. However, it’s distasteful to see no-platforming fines are predominately being pushed by privileged individuals who don’t have their identity questioned everyday. It is nobody else’s right to tell a person that they must be more resilient to issues that may cause them to relive traumatic experiences, and further alienate them from discussions.

By providing trigger warnings, or not including intimidating speakers, we can engage people, who may have had unpleasant experiences – of anything from transphobic abuse to sexual assault – and allow them to safely share their insight. Student unions, including the NUS, work on a principle that disallows prejudiced people from speaking at platforms under the unions’ jurisdictions. By doing this, they are fulfilling their role in supporting all students.

Johnson misunderstands the actions of the NUS and, indeed, other student unions, and has taken their decisions entirely out of context. The NUS have actually only banned six organisations, including the EDL and Al-Muhajiroun, the latter a group linked to anti-Semitism, homophobia, and terrorism. Is that really an unreasonable policy? Giving platforms gives power to those views. It’s not stifling debates to refuse hate speakers, who spout inflammatory information. It’s not a debate if students feel intimidated in their own university by historically violent and discriminatory groups invited in.

Ultimately, it comes down to the principle that the NUS have brought forward: “balance freedom of speech and freedom from harm”. Nearly two-thirds of university students agree with the NUS holding a no platforming policy. It is the democratic choice of students to withhold prejudiced thoughts from debate.

It is important to stress that no platforming policies are used only in exceptional circumstances where speakers are known to incite violence or make hateful statements. It is simply reductive to argue that no-platforming is designed to ban anyone we merely disagree with. To suggest that banning speakers with violent histories should be forbidden, or even result in fines, corrupts freedom of speech is misplaced. Freedom of speech should allow us to share ideas and cultures not create a world where aggression and intimidation speak over the reasoned and reasonable.

Lucinda Brown: No

A year ago, Claire Fox, author of ‘I Find That Offensive’, came to my school to give a talk on freedom of speech. In her talk, she branded our age group as ‘Generation Snowflake’: a coddled cohort of young people who attempt to shut out any views with which we disagree.

Fox declared that, unlike physical abuse, words only hurt because we let them. As if on cue, a student in the audience became hysterical, exclaiming that the school should never have let Fox come to speak. If the pupil had got her way, Fox would have been no-platformed, denying the rest of the audience the chance to listen to her thought-provoking talk.

No-platforming is the antithesis of free speech. As John Stuart Mill wrote: “all silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility”. The only way for us to properly justify an opinion is to engage with people that disagree and discredit their arguments, but no platforming prevents students from doing just that.

The government recently announced a new plan to allow the Office for Students to fine universities which no-platform speakers to “encourage a culture of openness and debate” at UK universities. This policy alone will not bring an end to no-platforming. After all, the primary culprits of no-platforming are the student unions themselves, who are independent of universities and thus could bypass the fine by no platforming speakers at union events held outside of university property.

In addition, for collegiate universities such as Oxford, the government would need to give the Office for Students the power to fine the colleges themselves as well as the University at large. Ultimately though, what’s needed is a fundamental change in attitude amongst students towards free speech.

Universities should not be ‘safe spaces’ where students are protected from ideas which make them feel uncomfortable. University should train students in critical thinking so that they can go on to contribute to a society free from dogma. No platforming compromises this ideal by creating a culture of silence in which difficult topics are never openly discussed. The government’s proposed no platforming fine should be welcomed by students, but I won’t hold my breath.

Protests in Iran shine a light on the international stance in the Middle East

0

Iran, more than most, is a country that knows the repercussions of uprisings. It was less than a half century ago that the current theocratic system was set up. Since then, Iran has become accustomed to periodic protests, but there is something unique about the current unrest.
The unrest has led to 22 fatalities and has spread across 80 cities. So far 1000 individuals have been arrested, many of whom are students.
There are three trends which really underpin what is happening in Iran. Firstly, the uprisings come at a time when Iran’s rivalry with Saudi Arabia is frothing all over the Middle East. Secondly, the United States is facing global isolation and is unable to muster the same unity in calling out Iran for its actions.
Thirdly, the economy is flailing in a trend that is exacerbated by pre-existing sanctions. This mix of external and internal factors make the situation volatile and the entire Middle East is set to be affected by its outcome.
Iran’s turbulent start to 2018 would have come as music to the ears of Saudi’s ruling family. The last year has seen heightened activity in the countries’ proxy wars. Most recently, the Lebanese Prime Minister was forcibly summoned to Saudi Arabia and made to resign on Saudi television. His crime was that he had allowed Hezbollah, an Iran backed Shia organisation to gain support within Lebanon and had endorsed pro-Iranian candidates for the Presidency above members of his own Sunni political party.
Such a grandstand comes after a year where Iranian supported militias have been fighting in Syria as well as in Yemen, where a former President was killed by Iranian backed Houthi rebels for defecting to Saudi supported forces. These protests become all the more important as the balance of the entire region comes into question.
The United States is used to galvanising a reasonable amount of cooperation when it comes to condemning the Iranian government. That was before Trump. Now, the international community is much more willing to distance itself from the United States, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Emmanuel Macron has openly criticised the, previously clandestine alliance between Saudi Arabia, Israel and America for political opportunism when it comes to unrest within Iran.
UN Security Council members dismissed the emergency meeting called by the United States in regard to the Iranian uprisings, the French Ambassador even said that “they do not constitute a threat to international peace and security.”
It’s clear that the protests are unlikely going to cause the international pressure required to initiate regime change, largely because many western politicians have learnt (the hard way) that regime change is not a ‘quick fix’ to deeprooted issues, as Emily Thornberry articulated this week.
Countries are using the Trump presidency to display bolder rhetoric too. Not only does this play better at home, but many governments are distancing themselves from their close ties with the United States. This was noticeable in the last months when there was an, almost unanimous rejection of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in the General Assembly.
Moreover, Trump used his first tweet of 2018 to blast Pakistan, a questionable but, nevertheless, long standing ally of the United States. Pakistan’s political and military class has responded with similarly heavy rhetoric in return.
During the UN Security Council’s emergency session, several countries also chose to outline the United States’ long and colourful history of popular protests from protests against from those opposing the Vietnam War to the Black Lives Matter movement.
There is little enthusiasm for intervention in Iran, China’s UN Ambassador went as far as to say the US’ actions didn’t help anyone.
Finally, we have to acknowledge that Iran is a country that is being suffocated by economic constraints. Some are exogenous, like the intense sanctions, but others are home grown.
There is no doubt that protesters’ demands for less corruption and increased civil liberties are legitimate. It is frustrating for the younger generation, which has an abundance of human capital to be met with an inhospitable job market, less educational opportunities than the previous generation and limited ways to leave the country. In 2009, the previous wave of protests, were largely focussed on cities.
However, this time around many rural communities are joining the protests and are affected by the 13% unemployment across the country. The current protests are unlikely to unseat this government, but the regime must show reform to quell any more fatal threats in the future. Iran is, for its supporters, one of the last powers to pose a legitimate opposition to US domination in the region. To its detractors, it remains an archaic and autocratic regime.
What is certain is that Iran remains crucial to the balance of power within the region and its instability could cause a significant power shift that would affect several countries.

Alastair Campbell: the convictions of a spin doctor

0

Alastair Campbell receives more media bids per week than I could count. He burst into British public life back in the 1990s, as the most senior member of Tony Blair’s government not sitting in the House of Commons. In his role as Downing Street press secretary and later director of communications, his straight talking style and taste for creative profanity earned Campbell something of a reputation. His manner in government was famously parodied when Peter Capaldi played Malcolm Tucker in The Thick of It. So why has this titan of British politics agreed to take an interview with the editor of a modest student newspaper? “Because I think it’s really important for people to stay angry. It’s important that students stay angry. Your future is being taken away from you.”

When I was born, New Labour was settling into its second year of government. Firmly ensconced in Downing Street, Campbell spent his days effing, jeffing, and keeping the red boat afloat. All of that took its toll, and the pressure would have broken many. But now, years later, he appears to our generation not as a vicious Machiavel, but rather as one of the few people willing to stand up to the government on Brexit. I ask him about this reinvention of sorts. Has Campbell’s fear of Brexit brought him back into the spotlight? “I don’t think I ever left,” he snaps back.

It’s true that the abounding energy which saw him tear through the Labour party hierarchy hasn’t dimmed. Alongside editing The New European, interviewing a whole cast of notables for GQ, and appearing regularly on our television screens arguing with any right-winger who’s brave enough, Campbell has just released the seventh volume of his diaries. Though he has been written off by both the left and right as an unprincipled triangulator, this so called ‘master of spin’ has a surprising sense of duty, telling me “I worry I don’t do enough.”

Where his old boss Tony Blair has retired to the pursuit of international charity work, making sparse interventions in UK politics, we still see Campbell in his favourite rough and tumble environment, on Question Time, Newsnight, and ITV’s Good Morning Britain. On that breakfast TV sofa he often fights a war on two fronts, making the case for Britain in Europe against Nigel Farage, whilst fending off professional nuisance Piers Morgan. Of the latter, Blair said: “a slug, but… clever”. Morgan, like Campbell, is a man of strong opinions and a remain voter, but whereas he has sacrificed his conviction for the sake of being in the majority, Campbell is happy in the vocal minority.

Despite the brutish front pages that so-called ‘continuity remainers’ like Campbell and the Tory rebels have been battered with, he is resilient: “the right-wing press will do their worst, they always do. But if you believe in something, say it.” This mantra has guided him to a more radical position on Brexit than many Labour MPs, and he calls his current political home “the angry camp”. He believes he is joined there by “the people who seem to share this sense of frustration, the people feeling politically homeless.” So should his party, Labour, be providing sanctuary for them? On this question, he initially tows the line, declaring “Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of the Labour party.” But he elaborates on his latent uneasiness about the leadership’s current position on Europe: “there isn’t much difference between what the government is offering and what the opposition is offering. It’s difficult for Labour MPs to stand out against that.” Despite his sympathy for them, if Campbell was in parliament now I sense he would be far less pigeon-hearted on Brexit: “it’s difficult for me to take lessons in loyalty and three line whippery from Corbyn and McDonnell, because they voted against what we were trying to do.”

The emphasis on ‘we’ is mine; resisting the metamorphosis of the British left over the past few years, Campbell still appears to see the Labour party as an ‘us and them’ coalition, or a “broad church” as some euphemistically term it. Corbyn and friends are on one side, with Campbell and the New Labour disciples on another. The anguished struggle of these two groups to get along has been exacerbated by Europe, the greatest issue of the day which unfortunately divides them down the middle. Wracked with suspicion, many in the parliamentary Labour party are more certain that Theresa May voted remain than Corbyn. It is some tragedy that the issue on which Labour moderates yearn to be so radical – Europe – is one on which Corbyn speaks with such bland orthodoxy. Campbell’s frustration at the Labour leader is clear: “the ones shouting loudest for Brexit are the hard right, and the one thing Jeremy Corbyn has always stood for is being against the right!”

Yet he still sees an opportunity for reconciliation, remarking: “we’ve got to be tough on Brexit, tough on the causes of Brexit.” This rhetorical flourish, with its omitted connective and repeated call to be ‘tough’, puts me in mind of a few other third way clichés, notably Blair’s conference speech: “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.” But despite the slight throwback to the nineties, the crux of Campbell’s argument is fresh and relevant: “it can’t just be about saying ‘let’s stop Brexit’. You have to address all the policy areas that led people to want to vote leave – immigration, inequality, education, globalisation. The question is, will Brexit provide the answer to that? No.” Though he dresses up the ‘Stop Brexit’ position in the sound bite of a moderate, Campbell’s real plan seems to be radical change, not in our relationship with Europe, but in domestic politics. Though he is still no Corbynite, I ask him to reflect on whether New Labour really did enough. “Did we win the argument that Britain’s future was in Europe? Clearly not. Think about the NHS. It’s cemented in the national life in a way that Britain as a member of the European Union has not been cemented. We were at times too timid.”

Like another famous Blair acolyte, Peter Mandelson, Campbell was more than sceptical about the remain arguments being pushed by David Cameron and George Osborne: “‘Project Fear’ wasn’t a sensible way to campaign.” In the event of a second referendum, or a “fresh referendum” as Campbell insists I should refer to it, would a radical manifestobe needed to make the country think again? He says: “leadership is about confronting the people with reality. I think that a second referendum is winnable.” Many remainers can sympathise with this sentiment, but given the reaction of the press and some parts of the country to one Tory rebellion on the EU withdrawal bill in December, many also worry that a “fresh referendum” would soon turn stale, and tear the UK asunder. Perhaps the prospect of further division is the reason why the nation’s most famous political arsonist, Nigel Farage, came out in support of a second referendum on Thursday.

Campbell muses on the prospect for a moment: “there would be a price to pay, but I’ve never seen the country more divided than now. Addressing the causes of Brexit, you’d have a better chance of bringing the country together around that, rather than around whatever Theresa May’s trying to do at the moment.” I ask Campbell, if he could return to Downing Street as chief of spin for just one day, what would he tell the Prime Minister to do? “She should make the speech I wrote for her,” he playfully refers to a mock declaration he wrote in The New European, where May revokes Article 50. “She looks tortured, and I think that’s because she knows the country is in decline. It’s just a game of survival now isn’t it?” He repeats the widely held belief that this is a government nearing its end. And though we began our conversation on the understanding that Campbell currently has no political home, it seems that if Corbyn is willing to get riled up about Europe, he is only one policy u-turn away from bringing Campbell and millions of other disgruntled remainers on board.

Though I’ve always thought the term a bit of a joke, perhaps the ‘radical centre’ does exist. It’s just that the punctuation is all wrong. It is not one position, but two working together. The ‘radical-centre’ alliance of both sides might yet bring an end to Brexit.

Let’s talk about: mental health on screen

0

For most of the 21st century so far, things have been looking up for mental health: more research has been done in the last ten years than ever before, and the recognition that 1 in 4 of us will experience some form of mental illness has put our mental health firmly on the political agenda.

With all this, it wouldn’t be too idealistic to assume that we’re more aware than ever of the complicated nature of mental illness. Unfortunately, we’re not doing as well as it might appear. Look no further than that beloved bastion of British teen culture – Skins – which continues its influence more than 10 years after first airing. As teenagers struggling with body image, Cassie and Effie, the yin and yang of ‘Manic Pixie Dream Girls’, were intoxicatingly accessible images of how pretty it was to be crazy. Lines like “I didn’t eat for three days so that I could be lovely”, were perfect soundbites, easily extracted and scribed into the backs of diaries.

Yet despite it’s seemingly ubiquitous position in pop culture, it would be unfair, even inaccurate, to lay blame for this irritating character trope squarely on Channel 4. After all, everyone from Hitchcock to Tarantino to DC Comics (really, don’t get me started on Harley Quinn) seems to be in on the act of hyping up mental illness into high-octane drama. Surely there’s an argument that these representations, however inaccurate, are better than no representation at all? Well, not quite.

Imagine you’re a student living with an anxiety disorder (which some studies suggest up to 1 in 10 are). Not only are you faced with normal academic pressures – deadlines, formidable tutors and irritating tute partners to name a few – you’re also fighting the seemingly insurmountable daily battle against your own head. Then, on top of all of this, throw in the realisation that you can’t even do being mentally ill right your struggles aren’t ‘pretty’ or ‘exciting’ enough to fit the Effie shaped mould that society has prepared for you. Imagine how isolating that is. Imagine how terrifying that is.

So, why is it still so hard to have constructive conversations about mental health? And why is it that, as a society, we are so incapable of portraying mental illness without using the devil’s trifecta of Tumblr poetry – glamorisation, sexualisation and romanticisation? Fundamentally, it seems that, on the whole, we’re simply uncomfortable with the harsh realities of mental illness.

A recent YouGov poll showed that 28% of respondents said they’d feel uncomfortable asking a friend about a mental illness they’re living with. Truth is, we’re scared of the universality of this problem, scared that when all the glitter is stripped away, we’ll have to face the fact that mental illness can happen to anyone, and it can be deadly. So, instead we just skirt the issue. It’s easier, right? We dress up personality disorders as appealing and anorexia as beautiful and anyone who doesn’t fit these criteria is sidelined in pop culture, as if their experiences don’t deserve representation.

Of course we need to talk about mental health, but it’s about a lot more than just talking. We need to start recognising the unique and individual nature of mental illness. We need to start talking about its magnitude, and we need to accept that rarely will these issues cut themselves into aesthetically pleasing portions for our consumption.

Skins – and other programmes like it – are beautiful representations of mental illness, but by virtue of that beauty they’re unrealistic and, more importantly, they’re dangerous. Trying to be Cassie almost killed me, and we have a chance to strip the stigma and the stereotypes from mental illness before the same fate befalls anyone else.